Obama: Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Senate has been reluctant to follow President Obama's lead on closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. I'm assuming lawmakers were paying attention to the president's speech today.

"There is ... no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. Indeed, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law -- a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter-terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause.

Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

"So the record is clear: rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That is why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign. And that is why I ordered it closed within one year."

Of course, that's the easiest part of the case to make.

Obama noted that this system that he's trying to clean up is a nightmare that he inherited, not one he created: "We are cleaning up something that is -- quite simply -- a mess; a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my Administration is forced to deal with on a constant -- almost daily -- basis, and that consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country." He added that the debate over what to do with detainees isn't the byproduct of his decision to close the facility -- it would have been necessary anyway, given court rulings under Bush.

The president went on to note the political dynamic: "Listening to the recent debate, I've heard words that are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our country."

Republicans, I think he's talking to you.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

Edited May 21, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Tygrys 143]

He's talking to everyone for more than a year now. The Dems + some other mentally challenged people even believed him.

[scandal 951]

Steve,

During the campaign I was in favor of closing Gitmo. Heck, John McCain was in favor. Most of America was in favor.

In principle I'm still in favor of it. But there really is a very practical problem - what do you do with these guys?

Do you really want to give them constitutional protections by trying them in the US, as the ACLU advocates?

Many of these guys were caught on the battlefields. There is no evidence that will hold up in our courts. They WILL be acquitted.

I don't think we want such an outcome. Without getting into the hyperbole of "War on Terror", the fact of the matter is that these prisoners are more akin to POWs than to regular criminal defendants. And they should be treated more akin to POWs - detained so long as they pose a danger to America. I'm not a lawyer, I don't have the right legal recipe. But I'm very queasy about bringing them to the US and granting them rights I don't feel they deserve.

Ron

[AlHayatZween 2]

What do we usually do with criminals of war, who we legitimately capture and who are truly guilty of crimes? i mean, what did we do in Vietnam, for instance?

[GaryC 7]

What do we usually do with criminals of war, who we legitimately capture and who are truly guilty of crimes? i mean, what did we do in Vietnam, for instance?

We took them on a one way helicopter ride.

[AlHayatZween 2]

No really, what did we do? (Sorry, i'm young ) (Well, youngish...)

[JimandChristy 1,689]

That place should have been closed down years ago, funnily enough Guantanamo Bay is the only place on American soil where you could get access to universal health care, which is completely twisted in a way. They can provide it to the terrorists but not to millions of their own citizens....look at first 2mins of the video.

Edited May 21, 2009 by JimandChristy

[scandal 951]

What do we usually do with criminals of war, who we legitimately capture and who are truly guilty of crimes? i mean, what did we do in Vietnam, for instance?

In conventional wars, prisoners were usually held in country (the battlefield country), or in limited cases in the US. During WWII some German soldiers were held in Oswego NY as well as other camps. After the war most of them were released since they were seen as battlefield soldiers, not war criminals. (That obviously did not apply to SS and others accused of being war criminals).

The trouble here is that this is not a conventional war. There is no enemy combatant country. There is al Quaida.

It's a very very difficult situation. Setting an arbitrary deadline of next January without having worked out the details in advance appears hasty.

I actually support the Senate's position on this one. Obama should go slow here.

[GaryC 7]

No really, what did we do? (Sorry, i'm young ) (Well, youngish...)

Yes, really. If we captured two enemy combatants we would often take them up in a helicopter and push one out. The other would then be "encouraged" to answer questions. As bad as everyone thinks Gitmo is we treat them light years better than we did in Nam.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steve,

During the campaign I was in favor of closing Gitmo. Heck, John McCain was in favor. Most of America was in favor.

In principle I'm still in favor of it. But there really is a very practical problem - what do you do with these guys?

Do you really want to give them constitutional protections by trying them in the US, as the ACLU advocates?

Many of these guys were caught on the battlefields. There is no evidence that will hold up in our courts. They WILL be acquitted.

I don't think we want such an outcome. Without getting into the hyperbole of "War on Terror", the fact of the matter is that these prisoners are more akin to POWs than to regular criminal defendants. And they should be treated more akin to POWs - detained so long as they pose a danger to America. I'm not a lawyer, I don't have the right legal recipe. But I'm very queasy about bringing them to the US and granting them rights I don't feel they deserve.

Ron

Ron,

There's no easy answer, but I would hope the military tribunal will look at how each individual detainee was captured - what were the circumstances. Because many of them were merely fingered or captured by people who wanted to collect on the bounty. If the tribunal can find no convincing evidence that these detainees have done anything wrong, they should be released.

[mawilson 2,133]

No really, what did we do? (Sorry, i'm young ) (Well, youngish...)

Yes, really. If we captured two enemy combatants we would often take them up in a helicopter and push one out. The other would then be "encouraged" to answer questions. As bad as everyone thinks Gitmo is we treat them light years better than we did in Nam.

Cheaper than keeping them in Guantanamo Bay Luxury Spa & Resort.

[Heracles 417]

Do you really want to give them constitutional protections by trying them in the US, as the ACLU advocates?

If these guys go on trial in a normal US courts and are able to be protected by the likes of your ALCU's and the constitution, they will be on the streets in no time. Probably free to participate in the modern American ritual of suing the government too. Then only to use the money to fight against you guys.

But at the same time I do agree that keeping them in gitmo is probably not a good idea, from a reputation standpoint. How would any American like it if China took US citizens and kept them under similar circumstances?

Edited May 21, 2009 by Constellation

[mawilson 2,133]

How would any American like it if China took US citizens and kept them under similar circumstances?

Well if the aforementioned US citizens were terrorists trying to blow up a building in China,

I probably wouldn't want them back here.

[GaryC 7]

Do you really want to give them constitutional protections by trying them in the US, as the ACLU advocates?

If these guys go on trial in a normal US courts and are able to be protected by the likes of your ALCU's and the constitution, they will be on the streets in no time. Probably free to participate in the modern American ritual of suing the government too. Then only to use the money to fight against you guys.

But at the same time I do agree that keeping them in gitmo is probably not a good idea, from a reputation standpoint. How would any American like it if China took US citizens and kept them under similar circumstances?

If they were terrorists attacking China then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[AlHayatZween 2]

No really, what did we do? (Sorry, i'm young ) (Well, youngish...)

Yes, really. If we captured two enemy combatants we would often take them up in a helicopter and push one out. The other would then be "encouraged" to answer questions. As bad as everyone thinks Gitmo is we treat them light years better than we did in Nam.