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

[alienlovechild 75]

Under military tribunal laws they would not have access to your dreaded "ACLU types", that's more of your conservative scare tactics.

The supermax in Montana isn't a military facility to my knowledge so why how can you sentence those convicted by military tribunals to civilian prisons?

What other prisoners, the prison is empty.

Not for long. Prison overcrowding is a common complaint and a source of lawsuits by the ACLU types.

[scandal 951]

The federal courts have already asserted (Hamdi case, others) that they will assert jurisdiction if the prisoner is on US soil

A USA military base is considered USA soil, ask John McCain.

John McCain is not making the rules here. It will be the Federal Circuit Courts (presumably the DC Circuit, or the Fourth Circuit, which has jurisdiction in Maryland, Virigina) and then in the US Supreme Court.

Guantanamo has been ruled (legally speaking) as non-US soil for the purposes of prisoner detentions. That's the legal basis for Bush establishing the prison there......

[AlHayatZween 2]

The other big fear they would radicalize other prisoners and some of those cons will be freed later. You probably don't believe there's violence and gangs in prison either. It's all made up.

While that may be true, what if they also teach our current prison populations and gang members to read and do basic mathematics...?

[nowhereman 1]

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.

No kidding. How someone can say they embrace the priniciples that this country was founded on and think it's ok to treat non-citizens by a different standard is disturbing and sad. We don't have any idea if the remaining detainees have actually done anything against the U.S., but to some, if you're middle eastern and look suspicious, that's reason enough to assume you're guilty of terrorism.

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.

I have many Vietnam vet friends. The things they told me are much worse than that. We are playing it very civilized in this war compared to Nam.

Gary, you think that behavior is acceptable to American values and principles?

That was a war and a time you could never understand Steven. Things were played "down and dirty" by both sides. Vietnam was a war that should never have been fought and the way Washington carried it out it put our men in a no win situation. It was either adapt or die for them. The fault wasn't with the troops but with the pinheads that were calling the shots. They did what they had to do to survive.

I pointed this out to show you that we haven't "lost" our moral authority because of Gitmo. We lost it a long time ago. In war morals only get you killed. War itself is an immoral act and to try to assign morals to your actions only strengthens the enemies hand.

What you just said could be easily applied to Iraq... "was a war that should never have been fought and the way Washington carried it out it put our men in a no win situation. It was either adapt or die for them. The fault wasn't with the troops but with the pinheads that were calling the shots." I wasn't in Vietnam (too young) but I did serve in Iraq & I've heard from many sources that there are many similarities between the two. However no matter how bad a situation acting immorally should never be condoned... ever. There were atrocities in Vietnam because the leadership allowed it... it moved past being a "few bad apples" & became an organizational problem. This has happened in Iraq, but to a much lesser degree (e.g. I supported the 2nd BCT of 101st Airborne during my tour & the soldier who raped & murdered that 14 year old was from the 2nd BCT).

My point... it is a worn out cliche but one should always be aware of the past & try not to make the same mistakes again. Gitmo (rightly or wrongly I don't know) has become a symbol of mistreating the enemy (not really sure what category they fall into legally). It should be closed to start over again & the new prison (wherever it may be) should be operated under a higher moral standard.

[alienlovechild 75]

There were atrocities in Vietnam because the leadership allowed it... it moved past being a "few bad apples" & became an organizational problem.

Supposedly enemy POW weren't widely mistreated once they were removed from the battlefield. Even the worst massacre at My Lai was sanction only at the PLT level. There are always some bad incidents in any war but it shouldn't be policy.

It should be closed to start over again & the new prison (wherever it may be) should be operated under a higher moral standard.

Abu Grahib is such a wonderful place now. . . that the media doesn't care what the Iraqis do to POWs. Most of stuff is enemy propaganda that has little relevance to the overall war effort. There's far more coverage on detainees than any combat taking place so you know it's horribly twisted.

[peejay 327]

we are stuck with them if no other country will take them and they will eventually be released onto the streets of America.

See, scare tactics. They will be deported back to whatever country they are from, same as non-citizen. Their home country can't refuse USA deportation.

What do you mean they can't refuse? A sovereign nation can do whatever the ** it want to do. So you think we'll just fly over their country(s) and just kick them out with a parachute? No...wrong. Ain't gonna happen. That is not how the world works.

The USA went through that ####### with the Marielitos from Cuba. Fidel refused to take them back (after he dumped them here) and the courts eventually kicked them out onto the streets of America. The resulting crime wave is documented. No scare tactics here...that's a fact, Jack. It's not like this hasn't happened before.

[nowhereman 1]

There were atrocities in Vietnam because the leadership allowed it... it moved past being a "few bad apples" & became an organizational problem.

Supposedly enemy POW weren't widely mistreated once they were removed from the battlefield. Even the worst massacre at My Lai was sanction only at the PLT level. There are always some bad incidents in any war but it shouldn't be policy.

It should be closed to start over again & the new prison (wherever it may be) should be operated under a higher moral standard.

Abu Grahib is such a wonderful place now. . . that the media doesn't care what the Iraqis do to POWs. Most of stuff is enemy propaganda that has little relevance to the overall war effort. There's far more coverage on detainees than any combat taking place so you know it's horribly twisted.

I never said the coverage was fair, but when a few dumbasses (e.g. Abu Grahib) do stuff to prisoners they shouldn't be doing & it gets out then it becomes national news. Again this is a leadership issue... starting with the Brigade Commander (BG Karpinski), who was a weak leader, & ending with the first line supervisors (SSGs, SFCs, LTs) weren't conducting troop leading procedures, so you had a bunch of PFCs and SPCs (Privates & Specialists) running amok.

As for My Lai LT Calley was the Platoon Leader & the brunt of blame was his, but the culture of the military at that time set the stage for what happened. What stopped the massacre was a helicopter pilot (Chief Warrant Officer) who placed his helicopter (the door gunner aimed his 60 cal at the US troops) between the civilians & the US soldiers killing civilians for no reason. Without his moral courage & bravery more innocent lives wouldn have been lost.

We as Americans have to uphold higher standards than our enemies because in many cases they don't have codes of conduct concerning the enemy (us). As soon as we sink to their level we are no better than them.

Edited May 21, 2009 by nowhereman

[yogib37 3]

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.

No kidding. How someone can say they embrace the priniciples that this country was founded on and think it's ok to treat non-citizens by a different standard is disturbing and sad. We don't have any idea if the remaining detainees have actually done anything against the U.S., but to some, if you're middle eastern and look suspicious, that's reason enough to assume you're guilty of terrorism.

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.

I have many Vietnam vet friends. The things they told me are much worse than that. We are playing it very civilized in this war compared to Nam.

Gary, you think that behavior is acceptable to American values and principles?

That was a war and a time you could never understand Steven. Things were played "down and dirty" by both sides. Vietnam was a war that should never have been fought and the way Washington carried it out it put our men in a no win situation. It was either adapt or die for them. The fault wasn't with the troops but with the pinheads that were calling the shots. They did what they had to do to survive.

I pointed this out to show you that we haven't "lost" our moral authority because of Gitmo. We lost it a long time ago. In war morals only get you killed. War itself is an immoral act and to try to assign morals to your actions only strengthens the enemies hand.

HI Gary

I so much agree with you on that and honest the rest of your post. We should of never been involved. It was not a war but a police action.

I was too young to really know what was going on or understand the meaning behind it. I remember my friends father was sent to Nam, and I remember when he came home.

[yogib37 3]

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

Don't believe the scare speech, they would be tried under tribunal laws. They don't get US citizenship because they are in Gitmo. That's hogwash that conservatives are spewing.

What do we do with them? There's a brand new USA maximum security prison in Montana that wants all of them. The town even voted in favor of it. Everyone knows that no person has ever escaped a USA maximum security prison. (except in movies... and that's where the conservatives minds are at... in La-La -Land)

Some one escaped from Alcatraz "the Rock" that was a maximum security prison. It even heald Al Capone and some other high profile gangsters.

[mawilson 2,133]

The other big fear they would radicalize other prisoners and some of those cons will be freed later. You probably don't believe there's violence and gangs in prison either. It's all made up.

While that may be true, what if they also teach our current prison populations and gang members to read and do basic mathematics...?

Not sure about basic maths, but chemistry

(how to make a bomb)

and engineering

(where to plant the bomb to inflict maximum structural damage)

- maybe...

[endoftheroad 1]

Obama said where feasible some will be tried in Federal Courts (like that 9/11 guy etc.), war crimes will be tried with military commissions, those who have been ordered released by courts will be released back to their homes, those who can be safely deported will be sent to another country, the worst that can't be tried but pose a risk must be dealt with in a new legal framework.

He also said NONE will be released into the USA who pose a security risk.

To the OP topic, yes he said that and meant it.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/...ism+Policy.aspx

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

Obama said where feasible some will be tried in Federal Courts (like that 9/11 guy etc.), war crimes will be tried with military commissions, those who have been ordered released by courts will be released back to their homes, those who can be safely deported will be sent to another country, the worst that can't be tried but pose a risk must be dealt with in a new legal framework.

He also said NONE will be released into the USA who pose a security risk.

To the OP topic, yes he said that and meant it.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/...ism+Policy.aspx

[GaryC 7]

Obama said where feasible some will be tried in Federal Courts (like that 9/11 guy etc.), war crimes will be tried with military commissions, those who have been ordered released by courts will be released back to their homes, those who can be safely deported will be sent to another country, the worst that can't be tried but pose a risk must be dealt with in a new legal framework.

He also said NONE will be released into the USA who pose a security risk.

To the OP topic, yes he said that and meant it.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/...ism+Policy.aspx

Hmmm.... Someone isn't telling the truth somewhere. What do you make of this? This sounds like a "war crime" to me, yet he isn't being tried by a tribunal. I don't trust ANY politician to keep his word. If this guy isn't convicted what makes you think they will not release him in the USA?

First US trial planned for Gitmo detainee

WASHINGTON – The first Guantanamo detainee chosen for trial in the United States is a man officials say began his terrorist career on a bicycle delivering bomb parts and rose through al-Qaida ranks to become a bodyguard to Osama bin Laden.

Ahmed Ghailani was in his twenties when prosecutors say he helped terrorists build one of the bombs that destroyed U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998.

Now, more than a decade later, the alleged international terrorist will be brought to trial in New York City in a major legal test of President Barack Obama's plan to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center by early 2010.

Officials on Thursday announced the plan to bring Ghailani to New York for trial, which would make him the first Guantanamo detainee to be brought to the United States, and the first to be brought to trial in a civilian criminal court.

Edith Bartley, whose diplomat father and college-age brother were killed in the blast that rocked the embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, said the victims' family "fully support" the decision to try Ghailani in a public, U.S. courtroom.

"It's been 11 years, and it's long overdue to ensure that any and all individuals in our custody, or identified as responsible, are brought to trial," said Bartley.

The Obama administration's decision to try Ghailani is just the latest chapter in one man's long journey from accused terrorist to Guantanamo detainee to courtroom defendant.

U.S. authorities say Ghailani, a Tanzanian, helped deliver the explosives in the embassy attack, often with a bicycle. He left Africa just before the bombings, and later rose up through the al-Qaida ranks, according to investigators.

He has denied knowing the TNT and oxygen tanks he delivered would be used to make a bomb. He also denied buying a vehicle used in the attack, saying he could not drive.

After the Aug. 7, 1998 bombings at U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Ghailani worked for al-Qaida as a document forger, trainer at a terror camp and bodyguard to Osama bin Laden, according to military prosecutors.

He was categorized as a high-value detainee by U.S. authorities after he was captured in Pakistan in 2004 and transferred to the detention center at the U.S. naval base in Cuba two years later.

Now, the Obama administration is trying to put him back into the criminal justice system, despite the claims by Republicans that doing so would endanger American lives.

"By prosecuting Ahmed Ghailani in federal court, we will ensure that he finally answers for his alleged role in the bombing of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya," Holder said in a statement.

"This administration is committed to keeping the American people safe and upholding the rule of law, and by closing Guantanamo and bringing terrorists housed there to justice we will make our nation stronger and safer," the attorney general said.

President Barack Obama spoke of the Ghailani decision Thursday in a speech designed to win support for his national security program, which include closing Guantanamo's detention center.

"Preventing this detainee from coming to our shores would prevent his trial and conviction. And after over a decade, it is time to finally see that justice is served, and that is what we intend to do," Obama said.

The president faces pressure from across the political spectrum on his plan to close the detention center. Democrats have said they want to see the president's plan for closing the base before it approves money to finance it, and Republicans are fighting to keep Guantanamo open.

Some lawmakers have already voiced opposition to bringing Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. for trial, even in heavily guarded settings.

The Associated Press reported in March that Ghailani was among a handful of high-value suspects that prosecutors were considering bringing to trial in the United States on charges that predate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

The Ghailani decision revives a long-dormant case charging bin Laden and top al-Qaida leadership with plotting the embassy attacks that killed more than 200 people and injured thousands, including many who were blinded by shards of flying glass. The attacks prompted then-President Bill Clinton to launch cruise missile attacks two weeks later on bin Laden's Afghan camps.

Four other men have been tried and convicted in the New York courthouse for their roles in the embassy attacks. All were sentenced to life in prison.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090521/ap_on_...tanamo_detainee

[DEDixon 39]

Vietnam was a war that should never have been fought and the way Washington carried it out it put our men in a no win situation. It was either adapt or die for them. The fault wasn't with the troops but with the pinheads that were calling the shots. They did what they had to do to survive.

I pointed this out to show you that we haven't "lost" our moral authority because of Gitmo. We lost it a long time ago. In war morals only get you killed. War itself is an immoral act and to try to assign morals to your actions only strengthens the enemies hand.

Fair enough...

But couldn't the same be said about Afghanistan today? How are we going to win? And what are we going to win? The Iraq War was a debacle, but we might actually be able to "finish" that one... but Afghanistan, the War on Terror? It's like a neverending downward spiral.

Oh yes, I'm with you on this one. The Afghan war makes me sick. There really isn't any reason to be there these days. But, Obama wants to spend more time there. It is total BS in my opinion. Afghans know nothing about how to get along with each other, if they aren't fighting us, they are fighting each other so they will be right back to fighting if we ever leave (unless the Taliban is there to control them.... at least the Taliban maintained order).

I've said it many times, let the Taliban back in and then contain them.

I see the Afghans needing us for a long long long time, it has already been 7 years, how long before we call those Army and Air Force bases "PERMANENT?"