Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

Posted by tobr24u z6 RI (My Page) on
Tue, Apr 30, 13 at 5:13

That is what the Pentagon wants to upgrade the place that Obama promised to close but no one can decide on a good alternative to what to do with the detainees who are on a hunger strike with many being force fed. Surely you are as embarassed as I am by this mess...


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

There was that little problem if you remember of Congress blocking it's closure and or transfer to Federal courts of prisoners.
Surely you remember all this!
Congress cut off funds to transfer prisoners to the US for Trial.
The President signed the Bill they passed.
The Good & patriotic forum League for trial in Guantanamo wailed that only a a MC would suffice even after reciting the litany of Supreme Court Cases that show the MC lacked any legitimacy to try cases.
Lots of out pouring of emotional support for how dangerous a trial would be in NY.
Interesting none of them responded to any of the terror trials that were held here afterwards when their outcomes were post on this forum. Surely you can recall those?

Here is a link that might be useful: LINKEE dINK


 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

The Obama administration has attempted to shift blame for his failure to close the prison onto Congress. It is true that Congress added unnecessary restrictions on the president’s authority to transfer detainees home or to third countries (or even to the U.S. for trial), in the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the 2012 version as well. But what is equally clear is that Congress has given the president the authority to waive those restrictions, by invoking the very same criteria the administration itself used to transfer the men before the passage of the NDAA. Moreover, the most direct limitation on his ability to successfully close the prison is self-inflicted: a ban on all transfers to Yemen, which roughly 90 of the men at Guantánamo call home. Imposed following an attempted attack in 2009 by the so-called Underwear Bomber, the moratorium amounts to collective punishment based purely on where they happened to be born. Ultimately, Obama’s failure to close Guantánamo is due to an absence of will, not an absence of authority.


 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

But what is equally clear is that Congress has given the president the authority to waive those restrictions, by invoking the very same criteria the administration itself used to transfer the men before the passage of the NDAA.

This is news to me, Brush. Could you link to a not-overly biased source?

Edited to add I'm not insinuating that you're overly biased, just I don't want to read 'Newsbusters'.

This post was edited by david52 on Tue, Apr 30, 13 at 9:51


 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

Why bother?

Put simply, Obama's plan was never to close Gitmo as much as it was to re-locate it to Illinois: to what the ACLU dubbed "Gitmo North". That's why ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said of Obama's 2009 "close-Gitmo" plan that it "is hardly a meaningful step forward" and that "while the Obama administration inherited the Guantánamo debacle, this current move is its own affirmative adoption of those policies." That's because, he said, "the administration plans to continue its predecessor's policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial for some detainees, with only a change of location."

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

Thanks.

I saw the current hunger strike over the same issue - cleared for release, but still being held - is now attracting fresh medical teams headed down there.

Its a disgusting travesty.


 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

Guantanamo is a national disgrace!


 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

Way back when a thread from 2009 on trying KSM in a Federal Court in NYC.
It's interesting reading just to see who no longer posts here!

"POW's from WWII, were not tried in NYC. They weren't tried until the war was over, and they were tried by military tribunals. Mr. Mohammed, did they read you your rights? Un no. Well, case dismissed, go home and plan ways to kill another 3 or 4 thousand innocent people." WHO WROTE THAT?

Here is a link that might be useful: Ah well

This post was edited by labrea on Tue, Apr 30, 13 at 12:41


 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Tue, Apr 30, 13 at 13:09

According to his press conference, right now, he is going to try and close it, again.

US President Barack Obama has pledged a new push to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, amid a growing prisoner hunger strike there.

At the White House, Mr Obama said the detention centre was "contrary to who we are" and harmful to US interests.

He cited recent convictions of terror suspects to argue the civilian justice system was adequate for such trials.

Congress has blocked efforts to close the prison, but Mr Obama said he would renew discussions with lawmakers.

Here is a link that might be useful: Link


 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

I would put the closing on hold since Obama has proven to fail on his promise and let Hillary use it for campaign leverage in 2016.

Are you listening, Mr. President? It's good for the party and it's got to have at least one more promise in it.

This post was edited by brushworks on Tue, Apr 30, 13 at 13:25


 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

Hey David,

You can read the news on NPR too, not on your favorite party links.

Take a peek.

Six months into the new administration, a Democratically controlled Congress passed legislation that prevented the president from moving any Guantanamo detainee into the U.S. or to other countries, a policy that continues today.

Here is a link that might be useful: Obama a disappointment.


 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

Indefinite detention was the Obama plan from the beginning.

Long before, and fully independent of, anything Congress did, President Obama made clear that he was going to preserve the indefinite detention system at Guantanamo even once he closed the camp. President Obama fully embraced indefinite detention �" the defining injustice of Guantanamo �" as his own policy. Glenn Greenwald

Here is a link that might be useful: The Obama Myth...by Glenn Greenwald


 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

Just so we are all clear YOU GUYS want it closed now right?
^ months from now some crap for brains Red Senator will say something & we will hear the opposite AGAIN!
Federal civilian criminal courts have convicted nearly 500 individuals on terrorism-related charges since 9/11.
This has been repeated many times it's never impressed the Graham sycophants who insist on military tribunal trials.

This post was edited by labrea on Tue, Apr 30, 13 at 18:07


 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

I don't quite get the military tribunal business. The conviction rate is abysmal - like 85% failure rate under Pres. Bush.


 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

Drone strikes ordered by secret trials with secret evidence combined with indefinite detention of people who were never tried for anything and were cleared for release years ago.


 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Tue, Apr 30, 13 at 17:49

If the prez tries to close Gitmo again and transfers them "up here" then they'll all escape and run through your neighborhood with scissors. Beware! It'd be worse than zombies for sure.


 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

Can I get an amen or a Benghazi!
The Military Tribunals of OBAMA are equally deficient under OBAMA. A travesty but the game playing of funding defending make em stay there has been bi partisan BS from the beginning!


 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

I saw the press conference too today, mom. Just amazing how people just see through their own narrow lens and are unwilling to understand issues because they are so blinded by their agenda.

The president warns Guantanamo closed and agin made a compelling argument today why it is imperative.


 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

I've posted this before the last time was when the red brigades were GUNG HO or something like that for that smarmy sack from South Carolina & the party line on Guantanamo.

."As the Senate considers an outright ban on the transfer of detainees from Guantánamo to the United States this week, it seems obvious that many proponents intend that this will lead to military commission trials of “high value” detainees held there. Although the government has successfully prosecuted several hundred suspected terrorists in federal courts since 9/11 while securing only five extremely problematic “convictions” at Guantánamo, the myth that military commissions are a superior forum for trying terrorists inexplicably persists. The media spin on the recent federal trial of Ahmed Ghailani has further fueled this erroneous perception. Although Ghailani, who is not a high-level al Qaeda figure, now faces the real possibility of life in a supermax prison, critics and mainstream media describe the case as a “near acquittal” rather than the substantial victory it represents. Despite popular perceptions to the contrary, it is the military commissions which pose the much higher risk of failure in terrorism trials. The commissions have serious legal flaws which provide a number of grounds on which any convictions they render may be overturned, their ad hoc courtroom proceedings have regularly proved embarrassing to objective observers, and the controversy generated by their continued use will predictably have adverse consequences for U.S. national interests.
All five completed commission cases have involved highly questionable applications of substantive law. While the Military Commission Acts of 2006/2009 define offenses the commissions can try, they depend on these being pre-existing war crimes to avoid both U.S. constitutional and international prohibitions on ex-post facto crime creation when applied to detainees who were already in custody when the laws were passed. Yet virtually all LOAC experts agree that the primary offenses charged to date, conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism, are not crimes that can validly be prosecuted by a law of war tribunal. Omar Khadr was charged with additional offenses, including murder in violation of the law of war which could be war crimes in ordinary conflict scenarios, but not as applied to him. Three of the five cases ��" those of David Hicks, Ibrahim al Qosi, and Khadr ��" were resolved by plea deals in which the defendants had to waive all right to appeal even though that is forbidden by the court-martial practice on which the commissions are supposed to be based, so their infirmities will not be subject to appeal. Salim Hamdan, in contrast has appealed his conviction but although he has been free for almost two years, his case has still not even gotten through the first tier Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR), mocking the idea that military judges will administer justice more efficiently than their civilian counterparts. Although Ali al Bahlul refused to allow his attorney, David Frakt, to mount any defense on his behalf at all, Frakt nevertheless preserved some issues for appeal that also have yet to be decided at any level. The MCA provides for cases surviving the CMCR to be heard by the regular Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, with the potential for both Supreme Court consideration as well as collateral review once direct appeals are complete. So these cases will be litigated for years to come.
While the substantive law issues alone should be sufficient to both overturn these past cases and derail many future charges, there are a slew of additional issues stemming from unique aspects of the commission process that provide additional grounds for challenge which are wholly lacking from federal trials. Key World War II precedents, for example, only uphold the authority of military officers to convene law of war commissions in the theater of their command and try violations committed during the interval from the “declaration of war” until the conclusion of a final peace treaty. It is thus questionable as to whether any pre-9/11 conduct can validly be tried by the commissions. There is also reason to doubt that a civilian official without any command authority can perform the multiple roles assigned the convening authority thousands of miles removed from the “theater” in which the conduct took place.
There are numerous other flaws including the inability of the defendants to select counsel they trust, the tribunals’ reliance on over-classification practices, use of evidence obtained through coercion despite the statutory ban on doing so, and lack of equal access to witnesses and flawed discovery processes that collectively undermine the ability of defendants to mount credible defenses. The use of substandard tribunals to try aliens which we are wholly unwilling to submit our own nationals to is entirely unprecedented in the history of U.S. military justice and provides the potential basis for an equal protection challenge. If reviewing courts are committed to justice, any of these flaws by themselves could form the basis for overturning convictions. Collectively they will undermine the credibility of any verdicts returned, chilling counter-terrorism cooperation by our friends and allies, while fueling recruitment and fund raising by our adversaries.
The Ghailani trial in contrast, saw the application of recognized charges and rulings that time in military custody does not violate speedy trial timelines and that detainee abuse does not require dismissal on the basis of outrageous government conduct. Although a district court decision is without formal precedential value, it is predictable that other federal judges would reach the same result. The idea that military commission rules offer any legitimate advantage over federal courts is simply wrong. While Ghailani’s judge did exclude one witness the government desired to use on the basis that he had been identified through coercive interrogation, military commission rules should have produced the same result. In general, military commission rules for handling classified information are now very closely based on those used in federal courts, while issues such as battlefield intelligence collection concerns are total red herrings " the Supreme Court holds the 4th Amendment inapplicable outside the U.S."

The president is doing a soft shoe around the whole deal! He again made his case today for Federal trial successes. None of you would even acknowledge this when the Republicans blocked transfer to the US.
.

Here is a link that might be useful: another ah well


 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

None of you would even acknowledge this when the Republicans blocked transfer to the US.

This vote came when he had a democrat congress and senate...only 6 democrats voted against the bill.


 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

Just heard more medics are being sent to Gitmo to oversee the forced feeding. It seems that a massive hunger strike was the only way the detainees could bring attention to their plight. Shameful...


 o
RE: 200 mil to upgrade Gitmo?!

It is shameful and a true stain on our country and against all we should hold true.

What was put motion here a decade ago will be 3 times that unwinding the damage done.

Cowards! The president has not faultered since the day he signed the order to close it.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here