They're dead no matter what happens to them.

 

 

How so?

Whoa. I am not necessarily a fan of Gitmo, but I really wish he waited until he was President and presumably receives "the rest of the story". I am thinking, guessing, hoping, that there is more information that Obama does not have that may come into this decision.

 

So basically, I wish he would slow the f*** down and stfu until he has a couple days in office.

 

 

Whoa. I am not necessarily a fan of Gitmo, but I really wish he waited until he was President and presumably receives "the rest of the story". I am thinking, guessing, hoping, that there is more information that Obama does not have that may come into this decision.

 

So basically, I wish he would slow the f*** down and stfu until he has a couple days in office.

 

I'll make Barack a deal, if he quits talking about his plans before he gets into office, I will quit analyzing his plans before he gets into office

I'll make Barack a deal, if he quits talking about his plans before he gets into office, I will quit analyzing his plans before he gets into office

 

How so?

He explained it already

Interesting, I agree with your entire post. The only disagreement is the timing. I'd prefer he wait to be President and then begin making decisions, after he actually becomes President and has all the info.

 

I can't wait for him to be the new guy.

 

Bottom line. I prefer a leader who gathers all the facts, or at least as many as possible, before making a decision. WMD in Iraq Y'all prefer a shoot from the hip, manage from the gut type of guy.

 

Damn, I thought I was the Texan

 

Unfortunately because of the failure of a president we currently have in office, the legal limbo makes this one of the more stickier solutions he has. I see no reason for Obama's team to not be looking into a safe and fair way to close GITMO down even before he's in office. Bush hasn't had any problems with people doing his job before now, so what's the big deal.

You've been hanging out with some pretty bad people if you're at Gitmo.

You are aware that something like 2/3 of the people we've interned at Gitmo as suspected terrorists/enemy combatants have already been released without charges right?

 

A lot of them wound up there because they were picked up in large sweeps where we put out reward money for "anyone associated with Al Qaeda or the Taliban" and so everyone pointed at the guy next to them and said "That guy is Taliban, give me my reward". With a lot of the guys who have come through there, we have no idea who they actually are or what they were actually doing.

 

Beyond that, some of them are still held there just because we don't have a country that wants to take them back, despite being declared fully innocent of all charges as well. Because you don't want your government to suddenly have to deal with people that the U.S. tortured.

I think we should release every prisoner in Gitmo and close it. Just set them free. I'm thinking a big f***ing catapult pointed due east.

I think we should release every prisoner in Gitmo and close it. Just set them free. I'm thinking a big f***ing catapult pointed due east.

Shark bait sounds good to me.

 

 

Oh wait. We're the bad US. These people did nothing wrong, and now we've tourtered them all and poisoned every one of them forever.

 

I mean, this is a totally black and white issue, right?!!!

Shark bait sounds good to me.

 

 

Oh wait. We're the bad US. These people did nothing wrong, and now we've tourtered them all and poisoned every one of them forever.

 

I mean, this is a totally black and white issue, right?!!!

We've designed a system of justice in our country where we'd rather have 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to jail.

 

You guys would like to take the innocent guy and feed him to the sharks, just in case.

 

Seems pretty black and white to me.

We've designed a system of justice in our country where we'd rather have 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to jail.

 

You guys would like to take the innocent guy and feed him to the sharks, just in case.

 

Seems pretty black and white to me.

 

Oh, lighten up.

There is a difference between a military and civilian system of justice. And we've had hundreds of years of opportunity to fine tune these systems, and as Balta eloquently points out, we are in favor of protecting the innocent in civilian courts.

 

Now, for many of those housed, tortured, fed, and even protected, at Gitmo, they do not fall into a clean and easy definition of civilian or military. We are fighting a enemy, and they do fit the definition of enemy, who act like a military, but are so easily defined as such.

 

So this is messy. And it will remain messy until we develop a better system. Meanwhile, sadly, and it is a disgrace, we have violated basic human dignities and generally acted like those we are seeking to stop.

Bottom line is, the place should have been shut down a lot earlier, and pretty much all of the prisoners should have been sentenced or at least put through trials already.

 

Australia had a guy in there, and it was only because we pressured the USA for 5 years, that he was one of the 1st to be trialled, and got sent home, and he's now living in society back down under.

I'm sure it's been posted in here but i'll ask it too: the one question I have is which country would even allow these people into their borders at this point? Even if we take the extreme viewpoint and say they are all innocent, no country wants the stigma now attached to them within their borders in my opinion. If even one single person God forbid goes back to terrorism and helps execute an attack in your country, how would you like to be the leadership that decided to let him in? I am not against removing these guys from Gitmo, but they are going to be like nomads IMO.

Edited November 19, 200817 yr by whitesoxfan101

The one question I have is which country would even allow these people into their borders at this point? Even if we take the extreme viewpoint and say they are all innocent, no country wants the stigma now attached to them within their borders in my opinion. If even one single person God forbid goes back to terrorism and helps execute an attack in your country, how would you like to be the leadership that decided to let him in? I am not against removing these guys from Gitmo, but they are going to be like nomads IMO.

No one wants them.

 

We picked up a bunch of Uygher people, who are natives of China but who sort of have been expelled from that country due to their unhappiness with that government and its oppression of that people (Something we typically encourage here in this country). They've been repeatedly found innocent of any and all charges and ordered released by the court system. They are still being held at Gitmo, because no country will take them.

Bottom line is, the place should have been shut down a lot earlier, and pretty much all of the prisoners should have been sentenced or at least put through trials already.

 

Australia had a guy in there, and it was only because we pressured the USA for 5 years, that he was one of the 1st to be trialled, and got sent home, and he's now living in society back down under.

 

military or civilian trials? Are they really soldiers to be tried in a military court? Are they really civilians and can we try them for crimes that are alleged to have happened overseas?

 

Neither solution is perfect, but we should have picked one years ago.

military or civilian trials? Are they really soldiers to be tried in a military court? Are they really civilians and can we try them for crimes that are alleged to have happened overseas?

 

Neither solution is perfect, but we should have picked one years ago.

Frankly, I think military court is the better option...because I'm more than willing to accept an appropriate level of secrecy afforded to these hearings and I think that a military court can do that more effectively than a civilian court.

 

But, I keep stressing this, there are a couple key points required by everything from the Magna Carta through the Constitution through the Bill of Rights that the current leadership has refused to do in order to try to rig the trials in their way. U.S. military courts have a couple key requirements they need to meet; they need to be subservient to the Supreme Court and as such have their decisions reviewable on appeal to that body, and they need to be Created and approved by Congress (i.e. Military Appeals court judges are positions that are approved by the Senate).

 

The reason we have "Refused" to pick one is because the Bush Administration refuses to meet those standards. It's not that they don't think there's a better option, it's that they want to be able to get around the law and imprison people for life without a fair and impartial trial, solely on the word of the executive branch. Essentially, they have a problem with the Magna Carta, and that's the reason we haven't picked an option yet.

Frankly, I think military court is the better option...because I'm more than willing to accept an appropriate level of secrecy afforded to these hearings and I think that a military court can do that more effectively than a civilian court.

 

But, I keep stressing this, there are a couple key points required by everything from the Magna Carta through the Constitution through the Bill of Rights that the current leadership has refused to do in order to try to rig the trials in their way. U.S. military courts have a couple key requirements they need to meet; they need to be subservient to the Supreme Court and as such have their decisions reviewable on appeal to that body, and they need to be Created and approved by Congress (i.e. Military Appeals court judges are positions that are approved by the Senate).

 

The reason we have "Refused" to pick one is because the Bush Administration refuses to meet those standards. It's not that they don't think there's a better option, it's that they want to be able to get around the law and imprison people for life without a fair and impartial trial, solely on the word of the executive branch. Essentially, they have a problem with the Magna Carta, and that's the reason we haven't picked an option yet.

 

I know this will shock the s*** out of you, but I agree with you.

Federal judge orders the release of 5 Gitmo prisoners who have been there for 7 years, due to insufficient evidence. Will BushCo comply, or will this wait until January so that Obama can do so?

 

Federal judge orders the release of 5 Gitmo prisoners who have been there for 7 years, due to insufficient evidence. Will BushCo comply, or will this wait until January so that Obama can do so?

 

Since when do court decisions hold sway over what BushCo decides to do?

Since when do court decisions hold sway over what BushCo decides to do?

They don't, as we know. But in this case, he's in that part of his Presidency where he wants his "legacy", so he may elect to buck the trend. If not, Obama will make sure it gets done, I'd bet.

 

His legacy is cast. And it isn't pretty.

His legacy is cast. And it isn't pretty.

Agreed, but most Presidents sort of spazz out in their last couple months trying to make a good mark on the world through various executive orders.

 

Agreed, but most Presidents sort of spazz out in their last couple months trying to make a good mark on the world through various executive orders.

***paves ground for obligatory rant from bmags***

Agreed, but most Presidents sort of spazz out in their last couple months trying to make a good mark on the world through various executive orders.

This president, on the other hand, is trying to make sure that the endangered species act is as dismantled as it can get and the drilling and mining on national park land has already started.