31–40 of 539 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The events you've outlined don't require intellectual dishonesty at all. It's possible to have thought war was a prudent course of action in 2003, then to have changed one's mind by 2013.
Not to mention the question of whether a newspaper have "a" mind...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Closing it would mean having the prisoners moved elsewhere, but not a change to how they are being dealt with. That's the real issue; the location isn't what matters.
He could also order due process to start tomorrow. Maybe there are a few issues with sending people back to their countries, but certainly not in all cases.
I think they are just hoping meteor will hit this place eventually and wipe it out without any concern on their part.
Gitmo was the first thing that clued me that I had made a mistake voting for Obama's promises (not that McCain would have ever gotten it instead!). It was such a complete reversal that I immediately knew his promises were completely worthless. I appreciate that there may be anger outs people in Gitmo, but they have every right to a trial I have. The double standard of what human rights mean if you are a US citizen an…
As every American should know, Congress holds the purse strings here and has denied said request. The President has no power here.
Gitmo is the same. Most inmates have not been tried, some have been tortured (and are hence considered "untriable").
For a country that claims to follow the "rule of law" this is a strange affair to be in. The "rule of law" way of out this is to bring these people to the US, and try them. If they cannot be convicted they are free. I believe that the long term cost/risk of not doing this is higher than any potential damage the inmates could do.
As a non-American - can I ask an American to submit a white-house petition. Perhaps as a form of the least that can be done.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/close-guantanamo-d...
The defenders of Gitmo in this era will be remembered by our descendants with the same shame and disgust we feel when remembering the slave holders and segregationists of the previous eras.
I hope that the defenders of the legal theories that allow people to be held without trial for many years get their fair share of the blame. Gitmo itself is bad, but the legal theories that let almost anyone be held there without due process are worse. I understand that it looks bad if people released from custody in Gitmo return to action in 'violent non-state actor' groups. But is looking bad in the media worth hum…
Just for the record, if you're a victim of one of these released prisoners, it would be more serious for you than simply bad press.
Gitmo was the first thing that clued me that I had made a mistake voting for Obama's promises (not that McCain would have ever gotten it instead!). It was such a complete reversal that I immediately knew his promises were completely worthless. I appreciate that there may be anger outs people in Gitmo, but they have every right to a trial I have. The double standard of what human rights mean if you are a US citizen an…
The problem is that to close Guantanamo, you need funding to a least move the prisoners to another facility. Introducing them to the justice system would require the same. As every American should know, Congress holds the purse strings here and has denied said request. The President has no power here.
There's always the nuclear option: threaten to release the detainees if Congress doesn't provide funding for another solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope so, but it doesn't seem to be happening: after John Yoo finished his work at the Bush DoJ, he got a cushy position at Berkeley. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo
Actually, as the wikipedia entry states, he has been on Berkeley's faculty since 1993. His return to Berkeley after being seconded to Bush's DoJ was met with heated resistance and continual protest (e.g. waterboarding enactments outside the law school). As a tenured professor, though, he couldn't be tossed out.
These 'we want to but we can't' arguments bother me more and more as i grow older. It's usually a pretty transparent excuse for not doing the right thing, by scared old men or ambitious young men.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congress deserves as much or more blame for this situation. They've prevented the President from carrying out his intended solution to this problem. Without their support, he is powerless to release these people.
What was his solutions? Moving the detainees to another facility? Or did he actually want to give them trials and send the innocent ones home?