Get E-Mail Updates

Guantanamo: When Will It Get Foreclosed?

Please keep in your prayers those who are fasting and praying at the U.S. capitol between January 11 to 21, keeping vigil for the closing of the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo. As an opening to their prayer vigil Wednesday, they engaged in a little prophetic street theater in front of the Justice Department.

Guantanamo graffitiphoto © 2005 Peter Burgess | more info

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

In August 2007, candidate Obama promised to close Guantanamo, saying, "As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists."

In January 2009, one of President Obama's first official acts was to sign an executive order promising to close Guantanamo within one year. "This is me following through on not just a commitment I made during the campaign, but I think an understanding that dates back to our founding fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard," he said.

Christians and others are taking the lead in holding President Obama accountable for his pledge.

A group of 173 human rights activists, each wearing an orange jumpsuit and a black hood and representing the remaining 173 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, rallied in front of the White House on Tuesday to mark the ninth anniversary of the detention center's opening and to protest the Obama administration's inability to close it.

"Detainees, halt!" yelled Carmen Trotta, a volunteer with the group Witness Against Torture, who wore military fatigues as he gathered the protesters in Lafayette Park. "Turn left. Face the home of your captor."

The rally and street theater were organized by a coalition of groups -- including Amnesty International, the Center for Constitutional Rights and September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows -- that are calling on the administration to either try Guantanamo Bay detainees in federal court or release them.

"We believe in and promote the rule of law," said Valerie Lucznikowska, whose nephew was killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and who described the military detention center in Cuba as a "living stain on America."

Last January 2010 passed and we now move into a second year of with 173 men and boys still held in an extrajudicial setting. Obama has learned that the issue "is complicated." Indeed it is. But it must be done. America's democracy requires that we "observe core standards of conduct, not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard."

Rose Marie Berger, an associate editor at Sojourners, blogs at www.rosemarieberger.com. She's the author of Who Killed Donte Manning? The Story of an American Neighborhood available at store.sojo.net.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: WaveTossed

01-18-2011 @ 4:32am

Joel225A wrote: "War is indeed something we should evaluate , and I do appreciate your view of those being imprisoned unjustly possibly as be wrong , but the hypocrit I am I see the greater wrong is having our boys murdered and wounded by those who are allowed to walk off the battlefield because of insufficient evidence and return to and kill once more."

You are assuming that either they will be held without trial or else, if they are tried, they will be cut loose to kill once more. If they are truly guilty of crimes, they will be tried and given whatever penalties are called for.

As I recall, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on the habeas corpus of the Gitmo prisoners.

"Lincoln treated the Constitution like it was a comic book"

Is our Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights truly a comic book? I don't think so. It's what makes our nation great. The more we ignore our Constitution, our nation becomes less and less great.

by: Joel225A

01-18-2011 @ 9:16am

"You are assuming that either they will be held without trial or else, if they are tried, they will be cut loose to kill once more. If they are truly guilty of crimes, they will be tried and given whatever penalties are called for."

Thats not true. have you even read about this ?

http://www.reuters.com/article...

I am saying it is impossible to gather evidence for a war crime at times when you are in the middle of a battle " all the time " . That is obvious , do you know anyone who has been on a battlefield , just ask them . Its the last thing on their mind . My son could not drive down the road with me after he got back from Iraq without looking at all the possible places bombs could be planted . People in war zone have other priorites , namely staying alive . He told me in a war zone it is like everything is slow motion . . Your asking too much . and I believe saying we should release POWs because of rhetoric about America loosing its greatness without your even appreciattion of the possible lives that will be put at risk is sad. You have not offered any information of what law is being broken , and why say we did not put on trial the POWs during WW 2 . Is it because if you do not wear a uniform , you get benefits from the American Justice System. I am not following your logic , your not explaining .

If we are eventually do meet your requirements for greatness , at least appreciate the added risks to lives that it costs . You seem so far not even to be aware of it .

Our system of justice for its citizens requires guilt to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt . If they are truly guilty they will of course not automatically be found guilty . That is what makes America great . . Our system does that now , we release the guilty at times because we as a free people believe it is better for the state to prove guilt .

I never said the Constitution was a Comic Book . as I said my son put his life on the line for that Constitution . Lincoln did away with habeas corpus, put newspaper editors in jail that disagreed with continuing the war.

If we violated the Constitution with gitmo , explain how ....

If you think Obama has caused this nation to become weaker , why do you think he refuses to close Gitmo ?

I am curious to you explaining why you think he is not concerned with America being great. Do you think our president , a lawyer, who obviopusly has a strong understanding of the Constituion is purposely going against it ? Commiting Treason ?

. I think he is listening to military advisors . I am not sure who you been listenign to , but would consider it approriate if you respect those whose lives are in danger now . You do realize of course we have already released prisoners from Gitmo that have returned to terrorism .

http://www.reuters.com/article...

by: WaveTossed

01-18-2011 @ 6:18pm

Joel225A: have you read this?

http://www.fff.org/comment/com...

Or this:

http://law.shu.edu/ProgramsCen...

Revelant excerpts:
----------------
That organization is the Pentagon, and its habit of issuing announcements regarding the alleged recidivism of prisoners released from Guantánamo - without documentation to back up its claims -- has also exposed a startling lack of journalistic integrity in the mainstream media. Although the Pentagon had regularly drip-fed alarmist reports about recidivism into the media during the Bush administration, which were picked up and reported despite their lack of sources and their often contradictory nature - as explained in a detailed report by researchers at the Seton Hall Law School in New Jersey (PDF [see link above-WT]) - the propaganda war has become noticeably more bold under President Obama.

The first report under Obama, issued on May 21, 2009, gained high-profile approval when, to its shame, the New York Times uncritically published a front-page story entitled, "1 In 7 Detainees Rejoined Jihad, Pentagon Finds," in which Elisabeth Bumiller, relying on an advance copy of a Pentagon report, stated that "74 prisoners released from Guantánamo have returned to terrorism, making for a recidivism rate of nearly 14 percent."

In fact, the Pentagon had only provided names and "confirmation" for 27 of the 74 prisoners cited in the report, and there were doubts about the recidivism of some of the 27 prisoners named in the report, as was revealed a week later, when the Times allowed Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann of the New America Foundation to write an op-ed criticizing Bumiller's article, in which they concluded, from an examination of the report (PDF), that a more probable figure for recidivism - based on the fact that there were "12 former detainees who can be independently confirmed to have taken part in terrorist acts directed at American targets, and eight others suspected of such acts" - was "about 4 percent of the 534 men who have been released."

The Times later apologized by publishing an Editor's Note, noting that its original article should have stated that "about one in 20 of former Guantánamo prisoners described in the Pentagon report were now said to be engaging in terrorism," but as I explained at the time, the damage had already been done, as it led directly to the following assertion by former Vice President Dick Cheney, discussing the prisoners still held at Guantánamo:

[Dick Cheney] "Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, we learned yesterday, many were treated too leniently, because 1 in 7 cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East."

More important, the Times story conveniently appeared on the front page on the day that President Obama delivered a major national security speech at the National Archives, reviving the much-criticized military commissions at Guantánamo (which he had suspended on his first day in office), and also alerting the world to his depressing plans to hold some prisoners at Guantánamo indefinitely without charge or trial. These developments were profoundly dispiriting to those who hoped that Obama would thoroughly reverse and repudiate the Bush administration's innovations regarding detention policies and trials for prisoners seized in the "war on terror."

by: Joel225A

01-19-2011 @ 9:22am

No I have not , I will try . Honest thank you . Thanks for some brief comments also , I gather there is a strong inclination of propaganda at work in the concept we are rerleasing pows that are coming back to kill our innocents . well I guess unfortunately can believe our government would do that, which I find despitable also because it makes our troops believe we are doing it also which has to hurt their morale .

Does it answer my question ? Why did you think Obama did not follow through . I think he has a new perspective and believes he is doing rigth. I believe his motves are honest .

I am a conservative minded person, that does not make me right on issues , nor does it make me think our president is morally corrupt.

And as I stated anyway , asking soldiers to pick up weapons or other materiasl thay would be needed in a court of law in our courts from a battle field is not realistic . Its also dangerous .

But thanks.

Consider yourself a soldier on the battlefield .

by: WaveTossed

01-15-2011 @ 8:10pm

A nice, concise article from the Cato Institute:

http://www.cato.org/pressroom....

Relevant excerpt:
----------------------
Why Obama Needs to Close Gitmo
Legal Policy Analyst David H. Rittgers:
January 22, 2009

Media Contact: (202) 789-5200

"Using closed courts to try suspected terrorists plays the propaganda game in exactly the way our enemies want, and cheapens American justice on the world stage. Terrorism and insurgency constitute violence with a message. To effectively counter terrorists, we must provide a message of our own that denies a propaganda victory to their cause. Meting sound and irreproachable justice is an important way to do that.

by: Joel225A

01-16-2011 @ 11:17am

I really think it is best to be left open till at least we have stopped military operation in the middle east.

by: Joel225A

01-19-2011 @ 9:22am

No I have not , I will try . Honest thank you . Thanks for some brief comments also , I gather there is a strong inclination of propaganda at work in the concept we are rerleasing pows that are coming back to kill our innocents . well I guess unfortunately can believe our government would do that, which I find despitable also because it makes our troops believe we are doing it also which has to hurt their morale .

Does it answer my question ? Why did you think Obama did not follow through . I think he has a new perspective and believes he is doing rigth. I believe his motves are honest .

I am a conservative minded person, that does not make me right on issues , nor does it make me think our president is morally corrupt.

And as I stated anyway , asking soldiers to pick up weapons or other materiasl thay would be needed in a court of law in our courts from a battle field is not realistic . Its also dangerous .

But thanks.

Consider yourself a soldier on the battlefield .

by: WaveTossed

01-16-2011 @ 10:17pm

Why leave Gitmo open? If there is probable cause that the people imprisoned therein are guilty of terrorism or other crimes -- then put them on trial. Holding people without a trial is a violation of the Bill of Rights. And as David Rittgers of the Cato Institute states, holding people without a trial or having secret trials plays right into our enemies' hands. Then there is the "enhanced interrogation" issue otherwise known as torture.

When Obama was elected as President, one of his promises was to close Gitmo once and for all. Instead, he just signed a bill to keep it open indefinitely -- he broke his promise.

by: letjusticerolldown

01-17-2011 @ 7:03am

My neighbohood battled for its life against an awful 8-plex. The neighborhood cheered when the bulldozers finally took it out.

Come to find out--it wasn't the building causing the problems--and the problem remained with us today.

by: Joel225A

01-17-2011 @ 9:07am

The president has failed to deliver on other promises also. For one thing he has more information as President as he did as a Senator. He also has a different perspective . He voted against raising the debt limit as a Senator, I doubt he would not want the debt ceiling to be raised now.

I have always had a hard time understanding why we would require our soldiers who are in harms way to treat the battle field as a CSI crime scene and require them to gather proof that a jury would need to hold a prisoner during war time in our courts.

I do not even support the war, but I do support protecting our men and women in uniform . Many innocent people die during war on all sides , it is a even worse if we release someone because their army wears no uniform who then commits more acts of terror .

by: WaveTossed

01-15-2011 @ 8:10pm

A nice, concise article from the Cato Institute:

http://www.cato.org/pressroom....

Relevant excerpt:
----------------------
Why Obama Needs to Close Gitmo
Legal Policy Analyst David H. Rittgers:
January 22, 2009

Media Contact: (202) 789-5200

"Using closed courts to try suspected terrorists plays the propaganda game in exactly the way our enemies want, and cheapens American justice on the world stage. Terrorism and insurgency constitute violence with a message. To effectively counter terrorists, we must provide a message of our own that denies a propaganda victory to their cause. Meting sound and irreproachable justice is an important way to do that.

by: WaveTossed

01-17-2011 @ 8:26pm

It's fine to protect our soldiers. However, it's not fine to deny people their rights. I don't think that having the Gitmo prisoners charged with crimes and tried would require that soldiers in the battlefield would be required to become CSI agents.

by: Joel225A

01-17-2011 @ 9:18pm

When your being shot at , or being required to go into a building that may be dangerous to gather information to be used in a trial I would say is asking too much for a soldier . For anyone .

Our Commander in Chief has a responsibilty to protect his soldiers also. His Army . the fact you believe they are Cionstitutional rights given to POWs I happen to disagree with . But if that is the case , legally I assume Gitmo should be stopped. I don't understand why it is not then ? because according to the Constitution it is allowed to exist where it is .
Perhaps I see it through the context of history more. Lincoln treated the Constitution like it was a comic book . But the tradegy of war is innocent people are effected at times , not pleasant , but to stop the possibility of our troops being put in harms way I disagree with your view .

This war as in Vietnam also was fought without the sacrifices of the American citizens in general , we went on with our lives as normal in most part , except those of us who had our children go to and fight .
Perhaps that is also part of my concern , I know what it is like to have a son over there.

War is indeed something we should evaluate , and I do appreciate your view of those being imprisoned unjustly possibly as be wrong , but the hypocrit I am I see the greater wrong is having our boys murdered and wounded by those who are allowed to walk off the battlefield because of insufficient evidence and return to and kill once more.

by: Joel225A

01-16-2011 @ 11:17am

I really think it is best to be left open till at least we have stopped military operation in the middle east.

by: hillbilly66

01-18-2011 @ 1:33am

Guantanamo: When Will It Get Foreclosed?

I don't really care if it is ever foreclosed. (I guess that will occur if they miss a couple payments.) I just want it closed. Quickly.

by: WaveTossed

01-16-2011 @ 10:17pm

Why leave Gitmo open? If there is probable cause that the people imprisoned therein are guilty of terrorism or other crimes -- then put them on trial. Holding people without a trial is a violation of the Bill of Rights. And as David Rittgers of the Cato Institute states, holding people without a trial or having secret trials plays right into our enemies' hands. Then there is the "enhanced interrogation" issue otherwise known as torture.

When Obama was elected as President, one of his promises was to close Gitmo once and for all. Instead, he just signed a bill to keep it open indefinitely -- he broke his promise.

by: WaveTossed

01-18-2011 @ 4:32am

Joel225A wrote: "War is indeed something we should evaluate , and I do appreciate your view of those being imprisoned unjustly possibly as be wrong , but the hypocrit I am I see the greater wrong is having our boys murdered and wounded by those who are allowed to walk off the battlefield because of insufficient evidence and return to and kill once more."

You are assuming that either they will be held without trial or else, if they are tried, they will be cut loose to kill once more. If they are truly guilty of crimes, they will be tried and given whatever penalties are called for.

As I recall, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on the habeas corpus of the Gitmo prisoners.

"Lincoln treated the Constitution like it was a comic book"

Is our Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights truly a comic book? I don't think so. It's what makes our nation great. The more we ignore our Constitution, our nation becomes less and less great.

by: letjusticerolldown

01-17-2011 @ 7:03am

My neighbohood battled for its life against an awful 8-plex. The neighborhood cheered when the bulldozers finally took it out.

Come to find out--it wasn't the building causing the problems--and the problem remained with us today.

by: Joel225A

01-17-2011 @ 9:07am

The president has failed to deliver on other promises also. For one thing he has more information as President as he did as a Senator. He also has a different perspective . He voted against raising the debt limit as a Senator, I doubt he would not want the debt ceiling to be raised now.

I have always had a hard time understanding why we would require our soldiers who are in harms way to treat the battle field as a CSI crime scene and require them to gather proof that a jury would need to hold a prisoner during war time in our courts.

I do not even support the war, but I do support protecting our men and women in uniform . Many innocent people die during war on all sides , it is a even worse if we release someone because their army wears no uniform who then commits more acts of terror .

by: Joel225A

01-18-2011 @ 9:16am

"You are assuming that either they will be held without trial or else, if they are tried, they will be cut loose to kill once more. If they are truly guilty of crimes, they will be tried and given whatever penalties are called for."

Thats not true. have you even read about this ?

http://www.reuters.com/article...

I am saying it is impossible to gather evidence for a war crime at times when you are in the middle of a battle " all the time " . That is obvious , do you know anyone who has been on a battlefield , just ask them . Its the last thing on their mind . My son could not drive down the road with me after he got back from Iraq without looking at all the possible places bombs could be planted . People in war zone have other priorites , namely staying alive . He told me in a war zone it is like everything is slow motion . . Your asking too much . and I believe saying we should release POWs because of rhetoric about America loosing its greatness without your even appreciattion of the possible lives that will be put at risk is sad. You have not offered any information of what law is being broken , and why say we did not put on trial the POWs during WW 2 . Is it because if you do not wear a uniform , you get benefits from the American Justice System. I am not following your logic , your not explaining .

If we are eventually do meet your requirements for greatness , at least appreciate the added risks to lives that it costs . You seem so far not even to be aware of it .

Our system of justice for its citizens requires guilt to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt . If they are truly guilty they will of course not automatically be found guilty . That is what makes America great . . Our system does that now , we release the guilty at times because we as a free people believe it is better for the state to prove guilt .

I never said the Constitution was a Comic Book . as I said my son put his life on the line for that Constitution . Lincoln did away with habeas corpus, put newspaper editors in jail that disagreed with continuing the war.

If we violated the Constitution with gitmo , explain how ....

If you think Obama has caused this nation to become weaker , why do you think he refuses to close Gitmo ?

I am curious to you explaining why you think he is not concerned with America being great. Do you think our president , a lawyer, who obviopusly has a strong understanding of the Constituion is purposely going against it ? Commiting Treason ?

. I think he is listening to military advisors . I am not sure who you been listenign to , but would consider it approriate if you respect those whose lives are in danger now . You do realize of course we have already released prisoners from Gitmo that have returned to terrorism .

http://www.reuters.com/article...

by: WaveTossed

01-18-2011 @ 6:18pm

Joel225A: have you read this?

http://www.fff.org/comment/com...

Or this:

http://law.shu.edu/ProgramsCen...

Revelant excerpts:
----------------
That organization is the Pentagon, and its habit of issuing announcements regarding the alleged recidivism of prisoners released from Guantánamo - without documentation to back up its claims -- has also exposed a startling lack of journalistic integrity in the mainstream media. Although the Pentagon had regularly drip-fed alarmist reports about recidivism into the media during the Bush administration, which were picked up and reported despite their lack of sources and their often contradictory nature - as explained in a detailed report by researchers at the Seton Hall Law School in New Jersey (PDF [see link above-WT]) - the propaganda war has become noticeably more bold under President Obama.

The first report under Obama, issued on May 21, 2009, gained high-profile approval when, to its shame, the New York Times uncritically published a front-page story entitled, "1 In 7 Detainees Rejoined Jihad, Pentagon Finds," in which Elisabeth Bumiller, relying on an advance copy of a Pentagon report, stated that "74 prisoners released from Guantánamo have returned to terrorism, making for a recidivism rate of nearly 14 percent."

In fact, the Pentagon had only provided names and "confirmation" for 27 of the 74 prisoners cited in the report, and there were doubts about the recidivism of some of the 27 prisoners named in the report, as was revealed a week later, when the Times allowed Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann of the New America Foundation to write an op-ed criticizing Bumiller's article, in which they concluded, from an examination of the report (PDF), that a more probable figure for recidivism - based on the fact that there were "12 former detainees who can be independently confirmed to have taken part in terrorist acts directed at American targets, and eight others suspected of such acts" - was "about 4 percent of the 534 men who have been released."

The Times later apologized by publishing an Editor's Note, noting that its original article should have stated that "about one in 20 of former Guantánamo prisoners described in the Pentagon report were now said to be engaging in terrorism," but as I explained at the time, the damage had already been done, as it led directly to the following assertion by former Vice President Dick Cheney, discussing the prisoners still held at Guantánamo:

[Dick Cheney] "Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, we learned yesterday, many were treated too leniently, because 1 in 7 cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East."

More important, the Times story conveniently appeared on the front page on the day that President Obama delivered a major national security speech at the National Archives, reviving the much-criticized military commissions at Guantánamo (which he had suspended on his first day in office), and also alerting the world to his depressing plans to hold some prisoners at Guantánamo indefinitely without charge or trial. These developments were profoundly dispiriting to those who hoped that Obama would thoroughly reverse and repudiate the Bush administration's innovations regarding detention policies and trials for prisoners seized in the "war on terror."

by: WaveTossed

01-17-2011 @ 8:26pm

It's fine to protect our soldiers. However, it's not fine to deny people their rights. I don't think that having the Gitmo prisoners charged with crimes and tried would require that soldiers in the battlefield would be required to become CSI agents.

by: Joel225A

01-17-2011 @ 9:18pm

When your being shot at , or being required to go into a building that may be dangerous to gather information to be used in a trial I would say is asking too much for a soldier . For anyone .

Our Commander in Chief has a responsibilty to protect his soldiers also. His Army . the fact you believe they are Cionstitutional rights given to POWs I happen to disagree with . But if that is the case , legally I assume Gitmo should be stopped. I don't understand why it is not then ? because according to the Constitution it is allowed to exist where it is .
Perhaps I see it through the context of history more. Lincoln treated the Constitution like it was a comic book . But the tradegy of war is innocent people are effected at times , not pleasant , but to stop the possibility of our troops being put in harms way I disagree with your view .

This war as in Vietnam also was fought without the sacrifices of the American citizens in general , we went on with our lives as normal in most part , except those of us who had our children go to and fight .
Perhaps that is also part of my concern , I know what it is like to have a son over there.

War is indeed something we should evaluate , and I do appreciate your view of those being imprisoned unjustly possibly as be wrong , but the hypocrit I am I see the greater wrong is having our boys murdered and wounded by those who are allowed to walk off the battlefield because of insufficient evidence and return to and kill once more.

by: hillbilly66

01-18-2011 @ 1:33am

Guantanamo: When Will It Get Foreclosed?

I don't really care if it is ever foreclosed. (I guess that will occur if they miss a couple payments.) I just want it closed. Quickly.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: WaveTossed

01-15-2011 @ 8:10pm

A nice, concise article from the Cato Institute:

http://www.cato.org/pressroom....

Relevant excerpt:
----------------------
Why Obama Needs to Close Gitmo
Legal Policy Analyst David H. Rittgers:
January 22, 2009

Media Contact: (202) 789-5200

"Using closed courts to try suspected terrorists plays the propaganda game in exactly the way our enemies want, and cheapens American justice on the world stage. Terrorism and insurgency constitute violence with a message. To effectively counter terrorists, we must provide a message of our own that denies a propaganda victory to their cause. Meting sound and irreproachable justice is an important way to do that.

by: WaveTossed

01-15-2011 @ 8:10pm

A nice, concise article from the Cato Institute:

http://www.cato.org/pressroom....

Relevant excerpt:
----------------------
Why Obama Needs to Close Gitmo
Legal Policy Analyst David H. Rittgers:
January 22, 2009

Media Contact: (202) 789-5200

"Using closed courts to try suspected terrorists plays the propaganda game in exactly the way our enemies want, and cheapens American justice on the world stage. Terrorism and insurgency constitute violence with a message. To effectively counter terrorists, we must provide a message of our own that denies a propaganda victory to their cause. Meting sound and irreproachable justice is an important way to do that.

by: Joel225A

01-16-2011 @ 11:17am

I really think it is best to be left open till at least we have stopped military operation in the middle east.

by: Joel225A

01-16-2011 @ 11:17am

I really think it is best to be left open till at least we have stopped military operation in the middle east.

by: WaveTossed

01-16-2011 @ 10:17pm

Why leave Gitmo open? If there is probable cause that the people imprisoned therein are guilty of terrorism or other crimes -- then put them on trial. Holding people without a trial is a violation of the Bill of Rights. And as David Rittgers of the Cato Institute states, holding people without a trial or having secret trials plays right into our enemies' hands. Then there is the "enhanced interrogation" issue otherwise known as torture.

When Obama was elected as President, one of his promises was to close Gitmo once and for all. Instead, he just signed a bill to keep it open indefinitely -- he broke his promise.

by: WaveTossed

01-16-2011 @ 10:17pm

Why leave Gitmo open? If there is probable cause that the people imprisoned therein are guilty of terrorism or other crimes -- then put them on trial. Holding people without a trial is a violation of the Bill of Rights. And as David Rittgers of the Cato Institute states, holding people without a trial or having secret trials plays right into our enemies' hands. Then there is the "enhanced interrogation" issue otherwise known as torture.

When Obama was elected as President, one of his promises was to close Gitmo once and for all. Instead, he just signed a bill to keep it open indefinitely -- he broke his promise.

by: letjusticerolldown

01-17-2011 @ 7:03am

My neighbohood battled for its life against an awful 8-plex. The neighborhood cheered when the bulldozers finally took it out.

Come to find out--it wasn't the building causing the problems--and the problem remained with us today.

by: letjusticerolldown

01-17-2011 @ 7:03am

My neighbohood battled for its life against an awful 8-plex. The neighborhood cheered when the bulldozers finally took it out.

Come to find out--it wasn't the building causing the problems--and the problem remained with us today.

by: Joel225A

01-17-2011 @ 9:07am

The president has failed to deliver on other promises also. For one thing he has more information as President as he did as a Senator. He also has a different perspective . He voted against raising the debt limit as a Senator, I doubt he would not want the debt ceiling to be raised now.

I have always had a hard time understanding why we would require our soldiers who are in harms way to treat the battle field as a CSI crime scene and require them to gather proof that a jury would need to hold a prisoner during war time in our courts.

I do not even support the war, but I do support protecting our men and women in uniform . Many innocent people die during war on all sides , it is a even worse if we release someone because their army wears no uniform who then commits more acts of terror .

by: Joel225A

01-17-2011 @ 9:07am

The president has failed to deliver on other promises also. For one thing he has more information as President as he did as a Senator. He also has a different perspective . He voted against raising the debt limit as a Senator, I doubt he would not want the debt ceiling to be raised now.

I have always had a hard time understanding why we would require our soldiers who are in harms way to treat the battle field as a CSI crime scene and require them to gather proof that a jury would need to hold a prisoner during war time in our courts.

I do not even support the war, but I do support protecting our men and women in uniform . Many innocent people die during war on all sides , it is a even worse if we release someone because their army wears no uniform who then commits more acts of terror .

by: WaveTossed

01-17-2011 @ 8:26pm

It's fine to protect our soldiers. However, it's not fine to deny people their rights. I don't think that having the Gitmo prisoners charged with crimes and tried would require that soldiers in the battlefield would be required to become CSI agents.

by: WaveTossed

01-17-2011 @ 8:26pm

It's fine to protect our soldiers. However, it's not fine to deny people their rights. I don't think that having the Gitmo prisoners charged with crimes and tried would require that soldiers in the battlefield would be required to become CSI agents.

by: Joel225A

01-17-2011 @ 9:18pm

When your being shot at , or being required to go into a building that may be dangerous to gather information to be used in a trial I would say is asking too much for a soldier . For anyone .

Our Commander in Chief has a responsibilty to protect his soldiers also. His Army . the fact you believe they are Cionstitutional rights given to POWs I happen to disagree with . But if that is the case , legally I assume Gitmo should be stopped. I don't understand why it is not then ? because according to the Constitution it is allowed to exist where it is .
Perhaps I see it through the context of history more. Lincoln treated the Constitution like it was a comic book . But the tradegy of war is innocent people are effected at times , not pleasant , but to stop the possibility of our troops being put in harms way I disagree with your view .

This war as in Vietnam also was fought without the sacrifices of the American citizens in general , we went on with our lives as normal in most part , except those of us who had our children go to and fight .
Perhaps that is also part of my concern , I know what it is like to have a son over there.

War is indeed something we should evaluate , and I do appreciate your view of those being imprisoned unjustly possibly as be wrong , but the hypocrit I am I see the greater wrong is having our boys murdered and wounded by those who are allowed to walk off the battlefield because of insufficient evidence and return to and kill once more.

by: Joel225A

01-17-2011 @ 9:18pm

When your being shot at , or being required to go into a building that may be dangerous to gather information to be used in a trial I would say is asking too much for a soldier . For anyone .

Our Commander in Chief has a responsibilty to protect his soldiers also. His Army . the fact you believe they are Cionstitutional rights given to POWs I happen to disagree with . But if that is the case , legally I assume Gitmo should be stopped. I don't understand why it is not then ? because according to the Constitution it is allowed to exist where it is .
Perhaps I see it through the context of history more. Lincoln treated the Constitution like it was a comic book . But the tradegy of war is innocent people are effected at times , not pleasant , but to stop the possibility of our troops being put in harms way I disagree with your view .

This war as in Vietnam also was fought without the sacrifices of the American citizens in general , we went on with our lives as normal in most part , except those of us who had our children go to and fight .
Perhaps that is also part of my concern , I know what it is like to have a son over there.

War is indeed something we should evaluate , and I do appreciate your view of those being imprisoned unjustly possibly as be wrong , but the hypocrit I am I see the greater wrong is having our boys murdered and wounded by those who are allowed to walk off the battlefield because of insufficient evidence and return to and kill once more.

by: hillbilly66

01-18-2011 @ 1:33am

Guantanamo: When Will It Get Foreclosed?

I don't really care if it is ever foreclosed. (I guess that will occur if they miss a couple payments.) I just want it closed. Quickly.

by: hillbilly66

01-18-2011 @ 1:33am

Guantanamo: When Will It Get Foreclosed?

I don't really care if it is ever foreclosed. (I guess that will occur if they miss a couple payments.) I just want it closed. Quickly.

by: WaveTossed

01-18-2011 @ 4:32am

Joel225A wrote: "War is indeed something we should evaluate , and I do appreciate your view of those being imprisoned unjustly possibly as be wrong , but the hypocrit I am I see the greater wrong is having our boys murdered and wounded by those who are allowed to walk off the battlefield because of insufficient evidence and return to and kill once more."

You are assuming that either they will be held without trial or else, if they are tried, they will be cut loose to kill once more. If they are truly guilty of crimes, they will be tried and given whatever penalties are called for.

As I recall, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on the habeas corpus of the Gitmo prisoners.

"Lincoln treated the Constitution like it was a comic book"

Is our Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights truly a comic book? I don't think so. It's what makes our nation great. The more we ignore our Constitution, our nation becomes less and less great.

by: WaveTossed

01-18-2011 @ 4:32am

Joel225A wrote: "War is indeed something we should evaluate , and I do appreciate your view of those being imprisoned unjustly possibly as be wrong , but the hypocrit I am I see the greater wrong is having our boys murdered and wounded by those who are allowed to walk off the battlefield because of insufficient evidence and return to and kill once more."

You are assuming that either they will be held without trial or else, if they are tried, they will be cut loose to kill once more. If they are truly guilty of crimes, they will be tried and given whatever penalties are called for.

As I recall, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on the habeas corpus of the Gitmo prisoners.

"Lincoln treated the Constitution like it was a comic book"

Is our Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights truly a comic book? I don't think so. It's what makes our nation great. The more we ignore our Constitution, our nation becomes less and less great.

by: Joel225A

01-18-2011 @ 9:16am

"You are assuming that either they will be held without trial or else, if they are tried, they will be cut loose to kill once more. If they are truly guilty of crimes, they will be tried and given whatever penalties are called for."

Thats not true. have you even read about this ?

http://www.reuters.com/article...

I am saying it is impossible to gather evidence for a war crime at times when you are in the middle of a battle " all the time " . That is obvious , do you know anyone who has been on a battlefield , just ask them . Its the last thing on their mind . My son could not drive down the road with me after he got back from Iraq without looking at all the possible places bombs could be planted . People in war zone have other priorites , namely staying alive . He told me in a war zone it is like everything is slow motion . . Your asking too much . and I believe saying we should release POWs because of rhetoric about America loosing its greatness without your even appreciattion of the possible lives that will be put at risk is sad. You have not offered any information of what law is being broken , and why say we did not put on trial the POWs during WW 2 . Is it because if you do not wear a uniform , you get benefits from the American Justice System. I am not following your logic , your not explaining .

If we are eventually do meet your requirements for greatness , at least appreciate the added risks to lives that it costs . You seem so far not even to be aware of it .

Our system of justice for its citizens requires guilt to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt . If they are truly guilty they will of course not automatically be found guilty . That is what makes America great . . Our system does that now , we release the guilty at times because we as a free people believe it is better for the state to prove guilt .

I never said the Constitution was a Comic Book . as I said my son put his life on the line for that Constitution . Lincoln did away with habeas corpus, put newspaper editors in jail that disagreed with continuing the war.

If we violated the Constitution with gitmo , explain how ....

If you think Obama has caused this nation to become weaker , why do you think he refuses to close Gitmo ?

I am curious to you explaining why you think he is not concerned with America being great. Do you think our president , a lawyer, who obviopusly has a strong understanding of the Constituion is purposely going against it ? Commiting Treason ?

. I think he is listening to military advisors . I am not sure who you been listenign to , but would consider it approriate if you respect those whose lives are in danger now . You do realize of course we have already released prisoners from Gitmo that have returned to terrorism .

http://www.reuters.com/article...

by: Joel225A

01-18-2011 @ 9:16am

"You are assuming that either they will be held without trial or else, if they are tried, they will be cut loose to kill once more. If they are truly guilty of crimes, they will be tried and given whatever penalties are called for."

Thats not true. have you even read about this ?

http://www.reuters.com/article...

I am saying it is impossible to gather evidence for a war crime at times when you are in the middle of a battle " all the time " . That is obvious , do you know anyone who has been on a battlefield , just ask them . Its the last thing on their mind . My son could not drive down the road with me after he got back from Iraq without looking at all the possible places bombs could be planted . People in war zone have other priorites , namely staying alive . He told me in a war zone it is like everything is slow motion . . Your asking too much . and I believe saying we should release POWs because of rhetoric about America loosing its greatness without your even appreciattion of the possible lives that will be put at risk is sad. You have not offered any information of what law is being broken , and why say we did not put on trial the POWs during WW 2 . Is it because if you do not wear a uniform , you get benefits from the American Justice System. I am not following your logic , your not explaining .

If we are eventually do meet your requirements for greatness , at least appreciate the added risks to lives that it costs . You seem so far not even to be aware of it .

Our system of justice for its citizens requires guilt to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt . If they are truly guilty they will of course not automatically be found guilty . That is what makes America great . . Our system does that now , we release the guilty at times because we as a free people believe it is better for the state to prove guilt .

I never said the Constitution was a Comic Book . as I said my son put his life on the line for that Constitution . Lincoln did away with habeas corpus, put newspaper editors in jail that disagreed with continuing the war.

If we violated the Constitution with gitmo , explain how ....

If you think Obama has caused this nation to become weaker , why do you think he refuses to close Gitmo ?

I am curious to you explaining why you think he is not concerned with America being great. Do you think our president , a lawyer, who obviopusly has a strong understanding of the Constituion is purposely going against it ? Commiting Treason ?

. I think he is listening to military advisors . I am not sure who you been listenign to , but would consider it approriate if you respect those whose lives are in danger now . You do realize of course we have already released prisoners from Gitmo that have returned to terrorism .

http://www.reuters.com/article...

by: WaveTossed

01-18-2011 @ 6:18pm

Joel225A: have you read this?

http://www.fff.org/comment/com...

Or this:

http://law.shu.edu/ProgramsCen...

Revelant excerpts:
----------------
That organization is the Pentagon, and its habit of issuing announcements regarding the alleged recidivism of prisoners released from Guantánamo - without documentation to back up its claims -- has also exposed a startling lack of journalistic integrity in the mainstream media. Although the Pentagon had regularly drip-fed alarmist reports about recidivism into the media during the Bush administration, which were picked up and reported despite their lack of sources and their often contradictory nature - as explained in a detailed report by researchers at the Seton Hall Law School in New Jersey (PDF [see link above-WT]) - the propaganda war has become noticeably more bold under President Obama.

The first report under Obama, issued on May 21, 2009, gained high-profile approval when, to its shame, the New York Times uncritically published a front-page story entitled, "1 In 7 Detainees Rejoined Jihad, Pentagon Finds," in which Elisabeth Bumiller, relying on an advance copy of a Pentagon report, stated that "74 prisoners released from Guantánamo have returned to terrorism, making for a recidivism rate of nearly 14 percent."

In fact, the Pentagon had only provided names and "confirmation" for 27 of the 74 prisoners cited in the report, and there were doubts about the recidivism of some of the 27 prisoners named in the report, as was revealed a week later, when the Times allowed Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann of the New America Foundation to write an op-ed criticizing Bumiller's article, in which they concluded, from an examination of the report (PDF), that a more probable figure for recidivism - based on the fact that there were "12 former detainees who can be independently confirmed to have taken part in terrorist acts directed at American targets, and eight others suspected of such acts" - was "about 4 percent of the 534 men who have been released."

The Times later apologized by publishing an Editor's Note, noting that its original article should have stated that "about one in 20 of former Guantánamo prisoners described in the Pentagon report were now said to be engaging in terrorism," but as I explained at the time, the damage had already been done, as it led directly to the following assertion by former Vice President Dick Cheney, discussing the prisoners still held at Guantánamo:

[Dick Cheney] "Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, we learned yesterday, many were treated too leniently, because 1 in 7 cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East."

More important, the Times story conveniently appeared on the front page on the day that President Obama delivered a major national security speech at the National Archives, reviving the much-criticized military commissions at Guantánamo (which he had suspended on his first day in office), and also alerting the world to his depressing plans to hold some prisoners at Guantánamo indefinitely without charge or trial. These developments were profoundly dispiriting to those who hoped that Obama would thoroughly reverse and repudiate the Bush administration's innovations regarding detention policies and trials for prisoners seized in the "war on terror."

by: WaveTossed

01-18-2011 @ 6:18pm

Joel225A: have you read this?

http://www.fff.org/comment/com...

Or this:

http://law.shu.edu/ProgramsCen...

Revelant excerpts:
----------------
That organization is the Pentagon, and its habit of issuing announcements regarding the alleged recidivism of prisoners released from Guantánamo - without documentation to back up its claims -- has also exposed a startling lack of journalistic integrity in the mainstream media. Although the Pentagon had regularly drip-fed alarmist reports about recidivism into the media during the Bush administration, which were picked up and reported despite their lack of sources and their often contradictory nature - as explained in a detailed report by researchers at the Seton Hall Law School in New Jersey (PDF [see link above-WT]) - the propaganda war has become noticeably more bold under President Obama.

The first report under Obama, issued on May 21, 2009, gained high-profile approval when, to its shame, the New York Times uncritically published a front-page story entitled, "1 In 7 Detainees Rejoined Jihad, Pentagon Finds," in which Elisabeth Bumiller, relying on an advance copy of a Pentagon report, stated that "74 prisoners released from Guantánamo have returned to terrorism, making for a recidivism rate of nearly 14 percent."

In fact, the Pentagon had only provided names and "confirmation" for 27 of the 74 prisoners cited in the report, and there were doubts about the recidivism of some of the 27 prisoners named in the report, as was revealed a week later, when the Times allowed Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann of the New America Foundation to write an op-ed criticizing Bumiller's article, in which they concluded, from an examination of the report (PDF), that a more probable figure for recidivism - based on the fact that there were "12 former detainees who can be independently confirmed to have taken part in terrorist acts directed at American targets, and eight others suspected of such acts" - was "about 4 percent of the 534 men who have been released."

The Times later apologized by publishing an Editor's Note, noting that its original article should have stated that "about one in 20 of former Guantánamo prisoners described in the Pentagon report were now said to be engaging in terrorism," but as I explained at the time, the damage had already been done, as it led directly to the following assertion by former Vice President Dick Cheney, discussing the prisoners still held at Guantánamo:

[Dick Cheney] "Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, we learned yesterday, many were treated too leniently, because 1 in 7 cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East."

More important, the Times story conveniently appeared on the front page on the day that President Obama delivered a major national security speech at the National Archives, reviving the much-criticized military commissions at Guantánamo (which he had suspended on his first day in office), and also alerting the world to his depressing plans to hold some prisoners at Guantánamo indefinitely without charge or trial. These developments were profoundly dispiriting to those who hoped that Obama would thoroughly reverse and repudiate the Bush administration's innovations regarding detention policies and trials for prisoners seized in the "war on terror."

by: Joel225A

01-19-2011 @ 9:22am

No I have not , I will try . Honest thank you . Thanks for some brief comments also , I gather there is a strong inclination of propaganda at work in the concept we are rerleasing pows that are coming back to kill our innocents . well I guess unfortunately can believe our government would do that, which I find despitable also because it makes our troops believe we are doing it also which has to hurt their morale .

Does it answer my question ? Why did you think Obama did not follow through . I think he has a new perspective and believes he is doing rigth. I believe his motves are honest .

I am a conservative minded person, that does not make me right on issues , nor does it make me think our president is morally corrupt.

And as I stated anyway , asking soldiers to pick up weapons or other materiasl thay would be needed in a court of law in our courts from a battle field is not realistic . Its also dangerous .

But thanks.

Consider yourself a soldier on the battlefield .

by: Joel225A

01-19-2011 @ 9:22am

No I have not , I will try . Honest thank you . Thanks for some brief comments also , I gather there is a strong inclination of propaganda at work in the concept we are rerleasing pows that are coming back to kill our innocents . well I guess unfortunately can believe our government would do that, which I find despitable also because it makes our troops believe we are doing it also which has to hurt their morale .

Does it answer my question ? Why did you think Obama did not follow through . I think he has a new perspective and believes he is doing rigth. I believe his motves are honest .

I am a conservative minded person, that does not make me right on issues , nor does it make me think our president is morally corrupt.

And as I stated anyway , asking soldiers to pick up weapons or other materiasl thay would be needed in a court of law in our courts from a battle field is not realistic . Its also dangerous .

But thanks.

Consider yourself a soldier on the battlefield .