PDA

View Full Version : Okay, MAYBE Gitmo wasn't such a good idea, after all ... MAYBE


Origen
06-21-2007, 10:13 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070622/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_guantanamo

White House near decision to close Gitmo
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is nearing a decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detainee facility and move its terror suspects to military prisons elsewhere, The Associated Press has learned.

Senior administration officials said Thursday a consensus is building for a proposal to shut the center and transfer detainees to one or more Defense Department facilities, including the maximum-security military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., where they could face trial.

President Bush's national security and legal advisers had been scheduled to discuss the move at a meeting Friday, the officials said, but after news of it broke, the White House said the meeting would not take place that day and no decision on Guantanamo Bay's status is imminent.

"It's no longer on the schedule for tomorrow," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council. "Senior officials have met on the issue in the past, and I expect they will meet on the issue in the future."

Three senior administration officials spoke about the discussions on condition of anonymity because they were internal deliberations.

Expected to consult soon, according to the officials, were Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace.

Previous plans to close Guantanamo ran into resistance from Cheney, Gonzales and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. But officials said the new suggestion is gaining momentum with at least tacit support from the State and Homeland Security departments, the Pentagon and the Intelligence directorate.

Cheney's office and the Justice Department have been against the step, arguing that moving "unlawful" enemy combatant suspects to the U.S. would give them undeserved legal rights.

They could block the proposal, but pressure to close Guantanamo has been building since a Supreme Court decision last year that found illegal a previous system for prosecuting enemy combatants. Recent rulings by military judges threw out charges against two terrorism suspects under a new tribunal scheme.

Those decisions have dealt a blow to the administration's efforts to begin prosecuting dozens of Guantanamo detainees regarded as the nation's most dangerous terror suspects.

In Congress, recently introduced legislation would require Guantanamo's closure. One measure would designate Fort Leavenworth, located about 30 miles northwest of Kansas City in northeast Kansas, as the new detention facility.

Another bill would grant new rights to those held at Guantanamo Bay, including access to lawyers regardless of whether the prisoners are put on trial. Still another would allow detainees to protest their detentions in federal court, something they are now denied.

Gates, who took over the Pentagon after Rumsfeld was forced out last year, has said Congress and the administration should work together to allow the U.S. to imprison permanently some of the more dangerous Guantanamo Bay detainees elsewhere so the facility can be closed.

Military officials told Congress this month that the prison at Fort Leavenworth has 70 open beds and that the brig at a naval base in Charleston, S.C., has space for an additional 100 prisoners.

The Guantanamo Bay prison, where some 380 alleged terrorists are now detained, has been a flash point for criticism of the Bush administration at home and abroad. It was set up in 2002 to house terror suspects captured in military operations, mostly in Afghanistan.

Because the facility is in Cuba, the administration has argued that detainees there are not covered by rights and protections afforded to those in U.S. prisons.

Human rights advocates and foreign leaders have repeatedly called for its closure, and the prison is regarded by many as proof of U.S. double standards on fundamental freedoms in the war on terrorism.

Some of the detainees come from countries that are U.S. allies, including Britain, Saudi Arabia and Australia. Each of those governments raised complaints about the conditions or duration of detentions, or about the possibility that detainees might face death sentences.

Rice has said she would like to see Guantanamo closed if a safe alternative could be found. She said during a trip to Spain this month that the United States "doesn't have any desire to be the world's jailer."

"I don't think anyone wants to see Guantanamo open one day longer than it is needed. But I also suspect nobody wants to see a number of dangerous people simply released out onto the streets," she said.

On Thursday, two Democratic lawmakers, Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida and Sen. Benjamin Cardin of Maryland, told a human rights commission that Guantanamo must be closed if the United States is to regain credibility and authority on human rights.

"The damage done to the United States goes beyond undermining our status as a global leader on human rights," Cardin said. "Our policies and practices regarding Guantanamo and other aspects of our detainee policies have undermined our authority to engage in the effective counterterrorism measures that are necessary for the very security of this country."

Officials say that Bush, who also has said he wants to close the facility as soon as possible, is keenly aware of its shortcomings.

His wife, Laura, and mother, Barbara, along with Rice and longtime adviser Karen Hughes, head of the public diplomacy office at the State Department, have told him that Guantanamo is a blot on the U.S. record abroad, particularly in the Muslim world and among European allies.

Bush has said the United States first has to determine what to do with the detainees there. The administration says some countries have refused to accept terror suspects from their territory.

Earlier this month, former Secretary of State Colin Powell called for the immediate closure of the prison, saying it posed an untenable foreign policy risk and was irreparably harming the U.S. image abroad.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said in statement that "removing the stain Guantanamo has left on our foreign policy" is long overdue.

"It also goes a long way toward returning America's moral authority in the world and addressing the mistakes which have set us back in the fight against terrorism," said Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate.

Rallan
06-22-2007, 12:14 AM
Gitmo's an unmitigated disaster and they know it, so their solution is to quietly move all the detainees to various other places and wait for the newspapers to stop saying "Guantanamo Bay"? That's some impressively lazy thinking right there.

David Argall
06-22-2007, 01:04 AM
A somewhat related reason for the administration wanting to close it is that the courts have not been friendly to the pitch that it is outside the Constitution, so they would like to close it before a solid slapdown happens.

Parzival
06-22-2007, 02:51 AM
DA, the courts have aknowledged that the jurisdiction of domestic law stops at the water's edge.
They've also aknowledged that Congress has the right to further restrict the jurisdiction of domestic law.
They've also aknowledged that military law does not guarantee the rights set fourth in the Bill of Rights.

Sorry, but you're batting a .000

The main reason this is being considered, is that it has been established pretty solidly that domestic law does not have jurisdiction over the detainees. That means the detainees can now be safely brought into the CONUS without the government fearing a major series of legal challenges. Gitmo is extremely expensive to resupply. Leavenworth is not. Gitmo conjures vague memories of all the scare stories proven untrue. Leavenworth is pretty much a blank slate for most people.

silverwhisper
06-22-2007, 10:29 AM
all the vague stories were proven to be untrue? really? so the vast majority of gitmo-held POWs who were determined not to be worth holding, that was untrue? i don't recall seeing that press release from tony snow.

David Argall
06-22-2007, 08:47 PM
DA, the courts have aknowledged that the jurisdiction of domestic law stops at the water's edge.
They've also aknowledged that Congress has the right to further restrict the jurisdiction of domestic law.
They've also aknowledged that military law does not guarantee the rights set fourth in the Bill of Rights.
Can we have some cases here?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901692.html
Two years ago, in Rasul v. Bush, which gave Guantanamo detainees the right to challenge their detention before a U.S. court, and in this year's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld , the Supreme Court appeared to settle the issue in favor of the detainees. But the new legislation approved by Congress last month, which gives Bush the authority to try detainees before military commissions, included a provision removing judicial review for all habeas claims.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9293465
The Supreme Court refuses to hear an appeal from Guantanamo Bay detainees who want to challenge their imprisonment. The refusal to review the federal law delivered a major, though perhaps temporary, victory to the Bush administration.

The law strips prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, of the right to challenge their detentions in court.

The justices don't normally give their reasons for not taking cases, but this time, two justices released a statement saying they're waiting to see if the special military courts adequately handle the detainees.

But in the detainee ruling, Justices Stevens and Kennedy said they would be in favor of hearing an appeal if the Bush administration delays the military proceedings.

http://www.americasfuture.net/courtmonitor/2007/2007-6-05.html
In Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), the Supreme Court held that the detainees enjoy habeas corpus rights, even though they are not located within the United States.

The main reason this is being considered, is that it has been established pretty solidly that domestic law does not have jurisdiction over the detainees.
This is clearly wrong, indeed the reverse of the case. The courts have been rejecting that claim, as the cases above show. Now we have the current attempt to limit court access, but the best that can be argued is that this is still unsettled. So the claim that domestic law does not apply can be deemed rejected, or unsettled, but not settled in its favor.

That means the detainees can now be safely brought into the CONUS without the government fearing a major series of legal challenges. Gitmo is extremely expensive to resupply. Leavenworth is not. Gitmo conjures vague memories of all the scare stories proven untrue. Leavenworth is pretty much a blank slate for most people.
Which amounts to saying Gitmo has become a public relations disaster, and a total failure.

Rallan
06-23-2007, 02:16 AM
all the vague stories were proven to be untrue? really? so the vast majority of gitmo-held POWs who were determined not to be worth holding, that was untrue? i don't recall seeing that press release from tony snow.

Totally. Just like its not true that oodles of them were never anywhere near a battlefield when they were detained. And its untrue that the only guilty plea they got was a plea bargain from an Australian who never attempted to harm any Americans. And its untrue that several countries have tried to take the CIA to court for its illegal extraordinary renditions. And its untrue that torture and murder have been performed in various facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. And its untrue that there are any hidden facilities in undisclosed locations in Eastern Europe. And its untrue that all the people still in Gitmo were only able to be charged with anything at all because of legislation passed in 2006 (and even then the military fucked up because it's turned out that it never got around to classifying any of the detainees as "unlawful combatants" in the first place). And its untrue that America's making up the rules as it goes so that it can redefine the rights of the prisoners and the scope of the trials as it sees fit. And its untrue that people have been handed over to countries like Syria and Egypt to be interrogated by local authorities using techniques that are illegal for the US to use.

It's lies, all lies, doubtless made up by the liberal media in a sinister plot to destroy democracy :)