"Prolonged detention" in Gitmo: Is Obama selling out the Democratic Party?

[derby378]

Poll question: "Prolonged detention" in Gitmo: Is Obama selling out the Democratic Party?

This comes on the heels of a report that Obama "curtly" dismissed the idea of prosecuting Bush administration officials for torture. Is Obama turning his back on those who put him in office?

[Schema Thing]

1. He reiterated his resolve to close Gitmo today.

[derby378]

3. If Gitmo is closed, will the detainees still be held without trial?

If so, it doesn't matter. Obama is now talking about establishing a Department of Pre-Crime.

[elleng]

2. 'REPORT' that he 'curtly' dismissed?

Don't believe it.

Did Reporter listen to his speech????

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Other, this is not about principles but empire and the powers of the

military industrial complex.

Ike warned us...

That's the result.

[leftofthedial]

5. I'm more than a little concerned at his attitude toward human rights,

our civil liberties, and war crimes.

He's no cheney, thank ford, but he's also no champion.

[frogcycle]

6. Not

If one actually listens to the words, and processes them in the sequence in which they were uttered, one understands that he was handed a Gordian knot and he has people carefully unsnarling it. He tossed out some numbers, and I doubt they were just selected randomly (as opposed to the Pentagon's 1 in 7 number). He said there are "about 40" people who we know are bad guys - really bad guys with records, not just aspirations - whom we could not convict because the only evidence we might have had is tainted. That probably means gained through torture, or other illegal means. It probably includes KSM and AZ.

In the US criminal justice system people who cannot be convicted walk free. Think OJ. Obama rejects that remedy to prosecutorial abuse in the case of these guys, and I think him wise to do so.

What he is saying is that the mess was made when these guys were rounded up and treated as they have been and you may not be able to wind back the clock with respect to them. But he also says he wants some sort of legal entity to oversee any such decisions, with transparency.

I'd rather be a purist and say you can't invent new laws to justify what you are already doing, but I am forced to accept that pragmatism and common sense dictate finding a way to give these guys the "life without parole" sentence they are purported to deserve despite the lack of ability to do it using existing law.

[derby378]

7. In that case, give each detainee the trial he's been denied since 2002

Let's get it over and done with so that they can be properly incarcerated in some maximum security prison on American soil. Holding them indefinitely without trial, however, is not an option.

[frogcycle]

12. Did you not read what I wrote?

The trials these ~40 have been denied would flop and they'd walk. THAT is the gordian know with which he is wrestling. A bunch of them can be tried and locked up, and some should just be sent home. Its the remainder that present the thorny issue, and he appears to be trying very hard to do the right thing, which is lock them away forever with sufficient oversight and guidelines that it cannot set a precedent for the future.

[derby378]

18. The Constitution does not recognize exceptions to the rule

If we cannot bring charges against these 40-or-so detainees that result in conviction, that's not their fault. If the only evidence we have against them was extracted through torture or other nefarious means, then it's all on Bush's shoulders, but we have to set them free. Just like OJ was set free because the justice system failed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

[frogcycle]

19. Oh my fucking god

"it's all on Bush's shoulders, but we have to set them free. Just like OJ was set free because the justice system failed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman."

That is the most insane sentence I have ever seen written.

[frogcycle]

20. Oh my fucking god

"it's all on Bush's shoulders, but we have to set them free. Just like OJ was set free because the justice system failed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman."

That is the most insane sentence I have ever seen written.

[Ohio Joe]

17. I think you have it exactly right - nt

[Pirate Smile]

8. Is Prolonged Detention the equivalent of POW? POW's are released after the war is over.

We've had POW's in every war. What did we do with them?

[derby378]

10. Good point - but then again, we're not at war

All rhetoric aside, our nation is engaged in two police actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, one of which violates the rules of the United Nations. So these detainees are not POWs.

[frogcycle]

13. repatriated them when the war was over, or

tried them for war crimes.

[Pirate Smile]

15. It seems like the equivalent of not releasing soldiers to return to the battlefield aka POWs

I'm only talking about the 20-40(?) they are talking about re using Prolonged Detention - who they view as too dangerous to release and don't fit into the other categories.

POW seems the closest equivalent category. The problem was the dumbasses in the Bush Administration decided they didn't have to follow the Geneva Conventions which has been reversed by Obama.

[Bandit]

21. Didn't I read a short while ago that Obama ended "War on Terror"?

The "war" is over...The occupations of two or more countries is still going on but that will go on forever.

[Lord Helmet]

9. he referred to it as if and when ---- it's still a hypothetical

[grantcart]

11. Selling out the Party -- now that is rich

Yesterday the Democrats in the Senate passed a resolution that does not support a single Gitmo prisoner being released to US soil even though some have been ordered to by the US.


The President has outlined how 4 groups are going to be dealt with but is honest saying that some MAY remain in what affect is a POW status.

Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here -- this is the toughest single issue that we will face. We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.


No people who have been trained for war against the US, who pledge allegiance to the war against the US, who have participated in acts against the US and "remain at war with the United States" should not be released.


Now if the rest of the elected Democrats in DC would get off their asses we can get the innocent, those that no longer want to kill Americans, those that can be tried out of Gitmo. Right now the President is the only Democrat doing shit about it. The party is selling him out and leaving him with the heavy lifting.

[frogcycle]

14. well said

good on ya

[Fumesucker]

16. Looking at the poll results it becomes quite clear why there is considerable friction here on DU..

DU is extremely divided and the division isn't that far from even..