Obama Gets Rid of Gitmo
Mr. Obama signed executive orders closing the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, within a year; ending the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret prisons; and requiring all interrogations to follow the noncoercive methods of the Army Field Manual.
However, the question of what to do with the enemy combatants is still unanswered.
Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said the decision to close the prison within a year “places hope ahead of reality — it sets an objective without a plan to get there.”
But I think he’s missing the point. We are sending a message to the world. It’s not going to be easy, but that’s how America rolls. At the birth of our nation, we claimed “all men are created equal,” yet allowed slavery for nearly a century more. Look where we are now. So, even though we don’t have a plan for how to close Guantanamo yet, we cannot sit idly by and allow our principles of freedom and due process to corrode simply because we are afraid of some third-world religious fanatics.
And anyone who thinks this means Obama is going to release a bunch of dangerous Islamic terrorists has seriously misunderestimated our new president.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
I first thought this was written by Steve so I was looking for the hidden sarcasm. I know understand via the author of this piece. Without a plan this move is just a symbolic gesture I guess to the world. But Obama said for a long time during his campaign that he was going to shut down Gitmo. So does that mean all this time he still has not come up with an answer on what to do after he shuts it down. If it takes Obama years to make a decision on big issues then we got problems. If he does know what he wants to do then why isnt he doing it? What is the hold up?
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
a sign that obama didn’t know what he was doing when he closed guantanamo bay.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_yemen_al_qaida
the lead:
CAIRO, Egypt – A Saudi man released from Guantanamo after spending nearly six years inside the U.S. prison camp is now the No. 2 of Yemen’s al-Qaida branch, according to a purported Internet statement from the terror network.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
PS - I’m pretty sure “misunderestimated” is a Bushism.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:16 am
“If it takes Obama years to make a decision on big issues then we got problems.”
Except that it took him about 24 hours to make a decision on Guantanamo, but the devil is in the details.
“a sign that obama didn’t know what he was doing when he closed guantanamo bay.”
A sign that he did: He gave himself a whole year (which will probably turn out to be longer) to figure that stuff out. This symbolic gesture benefits our standing in the world without immediately releasing terrorists into the wild. In this “global war on terror,” it helps to have as many allies as possible. So we get more international support for essentially doing nothing. And you say he doesn’t know what he’s doing.
“Misunderestimated” is definitely a Bushism. Isn’t nice to have a president who doesn’t have to make up words to communicate?
January 26th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Hey devil in the details boy.
Obama made the decision to close Gitmo when he was running for President. He said from the get go that if he was elected Pres he would shut it down. So his decision was made forever ago. And if he knew forever ago that he would shut down Gitmo has he not thought about what to do with all those inmates? Hence it it taking him a long time to come up with an actual plan. Yea its easy to make decisions without having to think about the consequences. Now that he has to it seems to be taking a long time to come up with a plan. I am just saying things are not easy for Presidents - there are a lot of ramifications to their positions. Lets not get all excited about Obama decsion to close the damn thing yet becuase he doesnt even know what to do next. Ceremonlal moves are great becuase they actually dont stand for anything. Make some bold and real moves that require thought and I will get excited.
January 26th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Who you callin “boy”?
It’s simple. Charge non-citizens with war crimes, charge citizens with treason. Try them accordingly. If you are unsatisfied with this, have Congress pass legislation to better define a legal path for enemy combatants and use that.
Locking them up indefinitely is simply not an option.
But what do you mean it’s taking him a long time to come up with a plan? By my reckoning he’s been President for 6 days.
January 26th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Well, I for one am shocked that he hasn’t brought about real change in 6 days. What’s taking so long!!!
January 27th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Your argument keeps coming back to the fact that he has only been president for a week. Is that when he turned his brain on and decided to start thinking? Did he not have any thoughts before Jan 20th. Why is it difficult to grasp that he has obvioulsy thought about this issue for a really long time and he still does not know what he wants to do?
January 27th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Sooo, terrorists back in al-qaida are good? acceptable cost? do elaborate.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
So, potentially innocent people held in permanent detention without charges is good? acceptable cost? Won’t piss off more people into wanting to bomb the United States?
Look, I understand that unlawful combatants are in a legal black hole. There’s no protocol for dealing with them, but does that mean we should deny them human rights? We toppled Saddam because he liked to imprison and torture people without charges. Now we do it. How is this ok with you?
Obama’s symbolic message has already prompted the European Union to agree to take custody of or help resettle prisoners.
Obama said last week he is upholding an “understanding that dates back to our founding fathers, that we are willing to observe the core standards of conduct not just when it’s easy but also when it’s hard.”
January 29th, 2009 at 12:45 am
a terrorist on his own has the potential to kill dozens… on his own. As a leader of a terrorist organization (like the one that already rejoined al-qaida as a leader), he has the ability to kill many more. So it doesn’t actually seem like this move helped protect the innocent. Then there’s the “creating terrorists” argument. The fact is, looking weak also generates terrorists. Notice how terrorists still somehow popped up during the Clinton years even though he did what he could to reconcile with them. I’m pretty sure fighting the terrorists with everything you’ve got is going to make them weaker in the long run, not stronger.
“We toppled Saddam because he liked to imprison and torture people without charges. Now we do it. How is this ok with you?”
Saddam imprisoned and tortured people unjustly. We do it in self defense, therefore it is just. A simpler example. Shooting people is bad, but shooting someone in self-defense is ok.
Now, I’m not saying that we should leave Guantanamo bay around. I’m saying that the president acted incompetently by letting everyone go. I’m sure there were other options. Furthermore, your point about the EU isn’t entirely accurate. They’ve decided to help resettle the ones “deemed innocent”.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
The problem I have with Guantanamo is the dangerous precedent it sets. Today we are rounding up potential terrorists and holding them without charge on the basis of secret evidence that we can’t see. We call it Just because someone said this guy was a terrorist. Well what happens tomorrow when our president wants to hold someone for political reasons, but calls them a terrorist, does not charge them, and does not have to present evidence? We will call it Just, because he is a terrorist as far as we know.
It is not smart to give the government the power to hold people indefinitely without charge. This is not a dictatorship, this is not a kingdom, this is not how we do things in America.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
It’s unclear as to whether Michael is distinguishing between citizen and non-citizen. If his comments are in reference to citizens its hard to disagree but if he includes non-citizens then I would have to disagree. There is a difference between the way the state should be allowed to handle citizens and non-citizens.
This is a nuance that many on the left love to generalize over.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
If the network is in place to ‘disappear’ a non-citizen, then it could be used to the same effect on a citizen by imperfect government officials.
But assuming it is a non-citizen, we are once again placed in the position of not knowing what to do with the prisoner, as well as engendering ill-will globally. Since the person is held in secret, it opens the door for torture, which I am firmly against. Extraordinary rendition, while potentially helpful, is not without its consequences, which in my opinion outweigh the benefit.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Perhaps you could be a tad bit more specific in how the calculus for rendition comes out in the positive while indefinite detainment does not.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
what? I disagree with both. Sorry, was I too nuanced for you? extraordinary rendition: BAD!
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
No my bad. I can’t read apparently.
Out of curiosity, as president how would you deal with the problem of non-citizens captured trying conspiring to harm US citizens. To make this more difficult, no country is willing to claim these people as their own citizens.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Shoot them twice in the head, make it look like an armed robbery or something.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I’m hoping that a more serious response is forthcoming.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
If you truly believe the guy to be a threat to our country and you can’t legally hold him, then neutralize him. Bullets are cheaper than prisons. If you do not believe he is a threat then you let him go on his merry way. It’s this middle ground muddling that I don’t like.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
So you are suggesting that the president should just secretly execute detainees that are truly a threat to our security but lack the evidence to prove it to be the case.
And if this gets out, will we make more terrorists and will work opinion be against us?
You can’t honestly be serious, can you?
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:32 pm
So what, now you want to leave terrorists alive to harm innocent civilians? You’ve gone soft.