Obama: Gitmo Likely Won't Close in First 100 Days...

Damocles

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Economy/story?id=6619291&page=1

Closing Guantanamo Bay More Difficult Than People Realize, President-Elect Tells George Stephanopoulos in Exclusive Interview on "This Week"

By MARY BRUCE
Jan. 11, 2009

President-elect Barack Obama said this weekend that he does not expect to close Guantanamo Bay in his first 100 days in office.

"I think it's going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do," Obama said in an exclusive "This Week" interview with George Stephanopoulos, his first since arriving in Washington.

"It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize," the president-elect explained. "Part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up."

But Obama said unequivocally that it will close. "I don't want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our Constitution. That is not only the right thing to do but it actually has to be part of our broader national security strategy because we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values."

More at link...
 
Hi Damo. I know this is one of your noncommittal posts and whatever I say, you'll say that's what you meant in the first place and why am I trying to "make" you "evil".

So, just my take on these statements. I watched the interview this morning, and the one thing I came away sure of is that he is closing Gitmo and there isn't going to be any more torture, and yeah that's why he tapped Panetta, which is what I thought since I first heard it.

And you should know that most of the left is well aware of what Bush/Cheney left with Gitmo.

Firstly, many of those guys should have never been there. But now that they have been held for years, guess what? They might be pissed. I don't know, but it's slightly if remotely possible. A lot of guys, they're not really doing' much with their lives anyway, and so, if some foreign government should pick them up and dump them in a shithole with bad outfits for 6 or 7 years, they don't really mind. But there's no guarantee they're all going to feel that way. So, a few of them might be looking for some payback. So that's one problem.

Then you have the problem of the handful, or maybe two handfuls, who actually were dangerous even before we arrested them and put them in a camp with no trial. Those guys were tortured into giving confessions, or as the more delicate like to put it "some of the evidence against them might be tainted" That's going to be inadmissable. Put them on trail NOW (rather than before bush/cheney tortured them), and they're going to be set free. Could be a problem. On the other hand, we can't keep them.

Now, I really don't care if it takes Obama 120 days or 150 days to close Gitmo. There are a few who will, but I don't. The bottom line is, he's closing it, and he came straight out this morning and said that waterboarding is torture and we are not doing it from Jan 20th forward.

I don't really see a problem here, but bac might, so you might get some "leftie outrage" mileage out of this after all.
 
Problem with Panetta and the CIA, renditions:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alex_s..._about_extraordinary_renditions_under_clinton

Did Leon Panetta know about 'extraordinary renditions' under Clinton?

Alex Spillius at Jan 6, 2009 at 20:39:48 [General]


Liberals might be in for a nasty shock with Leon Panetta, the man Barack Obama wants to lead the CIA.

The selection of the former White House chief of staff to Bill Clinton has been welcomed by many Democrats for his denunciations of torture and all round management abilities.

But according to one former agent, Michael Scheuer, the extraordinary rendition programme that has so tainted the agency during the Bush administration actually began in the Clinton administration, when Panetta would, or should, have been fully aware of it...
Click to expand...
 
Darla said:
Excellent - if this one agent who opposes Panetta is correct, that will mean big Republican support.

I presume you will be getting on board yourself now?
Click to expand...

LOL, I don't always, (?) agree with you, but you do make me laugh. Tried to rep you on the 'grammar' post. ;)
 
Darla said:
Hi Damo. I know this is one of your noncommittal posts and whatever I say, you'll say that's what you meant in the first place and why am I trying to "make" you "evil".

So, just my take on these statements. I watched the interview this morning, and the one thing I came away sure of is that he is closing Gitmo and there isn't going to be any more torture, and yeah that's why he tapped Panetta, which is what I thought since I first heard it.

And you should know that most of the left is well aware of what Bush/Cheney left with Gitmo.

Firstly, many of those guys should have never been there. But now that they have been held for years, guess what? They might be pissed. I don't know, but it's slightly if remotely possible. A lot of guys, they're not really doing' much with their lives anyway, and so, if some foreign government should pick them up and dump them in a shithole with bad outfits for 6 or 7 years, they don't really mind. But there's no guarantee they're all going to feel that way. So, a few of them might be looking for some payback. So that's one problem.

Then you have the problem of the handful, or maybe two handfuls, who actually were dangerous even before we arrested them and put them in a camp with no trial. Those guys were tortured into giving confessions, or as the more delicate like to put it "some of the evidence against them might be tainted" That's going to be inadmissable. Put them on trail NOW (rather than before bush/cheney tortured them), and they're going to be set free. Could be a problem. On the other hand, we can't keep them.

Now, I really don't care if it takes Obama 120 days or 150 days to close Gitmo. There are a few who will, but I don't. The bottom line is, he's closing it, and he came straight out this morning and said that waterboarding is torture and we are not doing it from Jan 20th forward.

I don't really see a problem here, but bac might, so you might get some "leftie outrage" mileage out of this after all.
Click to expand...
Why try to make it personal? All I did was post a news story that I didn't see on the site.
 
I suppose how quickly Guantanamo closes will be related to how many of the current residents can be palmed off onto other countries, some say mugs, allowing Obama to wash his hands of them.

As a resident of one of the chief mugs i am not a little put out by this. The Australians had the right idea by refusing outright to accept ex-inmates of that hell hole.

Don't get me wrong, it is not any security concern which bothers me as much as the cost of rehousing, resettlement and continued psychological treatment to which i object paying for. We have already taken back those we were responsible for, the (innocent) UK citizens and those previously resident in the UK, albeit our government dragged it's feet as much as humanly possible. The US government damaged these men and the US government should show the world it has 'changed' by repairing them, along with its own reputation.
 
Damocles said:
Why try to make it personal? All I did was post a news story that I didn't see on the site.
Click to expand...

I was giving my opinion. How did I make it personal? Did I start out the post with "Your mother"? Have you been spending time with the delicately sensitive spurt?
 
charver said:
I suppose how quickly Guantanamo closes will be related to how many of the current residents can be palmed off onto other countries, some say mugs, allowing Obama to wash his hands of them.

As a resident of one of the chief mugs i am not a little put out by this. The Australians had the right idea by refusing outright to accept ex-inmates of that hell hole.

Don't get me wrong, it is not any security concern which bothers me as much as the cost of rehousing, resettlement and continued psychological treatment to which i object paying for. We have already taken back those we were responsible for, the (innocent) UK citizens and those previously resident in the UK, albeit our government dragged it's feet as much as humanly possible. The US government damaged these men and the US government should show the world it has 'changed' by repairing them, along with its own reputation.
Click to expand...

I think we have to try them here, and if they are not convicted, so be it. This is the price you pay when you break the law, which is what we did.
 
Darla said:
Hi Damo. I know this is one of your noncommittal posts and whatever I say, you'll say that's what you meant in the first place and why am I trying to "make" you "evil".

So, just my take on these statements. I watched the interview this morning, and the one thing I came away sure of is that he is closing Gitmo and there isn't going to be any more torture, and yeah that's why he tapped Panetta, which is what I thought since I first heard it.

And you should know that most of the left is well aware of what Bush/Cheney left with Gitmo.

Firstly, many of those guys should have never been there. But now that they have been held for years, guess what? They might be pissed. I don't know, but it's slightly if remotely possible. A lot of guys, they're not really doing' much with their lives anyway, and so, if some foreign government should pick them up and dump them in a shithole with bad outfits for 6 or 7 years, they don't really mind. But there's no guarantee they're all going to feel that way. So, a few of them might be looking for some payback. So that's one problem.

Then you have the problem of the handful, or maybe two handfuls, who actually were dangerous even before we arrested them and put them in a camp with no trial. Those guys were tortured into giving confessions, or as the more delicate like to put it "some of the evidence against them might be tainted" That's going to be inadmissable. Put them on trail NOW (rather than before bush/cheney tortured them), and they're going to be set free. Could be a problem. On the other hand, we can't keep them.

Now, I really don't care if it takes Obama 120 days or 150 days to close Gitmo. There are a few who will, but I don't. The bottom line is, he's closing it, and he came straight out this morning and said that waterboarding is torture and we are not doing it from Jan 20th forward.

I don't really see a problem here, but bac might, so you might get some "leftie outrage" mileage out of this after all.
Click to expand...

:)

No ma'am, good sister .. no problem here.

I already knew Obama wasn't going to close Gitmo anytime soon. This comes as no surprise to me .. only to those who believe Obama is some kind of civil liberties warrior. If his flip flop on FISA didn't tell them anything, they are probably hopelessly lost in "hope."

But what this does is make Bush look better .. and adds to the questions the world is now asking about Obama. His honeymoon may be over even before he takes office.

The left already knows what Obama is and he continues to prove that he's far from being progressive on much of anything.

Best to pay attention to Obama's belief that American kids belong in the military.
 
blackascoal said:
:)

No ma'am, good sister .. no problem here.

I already knew Obama wasn't going to close Gitmo anytime soon. This comes as no surprise to me .. only to those who believe Obama is some kind of civil liberties warrior. If his flip flop on FISA didn't tell them anything, they are probably hopelessly lost in "hope."

But what this does is make Bush look better .. and adds to the questions the world is now asking about Obama. His honeymoon may be over even before he takes office.

The left already knows what Obama is and he continues to prove that he's far from being progressive on much of anything.

Best to pay attention to Obama's belief that American kids belong in the military.
Click to expand...

So if he closes Gitmo in say, 110 days, you are going to say he did something wrong? I really believe he is sincere - he's going to close it, and he's not going do things like waterboard. I don't think that makes him like Bush.
 
Darla said:
So if he closes Gitmo in say, 110 days, you are going to say he did something wrong? I really believe he is sincere - he's going to close it, and he's not going do things like waterboard. I don't think that makes him like Bush.
Click to expand...


Please note at the outset that Obama never pledged to close Gitmo within 100 days of taking office. Never. But reporting that Obama has remained consistent on Gitmo apparently isn't "newsworthy" and makes a shitty headline.
 
Dungheap said:
Please note at the outset that Obama never pledged to close Gitmo within 100 days of taking office. Never. But reporting that Obama has remained consistent on Gitmo apparently isn't "newsworthy" and makes a shitty headline.
Click to expand...

There is a UFPJ sponsored campaign called "100 days to close gitmo and end torture" campaign. And you know what, I guess I thought that because of that, Obama had promised 100 days. Sorry, thanks for correcting.
 
Darla said:
There is a UFPJ sponsored campaign called "100 days to close gitmo and end torture" campaign. And you know what, I guess I thought that because of that, Obama had promised 100 days. Sorry, thanks for correcting.
Click to expand...

As a preliminary matter it shouldn't take 100 days to end torture. That can and should happen on day one. The Executive Order requiring the CIA to abide by the Army Field Manual should be drawn up and ready fro execution immediately. If he doesn't do that within a very short time of taking office he should be criticized.

Closing GITMO is another matter entirely and will understandably take some time to sort out.
 
Darla said:
So if he closes Gitmo in say, 110 days, you are going to say he did something wrong? I really believe he is sincere - he's going to close it, and he's not going do things like waterboard. I don't think that makes him like Bush.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying he's done anything wrong now. I'm saying he's doing just as I expected him to do .. and whenever he gets around to closing Gitmo my response is going to be the same .. big deal.

Closing Gitmo is easy. No courage required. The entire planet wants Gitmo closed.

Closing it is just symbolism.

Check this out ...

Obama Signals His Reluctance to Look Into Bush Policies

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama signaled in an interview broadcast Sunday that he was unlikely to authorize a broad inquiry into Bush administration programs like domestic eavesdropping or the treatment of terrorism suspects.

excerpt ..

"The House Judiciary Committee chairman, Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, has already introduced a measure to create a commission to investigate Mr. Bush’s detention, interrogation and rendition policies. Mr. Conyers’s bill would establish a bipartisan nine-member commission with subpoena power and a mandate “to investigate the broad range of policies” undertaken with claims that Mr. Bush’s wartime powers as commander in chief trumped laws and treaties.

The measure by Mr. Conyers is not the only sign that Congress may force the issue. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the second-ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, said such a commission might not be necessary because the panel itself would press the administration to declassify as much information about C.I.A. prisons as possible.

“With regard to the C.I.A. interrogation program,” Mr. Wyden said in an interview, “if you want to make a break with the flawed policies of the past, as the president-elect has said he wishes to do, you have got to come clean about what happened over the past eight years, and that is why I’m going to push very hard to declassify these documents.”

Mr. Obama’s legal team could also be forced to react to litigation pending before federal courts. For example, the Bush administration has invoked the state-secrets privilege to avoid disclosing information about its surveillance program being sought in a civil lawsuit. The Obama legal team will have to decide how to handle that case.

In a related area, Mr. Conyers has indicated that he intends to keep pressing a House Judiciary Committee investigation into the Bush administration’s firings of nine United States attorneys and other accusations of political favoritism in hiring at the Justice Department.

The Bush administration has blocked subpoenas from Congress for documents and testimony by White House officials in that case, citing executive privilege. Last week, Mr. Conyers reissued the subpoenas to Mr. Bush’s chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, and his former White House counsel, Harriet E. Miers, in the name of the new Congress, ensuring that a lawsuit over the dispute will stay alive into the Obama presidency.

Mr. Obama is facing even more intense pressure from liberal, human-rights and civil-liberties groups to allow some kind of investigation into the Bush administration’s terrorism policies."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/politics/12inquire.html?_r=1

When Obama supporters were saying that he would investigate torture and other illegal policies of the Bush Administration I said that he wouldn't even then .. in spite of his claim to have his Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" with regards to investigating the Bush Administration.

And, I can almost gurantee that Conyers and anyone else who wants to investigate Bush will be shot down by Obama.

I believe you're right that he won't authorize torture, but will he continue to send suspects to foreign countries .. and don't the American people have a right to know what has been done in our name?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top