The Obama Doctrine...

[Crackpot]

There's also a problem with "shipping them back". Many would disappear one in thier "home" govt hands.

[Econoline]

Another problem is that anyone there who wasn't a terrorist when he was shipped off to Gitmo is pissed off enough after a few years there that they'll probably become a terrorist now if given the chance...

Good job there, Mr. Bush. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED: permanent employment for the military-industrial complex.

[Scooter]

The problem seems to be that Congress is opposed to bringing them to trial here in the U.S.

That's no impediment. Have the trials at Guantanamo, using the rules of federal courts in the U.S., and open them to the press.

[dgs49]

They are not criminals. They have committed no legally cognizable crimes. They cannot be put on trial under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Their situation is a bastard son of POW's, made absurd by the fact of not being soldiers for any actual country, and the lack of any declared war (which could end, thus resolving the issue).

HOWEVER, the Commander in Chief could release them, had he the balls to actuate his fuzzy rhetoric. But he knows some of them would later be found killing US soldiers and others.

[Big RR]

Well, based on what's been alleged, I would think that some conspiracy charges could be supported; if not, I fail to understand by what authoriity they have been imprisoned. Of course, the rule of law, as we have seen, can be easily thrown out the window by exploiting people's fears.

[Lord Jim]

Political Barriers Stand Between Obama and Closing Guantanamo Facility
Little has changed politically since the last time Congress rebuffed the president.

By Michael Catalini
Updated: May 30, 2013 | 12:50 a.m.
May 3, 2013 | 6:00 a.m.

The last time President Obama tried to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, Congress stopped him abruptly. The Senate did what it rarely does: It voted in bipartisan fashion, blocking his attempt at funding the closure.

Four years later, and the political barriers that blocked the president from closing the camp that now houses 166 detainees are as immovable as ever. Moving the prisoners to facilities in the U.S., a solution the administration suggested, proved to be a political minefield in 2009. Most Americans oppose closing the base, according to a polls, and congressional leaders have balked at taking action.

The Cuban camp is grabbing headlines again because of a hunger strike among the detainees. Nearly 100 have stopped eating, and the military is forcing them to eat by placing tubes through their noses, the Associated Press reported. The president reconfirmed his opposition to the camp, responding to a question about the recent hunger strikes at Guantanamo Bay with regret in his voice.

“Well, it is not a surprise to me that we've got problems in Guantanamo, which is why, when I was campaigning in 2007 and 2008 and when I was elected in 2008, I said we need to close Guantanamo. I continue to believe that we've got to close Guantanamo,” he said.

Obama blamed his failure to follow through on a campaign promise on lawmakers. “Now, Congress determined that they would not let us close it,” he said. Despite Obama’s desire to close the base and his pledge this week to “go back to this,” he touched on a political reality: Lawmakers are not inclined to touch the issue.

"The president stated that the reason Guantanamo has not closed was because of Congress. That's true," Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters last month, declining to elaborate.

The stakes for Obama on this issue are high when it comes to his liberal base, who would like to see him display the courage of his convictions and close the camp. But the political will is lacking, outside a small contingent of lawmakers, including Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois and five other liberal Democrats who sided with Obama in 2009, and left-leaning opinion writers.

Congressional Democrats, unlike Obama, will have to face voters again. And closing the camp is deeply unpopular. A Washington Post/ABC News poll in February 2012 showed that 70 percent of Americans wantedto keep the camp open to detain “terrorist suspects,” and in a 2009 Gallup Poll, a majority said they would be upset if it shut down. In 2009, the Senate voted 90-6 to block the president’s efforts at closing the camp. Obama had signed an order seeking to close the detention center, but the Senate’s vote denied the administration the $80 million needed to fund the closure.

Closing the camp in Cuba and bringing the detainees into the United States grates against the political sensibilities of many lawmakers. Jim Manley, a Democratic strategist who served as Reid’s spokesman at the time, remembers the debate very well.

“I'm still not sure that there's much of an appetite among Democrats on the Hill to try and deal with this issue once and for all,” Manley said in an interview.

The last time the Senate voted on this they voted 90-6 to prevent Obama from bringing these jokers here, and two recent polls both have the American people supporting keeping Gitmo open by more than two to one, so the notion that only right-wing knuckle dragging neanderthals want to keep Gitmo open is pure unadulterated horse shit.

It's somewhat surprising that public support for Gitmo has remained completely undiminished despite the constant drum beat of hand wringing and boo hooing the bulk of the liberal mainstream media has engaged in for years over it, since the day the place was first opened....Normally when the media crusades incessantly and relentlessly about something it has an impact on public opinion over time (gay marriage would be a good example of this) but all the carping has had zero effect regarding Gitmo.

In fact it looks to me like the ones calling for the place to be closed are the ones who hold a fringe view...

Their tedious self-righteousness and hypocrisy is so thick you'd need a chainsaw to cut through it. These types would sure as hell never want any of these clowns released into their communities, but they're more than happy to unload them some place else and put others at risk, so long as it's far away from their own sweet fannies....

I really have very little patience and zero consideration for it....

[Econoline]

So the solution is essentially to give everyone who wound up being brought to Guantanamo, regardless of the reason (or lack of same) what amounts to a life sentence--with no justification, no judicial (international or domestic) authority, no executive (international or or domestic) authority, not even an explicit legislative act--merely the implicit authority of the U.S. Congress to prevent any alternative.

I ask again: does every nation have a right to do this, or only the United States? And why?

Man, I've never been more proud of holding a "fringe view"...

[Scooter]

These types would sure as hell never want any of these clowns released into their communities

For one very simple reason - they don't belong in their communities. Either they belong in prison, if they have committed any crimes of which they could be convicted, or they need to be sent back from whence they came.

I really have very little patience and zero consideration for it

And I have even less for those who out of one side of their mouth claim to believe in the rule of law, and who out of the other side spout cheap rationalizations for indefinite imprisonment without trial. Constitutions are not documents we follow only when it is convenient.

But we've already abandoned so many of our cherished freedoms that the terrorists could rightly claim victory, so what's one more...

[Grim Reaper]

Their tedious self-righteousness and hypocrisy is so thick you'd need a chainsaw to cut through it. These types would sure as hell never want any of these clowns released into their communities, but they're more than happy to unload them some place else and put others at risk, so long as it's far away from their own sweet fannies....

If they're innocent, then who cares where they go? If they're guilty, they stay in prison.

That's why we have trials. That's why we have a Judicial branch at all. We're supposed to be a nation with laws that all adhere to, not just throw people down dark holes and forget about them.

[Big RR]

Absolutely GR; I have enough faith in the rule of law to say that, while there are many I'd rather not have in my community, I don't have the power to keep them out, nor should I. Now, if they should go back to their homelands rather than here, that's fine with me as well.

Jim--caring about civil rights is a liberal thing? Allowing the government to jail people without charge or trial is only a liberal concern. I think it should be the concern of any person who believes in America and what we stand for as a people; but I guess that must be liberal as well. The Conservatives are totally trusting of the powers big government can bring to bear on the people and support it wholeheartedly? Thanks for clearing that up.

Just count me among those who hold the fringe view our founders, the drafters of the Bill of Rights, held. And call me damn proud of being in that number.