Great article about the challenges of closing Gitmo. Even if this move wasn't exactly monumental in scope when you look at everything that is going on and what Obama has inherited, the symbolism goes a long way to suggest that Obama was the same candidate that his supporters voted for in November. Gitmo has to close. From Reuters UK:
Q: How many detainees are still at Guantanamo and why was it opened?
A: About 245 detainees remain at Guantanamo, which was set up in January 2002 to hold foreign terrorism suspects captured after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States that prompted former President George W. Bush's war on terrorism. Most have been held for years without being charged and many have complained of abuse. At least 525 have been released and five died in custody -- four of suicide by hanging and one of cancer.
Q: If Guantanamo Bay prison is closed, where will the detainees go?
A: The Bush administration negotiated for many months with countries whose nationals are still at Guantanamo, trying to get them to take in detainees.
Some governments have denied the Guantanamo prisoners are in fact their citizens, while others have been reluctant to agree to U.S. requests to imprison or monitor returnees.
Some of those being held include Chinese Muslim Uighurs who Washington says would face persecution if they returned home, together with Libyans, Uzbeks and Algerians who are also at risk.
Some could be granted asylum by other nations if their own countries refuse to take them.
Last month, Portugal's foreign minister urged other European countries to take in Guantanamo prisoners, saying such a move could make it easier for Obama to close the prison. Switzerland has said it is open to taking in detainees.
Q: What other problems does Obama face in closing the prison?
A: There are a host of legal and practical problems, particularly concerning those who are deemed "too dangerous" to free. More than a third of the prisoners left are from Yemen and the State Department has still not been able to reach a deal with that country on either security assurances or guarantees that prisoners would be treated humanely.
The Bush administration wanted to try about 80 Guantanamo prisoners on terrorism charges and held a few dozen others it did not intend to try but believed should be kept locked up. Those facing charges include five accused Sept. 11 plotters.
Q: What about transferring detainees to the U.S. mainland where they could face trials for their alleged crimes?
A: This option has been discussed often but is unpopular with local communities where they might be settled, including military base prisons in Kansas and California. There is a "not in my backyard" response to such a move. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a Republican, has been particularly vocal in opposing Guantanamo detainees being moved to Fort Leavenworth's military prison in his state. Brownback has invited Obama to visit the high-security facility to make his case of how unsuitable he deems it for Guantanamo prisoners.
Q: If the detainees are transferred to the U.S. mainland would they have the same rights as other Americans?
A: This was a strong argument made by the Bush administration in opposing a move to the U.S. mainland from Guantanamo. By transferring them to the U.S. mainland, more legal options could be open to detainees to challenge their imprisonment.
(Editing by Eric Beech and Frances Kerry)
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
So let me see if I understand...
Out of all the issues which needed immediate attention (i.e. the economy, health care, aids, genocide in Africa, jobs, gay marriage, troop withdrawal, etc.), Obama's very first Executive-Order-worthy action...
...is to announce a review of what to do? You mean there is no plan of action? We need another commission, another study?
Read the press statement. How much of what was discussed hasn't been discussed, debated, and/or sent to the SCOTUS already?
The problem the government has is determining how to prosecute these cases. The detainees were not fighting with a uniform on; they were not representing a specific country. Therefore, there is no clear authority to turn to; Geneva Convention rules don't apply.
So what do you do? What if you can't find another location to house these enemy combatants? What if no other country wants them, would you?
Will we set these criminals free? Give them the same liberty as US citizens? Or keep them at Guantanamo?
Why do we need a year-long investigation to determine what to do with less than 300 people? Sounds like we either changed our minds again or are stalling the tough decision.
This XO wasn't about action, it was about more pinhead bureaucracy.
...in my humble opinion of course.
btw...nice blog
So, these civilian trials have ruthless lawyers to represent these killer thugs. Some will be found innocent, sue our government for millions, and run----back to the killing fields
ED: Thanks for the nice words. And I absolutely agree with your assessment of the problems that we're going to have with Gitmo. But we can't NOT do anything. Like I said, this was symbolic, not only for Obama's supporters, but for the whole world in general. We can't ever win this alone. And we need to awe people with our justice as well as our military. It doesn't matter how many people there are; what counts is that we've begun to do something, even though it doesn't seem decisive.
MJ: Some may well be found innocent. That's how our laws work. Even if the constitution was changed, I still would feel that holding someone with no evidence and no trial is iherently wrong.
Post a Comment