Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Obama Plans To Close Gitmo

Why seriously in this economy with all his huge promises, is this Obama's first and most important (in his opinion) task?? C'mon pres, pay attention to us we are waiting for big change.
I mean I get that it is unfair but we have bigger fish to fry here, remember all the stuff you were talking about whilst trying to get elected?? C'mon Obama lovers (I know you're reading this Ryan :) We want to know ?????? WHY this and why is it the MOST important task for the americans right now??


Ryan said...

My two cents:
Its symbolically important because Gitmo has come to represent torture and an unjust legal limbo. In the Bush administration people were being held without charges for years, Enhanced interrogation was performed, which would be classified as torture under the Geneva convention. From what I have read torture has poor results for actionable intelligence anyway. And it reflected poorly on what the US is about. And at the end of the process you have uncharged people who were tortured so they cant be tried or convicted easily.

Its important its closed and rule of law be returned because it shows America returning to its values and constitution. I just read a book on the subject called "the Dark Side" and recommend it.

Worse abuses of authority have happened by other presidents like FDR and the Japanese internment camps, and though this is smaller it still needs to be fixed in my opinion. Obama is just attempting to cleaning up the mess, and it needs to happen. I don't blame bush too much he was reacting to terrorist attacked and it was an emotional time. Now its just time to fix it. It will be interesting to see how it is done. Here is an article on problems with closing it from time.

The Strong Family said...

Thanks Ryan! I will have to check out that book.

Greg Brassfield said...

Hey Nikki and Mike. Closing Guantanamo bay as a holding tank for terrorists is a hollow gesture by the new administration. Because president elect Obama knows that he cannot follow through on his vote to cut funding for the troops or remove the troops from Iraq immediately, he will try to do something that will appease his obligations to far left groups that poured millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours into his campaign. The detention of prisoners at Gitmo is a completely legitimate act as those detained are, under the Geneva Convention, "illegal combatants." Just as a review the Second Hague Convention of 1899 (precursor to Geneva) as well as the Geneva Convention outline the four criteria for protections 1) wearing distinctive clothing that make them recognizable as soldiers at a distance 2) openly bearing arms and not concealing them 3) under the command of officers ending in a political leader or government 4) fighting according to the laws of war (not deliberately targeting civilians etc.). Those at Gitmo are not entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention. Further, it is not necessary for an enemy combatant to be guilty of anything under the Geneva laws of war. Detainment is legal simply as a measure of security and not even primarily as a punishment. Terminology used to describe the situation at Gitmo is often misguided if not dishonest. Referring to being "held without charge" mistakenly implies that charges are necessary. In addition to the Geneva Conventions there is plenty of US precedent like Ex Parte Quirin (1942); Colepaugh v Looney (1956) In re Territo (1946) and most recently Hamdi v Rumsfeld (2002). Article II of the Constitution designating the president as commander in chief along with the joint resolution of Congress on Sept. 15, 2001 give the president full authority to use any and all measures he has employed. This is the appropriate role of courts in wartime, that is, deferring back to the commander in chief and congress. The Constitutions does not provide parity for the court system to interject into war-related matters. Finally in Johnson v. Eisentrager, the courts established that enemy combatants (legal or illegal for that matter)could not ask federal courts to review their status as this would "hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort to the enemy". Finally, the president has authorized suspension of habeus corpus for two American citizens who were detained during overt acts of military conflict overseas. Why is Obama closing Gitmo? Because he can and it will make the mindless drones who do not understand precedent or the law or the Constitution happy. And those are the people who elected him. He can't do health care reform, he can't enact his tax plan the way he promised, he can't pull troops from Iraq so he will use executive orders to do some meaningless gesture to pretend like he is accomplishing something. The guy was, is, and most likely will ever be a walking, talking, bumper sticker.

Ryan said...

Another couple cents...

The Supreme Court stated that the Geneva Conventions, most notably the Third Geneva Convention and also article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (requiring humane treatment) applies to all detainees in the War on Terror. The Supreme Court stated that the Geneva Conventions, most notably the Third Geneva Convention and also article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (requiring humane treatment) applies to all detainees in the War on Terror.

On June 12, 2008 the Supreme Court ruled that detainees do have the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts, overturning a 2006 law that abridged such rights

The United States Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives were entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, described the CSR Tribunals as "an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus" although "both the DTA and the CSRT process remain intact.

Barack Obama described Guantanamo as a "sad chapter in American history" and promised to close down the prison. President-elect Obama's legal advisors are planning on bringing up to 80 detainees to the United States to be put on trial.

Greg Brassfield said...

These are all true points, though the terminology used is a tad disingenuous. Not that it makes the rulings or arguments for them any less asinine. The 2006 ruling abridged no rights, but the new rulings grants rights where they did not, and under the Constitution, do not exist. Granting habeas corpus or any other protection in the Constitution to those outside of the United States is not in the Constitution no matter what Justice Kennedy imagines. Now, the ruling did make these things into judicial law, which also does not exist under the Constitution. Laws originate in Congress and it is up to the courts to determine the legality or illegality of said laws. It is not within their power to legislate, but that is precisely what they have done here. While we're on the road to giving illegal combatants rights to which they are not entitled why not mirandize all enemies apprehended in overt military activity? What is the burden of proof on the prosecution in a US court for an illegal combatant? Do tax payer dollars provide for their defense? This is why President Reagan said of liberal thinkers, "It's not that they are ignorant. It's that they know so much that just isn't so." Barack Obama is indeed an expert on sad chapters in American history as he composes one of them.

Nana Donna said...

Ouch! Come on kids lets get along! I do enjoy the knowledge that has been presented here. I see both sides clearly. You both have made great arguements.

I just have anothger bone to pick, I'm angry because I heard that one of the first executive orders that Obama is going to place is taking away Utahs drilling rights. Man! I'm bumbed! Our property in Wells is worth nothing inless they look for oil shell........Are we never going to get rich! Actually on the serious side. When Clinton took all our land (Grand Stair Case) that belonged to the Utah Education, we did loose out for our kids. I am upset about that. We just talked about that in PTA today.

Now don't pick me apart okay!!!!