Democrats vote to keep Gitmo open

[Michael]

I feel sorry for Obama sometimes. That' s a bloody difficult job to do at the best of times and right now is loaded with lots of serious problems.

But getting backstabbed by your own party in Congress really has to hurt and make Obama's life just that much more difficult.

Democrats in Senate Block Money to Close Guantánamo
WASHINGTON — In an abrupt shift, Senate Democratic leaders said they would not provide the $80 million that President Obama requested to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The move escalates pressure on the president, who on Thursday is scheduled to outline his plans for the 240 terrorism suspects still held there.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/us/politics/20detain.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all)

This shouldn't really surprise anyone. For those who actually paid attention back in 1994, it was the Congressional Democrats who essentially blocked/killed the Clinton healthcare initiative at that time. Some things never change.

[Birdzeye]

I'm sure it's frustrating for Obama, but OTOH, I'm not disappointed that the congressional Democrats are not giving him a blank check.

[dilettante]

I'm sure it's frustrating for Obama, but OTOH, I'm not disappointed that the congressional Democrats are not giving him a blank check.

I agree; it only seems prudent that they demand to know more precisely how he's going to close the base.

[Michael]

I agree; it only seems prudent that they demand to know more precisely how he's going to close the base.
They already know that. That was decided months ago.

They are just pretending to be concerned about that. And $80 million is what the Pentagon spends on paper clips per year.

Sounds like people are making the same kind of self-serving excuses for the Congressional Democrats as they are themselves.

If the Congressional Democrats want to address the issue of the detainees, address the issue of the detainees. Pretending to object to the material cost of closing Gitmo when you are really concerned about the issue of the detainees is the kind of semantic logic-chopping that the Democratic party is famous for - and one that loses elections.

Standing on principle over $80 million in funding is absurd - especially given the fact that this Congress has already earned the title of the most spendthrift Congress in American history.

[Birdzeye]

They already know that. That was decided months ago.

They are just pretending to be concerned about that. And $80 million is what the Pentagon spends on paper clips per year.

Sounds like people are making the same kind of self-serving excuses for the Congressional Democrats as they are themselves.

If the Congressional Democrats want to address the issue of the detainees, address the issue of the detainees. Pretending to object to the material cost of closing Gitmo when you are really concerned about the issue of the detainees is the kind of semantic logic-chopping that the Democratic party is famous for - and one that loses elections.

Standing on principle over $80 million in funding is absurd - especially given the fact that this Congress has already earned the title of the most spendthrift Congress in American history.


Well, I don't believe I'm doing that. Where I'm coming from is that I watched as the GOP congresscritters seemed to give Bush anything he wanted. My relief is at seeing the Democrats not appearing to follow suit.

[dilettante]

They already know that. That was decided months ago.

That's not the impression I've gotten. There seems to be anything except agreement on precisely where the current residents of Gitmo are going to wind up and what processes they'll go through.

From the article in the OP:
Administration officials have indicated that if the Guantánamo camp closes as scheduled more than 100 prisoners may need to be moved to the United States, including 50 to 100 who have been described as too dangerous to release.



Of the 240 detainees, 30 have been cleared for release. Some are likely to be transferred to foreign countries, though other governments have been reluctant to take them. Britain and France have each accepted one former detainee. And while as many as 80 of the detainees will be prosecuted, it remains unclear what will happen to those who are convicted and sentenced to prison.

The words "may need to be," "like to be be," "reluctant," and "unclear" all indicate that we really don't know what is planned (if anything yet) for a number of these individuals.


They are just pretending to be concerned about that. And $80 million is what the Pentagon spends on paper clips per year.

Sounds like people are making the same kind of self-serving excuses for the Congressional Democrats as they are themselves.

If the Congressional Democrats want to address the issue of the detainees, address the issue of the detainees. Pretending to object to the material cost of closing Gitmo when you are really concerned about the issue of the detainees is the kind of semantic logic-chopping that the Democratic party is famous for - and one that loses elections.

Standing on principle over $80 million in funding is absurd - especially given the fact that this Congress has already earned the title of the most spendthrift Congress in American history.

The amount of money is irrelevant; it isn't about the funding, per se'. Congress either doesn't like Obama's plan for how Gitmo is to be closed or (what seems more likely) they don't feel that plan has been explicitly detailed. A "yes" vote on this measure would most certainly be interpretted as affirming Obama's plan, and most congressmen aren't willing to do that yet.

[Michael]

Gitmo used to be the ugliest symbol of all that was wrong with the Bush Administration.

Now Gitmo belongs to the Congressional Democrats. As far as I'm concerned, its their policy now. They own it completely.


That's not the impression I've gotten. There seems to be anything except agreement on precisely where the current residents of Gitmo are going to wind up and what processes they'll go through.

From the article in the OP:


The words "may need to be," "like to be be," "reluctant," and "unclear" all indicate that we really don't know what is planned (if anything yet) for a number of these individuals.



The amount of money is irrelevant; it isn't about the funding, per se'. Congress either doesn't like Obama's plan for how Gitmo is to be closed or (what seems more likely) they don't feel that plan has been explicitly detailed. A "yes" vote on this measure would most certainly be interpretted as affirming Obama's plan, and most congressmen aren't willing to do that yet.
Politicians are always dependable with self-serving spin and the law is fairly clear on the issue (though the media isn't actually reporting this).

Apparently some people don't like or don't trust the existing laws. And don't like the reality of the policy so they are trying to kill it any way possible by pretending that nothing has been resolved.

This looks like a NIMBY issue plain and simple.

[Donkey]

As far as I'm concerned, if a detainee is not charged and cannot be sent to his home country, he should be given residency papers and maybe an sorry-for-the-inconvenience check/que. Obviously anyone who suggests that nationally will be crucified, but to me it's the most practical solution. If they are not being charged then we must, I think, assume complete innocence (even if they are shitty characters, whatever), and should treat them the same as anyone else. I mean... it's not like they won't be watched. Let's be real.

[Margot]

I'm sure it's frustrating for Obama, but OTOH, I'm not disappointed that the congressional Democrats are not giving him a blank check.

Inn't a blank check just a check with the ammount bit not filled in? Yeah, it is. $80 mil. isn't a blank check, it's a very unblank check and it's peanuts in scope of the national budget.

[Michael]

As far as I'm concerned, if a detainee is not charged and cannot be sent to his home country, he should be given residency papers and maybe an sorry-for-the-inconvenience check/que. Obviously anyone who suggests that nationally will be crucified, but to me it's the most practical solution. If they are not being charged then we must, I think, assume complete innocence (even if they are shitty characters, whatever), and should treat them the same as anyone else. I mean... it's not like they won't be watched. Let's be real.

I'd take the position that every detainee is 'by definition' criminally suspect and thus can be charged with something. US Federal Court jurisdiction seems perfectly appropriate and no one has been able to say that that is not legally proper.

If there is evidence that they are indeed dangerous, I'm certain the courts will find them guilty and sent to a supermax prison. If there is no evidence that they are dangerous or guilty of some crime, then they shouldn't be held in the first place and deserve to go free after a fair trial.

The US legal system does allows plenty of 'black envelope' pieces of evidence and trials closed to the general public (but hopefully with media to report the proceedings AFTER the trial) so national security concerns can be addressed (and public observation of proper legal forms).

I just can't fathom how any other process of dealing with such 'accused' persons can be even considered. Yes it is going to be expensive and tedious - but that's the price one pays to 'do the right thing' once and error has been committed. Gitmo was 'an error' and must be corrected. It cannot be 'undone' by sweeping the victims under the rug - that just compounds 'the error' in the first place with a second one.

[partofme]

One thing I don't buy is the whole not in my back yard argument. A terrorist is going to plan and hit a high value target so having one in a jail near me is much less likely to actually cause me any harm than the violent criminals and sexual predators that are already there. The knee jerk reaction is to say I don't want them on a base or in a jail near me but then thinking about it by that logic most of the criminals in the maximum security penitentiaries should be shipped out of the country first.

[The Drunk Guy]

One thing I don't buy is the whole not in my back yard argument. A terrorist is going to plan and hit a high value target so having one in a jail near me is much less likely to actually cause me any harm than the violent criminals and sexual predators that are already there. The knee jerk reaction is to say I don't want them on a base or in a jail near me but then thinking about it by that logic most of the criminals in the maximum security penitentiaries should be shipped out of the country first.
OK, here's the scoop, which answers your question....

Ever seen "Heroes?" The captives are actually genetically advanced and have super powers, just like the X-Men. That's the real reason we want them in Cuba.

[The Drunk Guy]

I'd take the position that every detainee is 'by definition' criminally suspect and thus can be charged with something. US Federal Court jurisdiction seems perfectly appropriate and no one has been able to say that that is not legally proper.

If there is evidence that they are indeed dangerous, I'm certain the courts will find them guilty and sent to a supermax prison. If there is no evidence that they are dangerous or guilty of some crime, then they shouldn't be held in the first place and deserve to go free after a fair trial.

The US legal system does allows plenty of 'black envelope' pieces of evidence and trials closed to the general public (but hopefully with media to report the proceedings AFTER the trial) so national security concerns can be addressed (and public observation of proper legal forms).

I just can't fathom how any other process of dealing with such 'accused' persons can be even considered. Yes it is going to be expensive and tedious - but that's the price one pays to 'do the right thing' once and error has been committed. Gitmo was 'an error' and must be corrected. It cannot be 'undone' by sweeping the victims under the rug - that just compounds 'the error' in the first place with a second one.
But that's why these poor schmucks are going to be stuck in Gitmo! How many are innocent? How many are just guys who happened to know a guy who knew a guy that set off a car bomb? Years and years of questioning (including torture) and they still are worried they don't have enough to prosecute? I'm no genius*, but I smell bullshit.

And, of course, all the water boarding "confessions" will be tossed, so what evidence will they have?

The whole reason Bush set Gitmo up was because he knew goddamned well that it was a guise to show the public how "effective" the War of Terror really is.

The Dems who let Gitmo happen are joining up with the GOP to block closing it because they would all look like fools if these guys had trials. They're all worried about November, 2010.




*Arguable.

[Evangeline]

Inn't a blank check just a check with the ammount bit not filled in? Yeah, it is. $80 mil. isn't a blank check, it's a very unblank check and it's peanuts in scope of the national budget.

I think he means blank check as in do whatever you want.

Apparently Obama is trying to keep some of the detainees without charges, a trial, an attorney. He's going for something called prolonged detention, and it's a frightening unconstitutional idea.

"We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country," Obama said. "But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. . . . I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people."

He's going to imprison people for crimes they might commit in the future?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-security22-2009may22,0,4509437.story

[Michael]

I think he means blank check as in do whatever you want.

Apparently Obama is trying to keep some of the detainees without charges, a trial, an attorney. He's going for something called prolonged detention, and it's a frightening unconstitutional idea.



He's going to imprison people for crimes they might commit in the future?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-security22-2009may22,0,4509437.story

Obama is at least being consistent here - he's no libertarian on civil liberties issues! He voted for retroactive immunity in the last Congress don't forget - one of the only big-name Democrats to do so. That's ugly.

I really like the guy from a personality/charisma/approach kind of thing, and he's on the right track with several good policy initiatives. But his approach on national security/torture/civil rights issue is nasty and really bugs me.

[Evangeline]

Yeah, it's really disappointing. I like the guy, but damn......he's doing some entrenched DC shite. It is ugly. I agree.