In the News or... is it the News?

[Haley64]

Let me preface this by saying I am sorry from the bottom of my heart, my soul and mind to those who lost loved ones during 9/11. I give my whole Thanks to those Hero's of 9/11

I am American and I felt your loss, my heart is with each and everyone of them!!!

What I am about to say isn't Anti-American, it is because I am American that I am writing this post. I am hearing so much about the closing of Guantanamo Bay.

How we are dishonoring the family and victims of 9/11 by allowing the closing of Guantanamo and allowing these terrorist to their rights.
I am seeing everyone from posters here to politicians being horrified about the prospect of what do we do with these terrorists.

You have all heard this I am sure, it is covering every news station.

I am not and have never been one to stick my head in the sand and sign :lalala even though I am sure you all wish I would!

So all this talk really made me want to find out more details, more info...I am now sorry I did. :( what I have spent the night reading has left me emotionally drained, I have cried I am angry and mad as he11, just like I felt the day Towers fell and the planes didn't land.

I am going to give links to the articles I have read, some of them will be to blog type sites, official .PDF files,some links will lead to left or right leaning sites.

The main thing is, if you dare to read these articles from start to finish!
Some of you will read things you never wanted to know, some will refuse to believe, others will read things they thought they knew and in the end...we might all know a little more.

A person needs to know what you are fighting against or what you are fighting for...but in the end you, should at least know.

The Unending Torture of Omar Khadr (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11128331/follow_omar_khadr_from_an_al_qaeda_childhood_to_a_ gitmo_cell/1)
He was a child of jihad, a teenage soldier in bin Laden's army. Captured on the battlefield when he was only fifteen, he has been held at Guantanamo Bay for the past four years (six year now, this story was reported in 06)

Torture Lite=Torture? (http://www.dailykos.com/hotlist/add/2009/1/22/211844/493/displaystory//) Make sure to click on the links in the article to read even more.

Human Rights First (http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06221-etn-hrf-dic-rep-web.pdf)
Homocides: Death by Torture, Abuse or Force starts on page 9

Kaiser on Newsweek’s “What Would Cheney Do?” cover (http://www.cjr.org/full_court_press/winners_sinners_5.php?page=all)

If anyone has additional links to share, please do

I don't expect anyone to comment to this thread and please don't comment until you have read a least two of the articles in there entirety before you do post...please

[Renilicious]

Wow... that Human Rights First article is pretty full-on. I am not surprised. I am saddened by it. It makes me angry that there are people who were the kind of self-righteous, twisted and angry bastards who would do that sort of thing to another human being.

Yes, the terrorists were bad. Yes, they should be punished. 9/11 was one of the worst days that will every be remembered in modern history but the Geneva Convention governs what can and cannot happen to basic human rights for detainees. In this case, too many innocent people have fallen victim to the self-righteous attitudes of representatives of a bigger nation with something to prove - just what they were trying to prove, I don't know.

[FrenchRuby]

Thanks for posting those Hayley. Most informative, I hope some of the 'blind' will read them and start to open their eyes (and minds).

[tammy1999]

I don't blame the families and victims of 9/11 one bit for being upset that our country is going to let those animals go. They have every right to be mad. I know I would be.

Oh and BTW, my mind is very open when it comes to keeping our country safe. The idea of bringing terrorists in our country to try in OUR courts is just wrong.

[kjbstevens]

If they are going to close it they need to just leave them over there somewhere or find a way to force the UN into taking them. Just don't bring them on American soil. We are spending so much to transport them around and stuff that it's sort of crazy. At least soliders at Gitmo have their families with them though. If we leave them on the battlefield area it will separate families again. On the other hand I don't believe they have any place on American soil at all because they are not citizens and do not have our rights. They can have basic human rights and decency but our Constitution should not cover them. Even if they do bring them here it should be remembered they are not citizens. They really didn't break any laws against us unless they are directly involved in 9/11 so if we go get them over there just because they are terrorists how do you bring charges on them in our courts? Just being a general terrorist doesn't break a law in the US. Holding them in a war situation should have them in some type of war court. They really should talk much more to the UN about all of this and get more countries involved that are also in the fight.

[Scorpiosue1102]

They're not dropping them off on Main St. in some picturesque Iowa town. They will still be in custody unless they do not have proof of their crimes. 525 people have been released without charge from Gitmo already and 245 or so are still there. Many countries are taking detainees that are citizens of their countries. If they are not to be treated fairly by their home countries other countries, such as Switzerland, said they would take them. http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKN22513123

I don't understand why we cannot try these men in the US and have them in jail like Ramzi Yousef. He is in the super max prison in Florence, CO. I just want to see these people tried and jailed for their crimes. I really don't think people are embracing them and thinking they are reformed.

Torture Has A Long History of......Not Working (http://www.livescience.com/history/071019-torture-history.html)

Torture is a sign that a government either does not enjoy the trust of the people it governs or cannot recruit informers for a surveillance system. In both cases, torture to obtain information is a sign of institutional decay and desperation."

But then again, some justices don't see a problem with torture. Truly scary.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/12/scalia-torture/

Conservative columnist Christopher Hitchens "Believe Me, It's Torture"
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

[Pixel Gypsy]

I imagine the 9-11 families are outraged that the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks is going to be brought onto American soil. I have a feeling if I'd lost someone that day I would be livid that we are even spending time (and money) housing, feeding and going through the motions of a trial for a man who not only admited to being behind the whole thing, but is asking to die. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/12/08/2008-12-08_911_mastermind_cronies_tell_gitmo_judge_.html)

I'm disgusted by it now, and the only connection I had to that day was being American and watching as the towers fell, my hands on my 36 week pregnant stomach thinking "what kind of world am I bringing children into?"

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

If they are going to close it they need to just leave them over there somewhere or find a way to force the UN into taking them. Just don't bring them on American soil. We are spending so much to transport them around and stuff that it's sort of crazy. At least soliders at Gitmo have their families with them though. If we leave them on the battlefield area it will separate families again. On the other hand I don't believe they have any place on American soil at all because they are not citizens and do not have our rights. They can have basic human rights and decency but our Constitution should not cover them. Even if they do bring them here it should be remembered they are not citizens. They really didn't break any laws against us unless they are directly involved in 9/11 so if we go get them over there just because they are terrorists how do you bring charges on them in our courts? Just being a general terrorist doesn't break a law in the US. Holding them in a war situation should have them in some type of war court. They really should talk much more to the UN about all of this and get more countries involved that are also in the fight.

ITA- my first thought was they should be tried under the UN at the Hague.

[Pixel Gypsy]

ITA- my first thought was they should be tried under the UN at the Hague.

This I could completely live with!

[tammy1999]

I am posting this from Neal Boortz's website and I feel the very same way he does on this issue.

President Obama has, in my humble opinion, transmitted a clear signal of weakness to the Islamic terrorists who want to kill us. You just have to know that these Islamic goons were standing by watching Obama to see just how tough he may be to deal with. What do they see? He's going to shut down the facility where some of their Islamic killer-compatriots are held, and he's halting trials of their buds. On what planet does this not send a signal of potential weakness. With this action I believe that President Obama has made America a bit less safe.

I was wondering one thing. Will this cause our military to start shooting on site while at war and not take anymore prisoners. What do we tell them? Oh, you are our prisoner, but we have to where to house you. Sorry......BANG!!!!! Sorry to be so graphic, but just something that crossed my mind.

[Tiffikat]

I think the closing of Gitmo is needed but everyone has known that was how I felt about it for awhile. Tracey I think this is a great post, I hope everyone reads the articles.

[txmusicmom]

Terrorists are not US Citizens....our laws do not apply.......I'm not advocating - anything goes............but when you have an unrepentant-- I'll do it again - terrorist.......what do you suggest we do?

BUT 16 that have been released are confirmed to be acting as terrorists- and 81 highly suspected..........

Terrorists..........are not prisoners of war.................I'd be upset if I were a family member as well

UH-- what state is going to want to have these folks in their state? Do you want them near your town? Or do we release them all and say-- Now be good............?

As far as any prison.........I think prisons are way too plush these days........some are in better condition than working folks live in...........

[txmusicmom]

ITA- my first thought was they should be tried under the UN at the Hague.

First of all - those who attacked our soil............are our business- not the UN

Since when has the UN gotten anything done- or had a backbone on any issue?

[tammy1999]

First of all - those who attacked our soil............are our business- not the UN

Since when has the UN gotten anything done- or had a backbone on any issue?

Oh you said a mouth full. How many times did we ask the UN for permission to go after Usama? Wasn't it like 14 times?? The US has no business being part of the UN.

[Haley64]

I think the closing of Gitmo is needed but everyone has known that was how I felt about it for awhile. Tracey I think this is a great post, I hope everyone reads the articles.

Thanks Tiff and other who actually dared to read... :blush

John McCain (http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/we-should-close-guantanamo/2 008/03/27/1206207240495.html), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has

called for the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison for alleged

terrorist detainees.

"I believe we should close Guantanamo," McCain said in a foreign

policy address in Los Angeles, where he argued that the United

States cannot go it alone in the world and must respect the views

of valued allies.

"Our great power does not mean that we can do whatever we want,

whenever we want," said McCain, 71.

[Haley64]

There are Iraq bystanders, civilans caught up in this also, is everyone OK that

they have been held for years without a trial, tortured and denied

their day in court that could have set them free again?

I know that there are actual terrorists in GB, figure out who they are,

try them in court then either execute them or imprison them. But

don't continue to beat them day after day, year after years like inhuman objects.

To read about this being done by the USA, in my name and in the names of my children makes me physically ill!

[Haley64]

Another thing I am not totally clear on...OK

Al queda + Bin Laden + Terrorist = 9/11

there were some al queda terrorist cells that did reside in Iraq

Most people living in Iraq were NOT part of the problem, remember they are the same poor people that Saddam has been torturing for years.

Remember those people who we went to liberate?

Some of those same poor people's fathers, sons, grandfather and uncles are in Gitmo being tortured only for being Iraq bystanders in the wrong place at the wrong time.

WE the USA brought the fight to Iraq, trying to get al queda and mostly bin laden.

But now we are comfortable and content that we only have just the "right" ones in Gitmo?

[vegaschristina]

Terrorists are not US Citizens....our laws do not apply
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
(http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm)
Where, exactly, in the Declaration of Independence does it say that all US citizens are created equal but if you're not a citizen we can torture you without end?

Where does it say that if you're not a citizen, we can imprison you for years without having actually been convicted of committing a crime?

Where does it say that if you're not a citizen, we will imprison you for years even AFTER you've been found not guilty of any crime?

We're supposed to be the good guys. The good guys don't do these things.

I read the links Haley put up. Honestly, I think that former President Bush, former Vice President Cheney, Rumsfeld, and anyone connected to these things should be arrested and should go to the Hague for War Crimes Trials.

We're supposed to be the good guys. We're not supposed to do these things.

[Kim2002]

Yes, Gitmo needs closing. However, I don't think our government has a well-thought-out plan in place to do so just yet. No other country wants these people. The U.S. citizens don't want them in their own backyard. And it's already been reported that some who have previously been released from Gitmo are back to being active terrorists. Not sure what to do....but closing without a serious plan of action is irresponsible and puts our country at risk of having those who are, in fact, known terrorists strike again.

[Tiffikat]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
(http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm)
Where, exactly, in the Declaration of Independence does it say that all US citizens are created equal but if you're not a citizen we can torture you without end?

Where does it say that if you're not a citizen, we can imprison you for years without having actually been convicted of committing a crime?

Where does it say that if you're not a citizen, we will imprison you for years even AFTER you've been found not guilty of any crime?

We're supposed to be the good guys. The good guys don't do these things.

I read the links Haley put up. Honestly, I think that former President Bush, former Vice President Cheney, Rumsfeld, and anyone connected to these things should be arrested and should go to the Hague for War Crimes Trials.

We're supposed to be the good guys. We're not supposed to do these things.

I could not have said it better.

[Scorpiosue1102]

The government has tried every way to do exactly what it wants to these detainees. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld the Supreme Court held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949." Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention was violated.

Then the Military Commissions Act (by Congress and signed into law) was drafted because of the Supreme Courts ruling above. It does such things as: throws out the Geneva Convention article 3, habeas corpus, and due process plus gives the President the power to say who is an enemy combatant or who is not along with holding them indefinitely and without charge. So technically the President could say that John Doe is an enemy combatant at will.

Then the Supreme Court heard Bournediene vs. Bush and ruled that the Military Commissions Act was an unconstitutional encroachment on habeas corpus and established that federal courts could hear habeas corpus cases from detainees. No matter what we think the US Supreme Court decided last year that the detainees have a right to challenge their detentions. http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/court_sides_with_gitmo_detaine.html

I don't think anyone is here is saying that some of these people are not truly evil. I think most are saying that these people need to be tried and punished for their crimes. I still don't understand why there is no outrage that Ramzi Yousef, who was planned the '93 WTC bombs, is sitting in a Colorado super max prison when he was picked up in Pakistan. He was tried, found guilty and sitting in the one of the worst places you can imagine. Yet we cannot incarcerate them here in the US.

We had Bin Laden in our sight in late 2001. The CIA commander asked for more troops, but was turned down.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200708170007
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.html
An absolutely FANTASTIC, eye opening and lonnnnnng article on tracking Bin Laden in late 2001 from the CIA commander in Afghanistan, Gary Bernsten. This is truly worth the read:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/interviews/berntsen.html

There's info in August 2007 we had either Bin Laden, al Zarqawi or both in Tora Bora and just escaped US forces. Part of it was coordination of our forces.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21000298/

Actually, I don't think that this is exactly Bush's fault, but the fault of the people he put in high positions. So do we not blame Bush or do we? The last person in line is Bush. It seems that we should blame Mike Brown for FEMA, George Tenant, Donald Rumsfeld, CENTCOM for not getting Bin Laden/Iraq, etc., Paulson for the Treasury. When does it become Bush's fault for having these people in position????

[ayaandjudah]

I'm a 9/11 survivor.

I am glad they are closing gitmo. I am sooooooo anti torture.

And they;re not letting them go free into society, they will just be treating them like humans.

[kjbstevens]

From any story I saw today on the news they'll have the same treatment whether they are at Pendleton or Gitmo now and it'll cost even more millions of dollars to move them and build new facilities plus relocating military families stationed there. Why doesn't he just ban torture and keep them there if that is the real big deal with it and save the money we don't have?

[Scorpiosue1102]

Though I totally agree with you I think that it's the stigma that Gitmo now carries. By closing it it's turning a new leaf.

[kjbstevens]

Turning a leaf in a state that can't even afford to give out people's hard earned tax money back at the expense of millions to build new housing for them, plus security, and everything else involved in operating a facilty like this? Making laws that protect them in line with war rules is turning a new leaf. If his priorities are on a stigma of something that was on someone else compared to actual suffering of our own citizens with healthcare and bills piling up and taking money out of the hands of the US taxpayers that need it to pay their bills for this then that will make any strides me makes in making things humane bust to me and totally not worth it. I definately do not support it if this is only a symbolic move. If we had extra money then yeah that would be great, but bottom line we don't. That's caring for his own image at the taxpayers and our national debt's expense.

[movefearlessly]

i understand the anger and sorrow these people feel.

actually, that's a lie. i don't, because i didn't personally lose a loved one that day. but i know how i'd feel. i'd be outraged.

BUT

if you are going to hold yourself up as an example for the world to follow (and we do, right?) - YOU CANNOT CONDONE TORTURE. they may not be U.S. citizens, they may well have conspired to commit acts of terror against our country. so be it.

they are STILL human beings.

you do, with pride and honor, what you can to determine their role in any acts of treason, and you do the best you can to effect appropriate punishment.

anything else is abuse.

[JCSimon]

I'm tired of hearing what the people who lost loved ones on 9/11 supposedly feel about Gitmo being closed.

My dh's whole family lives in New York and DC. We couldn't find his baby sister (who worked at the NSA) for two days after the attacks; it took 23 hours to track down another sister and his mom in NYC; we lost two cousins in the towers.

WE are GLAD Gitmo is being closed. It's been eating at us from the beginning. HOW can we call ourselves a beacon for democracy and greatness when we're violating our own laws and values, no matter *what* the reason for doing it supposedly is.

[Scorpiosue1102]

Here's my thing that I don't think has really been answered.....

We have these people in Gitmo yet we have people like Ramzi Yousef (and the others convicted) sitting in a supermax prison out in Colorado. Yousef was captured in Pakistan. Zacarias Moussaoui in Colorado. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, sitting in Florence, CO. Jose Padilla, a US citizen was deemed by Bush "an enemy combatant" which is supposed to be only for non-citizens, was tried and convicted. He is also in Florence, Colorado. So why is it that we can house these men in a super max prison, but not the others? Padilla and others were housed in the Naval Consolidation Brig in South Carolina so they can be sent to other places. Who's to say that there aren't others in different places since we did have secret CIA prisons?

[kjbstevens]

But what does closing Gitmo really do? They could be tortured anywhere else they were. Wouldn't it make Obama the bigger man if instead of running from things he went and made them right? From talking to anyone in my family that did vote for him that was the reason they did. They didn't like his policy ideas but thought he was actually going to be a better person and just fix what was broke instead of throwing in more problems. He can fix Gitmo with good lawmaking which is their jobs and save the millions if not billions of taxpayer money it would take to move them and build new places. The 9/11 survivors would still have them there and people that want them treated different would have that. He isn't looking for compromise and practical solutions. Instead he is trying to be a dreamer or something which in tough times makes no sense unless he wants more role modeling to the American people that instead of fixing easily solveable problems already there just pack up and leave and spend the money to start things over somewhere else because you can.

[kjbstevens]

Here's my thing that I don't think has really been answered.....

We have these people in Gitmo yet we have people like Ramzi Yousef (and the others convicted) sitting in a supermax prison out in Colorado. Yousef was captured in Pakistan. Zacarias Moussaoui in Colorado. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, sitting in Florence, CO. Jose Padilla, a US citizen was deemed by Bush "an enemy combatant" which is supposed to be only for non-citizens, was tried and convicted. He is also in Florence, Colorado. So why is it that we can house these men in a super max prison, but not the others? Padilla and others were housed in the Naval Consolidation Brig in South Carolina so they can be sent to other places. Who's to say that there aren't others in different places since we did have secret CIA prisons?

Because US citizens no matter where arrested by us still have all of the protections of our Constitution. Even though they were out trying to destroy everything it stands for they still have it to protect them in courts. Our supermax's and prisons are already supermaxed out and they don't really want them in with other criminals to be able to convert or spread their hate. I see what you mean, but really would you want our prisons as a breeding ground for them when there are ways for Obama to salvage things by just making good decisions down there?

[JCSimon]

Because the *perception* of what Gitmo stands for is so ingrained in minds all over the world. It may seem to be just a "cosmetic" change but, honestly, can you say you could ever hear the word "Gitmo," no matter how they changed things, and not think "torture?"

If the Germans had turned Auschwitz into a luxury resort after the war, would *you* consider going there?

[vegaschristina]

But what does closing Gitmo really do? They could be tortured anywhere else they were. Wouldn't it make Obama the bigger man if instead of running from things he went and made them right?

Gitmo needs to close because it's a stain on our society. When something is that bad...when there is nothing good coming from it...we just need to get rid of it.

You can't take a cancer and make it right...you just need to cut it out.

[Scorpiosue1102]

Because US citizens no matter where arrested by us still have all of the protections of our Constitution.

Not exactly true. Jose Padilla is a U.S. citizen and he was deemed an "enemy combatant", held without charges and then could be tried in the military courts. 3.5 years he was held as such until civil liberty groups got even more vocal. After 3.5 years he finally got his day in court as a U.S. citizen. So no, citizens are not always protected by the Constitution. Padilla, though no boy scout, as a citizen should still get to use those right.

[kjbstevens]

So in our economic times you all really think hundreds of millions or even into the billions that could go towards food, shelter, or giving people in CA their money back, or even think of the medical bills that could pay for our citizens that hand over their money because the gov't takes it from them to protect them should be spend on that over things that are desperately needed and could be life or death for someone that might have even paid in? I just don't understand a moral victory on this being a practical solution. As long as we hold them at all we're going to have this stain. Closing Gitmo does nothing but try to run from it. It's not going to go away until the people are released or found guilty. They are just basically being held until the war is over so they can't fight. Only the ones in the US prisons because they are citizens have done anything treasonish any why they are in the US system. Really they should probably be still in their country, but I guess they did bring Germans here during WW2 and all. I don't believe they should be in our country at all for any reason. They are going to be held the same way if they are under the same laws in Gitmo or CA. Why put the gov't though more wasteful spending just to move them if something else happens. If one guard or someone does something else in another place are they going to get up and move again? It has to end someone take responsibility somewhere and he has the chance to do it.

[kjbstevens]

Not exactly true. Jose Padilla is a U.S. citizen and he was deemed an "enemy combatant", held without charges and then could be tried in the military courts. 3.5 years he was held as such until civil liberty groups got even more vocal. After 3.5 years he finally got his day in court as a U.S. citizen. So no, citizens are not always protected by the Constitution. Padilla, though no boy scout, as a citizen should still get to use those right.
I see that but as long as we hold anyone there is the stain on us. It's the whole situation not just Gitmo itself. It's like the whole kingdom of God is inside you and around you and not in a house of wood or clay quote. It was an entire attitude about the whole situation and not Gitmo itself that people are projecting it on. I really don't think they really have any intention on trying them which will actually get them out of jail probably sooner. As soon as the fighting ends they'll be traded back like any other war. If not we could be paying for these people for decades if they were tried and found guilty. I find it a tough spot either place for them and neither way is right or wrong because they really, really need to go in and write amendments out for the Geneva Convention covering this since it's been going on years now with no good legislation to cover them under. I just don't think closing Gitmo fixes anything at all.

[Scorpiosue1102]

Part of the problem is that we held these people without any real solid evidence. There are a bunch of them just sitting there because they can't go back to their countries for fear of persecution. Others, like Yemeni, would go back to a country that could spur them into action even if they aren't violent and/or guilty of any offenses. So our tax dollars are being spent to keep these people until we can find a country to take them. Yeah, some are bad guys, but if you don't have the evidence what can you do? Nothing.

[kjbstevens]

Moving them isn't going to solve that though. I don't see how them being in Gitmo or Pendleton is going to change that. They are still the same people in the same situation under the same laws either way. We'll just have the money to make sure they are properly provided for without more from Americans already financially suffering unless you all just really have the extra money laying around which most don't. I think it would be a worse decision for him to make us suffer financially after he fixes what needed to be fixed with protections.

[Haley64]

Here is but a partial list of the accused Muslim Terrorists who have been successfully tried and convicted in U.S. civilians courts and who remain imprisoned inside the U.S.:

* Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, convicted, 1996, U.S. District Court (before then-U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey) -- plotting terrorist attacks on the U.S. (currently: U.S. prison, Butler, North Carolina);
*
* Zacarias Moussaoui, convicted, 2006, U.S. Federal Court -- conspiracy to commit the 9/11 attacks (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
*
* Richard Reid, convicted, 2003, U.S. Federal Court -- attempting to blow up U.S.-bound jetliner over the Atlantic Ocean (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
*
* Jose Padilla, convicted, 2007, U.S. Federal Court -- conspiracy to commit terrorism (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
*
* Iyman Faris a/k/a/ Mohammad Rauf, convicted, 2003, U.S. Federal Court -- providing material support and resources to Al-Qaeda, conspiracy to commit terrorist acts on behalf of Al Qaeda (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
*
* Ali Saleh al-Marri, accused Al Qaeda operative -- not yet tried, held as "unlawful enemy combatant" (currently: U.S. Naval Brig, Hanahan, South Carolina);
*
* Masoud Khan, convicted, 2004, U.S. Federal Court -- conspiracy to commit terrorism as part of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Islamic jihad (currently: U.S. prison, Terre Haute, Indiana);
*
* John Walker Lindh, convicted, 2002, U.S. Federal Court -- providing material support to the Taliban (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado).
*

That's just a partial list. Both pre- and post-9/11, there are numerous other individuals who have been convicted in U.S. civilian courts of various acts relating to terrorism inspired by Islamic radicalism, including many alleged to be high-level Terrorists, who are now serving sentences inside the U.S., in U.S. prisons. Moreover, terrorists accused of being members of Al Qaeda and affiliated groups have been successfully tried in the regular courts of other countries -- including Britain and Spain -- and currently sit in those countries' regular prisons, without a whiff of a problem.

The United States, under George W. Bush, actually sought to have these dangerous people extradited to the United States, exposing our citizens to danger! Not only that, we succeeded! For instance, Francisco Javier Arellano Félix, the head of the Tijuana cartel, is now locked up in San Diego. We are seeking the extradition of his brother Eduardo, and have several other high-ranking members of the cartel in custody. OMG!! Americans are at risk!!! What shall we do???

Mexico extradited 83 suspects to the United States (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/30/BARA14EQ5K.DTL) last year and has handed over 70 so far this year, according to U.S. figures. Fifty-one more cases await approval by Mexican judges. In return, U.S. authorities say that they have sent 26 wanted suspects to Mexico this year, a record.

[Haley64]

"President Obama's plans to expeditiously determine the fates of about 245 terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and quickly close the military prison there were set back last week when incoming legal and national security officials -- barred until the inauguration from examining classified material on the detainees -- discovered that there were no comprehensive case files on many of them.

Instead, they found that information on individual prisoners is "scattered throughout the executive branch," a senior administration official said. The executive order Obama signed Thursday orders the prison closed within one year, and a Cabinet-level panel named to review each case separately will have to spend its initial weeks and perhaps months scouring the corners of the federal government in search of relevant material.

Several former Bush administration officials agreed that the files are incomplete and that no single government entity was charged with pulling together all the facts and the range of options for each prisoner. They said that the CIA and other intelligence agencies were reluctant to share information, and that the Bush administration's focus on detention and interrogation made preparation of viable prosecutions a far lower priority.

On the one hand, the Bush administration released some detainees (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_01/016578.php) who apparently turned out to be pretty dangerous. On the other, the Bush administration refused to release other detainees (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_01/016510.php) who weren't dangerous at all, and were actually U.S. allies.

There are no files Part 1 (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/01/there-are-no-files.html)

There are no files part 2: (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/01/there-are-no-files-part-2.html)

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/24/AR2009012401702.html)

One would assume it would only take one plane to move all 245 of them at once. IF the administration team could find and go through the paperwork on these 245 and figure out exactly what they are charged of and what their fate will be that number could drop and they would only need a plane ticket to whatever country they belong to. If under this new administration other world leaders agree to take back their country men and hold them in their prisons. They wouldn't do this for Bush, but it is looking a little bit better for President Obama.

[kjbstevens]

The cost doesn't include only the terrorists. There are servicemen, wives, children and all of that living there as well. They have to find new housing or build it for them. Prison space for the terrorists. All of that is involved as well and most of those you've named are Americans already as well as the terrorists in other places. They were in their country already. We've carted these people here against their will. That doesn't give them our rights. There are so many other things that are being missed in hidden costs besides the obvious. It's horrible wasteful spending. They can review and let those out that need out, but the other is a very impratical solution to an easily fixable problem.

[vegaschristina]

Here is but a partial list of the accused Muslim Terrorists who have been successfully tried and convicted in U.S. civilians courts and who remain imprisoned inside the U.S.

My complaint about Gitmo is not about those who have been tried and convicted. It's about those who have been held without any form of due process.

And I've never heard of wives and children of service members residing at Gitmo.

[kjbstevens]

I didn't know they were there until this week when all of this came up about the actual cost of moving them.

[Gina.Maria]

I am posting this from Neal Boortz's website and I feel the very same way he does on this issue.

President Obama has, in my humble opinion, transmitted a clear signal of weakness to the Islamic terrorists who want to kill us. You just have to know that these Islamic goons were standing by watching Obama to see just how tough he may be to deal with. What do they see? He's going to shut down the facility where some of their Islamic killer-compatriots are held, and he's halting trials of their buds. On what planet does this not send a signal of potential weakness. With this action I believe that President Obama has made America a bit less safe.

I was wondering one thing. Will this cause our military to start shooting on site while at war and not take anymore prisoners. What do we tell them? Oh, you are our prisoner, but we have to where to house you. Sorry......BANG!!!!! Sorry to be so graphic, but just something that crossed my mind.Those in Gitmo are not POWs and have not been granted the same rights that we grant POWs.

Here's my thing that I don't think has really been answered.....

We have these people in Gitmo yet we have people like Ramzi Yousef (and the others convicted) sitting in a supermax prison out in Colorado. Yousef was captured in Pakistan. Zacarias Moussaoui in Colorado. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, sitting in Florence, CO. Jose Padilla, a US citizen was deemed by Bush "an enemy combatant" which is supposed to be only for non-citizens, was tried and convicted. He is also in Florence, Colorado. So why is it that we can house these men in a super max prison, but not the others? Padilla and others were housed in the Naval Consolidation Brig in South Carolina so they can be sent to other places. Who's to say that there aren't others in different places since we did have secret CIA prisons?The Gitmo prisoners have not been charged with crimes and cannot be tried in a court of law. That's the difference between the men you've mentioned and the Gitmo prisoners.

But what does closing Gitmo really do? They could be tortured anywhere else they were. Wouldn't it make Obama the bigger man if instead of running from things he went and made them right? From talking to anyone in my family that did vote for him that was the reason they did. They didn't like his policy ideas but thought he was actually going to be a better person and just fix what was broke instead of throwing in more problems. He can fix Gitmo with good lawmaking which is their jobs and save the millions if not billions of taxpayer money it would take to move them and build new places. The 9/11 survivors would still have them there and people that want them treated different would have that. He isn't looking for compromise and practical solutions. Instead he is trying to be a dreamer or something which in tough times makes no sense unless he wants more role modeling to the American people that instead of fixing easily solveable problems already there just pack up and leave and spend the money to start things over somewhere else because you can.Actually, no, the prisoners cannot be legally tortured on American soil which is why they've been detained at Gitmo or been sent to other places that will allow torture. Once they're in true military prisons, they must be treated like any military prisoner and be granted any of the rights of prisoners guaranteed by treaty or law.

We must keep in mind that these men have not been charged with crimes and, in most cases, cannot be charged. What we've done to them is more likely to make them enemies of the U.S. than anything their own people could have done. If there's one thing I'm certain of it's that Gitmo will be turning out a whole lot of angry men who will feel nothing but hate for our country. Gitmo is nothing more than a terrorist training camp.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

First of all - those who attacked our soil............are our business- not the UN

Since when has the UN gotten anything done- or had a backbone on any issue?

Really? I thought the UN handled the trials of all war criminals.

[kjbstevens]

Actually, no, the prisoners cannot be legally tortured on American soil which is why they've been detained at Gitmo or been sent to other places that will allow torture. Once they're in true military prisons, they must be treated like any military prisoner and be granted any of the rights of prisoners guaranteed by treaty or law.

We must keep in mind that these men have not been charged with crimes and, in most cases, cannot be charged. What we've done to them is more likely to make them enemies of the U.S. than anything their own people could have done. If there's one thing I'm certain of it's that Gitmo will be turning out a whole lot of angry men who will feel nothing but hate for our country. Gitmo is nothing more than a terrorist training camp.

This is all things that can done by just the cost of legislation alone though. Anywhere they go they are going to hate us so I really don't think moving them is going to help even if it makes some people's conscience feel better because there are those on the other side that will be hurt if they are moved as well. I do think he can do the right thing with them there though. I haven't seen one way at all besides his public image that is changed with this which might look great to some but what does it really do to change the situation of the people they are holding? Nothing. He can save us a load of money we need to fix the economic situation and do his job with congress and make the right laws. That's make his memory good as the person who fixed things instead of running from the problem. It reminds me of wanting to drop and leave the war instead of fixing our mistakes first.

[milisa]

The Gitmo prisoners have not been charged with crimes and cannot be tried in a court of law. That's the difference between the men you've mentioned and the Gitmo prisoners.

Actually, no, the prisoners cannot be legally tortured on American soil which is why they've been detained at Gitmo or been sent to other places that will allow torture. Once they're in true military prisons, they must be treated like any military prisoner and be granted any of the rights of prisoners guaranteed by treaty or law.

We must keep in mind that these men have not been charged with crimes and, in most cases, cannot be charged. What we've done to them is more likely to make them enemies of the U.S. than anything their own people could have done. If there's one thing I'm certain of it's that Gitmo will be turning out a whole lot of angry men who will feel nothing but hate for our country. Gitmo is nothing more than a terrorist training camp.


I was not going to comment in this thread until I read this posting.... "GITMO is nothing more than a terrorist training camp." Well, personally I take that as an insult. My husband served at GITMO, he did not abuse prisoners, he did not torture prisoners. He would work 12 hour shifts, bringing them food, seeing that they got their religious rights, etc. Each night he got off he had to take a shower to wash the crap (and I mean that in the literal sense) and numerous other stuff off of him that the prisoners would throw at him and the other guards. He would also have to do laundry so that he had clean uniforms at all times should he need to change during the day from what was thrown at him. My husband did NOT work at a terrorist training camp.

But I will be sure to tell him that you think that GITMO is nothing more than a terrorist training camp, after all that is your right to think that...and that is what our men and women in uniform fight for.

I could have and probably did misinterpret what you said. And if I did, I apologise for my outburst. Yes, I am sure that torture has taken place there; but not all the people that work at GITMO is or was involved in the torture of those human beings being held there.

Close GITMO, cost wise for our economy not a good idea; rather let the ones go that are no threat and keep the ones that are. Set and establish rules for the treatment of the prisoners at ALL levels, not just some levels. Ensure that the rules are being enforced....heck why not let the base commander do his job and ensure that the rules are being enforced? And if they are not and torture still goes on, punish those doing it, including the base commander (who if he is any kind of base commander should know what is going on around and in his base).

Again, I am sorry if I misinterpreted what you said.

[vegaschristina]

Really? I thought the UN handled the trials of all war criminals.

War Crimes Trials are usually handled in the Hague, aren't they?

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

That's what I thought- the UN tries them at the Hague.

[Scorpiosue1102]

The Gitmo prisoners have not been charged with crimes and cannot be tried in a court of law. That's the difference between the men you've mentioned and the Gitmo prisoners.



Oh, I know. I was asking about the difference of housing them in Gitmo or somewhere in the U.S. until trial. "Enemy combatants" really have no rights so what we do with them doesn't matter...to some.



There are two international courts. One is the associated with the UN and the other is the International Criminal Court, but let me check. Yep. The UN Security Council can refer cases to the ICC. It's also located in The Hague. The UN's court is the International Court of Justice. Here's their info: The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.


http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html&l=en
http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?p1=0

[Gina.Maria]

I was not going to comment in this thread until I read this posting.... "GITMO is nothing more than a terrorist training camp." Well, personally I take that as an insult. My husband served at GITMO, he did not abuse prisoners, he did not torture prisoners. He would work 12 hour shifts, bringing them food, seeing that they got their religious rights, etc. Each night he got off he had to take a shower to wash the crap (and I mean that in the literal sense) and numerous other stuff off of him that the prisoners would throw at him and the other guards. He would also have to do laundry so that he had clean uniforms at all times should he need to change during the day from what was thrown at him. My husband did NOT work at a terrorist training camp.

But I will be sure to tell him that you think that GITMO is nothing more than a terrorist training camp, after all that is your right to think that...and that is what our men and women in uniform fight for.

I could have and probably did misinterpret what you said. And if I did, I apologise for my outburst. Yes, I am sure that torture has taken place there; but not all the people that work at GITMO is or was involved in the torture of those human beings being held there.

Close GITMO, cost wise for our economy not a good idea; rather let the ones go that are no threat and keep the ones that are. Set and establish rules for the treatment of the prisoners at ALL levels, not just some levels. Ensure that the rules are being enforced....heck why not let the base commander do his job and ensure that the rules are being enforced? And if they are not and torture still goes on, punish those doing it, including the base commander (who if he is any kind of base commander should know what is going on around and in his base).

Again, I am sorry if I misinterpreted what you said.
Well, the torture isn't in question. It happened. It happened a lot. I never said or suggested that individual persons stationed there and doing their jobs are or were responsible for that but if you've ever read any of my posts about the Bush Administration in this regard you'll know that I hold them responsible for what occurred there.

My statement that Gitmo is nothing more than a terrorist training camp is in reference to what we're making of those being held there. Once released, regardless of how involved in terrorist activities they were before their imprisonment, their hatred for us will influence them to turn to terrorism.

[Dee Bee Designs]

Here is the information about what the 9/11 families are objecting to. This came from ABC New's Jake Tapper:

The parents of three firefighters who died at the World Trade Center on Sep. 11, 2001, have written to President Obama (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/9_11Firefighterpg1.jpg) expressing concern about his recent executive orders and presidential memoranda dealing with national security which, among other actions, ordered the closing the detainee center at Guantanamo Bay (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/torture-gitmo-a.html).

Specifically, the families want to meet the president to appeal his decision to suspend the trials of five detainees in Gitmo who have admitted they have some part in the terror attacks, a ruling the president made so as to determine the best way to move forward with prosecutions.

Many of the detainees were in the process of undergoing military tribunals and President Obama's actions have suspended those proceedings. I do think the families have a right to be upset as it appears that Obama has put the cart before the horse in these actions. He was so eager to appease his left-wing, anti-war supporters that he put out an order to close Gitmo without having a cohesive plan formulated in regards to 1) What to do with the existing prisoners and 2) What to do should they capture other terrorists in the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think he took these actions because it was the politically expediant thing to do without regard to his responsibility towards protecting the American people from future attack.

I'm curious as to how much background material people have read on the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and the rise of al-Qaeda? I wonder if people understand the roots of this movement and what motivates the people involved in it? In other words, I question whether people have a sense of understanding the mind of this enemy?

The reason I bring this up is because I don't think the issue of Gitmo, warrant-less wiretaps, enhanced interrogation procedures, etc. should be discussed without that context; without having a full appreciation of what the enemies goals are and the means to which they are willing to go to achieve their ends. I would strongly suggest that those that want to get a real understanding of the issues at hand read the Pulitzer prize winning book "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright. This enemy is at war with all of modernity and has no moral conscience. The civil liberties which are championed in this thread are the very first things that would be abolished should the enemy prevail.

I don't think there are easy answers in all of this and I don't rest easily for those that have to make decisions and balance the needs to protect us against the needs to live up to our highest ideals. But to not be willing to face up to the evil that is inherent in the enemy in my opinion is naive and foolish in the extreme; and yes, I do feel that those who lost loved ones on 9/11 have a right to be concerned and angered by the sympathetic coverage of those being held in Gitmo and by the delay in justice that is occurring with the suspension of the tribunals.

[Haley64]

Why weren't people up in arms about this when Bush let terrorists out of GITMO? I mean I understand their concern, but it is not like they are just going to get a free pass into society...

In fact, the figure, which comes from the Pentagon, includes 43 former prisoners who are suspected of, but have not been confirmed as, having "return[ed] to the fight." Moreover, even the Pentagon's claim that it has confirmed that 18 former Guantánamo detainees have returned to the battlefield

One such example, involving a Saudi detainee named Said Ali Al-Shihri, who was released in 2007, received widespread attention Friday when Pentagon officials publicly confirmed that he has recently reemerged as a deputy commander of Al Qaeda in Yemen. Al-Shihri, once known publicly only as Guantanamo detainee No. 372, is suspected of involvement in a thwarted attack on the U.S. embassy in Yemen last September.

They are talking about this on Keith O. right now with a former US Military Interrogator.

[JCSimon]

Again, these people don't speak for all of us who lost loved ones in the towers or Pentagon on 9/11. *I* did and I want Gitmo closed as much as anyone does.

Obama's plan from the beginning was to close Gitmo within a year. He assumed (though, given the history of Bush secrecy, I'm not sure why) that that would give his administration time to review the files of the detainees and take appropriate action. It was only this week that he learned that there basically *are no* files!

To me, this makes Gitmo even more abhorrent; whatever was going on there (and I'm not condemning the soldiers but the higher-ups) was apparently ugly enough that no one wanted to be left holding any record of it.

And, Debb, I'm fully aware of where the terrorists stand. I still believe that lowering our own standards even slightly brings us closer to their level and that, by allowing our government to usurp our own liberties, the terrorists are another step closer to reaching their goal.

[movefearlessly]

Again, these people don't speak for all of us who lost loved ones in the towers or Pentagon on 9/11. *I* did and I want Gitmo closed as much as anyone does.

Obama's plan from the beginning was to close Gitmo within a year. He assumed (though, given the history of Bush secrecy, I'm not sure why) that that would give his administration time to review the files of the detainees and take appropriate action. It was only this week that he learned that there basically *are no* files!

To me, this makes Gitmo even more abhorrent; whatever was going on there (and I'm not condemning the soldiers but the higher-ups) was apparently ugly enough that no one wanted to be left holding any record of it.

And, Debb, I'm fully aware of where the terrorists stand. I still believe that lowering our own standards even slightly brings us closer to their level and that, by allowing our government to usurp our own liberties, the terrorists are another step closer to reaching their goal.
:clap:clap:clap

absolutely.