Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 40

Thread: Obama orders resumption of Military Commissions at Guantanamo

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062

    Obama orders resumption of Military Commissions at Guantanamo

    Obama orders resumption of military commissions at Guantanamo

    Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama announced Monday that the United States will resume using military commissions to prosecute alleged terrorists held at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility.

    In the announcement, the president said his administration remains committed to closing the controversial detention facility but will rescind its previous suspension on bringing new charges before military commissions. The commissions are military proceedings rather than trials in civilian courts.

    Obama also called for prosecuting Guantanamo detainees in U.S. criminal courts when appropriate, and issued an executive order calling for periodic reviews of suspects held under indefinite detention.

    The steps followed through on Obama's previous call to reform the process of prosecuting or holding Guantanamo detainees to make it more in line with international laws and standards, according to senior administration officials who briefed reporters on condition of not being identified by name.

    However, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights both criticized the administration for what they called institutionalizing indefinite detention of terrorism suspects who have yet to be formally charged or designated for transfer to another country, but are considered too dangerous to set free.

    "The creation of a review process that will take up to a year -- designed to be repeated every four years -- is a tacit acknowledgment that the Obama administration intends to leave Guantanamo as a scheme for unlawful detention without charge and trial for future presidents to clean up, despite the fact that senior officials acknowledged today that keeping the prison open continues to hinder our national security in the long run," the constitutional rights center said in a statement.

    Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York also called the administration's announcement disappointing, saying the Guantanamo facility is a "blot" on U.S. national honor.

    Noting that Congress passed a law prohibiting the transfer of Guantanamo detainees for trial in the United States, Nadler said that "as a result, the administration has turned to the legally dubious military commissions to try these suspects."

    Established in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorism attacks on the United States, the Guantanamo Bay facility has been a lightning rod for criticism of the U.S. handling of terrorism suspects.

    Under the Bush administration, allegations of mistreatment of detainees, including harsh living conditions and denying them full U.S. legal rights, led to the facility becoming a recruiting tool for terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, U.S. officials say.

    Obama previously pledged to close the Guantanamo Bay facility within a year of taking office in January 2009, prompting criticism from conservatives. In addition, his administration has sought to prosecute some high-profile detainees -- such as alleged September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- in civilian courts on the U.S. mainland, which drew widespread opposition that crossed traditional party lines.

    The Guantanamo facility remains open today due to legal complexities involving the status of some detainees and congressional opposition to holding trials for high-profile suspects in U.S. criminal courts.

    Shortly after Obama's announcement Monday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the withdrawal of his prior suspension of new charges before military commissions.

    Gates cited reforms of the military commissions under a 2009 law, and he and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen both expressed support for also using civilian courts to prosecute terrorism suspects.

    "For reasons of national security, we must have available to us all the tools that exist for preventing and combating international terrorist activity, and protecting our nation," Gates' statement said. "For years, our federal courts have proven to be a secure and effective means for bringing terrorists to justice. To completely foreclose this option is unwise and unnecessary."

    Congressional Republicans -- including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith of Texas, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon of California and House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King of New York -- welcomed the renewal of military commissions.

    However, McKeon and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers of Michigan criticized Obama for acting on his own instead of working out a policy with Congress.

    Rogers said he was "disappointed the White House chose to put another Band-Aid on this problem, rather than working with Congress to develop the comprehensive and long-term legislative framework we need."

    McKeon also questioned what the steps announced Monday mean for high-profile detainees such as Mohammed and other September 11 conspirators.

    The senior administration officials refused to comment on any individual cases. They said they expected new charges against Guantanamo detainees to be filed with military commissions soon, perhaps within days or weeks, and noted that the Obama administration had transferred 67 detainees to third countries so far, leaving a total of 172 in the facility.

    In addition, the senior administration officials said they would try to repeal the law that prevents the transfer of Guantanamo detainees for trial in the United States.

    "Military commissions should proceed in cases where it has been determined appropriate to do so," the administration said in an information sheet issued Monday. "Because there are situations, however, in which our federal courts are a more appropriate forum for trying particular individuals, we will seek repeal of the restrictions imposed by Congress, so that we can move forward in the forum that is, in our judgment, most in line with our national security interests and the interests of justice."
    War in Iraq, claimed to be Over but isn't (we're still there, in pretty much the same role).

    War in Afganistan, doubled down, no meaningful improvements yet.

    Gitmo, still open, not going to be closed.

    Millitary Tribunals, going forward.

    Indefinite detention, going forward.

    Patriot Act, passes and signed.

    Wireless Wiretaps, still ongoing.

    So......are Democrats pleased with Obama over the issues, the issues (one should note) that Dems and Libs were the most vocal, aggressive and angry about when they existed under the previous administration.

    It's odd, I would think you boys, angry as you were, would be all over this issue now. Maybe you missed the news reports I guess, since there really hasn't been a word from any of yall on this since election day, unless prodded by others to talk about it.

  2. #2
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    no im not pleased... I think it sucks. we talk about fiscal responsibility it starts by ending wars that are not in our national interest.

    but what's a liberal to do? it's not like the GOP is running on ending the war.

  3. #3
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    but what's a liberal to do?
    Perhaps you (using the term you in general here) could do all the fun things you did under the Previous Administration? Protesting, Rallies, Claims of War Crimes, Rights Violations, Imperial Presidents and demands for Impeachment?

    Or are you admitting that because he's from your party, thats more important than standing up for your values and beliefs?

    With that said, your quiet little "outrage" is noted Bit.

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,924
    The Democrats had their chance to defund the Iraqi war but didn't. Instead they tripled the troops in Afghanistan.

  5. #5
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Or are you admitting that because he's from your party, thats more important than standing up for your values and beliefs?
    I dont consider myself to be a one-issue voter, and while i disagree with his foreign policy choices, I agree with other of his policies. So i don't think impeachment or protests are necessary... and for the record I might have complained about Bush but I never protested against him or thought he should be impeached.

    I just don't see what the alternative is... it's not like the alternative is better. if mcCain would have won we'd probably have a 3rd front open in Iran by now.


    since we are talking about partisan politics I am wondering why the right wingers don't openly support the President's foreign policies which were so similar to their own previous Prez's policies. There aren't right wingers making threads like "gee Obama sucks on healthcare but Im glad he's supporting the troops"

    it cuts both ways.

  6. #6
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    I dont consider myself to be a one-issue voter, and while i disagree with his foreign policy choices, I agree with other of his policies.
    So Obamacare comes (to you) as a higher priority than the deaths of American Soldiers in two wasteful Wars you previously railed against almost daily.

    I understand.

    I might have complained about Bush but I never protested against him or thought he should be impeached.
    The record of what you said, how often you said it, and the view you took is well documented Bit, no need to defend it now, it's there if folks want to look it up.

    I just don't see what the alternative is
    Standing up for your principles ahead of party-loyaty would be my suggestion.

    if mcCain would have won we'd probably have a 3rd front open in Iran by now.
    Pure speculation, as opposed to the third War we have today (The Mexican Border) and the 4th War Obama is itching to get involved in (Libya) is some form.

    since we are talking about partisan politics I am wondering why the right wingers don't openly support the President's foreign policies which were so similar to their own previous Prez's policies.
    You'd have to ask them. I was not a supporter of GWB, his War Policy nor his War Management. About the only action I suppoerted was the counter-attack against Afganistan after 9/11....not teh occupation and weak attempt at Nation Building that followed.

    There aren't right wingers making threads like "gee Obama sucks on healthcare but Im glad he's supporting the troops"
    Except he's not. He's failing them as Bush failed before him.

    Oh, since public pay is such a topic these days, did you know the average E1 Grunt makes $17,000 a year, in combat, in Afganistan? Reported (my source) by ABC News Radio.

    You think they deserve the same pay as teachers, or no?

  7. #7
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    teachers dont have their room and board paid for by the gov't so it's not an apples to apples comparison

    as a side note people like to paint Obama as some kind of commie leftist marxist whatever. But this war issue should highlight how similar these parties really are. Elect a dem or a rep it's basically shades of gray. These parties are not that far apart on alot of issues... this war is one of em. There's no difference.

    Warfish i guarantee you if the libertarian party had a viable candidate I'd be all for it... but I wanted to follow up on your viewpoints on illegal immigration. Isn't libertarian party for open borders?

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    War in Iraq, claimed to be Over but isn't (we're still there, in pretty much the same role).

    War in Afganistan, doubled down, no meaningful improvements yet.

    Gitmo, still open, not going to be closed.

    Millitary Tribunals, going forward.

    Indefinite detention, going forward.

    Patriot Act, passes and signed.

    Wireless Wiretaps, still ongoing.

    So......are Democrats pleased with Obama over the issues, the issues (one should note) that Dems and Libs were the most vocal, aggressive and angry about when they existed under the previous administration.

    It's odd, I would think you boys, angry as you were, would be all over this issue now. Maybe you missed the news reports I guess, since there really hasn't been a word from any of yall on this since election day, unless prodded by others to talk about it.
    I would have been upset but since the TSA can now grab my balls I'm too distracted to care.

  9. #9
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    teachers dont have their room and board paid for by the gov't so it's not an apples to apples comparison
    Fair enough.

    So how much per anum do you value room and board in the Afghan War?

    as a side note people like to paint Obama as some kind of commie leftist marxist whatever. But this war issue should highlight how similar these parties really are.
    Hardly. War is not a left or right issue, and "the left" (using the VERY broad definition here) has killed millions since 1900, in it's various forms and many wars and revolutionary takeovers, and post-takeover purges and totalitarianism of the State.

    Warfish i guarantee you if the libertarian party had a viable candidate I'd be all for it...
    Good to hear.....expect they'll never be "viable" if eveyone who supports their ideals waits till they are "viable" first. A rather nasty Catch 22.

    I wanted to follow up on your viewpoints on illegal immigration. Isn't libertarian party for open borders?
    Yes, a policy I disagree with, as Border Control is inherantly a part of National Defense, an issue the Libertarians are not against having the State control.

    As you say, not every party can be right on every thing. With the LIbertarians, we would get open borders, and all the illegals now would be legal going forward (an idea, if I recall, you support in general for a list of reasons).

  10. #10
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    viable in the sense that he has the charisma to win... if hulk hogan ran on the libertarian ticket they'd have a chance. It's a popularity contest at the end of the day.

  11. #11
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    viable in the sense that he has the charisma to win... if hulk hogan ran on the libertarian ticket they'd have a chance. It's a popularity contest at the end of the day.
    Ah, so what you're saying then is you also treat it as a popularity contest, and your vote is not primary based on policy agreement or party affiliation, but whichever candidate you view as "viable", defined by you as charismatic and popular enough to win.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    I would have been upset but since the TSA can now grab my balls I'm too distracted to care.
    Oh sure - you're happy. But what about the rest of us?

  13. #13
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    50,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Oh, since public pay is such a topic these days, did you know the average E1 Grunt makes $17,000 a year, in combat, in Afganistan? Reported (my source) by ABC News Radio.

    You think they deserve the same pay as teachers, or no?
    Hey, they knew the salary when they enlisted right? Free medical care, free food AND uniforms! Where do I sign up in the private sector for such perks!

    If they want more money, let them work for a promotion...like everyone else!

  14. #14
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    Hey, they knew the salary when they enlisted right? Free medical care, free food AND uniforms! Where do I sign up in the private sector for such perks!

    If they want more money, let them work for a promotion...like everyone else!
    Where would you sign up in the private sector?

    McDonalds.

    There is some VERY tasty irony here, how fast you were to decry Teachers being mistreated when making over 100K prorated over a year, and bat nary an eyelash as Soldiers who make 17K in Combat.

    It says alot FF2.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,814
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    Hey, they knew the salary when they enlisted right? Free medical care, free food AND uniforms! Where do I sign up in the private sector for such perks!

    If they want more money, let them work for a promotion...like everyone else!

    What about those vacation days they get!!!! If you are given a contract as an E-1 that basically means you have a GED and did pretty damn bad on the ASVAB test.

    17K doesn't count that awesome combat pay!!!!

  16. #16
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,535
    These are more than fair points.

    I voted for Obama thinking we would be out of Iraq by now, scaled down in Afghanistan and have closed down Gitmo.

    Truly, Ron Paul sounds pretty good these days.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Where would you sign up in the private sector?

    McDonalds.

    There is some VERY tasty irony here, how fast you were to decry Teachers being mistreated when making over 100K prorated over a year, and bat nary an eyelash as Soldiers who make 17K in Combat.

    It says alot FF2.
    A carreer military person with a college education is likely to be an officer with substantially better pay not to mention housing allowances, monetary food allowances, etc.

    It's not a fair comparison to look at a high school graduate who enlists for a short time and is restricted in rank until they get college behind them.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    A carreer military person with a college education is likely to be an officer with substantially better pay not to mention housing allowances, monetary food allowances, etc.

    It's not a fair comparison to look at a high school graduate who enlists for a short time and is restricted in rank until they get college behind them.
    Being an enlisted career man is not a bad career and the military uses man incentives to keep the good soldiers, but the recession sure did help the military recruiters.

    Without the military the unemployment numbers would be higher.

  19. #19
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    50,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Where would you sign up in the private sector?

    McDonalds.

    There is some VERY tasty irony here, how fast you were to decry Teachers being mistreated when making over 100K prorated over a year, and bat nary an eyelash as Soldiers who make 17K in Combat.

    It says alot FF2.
    This is very tasty irony that you think they deserve more.

    Please outline your reasons why.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Where would you sign up in the private sector?

    McDonalds.

    There is some VERY tasty irony here, how fast you were to decry Teachers being mistreated when making over 100K prorated over a year, and bat nary an eyelash as Soldiers who make 17K in Combat.

    It says alot FF2.
    He's sarcastically using your own arguments against civil servants against you. The venom you're so full of these days has blinded you from seeing it.

    But don't let that stop you from continuing to make yourself look like a nutcase. Carry on.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us