AG Holder on Gitmo

[NeMont]

Posted on Wednesday, 04.15.09 Recommend AG Holder: Closing Gitmo a 'daunting challenge'

In-depth Guant?namo coverage
BY CAROL ROSENBERG
[email protected]

America's top attorney, Eric Holder, on Wednesday night described his assignment to empty the prison camps at Guant?namo "indisputably the most daunting challenge I face as attorney general.''

President Barack Obama put Holder in charge of a Cabinet-level task force assigned to transfer each of the 240 or so war on terror captives from the camps in southeast Cuba, which the Bush administration opened in Jan. 11, 2002.

The president also set a Jan. 22 deadline to put the detention center out of business.

''This task will not be easy,'' Holder said in dissecting the assignment in embargoed remarks released by the Justice Department ahead of the speech Wednesday night at West Point's Center for the Rule of Law.

"On the contrary, it is indisputably the most daunting challenge I face as Attorney General.''

He said the challenge was to sort among the captives and divide them between three categories:

? Those who "we will likely conclude no longer pose a threat to the United States and can be released or transferred to the custody of other countries. ''

? Those the U.S. will choose to prosecute in federal court.

? The detainees who are ''too dangerous to release'' yet have ''insurmountable obstacles'' to prosecuting them in federal court.

At issue may be detainees from whom confessions were gleaned through brutal interrogations. Holder has already labeled as torture one CIA interrogation technique, waterboarding.

The CIA has confirmed that agents did this to three detainees now at Guant?namo, among the 16 former agency-held captives brought there in September 2006 from secret overseas jails. Obama has since ordered those so-called black sites closed.

Unclear is how the United States could continue to hold detainees whom it continues unable to prosecute.

Holder said "some of the brightest minds in our nation are working to answer that question and to address the ramifications that each potential answer presents.''

"I pledge that the ultimate solution will be one that is grounded in our Constitution, based on congressional enactments, in compliance with international laws of war, and consistent with the rule of law. ''

 

[NeMont]

? The detainees who are ''too dangerous to release'' yet have ''insurmountable obstacles'' to prosecuting them in federal court.

What do you do with the people described above? We cannot prosecute them and we cannot let them go? Yet, for appearance sake we are closing the one place that we could hold them at. I happen to agree that Gitmo became a distraction but if the Obama administration is still going to hold people without prosecuting them and just change their addresses, how is this any different then what the Bush administration was doing?

Nemont

 

[202typical]

There is no difference except that Obama is a Dem and will get a free pass. Even Hdude will cover this up.
You will not here about this question in the NYT or the big three networks and you damn sure wont here that question on CNN or MSNBC.




"Here's something for you doom and gloomer, coolaid drinkers that might help you from offing yourselves; you could have had Hillary."
Tfinalshot March 24, 2009

 

[eelgrass]

? Those who "we will likely conclude no longer pose a threat to the United States and can be released or transferred to the custody of other countries. ''

They would all fit into this catagory if it was me.

Think about it.

Eel

 

[huntindude]

So we should keep a prison on foriegn soil open forever to hold prisoners we can't convict? or is it so we have a place to circumvent or break US and world law?

If we can't charge them and convict them what right did we have to take them by force from their native country? we have no choice but to wrap this up in whatever fashion found best, we don't have the luxury of a forever limbo land for people we don't know what to do with. what would be your opinion if American civilians and service personel were held in a prison where torure went on and the holding nation told us what we're telling the world? why is that so different? gee we can't charge them with a crime and we tortured them so some of what we have can't be used so we think we'll just hold them forever without charges, that sounds like a winner.

 

[NeMont]

HD,

Did you read what I posted. It is not me or anyone else but Obama's AG who is struggling with the following:

? The detainees who are ''too dangerous to release'' yet have ''insurmountable obstacles'' to prosecuting them in federal court.


Explain what you do with these people? They are too dangerous to release but cannot be prosecuted. Isn't that the crux of why they are hanging out in Gitmo?

My question is not what to do with Gitmo but what to do with the people that the Obama administration deems "too dangerous to release but unable to prosecute". If President Bush would have said such a thing you would have called him an idiot but AG Holder is saying it now. All that means is that the people in that group will be held without trial possibly forever without their day in court or the Obama will take a huge risk not only with the publics safety but a political risk of letting go dangerous people and have them commit an act of terror.

You haven't answer the question that Holder is trying to deal with.

Nemont

 

[1911]

Dude, if it is so open and shut as your legal brief describes, why didn't you boy just open the doors 100 days ago??

 

[huntindude]

I realize this, but my point is we have to deal with it.

First off we were offering rewards to people poorer than church mice which resulted in the arrest of innocent people, we should have done more homework before they were ever brought to Gitmo in the first place.

Second if some of them we can't convict because we tortured them isn't that a big part of this argument ? hello, it's against the law. what about those who we suspect but can't prove? we have to set them free, charge them or release them that's basic human rights. has anyone thought about the kazillion muslims who hate us including Bin Laden who are free to plot away? but somehow this handful of " suspects we can't charge " are going to make the difference? we hear over and over how Bin Laden is a nobody who cares, but these " suspects " oh my god they'll kill us all. give me a break.

Third sometimes crap happens, mistakes are made, the right thing to do is wade into it and sort it out and that doesn't mean it's going to be easy.

If we had returned the innocent unharmed and followed the law with the rest this mess would be easier to resolve. just another case of dumping a mess in a new adminisration's lap , I give them credit for doing the right thing, and no it won't be easy.

 

[overton]

Water boarding should be stopped. As a replacement molten iron boarding could take its place. Problem solved.

 

[LESGO54]

all the detainees should be put on a barge and towed to the middle of oscean and then sink it, problem solved

 

[RELH]

They will end up releasing ones that are still a danger. Just like the one they released and he ended up getting killed recently since he became the number #2 man for the Taliban.
They must have painted a invisible target on his back to track him and kill him later in the hills near Pakinstan.

RELH

 

[nickman]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-28-09 AT 00:44AM (MST)[p]Bring them to my house. We'll BBQ a couple of pigs, have a couple of beers, watch some nude girls play volleyball and ..............23 virgins, coming up!

They want to die a martyrs death and I for one, am more than willing to send them along their chosen path.

These people will kill everyone in sight, if you were to set them free and allow them the tools to do it.

Are they more innocent than the people in the Twin Towers? Doubtful.

Are they more innocent than the people who have been beheaded by their Islamic cousins? Doubtful.

Besides that, these people are not POWs'. They are not afforded the Geneva Convention rules. They are terrorists, without uniforms, and without a country of origin that we are involved in a declared war against. They have no rights whatsoever, as far as I can see.

Tell them that they have been eating Cheerios made from pork for the last 6 months and give them a razor blade.

I could care less what the rest of the world thinks of me.

 

[NeMont]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-28-09 AT 11:44AM (MST)[p]HD,

For those the U.S. says are too dangerous to realease and yet they are unable to be prosecuted I bet Obama makes the same determination as Bush did and that is "Not on my watch". He will not risk letting known enemies go. Holder and others will find a legal loophole through which Obama can jump in order to not release such people.

I would be willing to bet that either some other country accepts these guys or they will languish in some place kept away from society forever.

Imagine if one of these guys commits a horrific act of terror against the U.S. that would be political suicide for not only Obama but the democrats as well, NO WAY will any of them put their careers on the line for such a thing.

Of course such actions can only be characterized as crimes if there is a Republican in the White House because even when Obama does the same exact things as Bush, not a single GWB hater protests.

Nemont

 

[huntindude]

When it comes to the ones we know are dangerous you might be right, there may be no other way but lets hope we learned from our mistakes so there isn't a next time. don't say Obama can get away with this where Bush couldn't , don't forget who created a climate where a fair trial was impossible, there is a big difference between causing a problem and not knowing how to fix a problem.

For the ones we know are innocent and the ones we only suspect but can't prove we have no choice but to set them free. only a coward with no reguard for human rights would say otherwise. the middle east is in such chaos today it's childish to say a few " suspects " are going to make it a whole lot worse.

If we're going to trade with China, get our financing from China then why not be like China? Gitmo is like China lite, but it's a good start if that's where you want to go.

 

[202typical]

Be honest for once in your life Dude. Obama gets a pass on everything. He is following the Bush Doctrine to a "T" and yet YOU say nothing about it let alone the Obama media. Nemont is exactly right when he says Obama "not on my watch" will do exactly what Bush did and still you say nothing. Do you even have one critism of Obama. I mean come on not even the telepromter gaffs. Geez dude Obama has got to have something you think is bad.
Look Pelosi and the rest of the dems were deep deep in bed with water boarding and still you say nothing.
What happened on 911 was unprecedented, it called for unprecedented action, given what Bush knew I bet you'd make the same decisions. Like it or not durring the Bush years after 911 is the safest we have been in 30 years. Because of Bush's actions Obama is following what Bush set in place and thank God for it. I applaude Obama for sticking to what Bush maped out.



"Here's something for you doom and gloomer, coolaid drinkers that might help you from offing yourselves; you could have had Hillary."
Tfinalshot March 24, 2009

 

[huntindude]

While I know Obama is better than Bush was for America I'm anything but a fan. Obama is doing plenty I'm not happy about , but he is changing things from what Bush had no question about it.

There isn't a whole lot he could have changed in 100 days as far as the middle east, but he has done what he could. he opened diolog and stopped the childish I won't talk to you crap, he's on track with pulling the troops out of Iraq just like was agreed to prior to his taking office and what he said he'd do, he's commited more troops to the real war on terror in Afghanistan just like he promised and we haven't had an attack like the right wing nut jobs said we would in the first three months. why don't you admit he's making the best of a bad situation and there aren't a whole lot of options at this point.

Bush only made one bold move in this whole mess, and that was a wrong move in attacking Iraq. everyone agreed to go to Afghanistan and everyone agreed we needed tighter security, don't act like Bush made any huge brilliant stratigic moves that saved the world give me a break. take away the Iraq blunder and all Bush did was follow common sense like a city mayor would have done. of course Obama is going to proceed with common sense and continue the programs already in place, duh.


Obama's moves on the economy I'm less impressed with, but there are signs of hope, once again anyone who expected miracles was an idiot.

 

[NeMont]

HD,

I am not arguing about whether we should let innocent people go nor am I saying keep Gitmo open. I am asking the same question that AG Holder is asking. What do we do with guys we can't prosecute but are avowed, proven enemies who are obviously dangerous? We can't bring them into the Federal Court system because they are afforded rights there, we can't let them go because we beleive they will again commit terrorist acts against the U.S. and no other country will have them.

If you say that Bush was wrong to every have picked them up on the battle field then I guess that is one thing but it solves nothing. If the in the end we warehouse these guys without proper legal due process that would be afforded an American according to our Constitution then what?

I don't expect miracles at all, I have given up on our government to solve any problem. All they have done is make things worse. Just wait.

I guess the good news is that now the Dems do have a complete ruling majority in the Senate with the conversion of Arlen Specter. The dems control this thing 100% I hope it is not as disasterous for our country as when the Republicans had control but I bet it will be just as bad and just as partisan. It really is time to just hunt and fish and enjoy my family.

Nemont

 

[202typical]

"course Obama is going to proceed with common sense and continue the programs already in place, duh."

So it was not alright for Bush to proceed but it is alright for Obama..............you are a hypocrite Dude admit it! You sat here for 4 years bit$%ing and moaning over everything and anything that had to do with what Bush was doing and suddenly because your boy Obama is doing it, everythings just peachy. WTF McFly!



"Here's something for you doom and gloomer, coolaid drinkers that might help you from offing yourselves; you could have had Hillary."
Tfinalshot March 24, 2009

 

[huntindude]

Nemont you just answered this whole argument, "we can't bring them here because they'll have rights" that says it all, if Gitmo is our own little China as Americans we should demand it's closed.

I don't know what we should do with them but look at it this way, we have to decide something. they could release the innocent and shoot the rest as they tried to escape as far as I'm concerned. we've created a mess and now one way or another we are forced to deal with it.


202, I never said everything Bush did was a mistake, I said Iraq was a mistake and that's pretty much an accepted fact today. neglecting the war in Afghanistan was a mistake too, a mistake we're paying for today. acting like a little kid refusing to talk to all leaders was a mistake as well, but I never said everything he did was wrong. what could Obama do different on the day to day terror situation? not much.

 

[NeMont]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-29-09 AT 09:54AM (MST)[p]HD,

Want to make a bet that the Obama administration does not let those desiganted as too dangerous but unable to prosecute go? I bet they hold them without the benefit of a trial.

We won't execute them nor will we allow them to return to their home countries due to the threat they pose.

I really am just playing devil's advocate. It is a nearly impossible situation and if there was an easy solution as to what to do with these guys even the Bush administration would have done it.

Yes there were many mistakes made, just like every aministration since George Washington was sworn in.

Nemont

 

[huntindude]

No they won't be released, the dangerous ones anyway.

In the future we have learned that we should torture them on site of we're going to then either let them go or shoot them, that's the way it used to be and that's the only way it can be. what happens in the heat of battle at the moment is harder to prove and easier to excuse than a prison operated to operate outside the law.

We will find someplace to take these people and pay them a jillion dollars a year to hold them until they die.

 

[NeMont]

ummm....torture and summary execution are specifically named as war crimes within the GC. So if we are using the GC as a guideline to deal with enemy combatants who did not sign the GC but we are bound by it, it is okay to violate it as long it it happens on the battle field, which is a war crime? That is how convoluted of an arguement you are making.

You feel better knowing torture and summary executions take place on the battlefield even though those are illegal acts as well. Just don't torture or execute people ones they are in a cell? That is an interesting perspective, I guess laws only matter when you feel they should apply.


There is no way, no how a service member should ever be put in a position of violating the GC and having make the choice of either being court martialed for disobeying an order or being charged with a war crime if he did obey the order.

It is not a neat and tidy scenario and those European countries and middle eastern countries having a fit about the prisons just refused to accept back many of their own detainees.


Nemont

 

[huntindude]

If a service member doesn't want to violate the GC that's a bad thing? I'm not sure what kind of argument you're making.

I would prefer everyone held to the GC, but what happens we don't know about we don't know about do we? we can't condone it but just like civilian deaths I don't think we can ever prevent it. when we create an organized torture center it's pretty hard to say " I didn't do it ", what happens we don't know about we can like always deny. it's not a perfect world , but crap happens, let's just not be deliberate in our illegal activity is my argument.

Are you saying we can't find someone to pay that will hold these people? hell Hardin wants them but as you say we can't bring them here because they would have human rights. China would do anything for the right price, I wouldn't even rule out a deal with Cuba or another shaddy nation. where there's money there's a way.

 

[NeMont]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-29-09 AT 11:26AM (MST)[p]So how do you feel about the U.S. prison in Bagram, Afghanistan that the Obama administration is expanding right now. Also the Obama administration just agreed with the Bush administration that those held at Bagram cannot challenge their detention. As long as these detentions take place where the world cannot see them then all is well? Seems like a double standard.


You said that torture and summary execution should be handled on the battlefield. Imagine yourself as a young service member and your chain of command issued you such an order: your choices are face a court martial for not obeying the orders of your superiors or face a war crimes trial for obeying them. That is not where we need to be putting our young men and women who volunteered to serve their country.

Here is a little debate on al jazeera, listen to Clinton's advisor.

Nemont

 

[huntindude]

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying, torure is a violation of the GC, it should not happen and it should never be ordered but I realize it does happen. I'm not even going to say under the right conditions and at the right time I wouldn't e part of something I'd normally consider wrong, as I said crap happens in the heat of battle but crap doesn't happen in a calm organized setting like a prison. which one is going to be harder to find out about and which one is going to harder to excuse?

Other prisons? as long as they're holding people on their native soil or in the war zone what can I say? there has to be a way to detain people or else you have to kill all prisoners. as long as thse prisons are run according to the GC and the laws of the soil they're on I see no comparison to our little project at Gitmo, keep prisoners where they came from and then they have to take them back.

 

[NeMont]

HD,

The prisoners held at Bagram Air Force Base are not all Afghanis. They are from all over the Middle East and Europe. They are under the sole control of the U.S. and not under control of the Afghan Government.

The Rendition program has flights into and out of Bagram as well. Renditions didn't end with the orders closing Gitmo. All I am saying is that the Obama administration is putting on a dog and pony show with the 240 detainees at Gitmo while holding over 600 in Bagram without due process, charges or habeas corpus rights. But of course that is all perfectly legit because it is ordered by a Democrat administration and not Bush.

Nemont

 

[Deadred7o7]

This thread is starting to sound alot like the deep south in the 50's and 60's. Who are you to say what rights someone can have and can not???
H-Dude I almost sided with you 100% untill you stated the "on the battlefield" thing, you cant ask 18yo kids to do that in the heat of war. Just to save the brass from having to stick their neck out.




Kyle
"If it moves shoot it again"

 

[proutdoors]

>HD,
>The Rendition program has flights into
>and out of Bagram as
>well. Renditions didn't end with
>the orders closing Gitmo.
>All I am saying is
>that the Obama administration is
>putting on a dog and
>pony show with the 240
>detainees at Gitmo while holding
>over 600 in Bagram without
>due process, charges or habeas
>corpus rights. But of
>course that is all perfectly
>legit because it is ordered
>by a Democrat administration and
>not Bush.

The last sentence sums HD up perfectly; as long as it was/is ordered by Obama and not Bush it is perfectly fine and gives America better standing in the world community. Democrats can do no wrong and are given every excuse under the sun by the likes if HD.

PRO

www.oddiction.com