Guantanamo

[Plane]

Guantanamo, a quiet place to spend the summer.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/detention-at-guantanamo-grinds-on-13-years-and-counting-148-captives-remain/ar-BBeRJxc

[Xavier_Onassis]

Guantanamo should have been shut down six years ago. It costs a fortune to imprison the inmates there, we have totally escape-proof prisons in the US and the only thing standing away are some incredibly stupid clowns in Congress.

[sirs]

Obama could have closed it the day he took office.

[Plane]

I think Guantanamo represents a failure in the thinking of two administrations and the whole congress for 13 years.

Not because of the Prison or where it is or how it is run, all of that is adjustable and has been adjusted .

We have failed to determine whether these guys are criminals , under US law, enemies under the rules of war, or Pirates to be prosecuted by military officers appointed to the role by the congress.

Failing to define them, we have had to invent the rules they are kept under, everything is just too ad hoc.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Congress refused to vote money to close Guantanamo.

To say that Obama could have closed it is a bloody ignorant lie.

[sirs]

Doesn't require money to shut it down.  Quite the opposite.  Defunding it, would have shut it down, if Congress wanted to do that.  Oh yea, Dems were in charge of congress the 1st 2 years as well.  d'oh     

[Xavier_Onassis]

You are a clueless moron.

[sirs]

LOL...Priceless.  Your "rebuttals" are indeed priceless, xo

1st 2 years of the Obama Presidency...has Filibuster proof control of congress.  Claims he'll close Guantanamo and reform immigration as 2 of his top top priorities.

Fast forward to current time, Guantanamo still open, and he's pulled what he claimed clearly over 2 dozen times prior, that he couldn't do, as it relates to "immigration reform"

hehe.....talk about clueless

[Xavier_Onassis]

You are the dumbest of dumb shits.
The President does not have the ability to defund Guantanamo, nor could he get funds to relocate the prisoners.

The budget is determined by Congress.

[sirs]

AND DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED CONGRESS FOR THE 1st 2 YEARS UNDER OBAMA, Professor Deflection.     .   Like I said, priceless

[Plane]

The President does not have the ability to defund Guantanamo, nor could he get funds to relocate the prisoners.

.

  Is this really true?

  There are federal funded Prisons in several states , and there are several allied countries that can host a few prisoners.

    Why would moving the prisoners to another location take an act of congress?

     It isn't money, it is the nature of these prisoners.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It costs money to move prisoners and Congress has refused to allocate it.
This is because citizens living in the areas in which the alternative prisons are located do not want these prisoners in their area.
There were many Democrats who refused to allocate the funds to transfer these prisoners.

Of course, Plane is correct, prisoners should have been accused and tried and sentenced or released.

[Plane]

   If they are criminals or members of a criminal organization , they should each have been tried.

    Now that is talking expensive.

   I think they could be treated as prisoners of war which doesn't require trials for most of them , but does require certain respect and protection of rights that we haven't been careful enough about.

     Then POWs get 100% released at the close of hostilities. Without further trials or prejudices , unless there is evidence of extraordinary bad behavior , that is to say "war crimes" .

      There is also a category commonly considered obsolete "pirate" which the Congress has authority to prosecute and to appoint military prosecution . Because this is a congressional responsibility for attacking international crime "piracy " is my favorite.

      But because congress in recent years seems to avoid responsibilities, I don't see commissions on piracy being set up in congress. This choice is unlikely.

       Since POWs are supposed to be held in safety for the length of the war , and the other side promises to keep the fight up perpetually there is a practical problem with calling them POWs that will be released at the close of a war that isn't ever going to close. 

       Calling them criminals has an appropriate ring to it , but this choice has the unfortunate drawback of declaring the entire planet to be US jurisdiction. I don't see this as the most practical choice nor the least insulting to the rest of the world.

        The least desirable choice is to treat them as nonpersons and dither in between firm and lenient, having no connection to the process of law.  I think this choice is what we have as a default result of not choosing the  established categories that we have rules for dealing with.

[Xavier_Onassis]

If Congress had set up a legal way to deal with "pirates" previous to 9-11, then that would clearly be the way to go. But they cannot do this after the fact. You cannot logically or legally arrest someone, pass a law against something he did, and then use it against him.  That is the sort of crap that King William III did, but I doubt that any UK or Commonwealth country could get away with it now.

It is costing some $2,700,000 per prisoner to hold these guys are Guantanamo. Hand them half that amount and send them off to the Cote d'Azur and we'd be all better off, or perhaps put it in a fund and pay them on the earnings provided they behave themselves. Idi Amin was quite peaceable after his exile to Saudi Arabia.

[sirs]

One has to wonder why Obama & the Democrats were so incompetent to supposedly do all this, when they had complete carte-blanche filibuster-proof control of everything, Obama's 1st 2 years in office.  Hmmmmm