Obama to close Gitmo?

[Underdog]

Guantanamo closure called Obama priority
Incoming administration will launch review of classified files
www.washingtonpost.com


WASHINGTON - The Obama administration will launch a review of the classified files of the approximately 250 detainees at Guantanamo Bay immediately after taking office, as part of an intensive effort to close the U.S. prison in Cuba, according to people who advised the campaign on detainee issues.

Announcing the closure of the controversial detention facility would be among the most potent signals the incoming administration could send of its sharp break with the Bush era, according to the advisers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak for the president-elect. They believe the move would create a global wave of diplomatic and popular goodwill that could accelerate the transfer of some detainees to other countries.

But the advisers, as well as outside national security and legal experts, said the new administration will face a thicket of legal, diplomatic, political and logistical challenges to closing the prison and prosecuting the most serious offenders in the United States -- an effort that could take many months or longer. Among the thorniest issues will be how to build effective cases without using evidence obtained by torture, an issue that attorneys for the detainees will almost certainly seek to exploit.

Moreover, the new administration will face hard decisions regarding not just the current Guantanamo Bay detainees but also how it will handle future captures of terrorism suspects. It is unclear whether President-elect Barack Obama would consider holding some suspects without charge on national security grounds. His transition team denied reports this week that it was contemplating some form of preventive detention backed by a new civilian national security court. The idea has been a staple of legal debates over the future of Guantanamo Bay for the past year, but Obama advisers believe it would meet fierce congressional resistance.

"A great deal of attention has been focused on Guantanamo, as it should be, but Guantanamo is a symptom of a much larger question: Where and how is the U.S. going to detain and interrogate terrorist suspects it continues to pick up in combating al-Qaeda?" said Matthew Waxman, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs and now a law professor at Columbia University.

Although as a candidate Obama publicly expressed his desire to close the detention facility, his transition team stressed this week that the president-elect has not assembled his national security and legal team and that no decisions have been made "about where and how to try the detainees," Denis McDonough, an Obama foreign policy adviser, said in a statement issued Monday.

During the campaign, Obama, while eschewing details, appeared to favor federal prosecution of terrorism suspects. "It's time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice," Obama said in August, after the completion of the first trial at Guantanamo Bay, which resulted in a relatively mild sentence for Osama bin Laden's driver.

A campaign advisory group, which has now been disbanded, was sympathetic to a "try or release" system proposed by advocacy groups such as Human Rights First and studies by organizations such as the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Under this proposal, the new administration would shutter military commissions, review the files at Guantanamo Bay to send as many cases as possible to federal court for prosecution, and release the balance of detainees for prosecution or resettlement in their home country or other nations.

The new administration expects that European countries and Persian Gulf states that previously resisted accepting Guantanamo Bay prisoners will be more open to resettling some who are cleared for release or who cannot be sent home because of the risk of torture. Such cooperation is likely to follow a U.S. decision to settle some small group of detainees in the United States, possibly the Chinese Uighurs whom the government has said are not enemy combatants.

The new administration expects that European countries and Persian Gulf states that previously resisted accepting Guantanamo Bay prisoners will be more open to resettling some who are cleared for release or who cannot be sent home because of the risk of torture. Such cooperation is likely to follow a U.S. decision to settle some small group of detainees in the United States, possibly the Chinese Uighurs whom the government has said are not enemy combatants.

In a report issued in May, Human Rights First noted that since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, there had been 107 successful prosecutions of international terrorism cases in the federal courts, compared with three convictions in military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, including one plea bargain.

"The federal criminal courts are capable of handling serious terrorist cases and capable of handling people and evidence seized overseas, without sacrificing the government's need to protect sensitive material, while protecting defendants' rights," said Deborah Colson, a senior associate at Human Rights First.

And Waxman said that "criminal prosecution in federal court is a more potent counterterrorism tool today than it was in 2001," adding that "criminal statutes have been expanded to cover more types of terrorism crimes."

But some experts say the United States still needs some form of preventive detention, albeit one that includes robust defendant rights and ongoing judicial review. "We need a preventative detention regime, very limited, that allows for those few tough cases -- a dozen, two dozen, not a lot -- of future captures," said Charles D. Stimson, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs.

Stimson and others cite the possibility of compelling intelligence that will not transfer to a court setting and the risk of exposing operational secrets, including cooperation with countries that do not want to be seen assisting the United States.

Moreover, they said, the cases against some detainees already in custody have been so compromised by torture or coercive interrogations that federal prosecutors might refuse to go forward or, if they did, might open the cases to the real risk of dismissal or acquittal.

"There will be a sobering moment for enthusiasts of a 'try and release' regime when people start looking at the contents of those detainee files," said Benjamin Wittes, a Brookings Institution fellow and the author of "Law and the Long War," which advocates preventive detention backed by a national security court.

Wittes noted that of the 250 people at Guantanamo Bay, 60 or so have been cleared for release or transfer, and he added that the military at its most optimistic believes only 80 can be put on trial. Currently, 18 detainees are charged before military commissions.

He noted that among those not currently charged is Mohammed al-Qahtani, who is suspected of planning to be one of the Sept. 11 hijackers. Qahtani's case, however, has been allegedly tainted by torture. Wittes argues that Qahtani exemplifies a special category of detainees and future captures: those who are too dangerous to release, but difficult or impossible to prosecute.

J. Wells Dixon, a staff lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents Qahtani, disagreed. "What a national security court is designed for is to hide the use of torture and allow the consideration of evidence that is not reliable," he said.

Some Obama advisers believe the damage to U.S. interests and image because of the Bush administration's policies is too great to countenance any form of preventive detention. They acknowledge that they do not know how the issue of torture would play out in federal court, even if prosecutors ignore evidence produced by coerced confessions.

"There is always a risk of acquittal, and there is a risk some people who are released will return to the battlefield," said one Obama adviser. "There is no risk-free option."

[92bDad]

No Comment on the grounds that it will tick a few people off...

Let's just that I did NOT vote for the guy...

[Mavdog]

I've yet to hear a single valid reason that our criminal justice system should not be handling these cases.

thank you president elect obama, this is a very good decision.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I've yet to hear a single valid reason that our criminal justice system should not be handling these cases.

Because you might have to acknowledge the Constitution of the United States if you do...


(not so much valid for the American Justice System as it is for the Bush Administration...)

[92bDad]

Do these terrorists consider the rights of victims when they attack us?

Fight fire with fire

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Do these terrorists consider the rights of victims when they attack us?

Fight fire with fire

Spoken like a true terrorist!

(luckily America holds itself to a higher standard...)

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I've yet to hear a single valid reason that our criminal justice system should not be handling these cases.

They were not arrested in the United States by United States Federal Law.
They are not under Federal Law, and never have been by the US.
They were detained and are held under the Unified Code of Military Justice.
They have no bearing on the US Constitution or US Laws as they were not detained or arrested in the US or for breaking laws within the boundaries of the United States.

The REASON they shouldn't be charged or handled with the civilian criminal justice system is because they were never in the US and were never under US LAW.

They should be tried in a military court by people who understand the UCMJ. Admittedly though it should be cleaner and quicker.

[Maringa]

I imagine the easiest thing that Obama could do, and probably should do is just simply pardon all of them and let them all go. As bad as some of these people are, they should have been casualties of war, rather than aprehended.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Underdog

(luckily America holds itself to a higher standard...)

No we don't.

We have people who whine, and want everything to be clean all the time. They don't understand that either they accept the dirt, or they accept that others clean up the dirt. The dirt is still there always. The question is how dirty do you want to get, your neighbor, or do you want it to be the "others" somewhere else?

Human nature doesn't change- so their will always be dirt.

If you keep people here clean, then you hear them whine about human rights. If you don't, you hear them whine about security, loss of life, etc. The dirt is always there -- how they choose to deal with it is another thing altogether.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Maringa

I imagine the easiest thing that Obama could do, and probably should do is just simply pardon all of them and let them all go. As bad as some of these people are, they should have been casualties of war, rather than aprehended.

You advocate not taking prisoners ? ?

[DirkFTW]

TAKE NO PRISONERS! ONLY CASUALTIES OF WAR

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

No we don't.

I was referring more to our legal framework and the Constitution of the United States than the American people (which I agree with you about...)

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

They were not arrested in the United States by United States Federal Law.
They are not under Federal Law, and never have been by the US.
They were detained and are held under the Unified Code of Military Justice.
They have no bearing on the US Constitution or US Laws as they were not detained or arrested in the US or for breaking laws within the boundaries of the United States.

The REASON they shouldn't be charged or handled with the civilian criminal justice system is because they were never in the US and were never under US LAW.

They should be tried in a military court by people who understand the UCMJ. Admittedly though it should be cleaner and quicker.

the ucmj is an american law of jurisprudence, made by american legislation, so it seems that you are arguing in circles.

and no, they were not heald nor tried under ucmj. and btw, does ucmj allow for torture?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the ucmj is an american law of jurisprudence, made by american legislation, so it seems that you are arguing in circles.

and no, they were not heald nor tried under ucmj. and btw, does ucmj allow for torture?

Agreed, but it is still implemented by martial courts. Unless this person is filed against in a civil court, then they are not delivered to civil authorities. These "rights" were started in 1775, and reaffirmed in 1950 about the military.

You are correct though, that they can only be tried under the UCMJ as a matter of interpretation. UCMJ is what American Soldiers are tried under, not POW's.

Most of what we deem law comes from the Geneva Convention which the US signed on with in 1949 -- effective 1950.

And no torture is not allowed under the Geneva Convention or UCMJ. It could be allowed under executive order though.

Of course this implies that they are afforded certain rights because we have declared official war, and they are classified as prisoners of war. Did Congress ever declare us at war with Afghanistan or Iraq or were we under Executive Orders? I didn't pay that much attention, because in the grand scheme of things it ends up irrelevant.

Assassination teams are not allowed.
Torture is not allowed.
Spying is not allowed.
Killing people with large weaponry is not allowed -- you cannot shoot people with .50 cal, but you can shoot the equipment they are wearing.

Yet every country seems to do these same things..... Ever wonder why?

Military and Civilian stuff has to stay separated. If it doesn't, just wait till the military says we carry the bigger stick, and you will be under our law now (martial law).

[92bDad]

Seems to me that some are trying to put a band-aid on a severed limb.

This is a complicated problem that most of us have only a limited understanding.

Should citizens of the U.S. be handled differently? Yes...if any are somehow involved or believed to be involved then they should be provided with due process...but I would also give some leniancy to the courts in order to avoice letting criminals get off on technicalities.

As for those aprehended from other nations...we should detain them and truly investigate every aspect of the believed transgression taking or planned to take place. Do we need to wait for another 9/11? NO!!!

Out nation should work with the Governments of the countries that these detainees come from, but there should be some SERIOUS PRE-Conditions!!!

If anything, perhaps this is where they could implant some type of GPS locating chip so that the U.S. Government can keep taps on where these people are 24/7...if they stay out of any U.S. territory and they are never within any terrorist camps/locations then they would have nothing to fear.

Again, we are NOT talking about U.S. citizens but about those who are known to be enemies of the U.S.

In addition, much like a convicted criminal out on parol...these creatures should have to report to a U.S. Government official so that we can ensure that they are who they claim to be and that they are still attached to the tracking device.

If they don't agree to this, then keep them detained.

If someone doesn't want to get caught up under this type of restriction...then don't do anything against the USA!!!

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Spoken like a true terrorist!

(luckily America holds itself to a higher standard...)

Since the terrorists started it, we have to finish it.

If the terrorists would pull back and STOP then we would have peace.

I've said for many years, this stuff in Iraq could have been avoided, but it was up to Sadam to make peace and follow through. Instead he made choices that forced the hands of the U.S. and its allies.

Sadam was the one who started the fight and then ran and hid, while Obama took up the fight. One is dead, and it could be argued that both are dead...there has never been a substantiated siting of Osama and it's fair to believe he has been killed, but lives on through other types of manipulations.

The challenge with this criminals is that they have no country, so who do you declare war against? These are simply Rogue criminals who have built up a network which spans the globe. These criminals are similar to that of Gangs...LA had gang problems back in the 80 and still battles these criminals today.

These same gangs had membership in other cities, NEW YORK and other...thus "Cells"

To this day, the only thing the law can do is put these gang bangers away one criminal at a time.

The same goes with these terrorists...they are simply put, Gang Criminals and until the world recognizes them as such, the U.S. must do its part to protect itself.

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

No Comment on the grounds that it will tick a few people off...

Let's just that I did NOT vote for the guy...

You had me at 'No Comment'.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Guantanamo closure called Obama priority
Incoming administration will launch review of classified files
www.washingtonpost.com

"There is always a risk of acquittal, and there is a risk some people who are released will return to the battlefield," said one Obama adviser. "There is no risk-free option."

Ah who gives a s*** anyway. They'll only be killing American soldiers. If they had better education or didn't cling to their guns and religion..they wouldn't be in the military anyway. Obama says f'em.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Ah who gives a s*** anyway. They'll only be killing American soldiers. If they had better education or didn't cling to their guns and religion..they wouldn't be in the military anyway. Obama says f'em.

Would you prefer that we execute them all?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I've yet to hear a single valid reason that our criminal justice system should not be handling these cases.

thank you president elect obama, this is a very good decision.

Nevermind....

President Obama told ABC: “It (closing Gitmo) is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize. Part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it’s true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.”

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Nevermind....

so the current administration has screwed it up SO bad that it is vey, very challenging to properly adjudicate and almost impossible to fix.

great job

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so the current administration has screwed it up SO bad that it is vey, very challenging to properly adjudicate and almost impossible to fix.

great job

I think you might want to save that one.. I expect you'll use it the next 8 years or so. No matter whether it's accurate or not.

[Mavdog]

Obama Orders Halt to Prosecutions at Guantánamo

By WILLIAM GLABERSON

In the first hours of his presidency, President Obama directed an immediate halt to the Bush administration’s military commissions system for prosecuting detainees at the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Notice of the decision came in a legal filing in Guantánamo by military prosecutors just before midnight Tuesday. The decision, which had been expected as part of Mr. Obama’s pledge to close the detention camp, was described as a pause in all war-crimes proceedings there so that the new administration can evaluate how to proceed with prosecutions.

Among other cases, the decision will temporarily stop the prosecution of five detainees charged as the coordinators of the Sept. 11 attacks, including the case against the self-described mastermind, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Later this week, the new administration is expected to issue an executive order that is to start what could be a long process of closing the detention camp, where about 245 detainees remain.

According to The Associated Press, the White House has begun circulating a draft that says the closing of the facility “would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice.”

Some Pentagon officials said it was not clear that the new administration would conclude that it should entirely abandon the military commission process, where 21 cases are pending and three detainees have been convicted of war crimes. The draft obtained by A.P., however, says that while some of the detainees currently held at Guantánamo would be released, others would be transferred elsewhere and later put on trial under terms to be determined.

The draft states that “the detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order.”

The prosecution filing Tuesday said the order came from the Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, “by order of the president.” It described the halt in all proceedings as designed “to permit the newly inaugurated president and his administration time to review the military commission process, generally, and the cases currently pending before the military commissions, specifically.”

The suspension had been expected because, as a candidate, Mr. Obama described the military commissions as a failure and suggested that he may decide to prosecute detainees in existing courts. The military commissions have been criticized as lacking in the basic protections of the American justice system and have been plagued by legal and practical difficulties since the Bush administration first announced its plan for prosecution in the months after the 2001 attacks.

The chief military prosecutor at Guantánamo, Col. Lawrence J. Morris of the Army, said in an interview that the pause in the proceedings would provide for a calm and efficient review of the process.

“I’ve very confident that an open minded, vigorous review will be good for the process and if any changes are made, it will yield a still better process on the other end,” Col. Morris said.

Several officials of the new administration have said in recent weeks that if the military commissions were continued, it would only be with changes providing more legal protections for detainees. One controversial provision of the current system that would be amended, several of them said, permits the introduction of statements coerced from detainees through what the Bush administration called enhanced interrogation methods.

The senior Pentagon official for the military commissions said last week that one detainee had been tortured at Guantánamo, and critics have long asserted that many detainees held there and in the secret C.I.A. prisons were tortured. The Bush administration asserted until its final days in office that it did not torture detainees.

Mr. Obama had suggested during the campaign that, in place of the military commissions, he would prefer to see prosecutions in federal courts or, perhaps, in proceedings in the existing military justice system, which provides legal guarantees similar to those of American civilian courts.

One person who had been read a transition memorandum on the subject said that the memo described the new administration as favoring federal court prosecution and stated that military commissions would remain in place during a review process if legal teams conclude that there are unforeseen difficulties in continuing prosecutions in existing American courts.

Critics of the Bush administration’s detention policies greeted the halt to the legal proceedings as an encouraging sign, but several reacted warily because there had not yet been a definitive order directing the closing of the camp.

Amnesty International said it “hopes that today’s announcement is a sign that the U.S. government will reject, once and for all, the past U.S. policies that have caused so much damage to human rights and the rule of law.”

The Tuesday decision will bring an immediate halt to the trial scheduled to begin on Monday of the only Canadian detainee, Omar Khadr, who was 15 when he was first detained. Mr. Khadr is charged with killing an American soldier during a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002. His case has drawn international attention, in part because his lawyers have argued that the case violated international prohibitions on the prosecution of child soldiers.

From Guantánamo, Mr. Khadr’s military defense lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. William C. Kuebler, said he welcomed the news. “This young man’s ordeal has gone on long enough,” he said, “and the U.S. can begin restoring its reputation by following international law requiring former child soldiers such as Omar to be treated as victims entitled to opportunities for rehabilitation and social reintegration, rather than as adult ‘war criminals.’”

[rabbitproof]

Obama to limit CIA, order Guantanamo closed
By Jeff Mason and Randall Mikkelsen Jeff Mason And Randall Mikkelsen – 1 hr 9 mins ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama is ready to issue orders on Thursday to close Guantanamo prison and overhaul the treatment of terrorism suspects, in a swift move to restore a U.S. image hurt by charges of torture.

A draft executive order obtained by Reuters on Wednesday sets a one-year deadline to close the controversial U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where foreign terrorism suspects have been detained for years without trial.

Linkage: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090122/...antanamo_obama
----

Step numero uno. Paz.

[92bDad]

Whatever happened to the image of the Terrorist who torture innocent civilians?

I'm tired of the disproportionate attention and propaganda pinned against the USA, while the enemies are painted out to be saints.

Perhaps they are afraid to tell the stories about our terrorist enemies, out of fear that they may get be-headed!!!

As these terrorist criminals are released, and they turnaround to kill again, can we hold the President of the United States Liable...can the citizens sue the President and the U.S. government for allowing murderes to walk the streets after they had been captured by the previous administration?

It's as if these murderes have more rights than the freedom loving, peace keeping citizens of this nation.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Whatever happened to the image of the Terrorist who torture innocent civilians?

I'm tired of the disproportionate attention and propaganda pinned against the USA, while the enemies are painted out to be saints.

Perhaps they are afraid to tell the stories about our terrorist enemies, out of fear that they may get be-headed!!!

As these terrorist criminals are released, and they turnaround to kill again, can we hold the President of the United States Liable...can the citizens sue the President and the U.S. government for allowing murderes to walk the streets after they had been captured by the previous administration?

It's as if these murderes have more rights than the freedom loving, peace keeping citizens of this nation.

Do you live inside of a cartoon?

[92bDad]

Nope, part of the real world.

Saddly, there is a hatred from the left of America and they continue to spew their hate as they try to reshape the image of America into a broke down 3rd world country who is there to only serve it's politicians.

[dude1394]

Barack Obama's spokesman explaining the decisive action taken with respect to Gitmo.

It arose, in fact, in Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' first press conference today.

QUESTION: Robert, how can you say the executive order on Guantanamo Bay -- you can say clearly made America safer today, when it doesn't seem like you really have a plan yet about where the detainees are going to go?

GIBBS: Well, one of the -- I think one of the things that the commission and one of the things that the executive orders does is begin the process whereby the current administration can examine what exactly is going on and who exactly is there. ...

That's why I was careful in saying that the process by which this will undertake over the course of up to one year will determine, as Greg laid out, who's involved in what status of detainee, which group that they're involved in, and ultimately study how best to -- to deal with them in a way that protects our country, protects our values, and administers justice.

QUESTION: So these are terror suspects, and the American people are hearing, "Washington's going to study it." They're going to find out for a few more months, what are we going to do with these detainees? So what...

GIBBS: Well, it is day two. ...

QUESTION: No, but he was talking about it on the campaign for months, on Guantanamo Bay.

QUESTION: But the bottom line is that you've been talking about it -- the president talked about it on the campaign trail. People have studied this for a long time. And you're now signing the executive order without a plan for where the detainees will be. What assurances can you give the...

GIBBS: No. No, we've signed an executive order to establish the plan for what happens.

QUESTION: But what assurance can you give the American people that these detainees just won't wind up out on the streets, won't go back to their home countries and launch new terror attacks?

GIBBS: I can assure them that that -- all of -- all of what you just enumerated will be undertaken and studied as part of a commission to look into these very complex, very detailed questions.

Well there is one thing that has come true...many folks that supported 'bama said "that they'd wait until he was in office to judge him". No doubt because little that he said getting elected can be trusted.

How can he let those poor pathetic bastards rot away in gitmo another day!! The left has been carping about it for years...but...ah...when you have to make a decision....instead of voting present....reality bites you in the arse.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Barack Obama's spokesman explaining the decisive action taken with respect to Gitmo.

Well there is one thing that has come true...many folks that supported 'bama said "that they'd wait until he was in office to judge him". No doubt because little that he said getting elected can be trusted.

How can he let those poor pathetic bastards rot away in gitmo another day!! The left has been carping about it for years...but...ah...when you have to make a decision....instead of voting present....reality bites you in the arse.

obama is doing exactly what he promised to do. can you explain just why obama "can't be trusted"? facts please, no hyperbole.

obama has begun the process of closing gitmo. did you expect that a magic wand would be waved and all the inmates would disappear?

[dude1394]

No he's not mavie...he's kicking it down the street. He's been talking about closing gitmo day one for almost 2 years now...and when he could...he puts it on the study trail so that he can "meet" his campaign promise but not.

Military Tribunals and Guantanamo Bay

President-elect Obama says Guantanamo should be closed and habeas corpus (AP) should be restored for the detainees. He says the United States should have “developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused.”

In June 2008, Obama praised (NYT) a Supreme Court decision allowing Guantanamo prisoners to challenge their detention in civilian courts. He called the ruling "an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus."

In February 2008, Obama criticized the prosecution of six Guantanamo detainees charged with involvement in the 9/11 attacks. He said the trials are "too important to be held in a flawed military commission system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges" (SFChron). Instead, Obama said, the men should be tried in a U.S. criminal court or by a military court-martial.

Obama voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (PDF).

He believe that they should have recourse in civilian courts...what's the hold up?

[fluid.forty.one]

wah wah wah

[Mavdog]

heck, he's set a timeframe for the closure.

he's meeting the campaign promise. you'll need to find something with more substance to gripe about.

[Murphy3]

We've always known that Obama is pro terrorism.

[rabbitproof]

This toy reminded me of people on this forum:

http://www.amazon.com/Playmobil-3172...dp/B0002CYTL2/

Check the reviews. Yall hilarious.

[chumdawg]

That's funny!

[Mavdog]

the reviews are great comedy!

[dude1394]

Oh well....Just another "change" forthcoming I expect. Keystone cops.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said closing the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, was a “hasty decision,” in his daily press briefing with reporters.

President Obama’s decision to close the controversial detention center in the early days of his presidency was met with adulation on the political left and earned headlines in newspapers across the world. It was seen as a clear break from Bush-era national security policy.

But recently Obama has broken with liberals over his decision to continue Bush-era military commissions to try Guantanamo Bay prisoners and his decision not to release photographs allegedly depicting U.S. soldiers abusing detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq. To an extent, this split with the political left is indicative of the difference between campaigning and governing.

Gibbs’ statement Wednesday though will likely only further aggravate many liberals.

[DirkFTW]

This made me laugh

Obama declares Gitmo detainees to be 'fetuses'

By: Scott Ott
Examiner Columnist | 5/22/09 4:57 AM
News fairly unbalanced. We report. You decipher

In an effort to shut down the U.S. Naval Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, thereby restoring America's moral standing in the world, President Barack Obama today declared some 240 enemy combatants held at Gitmo to be 'human fetuses'.

In an executive order, the president said, "Since I ordered Gitmo shut down, and people don't want us to bring the inmates here, the only way to extract them from the facility is to change their legal status to one that offers us more choices."

While accused terrorists have access to attorneys, and nearly-limitless legal appeals, a fetus has no legal standing, cannot speak for itself, and is subject to the death penalty without regard to guilt or innocence.

Civil rights advocates have pressured Obama to follow through on campaign promises to shutter Gitmo, but even Democrats in Congress have resisted bringing the inmates to U.S. soil for trials and incarceration.

"We can debate whether enemy combatants have access to protections under the U.S. Constitution," said Obama. "However, no serious person would grant such protection to an embryo or fetus. The loss of 240 fetuses wouldn't raise an eyebrow in a nation where more than 3,000 of them hit the Dumpster daily."

The president noted that America's global reputation has been devastated by U.S. treatment of terror suspects, but that "our treatment of a million fetuses each year earns us nothing but admiration, and requests for clinic-funding from those who aspire to be like us."

Sources acknowledged continuing White House debate about whether a terrorist who escapes from Gitmo alive can still be treated as a fetus.

Examiner columnist Scott Ott is editor in chief of ScrappleFace.com, the family-friendly news satire site, and anchor of ScrappleFace Network News (SNN), seen on YouTube.

[Flacolaco]

"We can debate whether enemy combatants have access to protections under the U.S. Constitution," said Obama. "However, no serious person would grant such protection to an embryo or fetus. The loss of 240 fetuses wouldn't raise an eyebrow in a nation where more than 3,000 of them hit the Dumpster daily."

Given his well established, flippant attitude towards fetuses...I wouldn't want to be those guys. He means business.

[dude1394]

Now he's talking about winning the war on terror!