It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) wrapped up a freshman GOP senator tour of the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay this week by suggesting more prisoners be sent there.
“Guantánamo Bay is a first-rate detention facility that houses some of the world’s most hardened terrorists. It’s one of our most effective counterterrorism tools," Cotton said in a statement late Friday.
"After visiting today, I remain firm in my belief that this facility should not only remain open — but that we should not shy away from increasing the number of prisoners held there," Cotton added.
Cotton, who caught flak this week for leading a group of 47 GOP senators in writing an open letter to Iran's leaders on U.S. negotiations over its nuclear program, has vocally opposed the Obama administration's push to draw down detention levels and eventually close the Guantánamo facility. It currently houses 122 prisoners, down from 242 in early 2009.
The vote, which complicates Mr. Obama’s efforts to shutter the prison by his deadline of Jan. 22, 2010, was 90 to 6. Republicans voted unanimously in favor of cutting the money.
Key Senate Republicans on Tuesday unveiled legislation that would effectively block President Barack Obama from fulfilling his pledge to close the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, before he leaves office in two years.
Congress on Wednesday signaled it won’t close the prison at Guantanamo Bay or allow any of its suspected terrorist detainees to be transferred to the U.S., dealing what is likely the final blow to President Obama’s campaign pledge to shutter the facility in Cuba.
Shuttering the terrorism-era prison at Gitmo won't be easy, not with an incoming Republican-run Congress likely to oppose any attempts to bring some detainees to the United States.
When the Obama administration announced the transfer of four detainees to Afghanistan this month, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said it appears "the administration is more interested in emptying Guantanamo so that it can close it, rather than protecting the national security interests of the United States and the lives of Americans, including those currently deployed to Afghanistan."
originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Ain't that funny? I never made this about Democrat Vs Republican thing.
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said Wednesday that if he could go back and do his presidency over again, he would have immediately shut down the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"I think I would have closed Guantanamo on the first day," Obama said to applause at an event in Cleveland, Ohio.
Obama went on to say that he didn't rush to close the military prison when he first took office because there was already bipartisan agreement that it should be closed. He noted that his GOP presidential opponent Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had also called for shutting it down.
"I thought we had enough consensus where we could do it in a more deliberate fashion," Obama said. "But the politics of it got tough, and people got scared by the rhetoric around it. Once that set in, then the path of least resistance was just to leave it open, even though it's not who we are as a country and it's used by terrorists around the world to help recruit jihadists."
The prison, which has been operating at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base since 2002, is being used to detain unlawful combatants from Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries who were captured in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The U.S. has come under international scrutiny for holding prisoners there who haven't been charged, for torturing prisoners and for denying Geneva Convention protections. As of January 2015, 122 prisoners were still there -- down from a total of 779.
It's unclear how Obama thinks, in retrospect, that he could have simply shut down the prison. He had ambitious plans during his 2008 campaign to shutter Guantanamo within a year, calling it a "sad chapter in American history." But even then, military law experts weren't sure how Obama could expect to close it so quickly, given that he hadn't consulted yet with Pentagon lawyers and how politically unpopular it still is to move terror suspects into U.S. prisons.
In more recent years, the administration has been signaling the prison is here to stay, at least for the remainder of Obama's term. The president's Guantanamo Task Force concluded in 2010 that 46 detainees are "too dangerous to transfer but not feasible for prosecution," which means they're stuck in limbo. In 2013, the administration closed the State Department office tasked with planning Guantanamo's closure.
"We've had to just chip away at it year after year after year," Obama said Wednesday.
Guantánamo Bay continues to be a stain on America and the constitution. While there may be disagreements on where we send those prisoners, most ATSers will agree that Guantanamo should be closed down. It is evident however that there are politicians who wish to keep Guantanamo going.
originally posted by: links234
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Gitmo won't close because the states don't want the inmates.
originally posted by: links234
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
You might be confusing war criminal with prisoner of war.
That opens up the question of when the 'war' is over. Is the war over after we leave Afghanistan even if some of the detainees were captured in different parts of the world (Bosnia, the Horn of Africa, Yemen, etc.)? Al-Qaida isn't a government and isn't represented by a nation, in 2006 though, the SCOTUS declared that gitmo detainees are protected by the Geneva Conventions. That all brings us back to the original question, when is the war over? Can the war on terror be an actual war? Can congress declare war on a concept, in this case, the concept of terror? If so, who decides what constitutes terrorism?
However, if we go with what you suggested, war criminals, then they're guaranteed through international treaties and laws that they will have a fair trial in a tribunal to face their crimes.
Do we, as a nation, have the right to capture suspected terrorists of nations we've not formally declared war against and hold them indefinitely without trial?
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The war is not over until the terrorist groups no longer threaten the US. This will most likely not happen during our lifetime.
Actually they are not. In fact Article 75 of the Geneva convention says they can be detained until the end of hostilities, which have not ended.
They lost their protection when they signed their allegiance to the State of Terrorism.