Obama preparing 1st executive order to close Gitmo

Obama 1st executive order is close Gitmo

news.aol.com

WASHINGTON (Jan. 12) - President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to issue an executive order his first week in office — and perhaps his first day — to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, according to two presidential transition team advisers.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 21-1-2009 by Bejing]

Obamas First executive order will be to bring terrorist to the United States? Why? Is he going to have them work for acorn?

I vote that we send these terrorists to the Naval Station Great Lakes in North Chicago, Illinois.
I see no reason that Obama should burden any other state. His idea, his State.
No other state or country wants these people.
Lets see how the do in the windy city in the winter vs Cuba.


news.aol.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

If he does close the place, it will be interesting to see where they end up. Do you feel that there will be transparency/open communication and we will be told where the prisoners will be held? I don't think many Americans will be happy to have them in their parts of the woods.

reply to post by Bejing


these terrrosits?
you do know most of them prob never fired a Gun let alone held one
most of them were handed over by tribes for MONEY to us forces.
so if any its like normal prison except insted of reforming they just turned people that werent terrorists into potentioal terrorists.

reply to post by bodrul


Thats a lie. All of them are innocent Islamic freedom fighers being picked on by the U.S. for their new war to make profits. None of them have a grudge against the U.S. they just want to be left alone studying Islam in Afghanistan.

If it means that these guys will get a PROPER trial by the laws that are already set out in our country rather than by a military tribunal--

Yes, bring them here.

I take the opposite viewpoint. I would rather sacrifice a modicum of my safety to see justice upheld, then sacrifice justice for the elite's version of "Safety."

It's not like our prisons aren't already filled with hardcore criminals, serial killers, and many who could be considered "Terrorists" if the powers that be chose to apply that term fairly.

I don't like the "proper" trial since it makes them look guilty in the public. Just release all of them.

They also said that some European countries may be open to taking some of them as well.

Countries that says may are the same countries that says not interested.

You mean the ones that previously

said no under the Bush admin?

Originally posted by bodrul
you do know most of them prob never fired a Gun let alone held one

Says you? Al-Jaazera? Our soldiers in the field say differently.

Originally posted by Bejing
I vote that we send these terrorists to the Naval Station Great Lakes in North Chicago, Illinois.

I second that.

Why not do a case specific study on each individual person being held in that prison? I agree, send the criminals to the Naval Station Great Lakes but send the innocents home, there's GOTTA be some in there

reply to post by asmeone2


They're enemy combatants. They are not US citizens. Not only that but they aren't civilians they are soldiers.

Ask anybody that has signed up in the military, when you sign that paper you lose your rights.

I don't agree with wiretapping without warrants or anything like that but these people were picked up in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are not US citizens.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

There's something wrong if you're holding 500 people in prison and yet cannot make a case against more than a handful of them. That certainly doesn't say 'guilty' to me.

You cannot simply jail people whom 'might' do something wrong.

55 percent of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or coalition allies.

Only 8 percent of them can be accused of being Al Qaeda fighters. 40 percent of them have no tie to Al Qaeda in any form.

Nearly 90 percent of them were turned into the US by Pakistanis or the Northern Alliance for bounties.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by Jadette]

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by asmeone2

 

They're enemy combatants. They are not US citizens. Not only that but they aren't civilians they are soldiers.

Ask anybody that has signed up in the military, when you sign that paper you lose your rights.

I don't agree with wiretapping without warrants or anything like that but these people were picked up in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are not US citizens.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

So justice only applies to people who are born in the USA?

The citizenship is irrelevant, this is not about waht country these guys are from, but about our government attempting to try them out of sight in order to take shortcuts from the legal system.

Take no prisoners!

Closing Gitmo means the enemy will now have to be killed on the battlefield and the same idiots griping about Gitmo will next be screaming about "war crimes".

Damned if you do/don't.

Why does anyone see this as meaningful?

The Supreme Court removed from the table much of the logic advanced by the previous administration for using GITMO, so closing it now is largely a symbolic gesture. Even Bush intended to close its doors.

I don't get the comments that this will somehow disadvantage us. If such a thing were true, it was already accomplished before Obama's arrival.



[edit on 21-1-2009 by loam]

reply to post by asmeone2



Basically what your saying is that the guys that are risking their butts over there and dieing if they get caught doing something illegal they have to face a military tribunal.

But the people that they are fighting against everyday that are trying to kill them deserve to have a trial just like civilians?

That is twisted, very twisted.

It should also tell you something when these peoples own country won't even let them back into the countries that they were born in.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

This was on the news last night (Tuesday 1/20). Obama apparently took time out between the inaugural parade and the inaugural balls to write this executive order, though I don't believe it calls for a complete shut-down of Gitmo, rather a temporary moratorium pending the final order.

Yes, there are some very dangerous criminals in Gitmo, some who have worked directly for Al Quaeda, and yes, they could be seriously disruptive if introduced into U.S. prison populations (on the other hand, the American prisoners could single them out for extra vengeance too). But what are the reasonable alternatives?

When Guantanamo was first opened there was much concern, both here and abroad, that the detainees were prisoners of war and subject to the Geneva conventions (which the U.S. was instrumental in drafting). The Bush administration asserted that they were not P.O.W.'s but rather "enemy combatants," which boiled down to the belief that we could treat them any way we wanted to.

It's also true that if Americans were prisoners of Al Quaeda they would probably be treated as badly if not worse.

But what happened to the ideal that America should be an example of freedom and justice for the rest of the world? Wasn't that part of the Bush doctrine too? Apparently Obama takes that commitment seriously.

I think the prisoners at Gitmo should be considered prisoners of war and subject to the Geneva conventions. Those who have been found guilty of nothing should be released immediately. The rest should be allowed to have speedy trials in the U.S. and the right to legal representation. This would not satisfy the need for vengeance, perhaps, but it would fulfill the requirements of justice.

reply to post by deltaboy


says you?
so all those news reports and accounts by people who have been freed over the last few years were fairy tales,

reply to post by FlyersFan


wtf? yout soliders say otherwise
how the fudge do they know the motives of people who handed over people to them.


[edit on 22-1-2009 by bodrul]