8 ms·

The problem is that to close Guantanamo, you need funding to a least move the prisoners to another facility. Introducing them to the justice system would requir

The problem is that to close Guantanamo, you need funding to a least move the prisoners to another facility. Introducing them to the justice system would require the same. As every American should know, Congress holds the purse strings here and has denied said request. The President has no power here.

Zak 14y ago
It seems unlikely that Congress micromanages the budget of the Department of Justice to the degree that it could not initiate prosecution of detainees in the civilian legal system. Whether that would be a reasonable solution is debatable, but it's certainly within the President's authority to attempt. There's always the nuclear option: threaten to release the detainees if Congress doesn't provide funding for another solution.
- Locke1689 14y ago
  This back and forth has happened many times. The Defense Appropriations bills that have passed Congress have forbid the President from using fund for any of these activities. There is no nuclear option. Veto is not an option. What people don't seem to understand is that this isn't a failure of democracy to act: this is what the American people want. We don't care that Guantanamo is open and we'd rather see it stay open than give these people a chance at a fair trial. We are a government by the people, of the people, and the people have spoken.
  - jorgeortiz85 14y ago
    The Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of individuals from the tyranny of "the people".
    - declan 14y ago
      Could this be where pleasant political theory meets cold hard reality?
    - md224 14y ago
      The Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of Americans from the tyranny of "the people." Alas.
      - MartinCron 14y ago
        I don't buy that. It seems that the notion of rights endowed by the creator should apply broadly to all humans whenever possible.
        XorNot 14y ago
        This is all well and good, yet doesn't matter if the majority have no interest in seeing them enforced.
        Robin_Message 14y ago
        Given slavery was not abolished at the time of independence, it seems likely that the writers of the constitution did in fact not intend to apply rights to all humans as broadly as possible. What it means now? Who knows.
        rayiner 14y ago
        That's in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. The former is high prose. The latter is a legal document. As a legal document, it cannot purport to give rights to people outside of its jurisdiction.
        Zak 14y ago
        The Constitution does not purport to give rights to anybody. It declares that certain things are rights and prohibits the US government from violating them.
        rayiner 14y ago
        You're confusing the declaration of independence, a fluff document, with the Constitution, a legal document. Fluffy language aside, in the Anglo-American tradition, rights derive from legal documents (or precedents), and the right to habeas corpus or a jury trial derives from the Constitution and is circumscribed the the territorial jurisdiction of the Constitution.
  - richardjordan 14y ago
    You, sir, speak a sad truth. But truth nonetheless.
  - WiseWeasel 14y ago
    The nuclear option is for Obama to give a presidential pardon to each of the prisoners on his way out of Office. I could respect that.
r0s 14y ago
The President has the power and the obligation to publicly speak against this on the world stage.
- icelancer 14y ago
  He can also, you know, exercise HIS right to free speech and say "Speaking as Barack Obama, this shit is ridiculous."
dantheman 14y ago
The president can pardon them, the president can use private money to move them. The president can be on the news every night making this an issue.
- lukifer 14y ago
  > The president can be on the news every night making this an issue. This is why the legal technicalities are irrelevant. The President has the ultimate bully pulpit, and it sure ain't getting used on Gitmo.
  - david927 14y ago
    If the prisoners are ever released without being charged or tried (which won't happen because there's no evidence), they can each file a civil suit against the U.S. Government, each worth potentially hundreds of millions. I think this plays a role as well.
    - PeterisP 14y ago
      And if they are never released, then it can't happen? Please don't tell me that it's a reasonable (legally or ethically) argument for keeping them imprisoned for decades.
      - david927 14y ago
        It's the equivalent of keeping the neighbor's daughter in your basement because letting her out would get you into so much trouble. Gitmo is already shockingly illegal or dangerously unethical; I don't see any interest by the US government to end it and take some of the heat for that.
        Amadou 14y ago
        As an American I've come the same conclusion. But it is a cowardly conclusion. We need to take our medicine and correct the wrong-doings of Gitmo. I don't really care if it costs a couple of hundred million dollars, that's chump change compared to the federal budget. If a guy like Nixon can get a pardon so that the country can move forward, then we can certainly do the same for whatever ahats are culpable for setting up Gitmo in the first place. Pardon the military and politicians responsible for their misguided patriotism and then start treating these unfortunate souls like humans again as one small step towards making the US live up to its lofty ideals again.
gilgoomesh 14y ago
You don't need funding. Just send them home. They shouldn't be in any detention center – there is no legal reason to detain them.
- ptaipale 14y ago
  If they were sent home, very many of them would be instantly killed, imprisoned or worse. For many of them, Gitmo is probably a lot better than they'd be facing at home.
  - darklajid 14y ago
    Let's not forget that this comment of yours is in a thread about a guy sitting in that very same place, _asking_ to get home whatever the price would be. So the whole article that spawned this thread shows a very different position. That totally ignores my immediate 'citation needed' urges and my shock about this opinion.
    - ptaipale 14y ago
      And I responded to a comment which was simply saying "Just send them home". That can't be done for "them" all. I believe there is a wide variation within those imprisoned: some are innocent and were captured by mistake or worse (e.g. rivals were turned in by jealous neighbours, or whatever), others are actually hardened fanatics. And it is very difficult to know who is what.
      - PavlovsCat 14y ago
        And since when is being a "hardened fanatic" a crime? As long as they're not otherwise engaged in criminally acting that out, who the fuck cares what they think? If there was any actually solid evidence for anything real against them, they wouldn't be in limbo, would they.
  - beedogs 14y ago
    Really? We're "protecting them" by keeping them locked up forever without charges? This kind of moral prevarication disgusts me. You disgust me.
dodyg 14y ago
No, you don't move them. You release them, all. You have not charged them with any crimes for the past 10 years and have not put them on trials. The problem is not the location of the prison. The problem is you are shitting on Habeas corpus.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
spot 14y ago
Long before, and fully independent of, anything Congress did, President Obama made clear that he was going to preserve the indefinite detention system at Guantanamo even once he closed the camp. http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/ http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/
white_devil 14y ago
> The problem is that to close Guantanamo, you need funding to a least move the prisoners to another facility You need funding to keep Gitmo going too. I seriously doubt that would be a problem.
- eswangren 14y ago
  You misunderstand; it's not that we can't afford it, it's that you have to go through congress to get it in the first place.
adam74 14y ago
Yet they are willing to spend millions on upgrades to the place.
ollysb 14y ago
There is another option, keep them in Guantanamo but improve conditions to at least normal prison standards in the US. I can't believe that would be more expensive than maintaining their current regime.
- betterunix 14y ago
  Sounds like you are proposing that we ignore the fact that they never faced a legal proceeding, and just give them fluffier pillows while we hold them indefinitely.
brown9-2 14y ago
It's continually amazing how many people, especially Americans, think that the President is a king.

Zak 14y ago

It seems unlikely that Congress micromanages the budget of the Department of Justice to the degree that it could not initiate prosecution of detainees in the civilian legal system. Whether that would be a reasonable solution is debatable, but it's certainly within the President's authority to attempt. There's always the nuclear option: threaten to release the detainees if Congress doesn't provide funding for another solution.

Locke1689 14y ago
This back and forth has happened many times. The Defense Appropriations bills that have passed Congress have forbid the President from using fund for any of these activities. There is no nuclear option. Veto is not an option. What people don't seem to understand is that this isn't a failure of democracy to act: this is what the American people want. We don't care that Guantanamo is open and we'd rather see it stay open than give these people a chance at a fair trial. We are a government by the people, of the people, and the people have spoken.
- jorgeortiz85 14y ago
  The Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of individuals from the tyranny of "the people".
  - declan 14y ago
    Could this be where pleasant political theory meets cold hard reality?
  - md224 14y ago
    The Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of Americans from the tyranny of "the people." Alas.
    - MartinCron 14y ago
      I don't buy that. It seems that the notion of rights endowed by the creator should apply broadly to all humans whenever possible.
      - XorNot 14y ago
        This is all well and good, yet doesn't matter if the majority have no interest in seeing them enforced.
      - Robin_Message 14y ago
        Given slavery was not abolished at the time of independence, it seems likely that the writers of the constitution did in fact not intend to apply rights to all humans as broadly as possible. What it means now? Who knows.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        That's in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. The former is high prose. The latter is a legal document. As a legal document, it cannot purport to give rights to people outside of its jurisdiction.
        Zak 14y ago
        The Constitution does not purport to give rights to anybody. It declares that certain things are rights and prohibits the US government from violating them.
        rayiner 14y ago
        You're confusing the declaration of independence, a fluff document, with the Constitution, a legal document. Fluffy language aside, in the Anglo-American tradition, rights derive from legal documents (or precedents), and the right to habeas corpus or a jury trial derives from the Constitution and is circumscribed the the territorial jurisdiction of the Constitution.
- richardjordan 14y ago
  You, sir, speak a sad truth. But truth nonetheless.
- WiseWeasel 14y ago
  The nuclear option is for Obama to give a presidential pardon to each of the prisoners on his way out of Office. I could respect that.

r0s 14y ago

The President has the power and the obligation to publicly speak against this on the world stage.

icelancer 14y ago
He can also, you know, exercise HIS right to free speech and say "Speaking as Barack Obama, this shit is ridiculous."

dantheman 14y ago

The president can pardon them, the president can use private money to move them. The president can be on the news every night making this an issue.

lukifer 14y ago
> The president can be on the news every night making this an issue. This is why the legal technicalities are irrelevant. The President has the ultimate bully pulpit, and it sure ain't getting used on Gitmo.
- david927 14y ago
  If the prisoners are ever released without being charged or tried (which won't happen because there's no evidence), they can each file a civil suit against the U.S. Government, each worth potentially hundreds of millions. I think this plays a role as well.
  - PeterisP 14y ago
    And if they are never released, then it can't happen? Please don't tell me that it's a reasonable (legally or ethically) argument for keeping them imprisoned for decades.
    - david927 14y ago
      It's the equivalent of keeping the neighbor's daughter in your basement because letting her out would get you into so much trouble. Gitmo is already shockingly illegal or dangerously unethical; I don't see any interest by the US government to end it and take some of the heat for that.
      - Amadou 14y ago
        As an American I've come the same conclusion. But it is a cowardly conclusion. We need to take our medicine and correct the wrong-doings of Gitmo. I don't really care if it costs a couple of hundred million dollars, that's chump change compared to the federal budget. If a guy like Nixon can get a pardon so that the country can move forward, then we can certainly do the same for whatever ahats are culpable for setting up Gitmo in the first place. Pardon the military and politicians responsible for their misguided patriotism and then start treating these unfortunate souls like humans again as one small step towards making the US live up to its lofty ideals again.

gilgoomesh 14y ago

You don't need funding. Just send them home. They shouldn't be in any detention center – there is no legal reason to detain them.

ptaipale 14y ago
If they were sent home, very many of them would be instantly killed, imprisoned or worse. For many of them, Gitmo is probably a lot better than they'd be facing at home.
- darklajid 14y ago
  Let's not forget that this comment of yours is in a thread about a guy sitting in that very same place, _asking_ to get home whatever the price would be. So the whole article that spawned this thread shows a very different position. That totally ignores my immediate 'citation needed' urges and my shock about this opinion.
  - ptaipale 14y ago
    And I responded to a comment which was simply saying "Just send them home". That can't be done for "them" all. I believe there is a wide variation within those imprisoned: some are innocent and were captured by mistake or worse (e.g. rivals were turned in by jealous neighbours, or whatever), others are actually hardened fanatics. And it is very difficult to know who is what.
    - PavlovsCat 14y ago
      And since when is being a "hardened fanatic" a crime? As long as they're not otherwise engaged in criminally acting that out, who the fuck cares what they think? If there was any actually solid evidence for anything real against them, they wouldn't be in limbo, would they.
- beedogs 14y ago
  Really? We're "protecting them" by keeping them locked up forever without charges? This kind of moral prevarication disgusts me. You disgust me.

dodyg 14y ago

No, you don't move them. You release them, all. You have not charged them with any crimes for the past 10 years and have not put them on trials. The problem is not the location of the prison. The problem is you are shitting on Habeas corpus.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

spot 14y ago

Long before, and fully independent of, anything Congress did, President Obama made clear that he was going to preserve the indefinite detention system at Guantanamo even once he closed the camp. http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/ http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/

white_devil 14y ago

> The problem is that to close Guantanamo, you need funding to a least move the prisoners to another facility You need funding to keep Gitmo going too. I seriously doubt that would be a problem.

eswangren 14y ago
You misunderstand; it's not that we can't afford it, it's that you have to go through congress to get it in the first place.

adam74 14y ago

Yet they are willing to spend millions on upgrades to the place.

ollysb 14y ago

There is another option, keep them in Guantanamo but improve conditions to at least normal prison standards in the US. I can't believe that would be more expensive than maintaining their current regime.

betterunix 14y ago
Sounds like you are proposing that we ignore the fact that they never faced a legal proceeding, and just give them fluffier pillows while we hold them indefinitely.

brown9-2 14y ago

It's continually amazing how many people, especially Americans, think that the President is a king.