Obama suspends trials at Guantanamo

figs86

Couldn't be happier with him, its fantastic news!

Obama Seeks Halt to Legal Proceedings at Guantanamo

By Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 21, 2009; Page A02
GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba, Jan. 20 -- In one of its first actions, the Obama administration instructed military prosecutors late Tuesday to seek a 120-day suspension of legal proceedings involving detainees at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- a clear break with the approach of the outgoing Bush administration.

The instruction came in a motion filed with a military court in the case of five defendants accused of organizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. The motion called for "a continuance of the proceedings" until May 20 so that "the newly inaugurated president and his administration [can] review the military commissions process, generally, and the cases currently pending before military commissions, specifically."

The same motion was filed in another case scheduled to resume Wednesday, involving a Canadian detainee, and will be filed in all other pending matters.

Such a request may not be automatically granted by military judges, and not all defense attorneys may agree to such a suspension. But the move is a first step toward closing a detention facility and system of military trials that became a worldwide symbol of the Bush administration's war on terrorism and its unyielding attitude toward foreign and domestic critics.



The legal maneuver appears designed to provide the Obama administration time to refashion the prosecution system and potentially treat detainees as criminal defendants in federal court or have them face war-crimes charges in military courts-martial. It is also possible that the administration could re-form and relocate the military commissions before resuming trials.

The motion prompted a clear sense of disappointment among some of the military officials here who had tried to make a success of the system, despite charges that the military tribunals were a legal netherworld. Military prosecutors and other commission officials here were told not to speak to the news media, according to a Pentagon official.

"It's over; I don't want to say any more," said one official involved in the process.

But the action was cheered by military and civilian defense attorneys.

"We welcome our new commander-in-chief and this first step towards restoring the rule of law," said Army Maj. Jon Jackson, a military defense attorney for Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, one of the Sept. 11 defendants.

"This is a good step in the right direction, although we still think that the unconditional withdrawal of all charges and shutting down this tainted system is warranted," said Jamil Dakwar, director of the human rights program at the American Civil Liberties Union. "The president's order leaves open the option of this discredited system remaining in existence."

Pretrial hearings for the 9/11 defendants were scheduled to resume Wednesday. Another case, involving Omar Khadr, a Canadian accused of killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan when he was 15, was also about to begin.

The Bush administration opened a cluster of chain-link cages called Camp X-Ray on this naval base seven years ago, and on Jan. 11, 2002, a military flight delivered the first 20 suspected terrorists and Taliban fighters. In the ensuing years, nearly 800 prisoners would arrive.

But the military commissions system devised by the administration to try the detainees ran into numerous setbacks. The Supreme Court ruled that, contrary to administration claims, detainees at Guantanamo were entitled to challenge their detentions and that the naval base was not beyond the reach of federal law.

Eventually more than 550 detainees were released; only three were ever put on trial and convicted.

Global opinion turned dramatically against U.S. use of the facility. Organizations such as Amnesty International called it a "gulag." And both Obama and his opponent for the presidency, Sen. John McCain, said they wanted it closed -- as, finally, did former president George W. Bush.

But former vice president Richard B. Cheney said late last year that Guantanamo should be kept open until "the end of the war on terror" -- a time, he noted, that "nobody can specify."

President Obama has acknowledged in recent interviews that shutting the facility is likely to be prolonged and complex. And the administration now faces a number of potentially daunting challenges to following through on the president's campaign promise. Obama is expected to sign an executive order soon that will lay out in detail his plan to empty the facility.

banquo

Wow. He's certainly making the most of his political capital!

Thrill

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html

Orders to close Guantanamo facility drafted, officials say

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba (CNN) -- The Obama administration is drafting executive orders calling for the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, two administration officials said.

KyussBishop

Very promising news indeed; the make or break decision for me though, as far as Obama's credibility is concerned, is whether or not he's going to put Bush/Rumsfeld on trial for war crimes (authorizing torture).

Will be very interesting to see, if he does.

Overheal

Im sure the best lawyers in DC have been dreaming about that one. no doubt they are immunized by either a lack of evidence or a magic loophole.

Call Me Jimmy

KyussBishop wrote: »

Very promising news indeed; the make or break decision for me though, as far as Obama's credibility is concerned, is whether or not he's going to put Bush/Rumsfeld on trial for war crimes (authorizing torture).

Will be very interesting to see, if he does.

You think that's even a possibility? No way. That'll never happen and if it does I'll eat my cat.

Matt Holck

They put Saddam Hussein up for war crime so there is a recent precedence

Ludo

KyussBishop wrote: »

Very promising news indeed; the make or break decision for me though, as far as Obama's credibility is concerned, is whether or not he's going to put Bush/Rumsfeld on trial for war crimes (authorizing torture).

Will be very interesting to see, if he does.

NEVER going to happen. In an ideal world they would indeed be prosecuted but in reality there is no way this can ever happen. It would tear the country apart and sideline everything else Obama tries to do. Unless things go completely pear shaped fopr him and he needs a major distraction of course.

Pocono Joe

Just when I get comfortable with thinking that the Washington comPost is nothing more than a Left Wing/Democratic lovefest, they come out with a realistic, sensible and poignant piece like this. Dang them!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103215.html

Matt Holck

America marked 2,688 days without a terrorist attack on its soil.

How many days before 9/11 without a terrorist attack on its soil?

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Just when I get comfortable with thinking that the Washington comPost is nothing more than a Left Wing/Democratic lovefest, they come out with a realistic, sensible and poignant piece like this. Dang them!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103215.html

Great!!!!.....You seem to have linked some right wing rant dogged with faulty logic by mistake though....

Ludo

America marked 2,688 days without a terrorist attack on its soil.

Define a terrorist attack please?

Here is a list from the ultimate reliable source (wikipedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2000-present

looks like there have been lots of them depending on your definition of terrorism.

Or do they not count as they are not Al Queda. Before 9/11 you gotta go back to 1993 for the previous one on US soil by an Al Queda related group. That is one attack early in Clintons administration and one earlyish in the Bush administration. If we are going to get into silly debates, then technically Clinton kept America safer for longer than Bush...and he is a democrat...oh my god!

So whats the point of this article exactly?

Matt Holck

why the world trade center?

Pocono Joe

Ludo wrote: »

So whats the point of this article exactly?

The answer to your question might best be poised in the form of another question... Why close Gitmo?

Ludo

Do you really need us to answer that? A few reasons...It hasn't kept the USA any safer than it was before it opened and has created massive unpopularity for the USA around the world as it is basically a black hole to throw people into without any due process. "Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". Bush failed in his duty as the constitution, which it is his primary job to defend, was completely ignored.

Any comment on the rest of my post above or are you just going to ignore reality like the article author did?

JohnMc1

KyussBishop wrote: »

Very promising news indeed; the make or break decision for me though, as far as Obama's credibility is concerned, is whether or not he's going to put Bush/Rumsfeld on trial for war crimes (authorizing torture).

Not going to happen. I think you people need to read up on what torture really is. They got their 3 meals a day got to pray to Mecca when they wanted too. Nobody was maimed or mutilated. They're all healthy and still breathing properly [which is alot more than most these ****s deserve] Wow we doused them with water how horrible. The bastards needed baths anyway.

Get over the Bush hate people. I guarantee you won't be cheering Guantanimo's closing if they revealed that the prisoners ar coming to your prisons. Typical liberal hypocrites.

Pocono Joe

Ludo wrote: »

Any comment on the rest of my post above or are you just going to ignore reality like the article author did?

Sure. Detaining prisoners at Gitmo and Waterboarding three terrorists has saved lives from planned terror attacks. No brainer!

Jim_Are_Great

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Sure. Detaining prisoners at Gitmo and Waterboarding three terrorists has saved lives from planned terror attacks. No brainer!

I don't think everyone agrees with that, and I also don't think that's been proved. I could be wrong. If I am, show me the links.

Ludo

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Sure. Detaining prisoners at Gitmo and Waterboarding three terrorists has saved lives from planned terror attacks. No brainer!

As I pointed out, Clinton managed to avoid an attack for longer without lowering himself to the level of the terrorists by engaging in torture...so what did gitmo achieve?

Pocono Joe

Jim_Are_Great wrote: »

I don't think everyone agrees with that, and I also don't think that's been proved. I could be wrong. If I am, show me the links.

Here is a quick one from a simple internet search. It really wasn't too difficult at all to find. I picked one from a source I consider to be nonpartisan in order to avoid the borish "right wing" clap trap type comments that are usually noted with my links when individuals can't dispute the facts, and just attack the source.
http://thehill.com/byron-york/when-waterboarding-works-2007-12-13.html

GuanYin

KyussBishop wrote: »

Very promising news indeed; the make or break decision for me though, as far as Obama's credibility is concerned, is whether or not he's going to put Bush/Rumsfeld on trial for war crimes (authorizing torture).

Will be very interesting to see, if he does.

Will never happen and really it isn't up to Obama either.

What he *can* and *should* do is refuse to grant a pardon for any offences while in office.

That way the AG can, if it likes, go after Bush.Rumsfeld.

oscarBravo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Nobody was maimed or mutilated. They're all healthy and still breathing properly [which is alot more than most these ****s deserve] Wow we doused them with water how horrible. The bastards needed baths anyway.

That whole Bill of Rights nonsense is utterly overrated, anyway.

GuanYin

JohnMc1 wrote: »

They're all healthy and still breathing properly [which is alot more than most these ****s deserve] .

How can you tell who deserves what when nobody got due process?

Overheal

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Why close Gitmo?

Because of the waterboarding, the abuse and humiliation of unconvicted detainees, and more importantly, Gitmo now stands as a direct oppossition to the Geneva Convention. Besides the Iraq War, its one of the single greatest reasons the US has been looked down upon in recent years.

But I suspect you already know that, and I call shenannigans.

JohnMc1 wrote:

They got their 3 meals a day got to pray to Mecca when they wanted too. Nobody was maimed or mutilated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp#Conditions

"On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 18, 24 hours or more."

Saar, a former U.S. soldier, repeats allegations that a female interrogator taunted prisoners sexually and in one instance wiped what seemed to be menstrual blood on the detainee.

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer in June 2005, Dick Cheney defended the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo: "There isn't any other nation in the world that would treat people who were determined to kill Americans the way we're treating these people. They're living in the tropics. They're well fed. They've got everything they could possibly want."

JohnMc1

GuanYin wrote: »

How can you tell who deserves what when nobody got due process?

When they are willing to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up and take as many of us with them as possible they don't deserve due course. Their still breathing and in one piece. That more than they deserve and the people defending them are pieces of ****.

Overheal

JohnMc1 wrote: »

When they are willing to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up and take as many of us with them as possible they don't deserve due course. Their still breathing and in one piece. That more than they deserve and the people defending them are pieces of ****.

I could interpret that as hostility or personal abuse.

The point being made here is of the 539 245 detainees (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_detainees.htm) still being detained at gitmo, we dont know which of them are innocent of the crimes they are being detained for and which are guilty. All the same, they are being treated in the fashion in my above post.

If you were part of a group of 100 detainees, where 2 of them were terrorists, and you were all being tortured, humiliated, and forced into positions for days on end where you were forced to urinate or defecate on yourself, how would you feel Johnny?

JohnMc1

Overheal wrote: »

I could interpret that as hostility or personal abuse.

I could care a less how you interpret it.

The point being made here is of the 539 detainees still being detained at gitmo, we dont know which of them are innocent of the crimes they are being detained for and which are guilty. All the same, they are being treated in the fashion in my above post.

They were caught on the battlefield. They are terrorists. If you want to believe the troops randomly rounded up Iraqis thats your problem.

If you were part of a group of 100 detainees, where 2 of them were terrorists, and you were all being tortured, humiliated, and forced into positions for days on end where you were forced to urinate or defecate on yourself, how would you feel Johnny?

How would you feel if you lost or nearly lost a loved one on 9-11 and the thought of our Commie President and Dem/Communist party wanted to put these terrorists in your states prison? If you say you wouldn't mind you are full of it.

Overheal

They were caught on the battlefield. They are terrorists. If you want to believe the troops randomly rounded up Iraqis thats your problem.

So the 202 detainees released so far were....? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_detainees.htm

Prove to me my government is Communist or GTFO.

JohnMc1

Overheal wrote: »

Prove to me my government is Communist or GTFO.

Touchy all of a sudden. Must have hit a nerve.

oscarBravo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

They were caught on the battlefield. They are terrorists. If you want to believe the troops randomly rounded up Iraqis thats your problem.

"He was caught at the crime scene. He's a gang-banger. If you want to believe the cops randomly rounded up brothers that's your problem."

For six marks, can anyone tell me why the phrase above is not routinely heard in American courts of law?

How would you feel if you lost or nearly lost a loved one on 9-11 and the thought of our Commie President and Dem/Communist party wanted to put these terrorists in your states prison? If you say you wouldn't mind you are full of it.

Dude. You're on an Irish website. Around a decade ago, 98% of us voted to release our own home-grown terrorists to walk around on the streets, never mind give them due process.

Stow the self-righteousness. It's a piss-poor excuse for the blatant disregard for the very document that makes America justifiably see itself a great nation, and your so-called "Commie President" can see that, even if you can't.

Overheal

You havent answered my question. Bear in mind forum rules http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055396904

JohnMc1

oscarBravo wrote: »

For six marks, can anyone tell me why the phrase above is not routinely heard in American courts of law? Dude. You're on an Irish website. Around a decade ago, 98% of us voted to release our own home-grown terrorists to walk around on the streets, never mind give them due process.

So because the Irish Govt is stupid the US Govt has to act the same way?:rolleyes:

GuanYin

JohnMc1 wrote: »

When they are willing to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up and take as many of us with them as possible they don't deserve due course. Their still breathing and in one piece. That more than they deserve and the people defending them are pieces of ****.

So we've established that you don't believe in our (the American) constitution and would like to piss on the graves of the founding fathers because of your personal feelings. Lets move on.

Ok, so what else doesn't deserve due process?

Murder? Rape? Paedophilia? What your'e saying is, depending on the alleged crime, some people don't deserve a fair hearing.

In fact, depending on the perception of crime. I mean, I might see you as a terrorist, you might see me as an invader whose with the army who dropped a bomb on your pregnant wife.

Either you have law and rule or you don't. You can't pick and choose because you're prejudiced against a certain people.

oscarBravo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

So because the Irish Govt is stupid the US Govt has to act the same way?:rolleyes:

Stupid, eh?

We keep hearing about how Bush's shredding of the Constitution has kept America free from terrorist attacks on its soil since 9/11.

When d'you suppose the last terrorist attack took place on Irish soil? Bearing in mind all the actual convicted (y'know, by a court of law) terrorists we have walking around?

Pocono Joe

Overheal wrote: »

You havent answered my question. Bear in mind forum rules http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055396904

What do you suggest we do if he strays from the rules... send him off to Gitmo perhaps?

Overheal

It would be fitting

Ludo

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Here is a quick one from a simple internet search. It really wasn't too difficult at all to find. I picked one from a source I consider to be nonpartisan in order to avoid the borish "right wing" clap trap type comments that are usually noted with my links when individuals can't dispute the facts, and just attack the source.
http://thehill.com/byron-york/when-waterboarding-works-2007-12-13.html

I think you will find I did attack the facts of your previous article so your argument makes no sense . You have no comeback to the fact that the lack of a "Gitmo" during the Clinton years worked also.

deadhead13

It is not enough to just close Guantanamo down. Someone has to be held accountable for the inhumane treatment of the inmates.

Pocono Joe

Ludo wrote: »

I think you will find I did attack the facts of your previous article so your argument makes no sense . You have no comeback to the fact that the lack of a "Gitmo" during the Clinton years worked also.

FYI... The US was attacked during the Clinton years. He (and others to be fair) was just do blind to see we were already at war. Ergo no need for a Gitmo terrorist detainee type operation (although it was there during the Clinton years). And for those who think the terrorists just started planning the terror attacks of 9/11 on January 21, 2001 (the day after GWB took office), I have a bridge leading into Brooklyn to sell ya.

KyussBishop

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I think you people need to read up on what torture really is. They got their 3 meals a day got to pray to Mecca when they wanted too. Nobody was maimed or mutilated. They're all healthy and still breathing properly [which is alot more than most these ****s deserve] Wow we doused them with water how horrible. The bastards needed baths anyway.

Very very wrong, nearly 100 people have died while in custody since 2002 (page 9 here, not just talking about Guantanamo), some by torture; the Bush administration itself has even admitted to having used torture!

Ludo

Pocono Joe wrote: »

FYI... The US was attacked during the Clinton years. He (and others to be fair) was just do blind to see we were already at war. Ergo no need for a Gitmo terrorist detainee type operation (although it was there during the Clinton years). And for those who think the terrorists just started planning the terror attacks of 9/11 on January 21, 2001 (the day after GWB took office), I have a bridge leading into Brooklyn to sell ya.

If you had read earlier I did state that there was an attack one month into Clintons term. Never said there was not ANY during his term just that he kept USA from attack for longer than Bush has. I would guess that attack was planned during a Bush presidency also :rolleyes:

Guy:Incognito

Pocono Joe wrote: »

The answer to your question might best be poised in the form of another question... Why close Gitmo?

PR?

Pocono Joe

Ludo wrote: »

Never said there was not ANY during his term just that he kept USA from attack for longer than Bush has. I would guess that attack was planned during a Bush presidency also :rolleyes:

As I recall, during the Clinton years there was the 1993 First World Trade Center Bombing as mentioned, then the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya, and the USS Cole bombing in October of 2000. I guess that’s what happens when you fight terrorism in the courtroom... you keep getting attacked. (I might have forgotten a few.)

Pocono Joe

Stekelly wrote: »

PR?

As stupid and ridiculous as the reasoning, "PR" might be the best answer to the question of "why close Gitmo".

Ludo

Pocono Joe wrote: »

As I recall, during the Clinton years there was the 1993 First World Trade Center Bombing as mentioned, then the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya, and the USS Cole bombing in October of 2000. I guess that’s what happens when you fight terrorism in the courtroom... you keep getting attacked. (I might have forgotten a few.)

Oh right. Ya see the article you linked to said there were no attacks ON US SOIL. That is what we were discussing. If you are now changing this to terrorist attacks on US interests anywhere in the world, I think you will find that by Bushs own definition of terrorism, there has been terrorist attacks on US interests on every single day since the US went into Afghanistan. That must be the worst record of any US president. Make up your mind what you are arguing please and stop trying to change it to suit your point of view.

Ludo

Pocono Joe wrote: »

As stupid and ridiculous as the reasoning, "PR" might be the best answer to the question of "why close Gitmo".

I actually agree. The good PR of closing Gitmo, banning torture and living up to the US constitution will help restore the American image throughout the world and help restore its moral authority. Is this a bad thing?

Pocono Joe

Ludo wrote: »

Oh right. Ya see the article you linked to said there were no attacks ON US SOIL. That is what we were discussing. If you are now changing this to terrorist attacks on US interests anywhere in the world, I think you will find that by Bushs own definition of terrorism, there has been terrorist attacks on US interests on every single day since the US went into Afghanistan. That must be the worst record of any US president. Make up your mind what you are arguing please and stop trying to change it to suit your point of view.

I believe a US Embassy is technically considered US soil. And being a BJ (and yes that is a play on words) Clinton fan, I think you would appreciated the phrase "it all depends on what your definition of is is."

CamperMan

how many have been released ... 50?, 50 suspect terrorists being allowed to go free.... has Obama gone mad?

Ludo

How about the US embassies in Kabul and Baghdad then...plenty of action there.

By the way, There have been 14 attacks on US embassies during the Bush presidency excluding the Kabul and Baghdad ones.

Give some good reasons to keep Gitmo open. Why is it necessary to stoop to the level of terrorists to defeat them?

Pocono Joe

Ludo wrote: »

Give some good reasons to keep Gitmo open. Why is it necessary to stoop to the level of terrorists to defeat them?

You may have hit on something. Although we don’t, we could stoop to the level of the terrorists -- kill them all without mercy. No need for the troops to second guess what to do -- Take no prisoners! Then I guess you’re right... here will be no need for a Gitmo.

figs86

for those who are interested in reading another forum where i had a posting duel with some very stubborn, very republican americans do click the link:

http://forums.cigaraficionado.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9426054/m/588107485/p/1

i supplied a definition of torture for them from the U.N. Convention Against Torture (that their Government had signed up to) and they still said no, America doesn't torture people because they make up their own definition of torture

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is:
“ any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

what goes on in gitmo is torture.