Obama set to close down Guantanamo Bay!

Well, hey!

It appears as though the ACLU isn't useless after all!! Seems that enough pressure from them has finally persuaded Obama to make plans to close down the facility and have prisoners finally tried in the USA or tried in their home countries.

With a nod, he can close it down just like that. Imagine it.

Link
I emphasized highlights in bold:

Sorry Harold and Kumar, but you won't be going back.

 

I think it's kind of interesting that they are ready to release 250 prisoners and no country in the world wants to take them.

 

I'm kind of surprised that 250 of them are being held there for several years without trial because nobody wants to give them one.

 

I'm for it. It is a dungeon and it is illegal. My worry is the minute one of them gets out and bombs something, the right-wing attack machine breathes again.

You'll get a Willie Horton-style ad showing a scary-looking man (meaning, dark) who Obama put back on the streets to kill again. It sunk Dukakis fast. It's a tough political situation I'm glad I don't have to resolve.

 

I'm kind of shocked that the ACLU is not more concerned with peaceful marijuanna detainees right here in the US of A.

What is it with these foreign fighters. they are not even citizens?

 

oh, sure, let's give up the fight for the civil liberties of the exceedingly symbolic guantánamo detainees, so we can can play Don Qixote and try to get pot laws repealed through the courts.

 

Hey, the more windmills the better dude.

 

Five past Secretaries of State said that that is the first thing a new president should do to repair the American image in the world.

Biden quoted it at the debate. That's when Palin claimed friendship with Henry Kissinger.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/03/28/Close_Gitmo_five_secretaries_of_state_say/UPI-85891206705976/

 

"But, underscoring the difficult decisions Obama must make to fulfill his pledge of shutting down Guantanamo, the plan could require creation of a new legal system to handle the classified information inherent in some of the most sensitive cases."

What the hell does that mean? This article said more times than I bothered to count that doing this will require creating an entire new legal system, but never bothered to explain what that meant and barely touched on WHY it would be necessary.

I just don't understand. I could see how this might force courts to come up with some new balancing tests or resort to older tests that might be relevant to sort out the classified information issues. But there are other methods, within our current "legal system," for protecting identities besides closing entire trials. The most obvious example is only closing portions of the trials that have been deemed (by a court, nobody should trust the executive enough to allow them to make such decisions) to be too sensitive to release to the public.

I'm not nearly as worried about a court closing proceedings as I am about the executive branch and military commissions doing it because the judiciary actually has to give a thorough explanation of pretty much everything they do. The current system for trying Guantanamo inmates allows the Bush administration to close any "enemy combatant" trial it wants without having to provide any justification for doing so. This is the "new" system.

ARen't we talking about moving these inmates to US courts so they can enjoy the benefits of the old system where their trials will actually be public unless an impartial judiciary concludes (and gives a thorough explanation for that conclusion, as is pretty much their job description) that some information is too sensitive to disclose to the media and, in turn, the public in general?

Besides, you can't create a "new" legal system that will allow truly public trials yet keep evidence deemed classified from reaching the media who will cover them. Precedent dictates pretty consistently that the media can publish any truthful information it chooses so long as they themselves obtained it legally - even if the person who provided the information to them obtained it illegally! There just isn't any way to hold a completely open trial (which implies the press is, or at least is free to be, present and that classified or sensitive information will be presented as evidence) AND not have that information reach the public.

 

I'm kind of shocked that you think legalizing a recreational drug is more important than rescuing a few hundred people from unwarranted detainment and torture, without explanation or hope of escape, which most of them have probably done absolutely nothing to deserve.

Actually, I'm not too shocked at all. Damn hippies.
Ok, maybe that was a bit much. I smoked pot heavily (up until a few days ago actually) for a long time, and to tell the truth I will probably go through at least a few more periods of smoking in my life. I understand why you see injustice in its legal status.

However I don't understand how you can think that is a more important issue than Guantanamo. You didn't think that statement through very well did you? Its a recreational drug for fuck's sake. If the legislature passed a bill making caffeinated cola illegal and the ACLU was busy concentrating on Guantanamo, would you scold them for not taking up the caffeine cause over that of the unfairly tried and tortured people in this prison?

Not to mention that the ACLU would self-destruct if it took up the marijauna cause. I don't know if you noticed, but the general public opinion, regardless of whether it is misinformed, is that marijuana is VERY BAD. If they started advocating for legalization a lot of people, probably even some of their current supporters, would no longer view the ACLU as a legitimate organization. Then they wouldn't be able to get ANYTHING done.

 

I agree Geo I am having trouble seeing why a whole new system would have to be developed. In order to hide the abuses that have taken place at Guantanamo?

Didn't we try the Rosenbergs under the US judicial system? Some of the testimony was kept secret for decades and just now is coming out.