Gitmo to stay openFollow

Obama's failure to close Gitmo has been my biggest disappointment with his tenure.

Was that the answer you were looking for?

Healthcare revisions, DADT being repealed, credit card security changed around, nuclear loan guarantees opened up... all of those don't seem like a waste, IMO.

But I agree, Gitmo is a huge disappointment. I believe he also extended some of the PATRIOT Act provisions, including wiretapping, which annoys me almost as much.

Gitmo was remaining open regardless since Congress wouldn't allow its closure. So that part isn't news.

The news is the resuming of military tribunals. I'm not excited about that but at least they'll have more restrictions than previously. Detainees can have either defense provided by the government or their own private defense attorneys. They're revamping how they handle classified information including allowing private defense attorneys who pass clearance to view classified information for mounting their defense. Evidence gained via "cruel or inhuman" interrogation will be inadmissible. A review panel will be formed to go over the cases of detainees who still haven't had any sort of hearing. Obama also restated his belief that civilian tribunals and civilian courts can handle many of these cases.

I think it's a poor step backwards but at least not a step fully backwards into the Bush era. That said, it'd kind of funny that Varus would rather cry about poor mistreated Bush than praise Obama for this decision :D

Obama spent two years trying to close Gitmo including attempting to purchase a largely vacant SuperMax prison to transfer the detainees into. The opposition there was from Congress (on both sides). This isn't about Obama deciding to keep Gitmo open -- it was never going to be closed -- it's about what will happen with the detainees in Gitmo.

My biggest problem (and it may be my own ignorance) is that I don't understand why we are using military tribunals in the first place--its just too skeevey to me. I vote try the detainees via the judicial system.

The primary reason given is because of the classified nature of much of the evidence. Keeping the material "in house" and the fact that they can keep the tribunals private means less of a security concern. The downside (which is a major one in my opinion) is that you're relying on a closed, private system which is arguably hostile to the defendant from the start to make decision regarding their guilt and without much, if any, recourse available to the defendant.

"Helpful" to the government, but less likely to be given as a reason, is a lower jury threshold (you only need 66% for a conviction), the use of evidence gained in ways deemed ineligible in a civilian trial and the fact that they're not actually required to release you upon acquittal from a tribunal.

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 3:36pm by Jophiel

Kinda playing it fast and loose with the word "justice" in this situation, huh?

Man that'd suck if what you were describing was related to reality. Keep dreaming, I guess. The world you think you live in sounds like a shithole though.

I edited it for clarity, there ya go.

Er? You don't fall for something you already agree with though. Conservatives didn't have the wool pulled over their eyes when they were told by Bush that detainment in Gitmo was necessary and that he'd continue the practice. Liberals, on the other hand, were fooled by Obama saying that closing Gitmo would be on the top of his to-do list if elected President.

Not only were Conservatives not fooled by Bush (silly as that suggestion is), but we were also not fooled by Obama. We were pretty certain that he wouldn't be able to close Gitmo once he was in office and some of us (me included) said so repeatedly.


Um... So: I told you so!