Detainees' lawyers question Obama commitment to close Guantanamo.

August 15, 2015 7:47 AM

There is this profound dissonance between what the administration is saying about its desire to close Guantanamo and what it is actually doing.
In an extremely rare legal manoeuvre, the Obama administration has challenged a legal request to free a hunger-striking Guantánamo Bay detainee entirely in secret.
Meanwhile the Guardian reveals that it is the The Pentagon that is blocking the return of UK permanent resident Shaker Aamer and two other longtime Guantánamo Bay detainees for whom the US Department of State has completed diplomatic deals to transfer home.
The contravention of the president’s orders indicates that there is a profound problem with the state of democracy in America.
posted by adamvasco (54 comments total)

The contravention of the president’s orders indicates that there is a profound problem with the state of democracy in America

Or bidness as usual.
posted by Mezentian at 7:57 AM on August 15, 2015 [2 favorites]

Is the article some sort of sardonic joke? Surely nobody seriously believes that Obama wants to free these embarrassing prisoners? When he could always have just let them walk out of their cells, out of the prison, out of Guantanamo?
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:00 AM on August 15, 2015 [4 favorites]

When he could always have just let them walk out of their cells, out of the prison, out of Guantanamo?

So what you're saying is that Obama should dump them on Cuba?

Dealing with a foreign power to get around Congress. Now where have I heard that one before?
posted by Talez at 8:05 AM on August 15, 2015 [1 favorite]

Seriously.

President Obama, it seems, has personally ordered Aamer’s release, and his subordinates have ignored and thwarted his order.

"it seems" i.e. he actually hasn't done it, or nobody knows if he's done it.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 8:05 AM on August 15, 2015 [3 favorites]

HOPE
posted by Behemoth at 8:06 AM on August 15, 2015 [2 favorites]

Wendell.
posted by infini at 8:07 AM on August 15, 2015 [1 favorite]

A real insight? There is a problem with democracy in America, etc? Since it was clear that NSA etc were doing what they were not supposed to do, then it became clear that a lot was not right in what a democracy was supposed to be about.
posted by Postroad at 8:09 AM on August 15, 2015

So what you're saying is that Obama should dump them on Cuba?

I'm saying that it is wrong for him to keep them imprisoned. In fact, I'll go further than that: it is absolutely disgraceful that the USA, once unironically referred to as the "leader of the free world" has sunk so low. Obama and his enablers should be ashamed of themselves. If they're not going to do the right thing - i.e., free those people immediately, compensate them, take them wherever they wish to go - then they should at least stand aside so their victims can help themselves.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:17 AM on August 15, 2015 [13 favorites]

These threads make me sad, because there isn't even going to be any controversy here. It's likely no one's going to come in here and say, "It's right that this Canadian guy has been held for years after he's been exonerated and his release ordered because ----." Everyone agrees - this is a massive miscarriage of justice - and yet it continues. I don't even think people are surprised any more - they just assume that this is what will happen.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:18 AM on August 15, 2015 [3 favorites]

OK - some controversy about details...

> So what you're saying is that Obama should dump them on Cuba?

Really - are you seriously proposing that the proper end to keeping people in jail for years with no due process is to throw them out in the street in a random country where they don't even speak the language?

Keeping prisoners for decades in brutally punitive detention camps is what the bad guys do. You seem to be claiming that having done this, the US government is henceforth forced to keep them incarcerated for the rest of their lives. That seems morally appalling to me - like murdering your kidnap victims so they won't testify against you. How do you justify this morally?

I think they should fly them to their destination of choice and leave them there with an apology and compensation.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:25 AM on August 15, 2015 [8 favorites]

it is absolutely disgraceful that the USA, once unironically referred to as the "leader of the free world" has sunk so low

2003 called and wants its sense of indignation back. This is how the US has operated since 9/11, under both Bush and Obama, there's minimal difference on issues of secrecy or executive power, and precious little on foreign policy in general. No one should be surprised any more that Obama cannot be trusted to live up to his promises on these issues, he's been two-faced for 7 years, publically promising transparency, clemency and reform in soaring rhetoric, while his official actions have been to crackdown, punish and silence in an unaccountable legal blackhole, just like the Bush administration before him. Sad, demoralized, ashamed? Sure. Surprised or shocked? No. This is who the US is, and this is who Obama is.

And there's no saving face for Obama to pin this on underlings at the Pentagon, if anything that makes it worse. Either Obama is in control of his administration, or he is not. If the defense department is holding out in defiance of the President, the President has the authority to replace them with someone who will comply. The only reasonable conclusion is that Obama himself is not committed to living up to his promises to close Guantanamo.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:47 AM on August 15, 2015 [4 favorites]

Coincidentally, I was reading up on this last night. There are a few possible scenarios here.

In general, US Presidents have argued (and the Supreme Court has generally agreed) that a President's power to wage war is extremely broad -- probably the broadest possible power that a President can have. Presidents have a relatively free hand to prosecute wars* as they see fit, their only real limiting power being the ability of Congress to defund the aforementioned wars. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recused themselves from war-time legal decisions, suggesting that when it comes to war, the President is basically the boss, with Congress playing a limited financial role.

That being said: President Obama has repeatedly said that Guantanamo must be shut down and that the prisoners must be dealt with using the standard judicial process. (Please note that to the best of my knowledge, President Obama has *never* said that any of these prisoners should be "released". I think sometimes well-meaning liberals tend to put words in Obama's mouth).

Obviously the prisoners have not been released, either to judicial custody or elsewhere. In fact, the Guantanamo Internment Camp (Camp X-Ray, Camp Delta, Camp FunTimes, whatever the official name is) ...the camp itself is actually being expanded and updated as recently as last year.

This leaves basically three possibilities:

1) When Obama says that prioners will be transferred to judicial custody, he means that this will happen someday, maybe in a few years, maybe a decade, we shall see. Certainly long after he stops being President. This isn't really a priority for him, so he'll make it a priority for somebody else down the line.

2) Obama is lying when he says that the prisoners will be transferred anywhere.

3) Obama has ordered transfers, but his subordinates have refused to obey orders.

Again, the President of the United States has virtually unlimited oversight over the conduct of war and POW's**. He could, if he so chose, order that they be flown back to their countries of origin, traded for American POW's (or their remains), handed over to the Red Cross/Red Crescent, etc. He could do all of those things at the stroke of a pen, if he so choose.

So #3 seems right out. It's doubtful that US military personnel would refuse a direct order from the CnC and still retain their jobs.

1 and 2 seem much more likely. Perhaps some combination of 1 and 2 is closer to reality.

Again, to the best of my knowledge, President Obama has never, at any point, said or intimated that these prisoners will be "released" or "freed" or sent back home with our sincerest apologies. I would love to be proven wrong about this, and if so I will stand corrected. People have a habit of reading into Obama's words and finding ideas that aren't really there.

I think the best analysis of the situation is to conclude that Obama is very much a War President, that he very much believes in the rightness of the War on Terror, and that he really doesn't care what happens to the prisoners, and that their release is probably unthinkable to him. His actions so far would seem to support this theory, I think.

*wars, meaning "killing people overseas", since the US has not been at war with anyone for the past 70 years.

**or "enemy combatants" or "unarmed but dangerous enemy fighters" or whatever the epuhamism for POW's we are currently using.
posted by Avenger at 8:55 AM on August 15, 2015 [6 favorites]

Really - are you seriously proposing that the proper end to keeping people in jail for years with no due process is to throw them out in the street in a random country where they don't even speak the language?

That would be my point. Joe said:

When he could always have just let them walk out of their cells, out of the prison, out of Guantanamo?

I don't think he appreciates the logistics of getting them back to where they need to be since you need both money to get them where they need to be and a country that will accept them.
posted by Talez at 9:01 AM on August 15, 2015 [1 favorite]

I've already had a comment deleted and am smart enough to see my argument will go over like a lead balloon regardless, so I'll simply agree with the sentiment that even the best-case scenario of sending everyone home is a political, logistical, and legal Gordian knot that needs to be untied, not cut. In reality, it's clear that Obama agrees that some of the people in Guantanamo ought to be there or somewhere like it, since why else would he oppose their release so vociferously? That's a legitimate question, by the way, why else would the administration fight to keep a 70 pound guy imprisioned besides being afraid of what he'd do if released?
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 9:09 AM on August 15, 2015

why else would the administration fight to keep a 70 pound guy imprisioned besides being afraid of what he'd do if released?

because they're afraid of what he'll reveal about the conditions he was kept in if released?
posted by animalrainbow at 9:12 AM on August 15, 2015 [5 favorites]

their only real limiting power being the ability of Congress to defund the aforementioned wars.

That's what's happened with Gitmo: each NDAA has prohibited funds from being used to shut Gitmo.
posted by jpe at 9:16 AM on August 15, 2015 [4 favorites]

What's consistently a surprise to me is the amount of power we ascribe to a few poor souls locked up in Guantanamo. We apparently can't transfer them to normal prisons or try them in normal courts because their superpowers will manifest themselves and they'll convert the entire prison population to radical Islam or call down a tactical nuclear strike on New York or melt large numbers of people with heat rays from their eyes or flay their captors and wear their skins as a disguise.

I mean, I have no trouble believing that the remaining prisoners aren't good people, or that they'd happily kill other Americans given the chance, or that they'll drop any pretenses at the first chance to sign up with ISIS. But so what? There's no shortage of people already in that category, and abandoning our self-described principles in the interest of keeping their numbers from growing by a fairly irrelevant amount is equivalent to saying that we've already abandoned those principles.

Some people have apparently read too many comic books.
posted by Slothrup at 9:27 AM on August 15, 2015 [16 favorites]

I mean, I have no trouble believing that the remaining prisoners aren't good people, or that they'd happily kill other Americans given the chance

Well, there's your answer. The earliest any of these guys will be released will be sometime after the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan is complete. People are still pissed about the prisoner swap for Bowe Bergdahl. Can you imagine the fallout if one of the Gitmo prisoners was released and later found to have rejoined the Taliban? Trey Gowdy would have a three day orgasm and then after his refractory period the House would start impeachment proceeding against that Marxist Muslim in the White House.
posted by MikeMc at 10:01 AM on August 15, 2015

That's what's happened with Gitmo: each NDAA has prohibited funds from being used to shut Gitmo.

This pretty much. Having a showdown on the NDAA over suspected terrorists (no matter how bogus the stigma is there)? It's not asking people to show backbone, it's asking people to commit political suicide. Gitmo is a political Kobayashi Maru.

The idealist part of me wants that shitshow closed as soon as possible. The pragmatic side of me knows that this can't happen without bipartisan support on this being a fucking travesty of human rights.
posted by Talez at 10:15 AM on August 15, 2015 [1 favorite]

In fact, I'll go further than that: it is absolutely disgraceful that the USA, once unironically referred to as the "leader of the free world" has sunk so low.

The School of the Americas, AKA Torture Instruction School or Right-Wing Death Squad School, was established in *looks* 1946, and the US maintained explicit policies of racial oppression and terror until... well, I was going to say 1965, but it hasn't ever really stopped. This isn't to condone unending detention in Guantanamo, only to note that any height the US fell from was more molehill than mountain.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:15 AM on August 15, 2015 [5 favorites]

So #3 seems right out. It's doubtful that US military personnel would refuse a direct order from the CnC and still retain their jobs.

Hopefully that's still correct, the alternatives are very uncomfortable (that is, a rogue U.S. military answering to nobody at all).

Obama himself has already recalled a general for doing less than what's alleged in the Guardian article, so there's something like a rough precedent within the current administration.
posted by gimonca at 10:41 AM on August 15, 2015

Obviously I've not got a deep enough understanding of the political realities surrounding the release of the detainees to propose a realistic solution, but I can't help indulging in idle daydreams when it comes to the case of Mr Aamer, at least.

1) POTUS walks directly into the facility, takes hold of his wrist, walks out. Nobody in the armed forces is going to body-check the President.

2) Fly Mr Aamer to JFK by whatever means immediately available. After 13 years in detention, I don't think being shackled in a helicopter would distress him too much.

3) I'll meet him in the terminal with a ticket, and fly Delta back to London (with whatever degrading 'enhanced screening' is deemed necessary). I'll even spring for the taxi to Battersea to drop him off at his house.
posted by The Zeroth Law at 11:15 AM on August 15, 2015 [2 favorites]

1) POTUS walks directly into the facility, takes hold of his wrist, walks out. Nobody in the armed forces is going to body-check the President.

2) Congress impeach the POTUS for defying the NDAA.

3) Maybe the POTUS survives a senate vote by party lines.

4) We've just fully opened Pandora's Box about the POTUS ignoring the law vs peeking in from time to time.
posted by Talez at 11:29 AM on August 15, 2015 [1 favorite]

Yeah, that's kinda where the 'idle daydream' description instead of 'realistic solution' comes in.
posted by The Zeroth Law at 12:11 PM on August 15, 2015

The NDAA says that the POTUS can't close Guantanamo and transfer the prisoners to US soil.

If he wanted to, Obama could just order that all the prisoners be transferred to the Red Cross/Red Crescent, and be treated as refugees or stateless persons -- and Congress could likely do nothing about it.

Obama doesn't want to do that, which is why he hasn't done that.
posted by Avenger at 12:18 PM on August 15, 2015

People need to get over the idea that Evil Congress is somehow forcing Obama to prosecute the War on Terror in a way that he doesn't want to. Obama has 100% control over the operational details of the war, and Congress basically signs (or doesn't sign) the spending invoices.

There are a few Congressional strings attached to certain aspects of war spending, but we are kidding ourselves if we believe that indefinite detention and dropping bombs on wedding parties isn't something that gets authorized in the White House.
posted by Avenger at 12:21 PM on August 15, 2015

The very least he could do is allow them the escape of death, but even that is forbidden via daily torture.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 12:22 PM on August 15, 2015 [1 favorite]

As I wrote last year:
First off, to be clear, President Obama is responsible for sending exactly zero people to Guantanamo. The number of detainees are currently at 166, from a high of 779 during the Bush administration, despite all the obstacles that Congress -- and primarily, the Republicans -- have put against either repatriating or domestically trying detainees. As it stands, over half of the remaining detainees are cleared and awaiting release... despite the fact that some countries are currently refusing to take their own citizens back.

The number of detainees has fallen sharply since last year, down to 116, a drop of nearly a third... this is despite increased GOP obstructionism, and a major coup which prevented the Obama administration from releasing Yemeni detainees -- the largest group remaining -- back to their country of origin. Instead, they have been forced to try to get other countries to accept Yemeni detainees. They have been making slow but steady progress on this front. Once more, the GOP are obstructing the transfer process. They would rather that the US pay tens of millions a year to keep the detainees, and even more to keep Guantanamo open, than to let the President keep his promise to close Guantanamo.

To the extent that the President *might* have executive powers which could close Guantanamo and send the detainees home, regardless of the legal restrictions set forth by the Republican Congress, you also have to figure in that the POTUS would *not* want to use such powers during the Presidential election, as it's something that the GOP has used to incite a lot of fear of the Democrats, and to fundraise off of.

Frankly, I would keep doing what he's already doing... sending them home gradually and in a not too divisive manner, in order to not trigger any more legislative backlashes, and then use those executive powers once the election has been decided, either via executive orders, or, possibly, through the traditional pardons given out at the end of a President's term of office.
posted by markkraft at 12:57 PM on August 15, 2015 [7 favorites]

markkraft what's your point?
US. intelligence and military officials cleared Tariq Ba Odah for release five years ago.
American and UK diplomats reached an agreement in late 2013 for the return of Shaker Aamer.
I don't think anyone gives a monkey's toss what you fantasize you might do if you were the President. You seem to be like a vast majority of "silent"America that does not care what happens to these human beings. What is your reason?, do you believe they should be incarcerated without trial.? You wouldn't let this happen to your dog.
Because the Bush administration created this cesspit does not obviate the present regime from closing it. Your arguments above are specious.
posted by adamvasco at 1:14 PM on August 15, 2015 [1 favorite]

From my point-of-view, Guantanamo is one of those areas of US foreign and legal policy where the left's fundamental lack of knowledge of the complexities involved in shutting down Guantanamo has materially hurt not just Obama's reputation, but also the Democratic Party as a whole.

It's made the left extremely vulnerable to what are, essentially, GOP talking points about Obama and the Democrat's failure, even though the GOP has led the way in obstructing the closure of Guantanamo.

For them, the prison they created and they supported the use of torture techniques in, which were later exported to Iraq has, ironically enough, been a gift that keeps on giving, rather than a constant source of blame.

Really, the only politician we are *really* holding accountable for Guantanamo is President Obama... and that is particularly tragic, considering that he's toured the world and visited with the leaders of numerous countries, big and small, just trying to find places to send detainees to.
posted by markkraft at 1:15 PM on August 15, 2015 [4 favorites]

"I don't think anyone gives a monkey's toss what you fantasize you might do if you were the President."

First off Adam, you're being rude and disrespectful. Stop being insulting. Stop trying to drive the narrative on your own post.

Secondly -- When it comes to politics and making things happen, strategy matters.

I was speculating on how the President would handle this very sensitive, divisive issue in American politics without throwing the election to the GOP. You have to keep in mind that the GOP sponsored and drove legislation through Congress with the goal of preventing the detainees from ever being released, and that several Democrats even defected to their side, because their constituents were scared.

Those are the political realities... Guantanamo's detainees scare Americans, and many politicians disgracefully decided to bend to public fear. It's been a political loser, and President Obama doesn't want to rock the boat during an election campaign, because as much as these prisoner's lives matter... so does keeping the people who caused the whole mess out of the White House again.

"You seem to be like a vast majority of "silent"America that does not care what happens..."

You seem to be insultingly stereotyping Americans, and unwilling to see that this is now a far more complex issue than you might suspect. It's extremely political, and the GOP made it that way. The idea of just magically having the POTUS close everything down? That is extremely divisive, and could give you another Bush in the White House. You want that? I sure as hell don't, because I lived under the last one.

"Do you believe they should be incarcerated without trial.?"

Of course not. I don't believe Guantanamo should exist. However, the question is how we get from here to there without rewarding the GOP for their Frankenstein's monster.

Adam, you created the post, which is all fine and well... but don't presume to tell me that because I am an American, I don't care what happens with these detainees. Unlike you, I have actually drawn world attention to the US violating international law and killing innocent people, so when you suggest that the President should basically disregard numerous US laws passed by the Republicans and let the detainees go, well... pardon me, but first off, that might not fly with the courts -- the GOP congress would be spreading the phrases -- "impeachable offense" and "vote to impeach" -- around liberally -- and secondly, that has a political cost that would be so high that even you, isolated from those costs, would not willingly pay the price if you had any real idea just how much it could potentially be.
posted by markkraft at 1:36 PM on August 15, 2015 [6 favorites]

In other words:
Handle Guantanamo right, and everyone goes home before the next president comes into office, with a minimum of hard feelings.

Handle it wrong... have President Bush or President Trump set the stage for a new war with Iran.
posted by markkraft at 1:49 PM on August 15, 2015 [2 favorites]

When it comes to Guantanamo, the public is still the problem...

These are the topline results of a YouGov/Huffington Post survey of 1000 US adults interviewed July 23-27, 2015 on Guantanamo Bay. The margin of error is 3.9%.

Click here to see full tables and demographic crossbreaks

The U.S. has been holding suspected terrorists at a military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Do you think the U.S. should continue to operate the prison or close it down?
Continue to operate .. . .50%
Close down . . . . . . . . . .27%
Not sure . . . . . . . . . . 23%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Obama has handled the prison at Guantanamo?
Approve strongly . . . . . . . . . .8%
Approve somewhat . . . . . . . . . . . 17%
Disapprove somewhat . . . . . . . . . . 18%
Disapprove strongly . . . . . . . . .. .22%
Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35%

If the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, do you think the prisoners who are serving life sentences should be:
Moved to US federal prisons . . . . . . 51%
Sent to other countries . . . . . . . .23%
Not sure . . . . . . . . . . 26%

Thinking about the U.S.’ anti-terrorism efforts, which of these do you consider worse?
Releasing from detention terrorists who could harm the U.S. . . .. . 52%
Wrongly detaining innocent people . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .34%
Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%

Do you think Guantanamo Bay will be closed before President Obama leaves office?
Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%
No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43%
Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43%
posted by markkraft at 1:56 PM on August 15, 2015 [1 favorite]

50 years from now, I know what the books will be saying about the beginning of this century's bullshit. Concentration camps. Torture. Surveillance. Proactive remote controlled indiscriminate weapons firing. Will it be whitewashed romantically into a John Waynesque ride into the sunset with all the Indians vanquished? Or will toddlers of today look back in horror at their grandparents' generation's excessive militarization and weaponization of humanitarian imperialism?

Who knows. These pixels may not be left to be picked over, unlike the scratchings on clay, stone and papyrus.
posted by infini at 1:57 PM on August 15, 2015 [1 favorite]

>Handle it wrong... have President Bush or President Trump set the stage for a new war with Iran.

They will do this anyway. That's a problem which can be solved separately, and can only be solved, by not electing idiot manchildren.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 1:57 PM on August 15, 2015

"That's a problem which can be solved separately, and can only be solved, by not electing idiot manchildren."

Here's the real question: given the poll results above, who are the idiot manchildren? Bush and Trump... or the American public?
posted by markkraft at 2:00 PM on August 15, 2015 [4 favorites]

the public is still the problem... think why
The public is still the problem because your biased and craven media will not tell the truth.
The poll you posted is mainly bullshit because the first question is based if not on a lie, on incomplete facts.
The U.S. has been holding people outside normal legal process and without trial.
Thinking about US efforts which have been camoflaged and sold to the public as anti terrorist measures.
markkraft you may be an "expert" but here you act as an apologist.
Proportionately more people outside than within the US are affected by the global bully America.
Also many of us care not a fig about your two sides of the same coin corrupt political system except to despise it as well as question the morality of the people of a nation which would rather go shopping while innocents burn.

As to driving matters on my own post. I have made one comment apart from this as opposed to your eight so don't wag your finger at me.
posted by adamvasco at 2:27 PM on August 15, 2015 [1 favorite]

It seems to me that there are some ugly, hard facts that most of us don't face, but that presidents must face every day.

Every president routinely makes decisions that kill people. It could be as simple as who gets insurance, or what the consumer safety requirements should be, or how much coal we're going to burn... or matters of war.

...but every president kills people. They have no choice in the matter. Someone has to make the decisions, after all. Likewise, people face extreme injustices... and you have to decide who will have to wait for their basic human rights until they can be granted without screwing with the precariously balanced political situation, because, by and large, the public tends to have a real problem with granting the rights they take for granted to "those people".

This, ideally, leads a president to an almost Buddhist effort to minimize human suffering... but yeah, still, lots of people die every day, and it's still their fault. No wonder they get old so quickly.

It's stunning and disheartening to me just how many people see someone else's basic human rights as somehow taking away from their own. It's awful and inhumane... and very, very widespread. It's part of the human condition, but some countries have that fundamental lack of empathy worse than others... and as much as these people don't care about others, they sure as hell find a way to vote.

And the fact that President Obama, who no doubt grew up on MLK and "justice too long delayed is justice denied", has to make these careful, calculated, political decisions about other people's lives and freedoms is a horrible, painful thing. But as horrible and tragic as that is, we should perhaps be glad he was willing to jump on that ethical grenade for us, because when it comes to Guantanamo, the President has been the brave one, reducing the inmates by a third in an otherwise horribly impeded political year, even though only 27% of the public supports him doing so... and we, the public at large, have been the real cowards.

And those of us, who know that the prisoners at Guantanamo deserve equal human rights under the law, have utterly failed to bring the argument to the rest of America.

Fortunately, we all have a President to blame for this. Unfortunately, his name is not George W. Bush.
posted by markkraft at 2:42 PM on August 15, 2015 [5 favorites]

markkraft, Obama looks a lot better in your imagined version of him than he does in reality.
posted by fredludd at 5:43 PM on August 15, 2015

Really, the only politician we are *really* holding accountable for Guantanamo is President Obama... and that is particularly tragic, considering that he's toured the world and visited with the leaders of numerous countries, big and small, just trying to find places to send detainees to.

Why does he have to "send" them anywhere? He has no right to be their jailer. I remember when Habeas Corpus was a thing, even in the USA.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:51 PM on August 15, 2015 [1 favorite]

Mark has crafted a pretty cogent argument Fred. I remember I time I would have...that's part of the problem, arguing with executive powers as a sole means to an end. Emotion is what this whole thing that is GITMO detention lacks, to ascribe a legal argument with an emotional voice is convincing.

I tend to reduce things like this. Why have not these prisoners been tried.

At this point, it tells other powers we can basically do whatever we want, with limits, to enemies.

I tend to see the cement and fencing obliterated, like old factories, and be written about with chalk.
posted by clavdivs at 6:05 PM on August 15, 2015

throw them out in the street in a random country where they don't even speak the language?

If they’ve been in Cuba for thirteen years and somehow still haven’t bothered to learn Spanish, that’s on them.
posted by El Mariachi at 6:42 PM on August 15, 2015 [1 favorite]

We could ask them what they'd like. We could let them write letters to people, or to newspapers, seeking help. We could, in fact, treat them like the human beings they are.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:48 PM on August 15, 2015

Without careful breakdowns by party and ideology, those polls are not terribly useful, since 50% will oppose Obama no matter what he does. If 50% opposition is the threshold for inaction, then nothing will ever get done again. Regarding impeachment, Obama has taken executive action on a number of fronts in the last year that "Congress" has threatened impeachment about -- and nothing comes of it. Either (a) nothing will ever come of it, or (b) as America further polarizes, whenever there is a majority of the opposing party in Congress, Congress will attempt to impeach. Which would actually be great, since it would turn us effectively into a parliamentary democracy.

I agree Obama has taken a gradualist approach that is better that it could have been. And in my more generous moods, I know Obama is aware of huge numbers of people unfairly incarcerated in America, so why burn his bridges on a few hundred more. In my less generous moods, I know that millions of school-children will read the box on Guantanamo in their textbooks and toss Obama into the trashbin of history, where all cowards who run their lives by 50% polls reside.

I guess it's a bummer that you can be the greatest president in the world, but all you have to do is torture a few people and bomb a few children and some folks will hate you no matter how much other good you did. But if you want to be loved, don't become president. Or, you know, take a few political risks that Congress will sue or impeach you, and accept that 50% of the country will hate you no matter what you do.
posted by chortly at 7:00 PM on August 15, 2015

those polls are not terribly useful

Maybe, when you can't figure out what to do because the popular course isn't clearly spelled out, you could try to follow existing laws. Or maybe you could try to live up to the moral values that you've always pretended to have.
posted by fredludd at 7:11 PM on August 15, 2015

We could ask them what they'd like. We could let them write letters to people, or to newspapers, seeking help. We could, in fact, treat them like the human beings they are.

Except a lot of these nationals either aren't able to be repatriated due to civil strife in the country (Yemen, Syria), the country of origin flat out won't accept them because not all countries are liberal democracies that have laws that obligate them to provide a home for their citizens, or they can't find a third party country to accept them. Which is exactly what markkraft is talking about.
posted by Talez at 9:43 PM on August 15, 2015 [2 favorites]

How do you know this to be true, Talez? Can these prisoners communicate with the outside world, or is it their captors who tell you that they have nowhere to go?

Incidentally, if the USA acknowledges that they don't have anywhere else to go, they're refugees, and the USA is (again!) acting illegally in confining them.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:17 PM on August 15, 2015

If they’ve been in Cuba for thirteen years and somehow still haven’t bothered to learn Spanish, that’s on them.

Er... they haven't been in Cuba. You really should watch the news. They've been locked up in a US military prison within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.
posted by Mister Bijou at 1:18 AM on August 16, 2015 [1 favorite]

Which is in Cuba!
posted by clavdivs at 7:40 AM on August 16, 2015

Another big issue on this is the matter of trials. Why not just try everyone, and release the ones who are innocent, wherever?!

Like all of Guantanamo, the answer is complicated, of course. Both politically, and legally.

In truth, that was something the Bush administration wanted to do... but the problem was, they wanted to do it with the old system of military tribunals, which would've allowed for easy convictions.

This led to a Supreme Court decision with Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, saying that the government lacks "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."

So, to remedy this situation, the Obama administration overhauled the entire system of military tribunals, releasing 200 pages of new regulations on how they would need to be run, in order to comply with the aforementioned legal requirements.

... so you'd think this would allow those who are guilty to be tried and sentenced, while those who are found innocent could finally be released, wouldn't you?!

Well, it's complicated... again.

By adding all sorts of regulations on to a system of justice that was previously ruled unfair and has yet to be proven and lacks the hundreds of years of modifications like our public system to work the kinks out, it has given defense attorneys all sorts of ammunition to drag trials on indefinitely... but that's okay, because the defense teams are trying to prevent their clients from being executed.
posted by markkraft at 9:48 AM on August 16, 2015 [1 favorite]

Or tortured!

Or have their privileged communications with their lawyers illegally intercepted!

And the reason some of them couldn't have trials is that they were never guilty of anything in the first place!

But it will be a long time before we get the full details, because they're still interdicted in the USA's oubliette.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:57 PM on August 16, 2015 [1 favorite]

Joe what exactly do you want to happen and what do you think exactly will happen when that happens?
posted by Talez at 4:32 PM on August 16, 2015

At a bare minimum these men should have freedom of communication, and access to their files. If any charges are to be brought they should be prosecuted promptly, and in a normal court. If no charges are to be brought then the prisoners should be released, and assisted with their travel.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:07 PM on August 16, 2015

It's really depressing that so many people ignore a bald fact: Obama ordered the closure of Gitmo and Congress stymied that order. It was literally his third Executive Order, issued within 24 hours of swearing the Presidential Oath.

Like, this dude, this guy who got elected President, made three Executive Orders within his first full day in office. One of them was to close the horrific prison at Guantanamo.

Who stopped him?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:40 PM on August 16, 2015 [3 favorites]