The PATRIOT Act and NDAA are among many grievances that civil liberties activists have when it comes to Obama, but I am interested in exploring a specific issue: Guantanamo Bay.

As the popular criticism goes, Obama promised to shut down Guantanamo Bay (video) and it exists to this day. The counter-argument is that he specifically ordered Guantanamo Bay to be shut down (link to article here) and lost the power play to those who objected. What do you make of this factual counter-argument? He could easily be said to have bad judgment for predicting he would be successful, but he tried to follow through with his promise.

I have already heard about indefinite detention, roving wiretaps, low score on the ACLU Report Card, etc. On this single issue, do you give him credit on civil liberties for trying to shut down Guantanamo Bay?

(July 14, 2012 at 6:02 pm)goddamnit Wrote: The PATRIOT Act and NDAA are among many grievances that civil liberties activists have when it comes to Obama, but I am interested in exploring a specific issue: Guantanamo Bay.

As the popular criticism goes, Obama promised to shut down Guantanamo Bay (video) and it exists to this day. The counter-argument is that he specifically ordered Guantanamo Bay to be shut down (link to article here) and lost the power play to those who objected. What do you make of this factual counter-argument? He could easily be said to have bad judgment for predicting he would be successful, but he tried to follow through with his promise.

I have already heard about indefinite detention, roving wiretaps, low score on the ACLU Report Card, etc. On this single issue, do you give him credit on civil liberties for trying to shut down Guantanamo Bay?

The most Obama tried was to move it to a new location to make it look like it was shut down, but the GOP blocked that move.

(July 14, 2012 at 6:06 pm)Polaris Wrote:

(July 14, 2012 at 6:02 pm)goddamnit Wrote: The PATRIOT Act and NDAA are among many grievances that civil liberties activists have when it comes to Obama, but I am interested in exploring a specific issue: Guantanamo Bay.

As the popular criticism goes, Obama promised to shut down Guantanamo Bay (video) and it exists to this day. The counter-argument is that he specifically ordered Guantanamo Bay to be shut down (link to article here) and lost the power play to those who objected. What do you make of this factual counter-argument? He could easily be said to have bad judgment for predicting he would be successful, but he tried to follow through with his promise.

I have already heard about indefinite detention, roving wiretaps, low score on the ACLU Report Card, etc. On this single issue, do you give him credit on civil liberties for trying to shut down Guantanamo Bay?

The most Obama tried was to move it to a new location to make it look like it was shut down, but the GOP blocked that move.

I am unaware of that. Do you have a link you can share so that I can learn more about this?

(July 14, 2012 at 6:13 pm)goddamnit Wrote:

(July 14, 2012 at 6:06 pm)Polaris Wrote: The most Obama tried was to move it to a new location to make it look like it was shut down, but the GOP blocked that move.

I am unaware of that. Do you have a link you can share so that I can learn more about this?

It was an attempt to move the detainees to the States into other facilities which would still be unacceptable, but the key problem was the trials to finally end the fiasco were under way when he tried to attempt the move. Last year, he stopped his politics and allowed the trials to resume...so basically, he went the wrong way around trying to go about his pledge.

Quote:What do you make of this factual counter-argument?

It is a fact.

Polaris, if Obama moved prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to the continental United States, he's essentially bringing terrorists into U.S. prisons. Yes, some of them are not terrorists, but many of them are guilty. A lot of Americans have a problem with that. Also, that would be closing Guantanamo Bay. If the prisoners are moved to the U.S., they get due process, unless I am mistaken, and they are held in different detention centers. What about that is not closing Guantanamo Bay? As far as I recall, he didn't say, "I'm just going to let them all go free." That would have been perfectly acceptable, apart from the snagging assholes trying to blow shit up in other countries and bringing them here thing. He would have kept his promise to close the prison.

As for me, I don't give a flying fuck about Guantanamo Bay existing. What I do care about is it running according to humane standards.

Quote:but many of them are guilty.

They aren't guilty until a court says they are guilty, Shel. And they have not been tried.

This was the George Bush Institute of Constitutional Law at its finest, you know?

(July 14, 2012 at 7:11 pm)Shell B Wrote: Polaris, if Obama moved prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to the continental United States, he's essentially bringing terrorists into U.S. prisons. Yes, some of them are not terrorists, but many of them are guilty. A lot of Americans have a problem with that. Also, that would be closing Guantanamo Bay. If the prisoners are moved to the U.S., they get due process, unless I am mistaken, and they are held in different detention centers. What about that is not closing Guantanamo Bay. As far as I recall, he didn't say, "I'm just going to let them all go free."

As for me, I don't give a flying fuck about Guantanamo Bay existing. What I do care about is it running according to humane standards.

A US prison solely devoted for terrorists is the same thing. There was no talk about splitting them up, which is why the GOP seemed to have blocked in part. The costs would have been very steep.

@Min. Many have been or were undergoing trial under Bush (he was rushing the trials during his last months)....just not the trial we would expect from a nation like the US (well I'd kind of expect it now). The trials continued as of last year, but I might just call them show trials because that is what they most closely resemble.

(July 14, 2012 at 7:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:but many of them are guilty.

They aren't guilty until a court says they are guilty, Shel. And they have not been tried.

This was the George Bush Institute of Constitutional Law at its finest, you know?

Guilty means they did it. You and I both know that odds are that many of them did. Yes, they need to be tried, but that is what I mean by reform.

---

You don't know shit, do you, Polaris? A prison for terrorists on the continental United States is not the same as one in Cuba by a long shot. In the United States, the prisoners would have to be given due process and torture would be completely out of the question. It being in Cuba, the prisoners are not kept under the same standards. That is kind of, you know, the whole argument.

If they haven't stood trial, we cannot make any assessments as to their guilt. Period.