Obama Plans Guantanamo Close

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Another sad chapter in our country's history comes to a close under the Obama Presidency.

And although I would have preferred he took a stricter party line with the closure (close Gitmo and have ALL prisoners face trial in regular US courts), Obama decided to make a bipartisan compromise by having select prisoners prosecuted in courts designed to handle highly classified information.

It's still a far better solution than Bush's indefinite imprisonment and secret (sham) military tribunal system.

Text

WASHINGTON ? President-elect Obama's advisers are quietly crafting a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials, a plan that would make good on his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison but could require creation of a controversial new system of justice.

During his campaign, Obama described Guantanamo as a "sad chapter in American history" and has said generally that the U.S. legal system is equipped to handle the detainees. But he has offered few details on what he planned to do once the facility is closed.

Under plans being put together in Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts.

A third group of detainees - the ones whose cases are most entangled in highly classified information - might have to go before a new court designed especially to handle sensitive national security cases, according to advisers and Democrats involved in the talks. Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans aren't final.

The move would be a sharp deviation from the Bush administration, which established military tribunals to prosecute detainees at the Navy base in Cuba and strongly opposes bringing prisoners to the United States. Obama's Republican challenger, John McCain, had also pledged to close Guantanamo. But McCain opposed criminal trials, saying the Bush administration's tribunals should continue on U.S. soil.

The plan being developed by Obama's team has been championed by legal scholars from both political parties. But it is almost certain to face opposition from Republicans who oppose bringing terrorism suspects to the U.S. and from Democrats who oppose creating a new court system with fewer rights for detainees.

The plan drew criticism from some detainee lawyers shortly after it surfaced Monday.

"I think that creating a new alternative court system in response to the abject failure of Guantanamo would be a profound mistake," said Jonathan Hafetz, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney who represents detainees. "We do not need a new court system. The last eight years are a testament to the problems of trying to create new systems."

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and Obama legal adviser, said discussions about plans for Guantanamo had been "theoretical" before the election but would quickly become very focused because closing the prison is a top priority. Bringing the detainees to the United States will be controversial, he said, but could be accomplished.

"I think the answer is going to be, they can be as securely guarded on U.S. soil as anywhere else," Tribe said. "We can't put people in a dungeon forever without processing whether they deserve to be there."

The tougher challenge will be allaying fears by Democrats who believe the Bush administration's military commissions were a farce and dislike the idea of giving detainees anything less than the full constitutional rights normally enjoyed by everyone on U.S. soil.

"There would be concern about establishing a completely new system," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the House Judiciary Committee and former federal prosecutor who is aware of the discussions in the Obama camp. "And in the sense that establishing a regimen of detention that includes American citizens and foreign nationals that takes place on U.S. soil and departs from the criminal justice system _ trying to establish that would be very difficult."

Obama has said the civilian and military court-martial systems provide "a framework for dealing with the terrorists," and Tribe said the administration would look to those venues before creating a new legal system. But discussions of what a new system would look like have already started.

"It would have to be some sort of hybrid that involves military commissions that actually administer justice rather than just serve as kangaroo courts," Tribe said. "It will have to both be and appear to be fundamentally fair in light of the circumstances. I think people are going to give an Obama administration the benefit of the doubt in that regard."

Though a hybrid court may be unpopular, other advisers and Democrats involved in the Guantanamo Bay discussions say Obama has few other options.

Prosecuting all detainees in federal courts raises a host of problems. Evidence gathered through military interrogation or from intelligence sources might be thrown out. Defendants would have the right to confront witnesses, meaning undercover CIA officers or terrorist turncoats might have to take the stand, jeopardizing their cover and revealing classified intelligence tactics.

But Tribe said the current military commission system represents a "nonstarter" and other advisers agreed. With lax evidence rules and intense secrecy, the commissions have been criticized by human rights groups, defense attorneys and even some military prosecutors who quit in protest.

"I don't think we need to completely reinvent the wheel, but we need a better tribunal process that is more transparent," Schiff said.

That means something different would need to be done if detainees couldn't be released or prosecuted in traditional courts. Exactly what that something would look like remains unclear.

According to three advisers participating in the process, Obama is expected to propose a new court system, appointing a committee to decide how such a court would operate. Some detainees likely would be returned to the countries where they were first captured for further detention or rehabilitation. The rest could probably be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts, one adviser said. All spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing talks, which have been private.

Waleed Alshahari, who has been following Guantanamo issues for the Yemeni Embassy in Washington, said the plan being discussed by the Obama team was an improvement over the current system. But he said he expects most detainees to be released rather than stand trial.

"If the U.S. government has any evidence against them, they would try them and put them in jail," Alshahari said. "But it has been obvious they have nothing against them. That is why they have not faced trial."

With more than 90 Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo, the country is home to the largest group of prisoners. The U.S. and Yemen have negotiated but failed to reach a deal on a prisoner release.

Whatever form Obama's plan finally takes, Tribe said the next president would move quickly.

"In reality and symbolically, the idea that we have people in legal black holes is an extremely serious black mark," Tribe said. "It has to be dealt with."
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
He is going to make a seperate, more "Secret" court system for some.


This is the first time that he is going to get hammered by both sides. I applaud him for being willing to take the heat.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
While I'm glad to see Gitmo close, it will still be VERY interesting to see what they do with all the detainees... most of which will still be bonafied violent extremists hellbent on killing Americans.

So beyond the classified trials for a "select few," what will we do with the rest? Will there be outrage aimed at Obama if/when the others are beheaded without trial by their own home countries?

It's going to be a mess...
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: palehorse
While I'm glad to see Gitmo close, it will still be VERY interesting to see what they do with all the detainees... most of which will still be bonafied violent extremists hellbent on killing Americans.

So beyond the classified trials for a "select few," what will we do with the rest? Will there be outrage aimed at Obama if/when the others are beheaded without trial by their own home countries?

It's going to be a mess...

lol like ocguy says, he will create a real super secret prison no one knows about.
 

43st

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 2001
3,197
0
0
Let's welcome the conservatives to the civil liberties party! Hope your hands haven't cramped from sitting on them for the last 8 years. :p
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Another sad chapter in our country's history comes to a close under the Obama Presidency.

And although I would have preferred he took a stricter party line with the closure (close Gitmo and have ALL prisoners face trial in regular US courts), Obama decided to make a bipartisan compromise by having select prisoners prosecuted in courts designed to handle highly classified information.

It's still a far better solution than Bush's indefinite imprisonment and secret (sham) military tribunal system.

."
[/quote]

:thumbsup: I hope he shuts hell down, too. That is just so unfair
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Another sad chapter in our country's history comes to a close under the Obama Presidency.

And although I would have preferred he took a stricter party line with the closure (close Gitmo and have ALL prisoners face trial in regular US courts), Obama decided to make a bipartisan compromise by having select prisoners prosecuted in courts designed to handle highly classified information.

It's still a far better solution than Bush's indefinite imprisonment and secret (sham) military tribunal system.

."

:thumbsup: I hope he shuts hell down, too. That is just so unfair

hell doesn't exist :p read the bible
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: frostedflakes

But where will we send GWB&Co for their war crimes?

That's what I was hoping would happen to it.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
I see no valid reason to ship foreigners to the USA for comitting some act in a foreign country. Our domestic courts have been, and should remain, for violation of US law committed, for the most part, on US soil.

International tribunes, sending them back to their home countries etc, anything BUT shipping them here.

Fern
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: frostedflakes

But where will we send GWB&Co for their war crimes?

That's what I was hoping would happen to it.

We don't have to stoop down to Bushco's level. We can put them in domestic jails.


 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: Fern
I see no valid reason to ship foreigners to the USA for comitting some act in a foreign country. Our domestic courts have been, and should remain, for violation of US law committed, for the most part, on US soil.

International tribunes, sending them back to their home countries etc, anything BUT shipping them here.

Fern

^ This.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
Originally posted by: Fern
I see no valid reason to ship foreigners to the USA for comitting some act in a foreign country. Our domestic courts have been, and should remain, for violation of US law committed, for the most part, on US soil.

International tribunes, sending them back to their home countries etc, anything BUT shipping them here.

Fern
why were there no "International Tribunes" or courts used for this group of people?

that question always bugged me.

If there is anyone in Gitmo connected to the attack on 9/11 (or any previous or future planned attack on US interests) then maybe those criminals can stand trial in some sort of US system.

everyone else is an enemy of not just the US but of other countries/allies of the US. There ought to be an international system to put those people on trial.

Any solution seems like a compromise though no matter which way you slice it.
 

Deliximus

Senior member
Aug 11, 2001
318
0
76
*a few months into the future*

"Detainees from Gitmo were being transported to their new facilities after Gitmo was closed by President Obama as per his campaign promises. Unfortunately, while being transported by boat to their new destination, the boat was capsized to unforeseen weather in the Gulf of Mexico and all hands were lost...However, the Gulf of Mexico showed no signs of poor weather that day...."
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: Fern
I see no valid reason to ship foreigners to the USA for comitting some act in a foreign country. Our domestic courts have been, and should remain, for violation of US law committed, for the most part, on US soil.

International tribunes, sending them back to their home countries etc, anything BUT shipping them here.

Fern

:thumbsup: They should be treated like POWs. Or try them in the courts in Iraq and Afghanistan if we want to treat them as criminals and not soldiers.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Fern
I see no valid reason to ship foreigners to the USA for comitting some act in a foreign country. Our domestic courts have been, and should remain, for violation of US law committed, for the most part, on US soil.

International tribunes, sending them back to their home countries etc, anything BUT shipping them here.

Fern

:thumbsup: They should be treated like POWs. Or try them in the courts in Iraq and Afghanistan if we want to treat them as criminals and not soldiers.

If they had been tried in Iraq or Afghanistan, they would have been executed already.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: Fern
I see no valid reason to ship foreigners to the USA for comitting some act in a foreign country. Our domestic courts have been, and should remain, for violation of US law committed, for the most part, on US soil.

International tribunes, sending them back to their home countries etc, anything BUT shipping them here.

Fern

And what do you do if said home country doesn't want them/won't detain them when caught?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Another sad chapter in our country's history comes to a close under the Obama Presidency.

And although I would have preferred he took a stricter party line with the closure (close Gitmo and have ALL prisoners face trial in regular US courts), Obama decided to make a bipartisan compromise by having select prisoners prosecuted in courts designed to handle highly classified information.

It's still a far better solution than Bush's indefinite imprisonment and secret (sham) military tribunal system.

Somehow Republicans in here will insist Bush had it right.

Incredible
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Just an endless stream of seemingly good news so far... lets hope it keeps up and things actually materialize!
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
I see no valid reason to ship foreigners to the USA for comitting some act in a foreign country. Our domestic courts have been, and should remain, for violation of US law committed, for the most part, on US soil.

International tribunes, sending them back to their home countries etc, anything BUT shipping them here.

Fern

The problem with that logic is that WE, in the form of the US government, are claiming jurisdiction over these foreigners and the crimes they have committed...foreign country or not. Trying them in US domestic courts may be a new use for that venue, but it's in response to new legal authority we have claimed. An international tribunal might be an option, but again, we are claiming jurisdiction over these incidents, I don't see us turning these guys over to an international court any time soon. And the problem with home countries is that many of them might not be in any shape or have any desire to try terrorists.

Actually, the REAL problem here is that we've done a crappy job defining what exactly we're doing here. It's not "war", but it's not "law enforcement" either...a third alternative could be proposed, if the Bush administration hadn't spent so much time defining the fight against terrorism in whatever manner was most convenient for the moment.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse
While I'm glad to see Gitmo close, it will still be VERY interesting to see what they do with all the detainees... most of which will still be bonafied violent extremists hellbent on killing Americans.

So beyond the classified trials for a "select few," what will we do with the rest? Will there be outrage aimed at Obama if/when the others are beheaded without trial by their own home countries?

It's going to be a mess...

Our court system is pretty good, why not use that? It deals in a fair and just manner with all types of bad people, terrorism isn't "special"...and the more emphasis we can put on that, the better off we'll be in the long run. If we're troubled by using domestic courts, create a "foreign circuit court" or something similar. But the current solution of just throwing up our hands and locking people forever because we don't have any better ideas is totally unacceptable.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse
While I'm glad to see Gitmo close, it will still be VERY interesting to see what they do with all the detainees... most of which will still be bonafied violent extremists hellbent on killing Americans.

So beyond the classified trials for a "select few," what will we do with the rest? Will there be outrage aimed at Obama if/when the others are beheaded without trial by their own home countries?

It's going to be a mess...

Our court system is pretty good, why not use that?

Wait, what?

It's a shame what modern Democrats have become. FDR would not have stood for this nonsense.