Obama Administration: 50-100 GITMO Detainees cannot be tried or released

[BigRob]

"The question is what do we do with the 50 to 100 -- probably in that ballpark -- who we cannot release and cannot try," Gates told a Senate hearing.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hS4Z7f1-83WvDWIuJGfoiU-ybvEw

I have also seen that they are looking to simply continue the military tribunals that Bush started. Another option that I have seen kicked around was to bring them to the US and hold them with no trials. Interesting to hear this type of speaking after the Obama campaign.

 

[Andy]

Oops... wonder what the left will do with that one. Can't be released... can't be put on trial... oh bother.

 

[The Scotsman]

"...we've got a couple hundred of hard-core militants that, unfortunately, because of... some problems that we had previously in gathering evidence, we may not be able to try in ordinary courts but we don't want to release."

President Barack Obama,
Febuary 2, 2009


What a hilarious state to be in........the mother of all f**k-ups.

Let them stay there! Look its' simple just make a deal with the base commander to turn Gitmo into an Islamic Carribean holiday complex and keep these guys on as slaves or bartenders or or room maids or Q'aran vendors or something! Get the CIA to put up the initial capital and let these dude's have a shareholding in the venture. You'd get all these hard core muslim whacko's coming over to empathise with their tortured brethern by staying in the exact same cells as their mates but this time PAYING for the privilege. The quintessential muslim holiday destination for the islamic militant.

 

[BigRob]

Jan 20th - "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." - President Obama

He continues this theme when speaking about the so-called torture memos. "A democracy as resilient as ours must reject the false choice between our security and our ideals.” - President Obama

So which is it? Security involving holding these people with no trials? Or our "ideals", which oppose such a thing we are told? It seems the President has made his choice, and he has rightfully picked security.

 

[The Scotsman]

So which is it? Security involving holding these people with no trials? Or our "ideals", which oppose such a thing we are told?It seems the President has made his choice, and he has rightfully picked security.

....... not with you Rob, do you mean by trying to foist these guys on other schmucks such as us Brits? .........the article you refer to says that its pretty limp wristed trying to convince others to take these guys.......

"Because it's difficult for the State Department to make the argument to other countries they should take these people that we have deemed in this case not to be dangerous, if we won't take any of them ourselves,"

.....where's the security issue it they have deemed not to be one .....

"The Defense Department and the State Department have tried unsuccessfully for several years to arrange the transfer of the Uighurs to a third country, saying they face the risk of persecution if they return to China."

So whats the big deal you nabbed them you deal with them.

 

[PLC1]

That's just one of many conundrums inherited from the past administration.

 

[BigRob]

That's just one of many conundrums inherited from the past administration.

...Bush is not the one who "rejected as false" this and that and has now put his foot in his mouth in the process. This, to me, simply shows Obama had little idea of what he was talking about when blasting Bush on the campaign trail for the same actions he has decided to now undertake.

 

[BigRob]

....... not with you Rob, do you mean by trying to foist these guys on other schmucks such as us Brits? .........the article you refer to says that its pretty limp wristed trying to convince others to take these guys.......

You can take them if you want them.

"Because it's difficult for the State Department to make the argument to other countries they should take these people that we have deemed in this case not to be dangerous, if we won't take any of them ourselves,"

.....where's the security issue it they have deemed not to be one .....

I do not think those fall into the 50-100 category in which the secretary was referring to.

"The Defense Department and the State Department have tried unsuccessfully for several years to arrange the transfer of the Uighurs to a third country, saying they face the risk of persecution if they return to China."

So whats the big deal you nabbed them you deal with them.

I say send them back to China and let it be, but of course no one is asked me. Letting them loose in the US seems like a bad plan to me since they probably hate the US just as much as they hate China now. Tell Mr. Brown to take them.

 

[Andy]

That's just one of many conundrums inherited from the past administration.

Amazing that Bush had nothing to do with this lose-lose situation Obama has put us in, and yet you still hold him accountable.

 

[The Scotsman]

I say send them back to China and let it be, but of course no one is asked me. Letting them loose in the US seems like a bad plan to me since they probably hate the US just as much as they hate China now. Tell Mr. Brown to take them.

........... Gordon has so far rejected them but I think that's more to do with animal quarantine restrictions than anything else.....

For the record we already have enough of these rabid little pi$$ants so please look for alternative accomodation...........

But seriously, you're right just pack them on a plane and send them back! Give all their details to Amnesty International so that they can check on their human rights and that bollox and monitor their progress so that if the Chinese start getting frisky with them they can point this out to the US and the world in general. If the Chinese lob them in prison then the US Gov can look startled and make the right disgruntled noises - "well we did your bit but damn, those Chinese just can't be trusted".......

 

[Dr.Who]

No need to worry. Those guys are the klutziest and clumsiest terrorists around. They will all have their day in court, but sadly each of them will fall victim to an unfortunate accident before their trial date.

What I meant to say was that a unique way to handle the situation for each of the alleged suspects will be found.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Oops... wonder what the left will do with that one. Can't be released... can't be put on trial... oh bother.

It would appear to me as an American problem:
being left/right/red/blue/democrat/republican/female/male has nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this problem! Many of these 'detainees' were rounded up in their very own country and turned in for the $$$$ bounty, is it possible that the factions that nabbed these men had their own agenda's...OH YA!!!

So here we are with numerous 'detainees' that have been absent from their homes/families/jobs but America has been holding them/labeled them as terrorists...who's going to allow them back into their homelands? Why weren't they given their due process according to American Laws? Ok, that's been chewed over many a time!

We have a Federal Prison right here in Kansas - Leavenworth and the local officials are practically boycotting the plan to relocate some of those men here...Montana has a prison facility that was built and was 'supposed to provide housing for that states overcrowding' and its practically empty {brand spanking new and hardly used}.

We have allowed our officials to create this 'F - UP' and we can't expect another country to step up to the plate and open their doors for our own humanitarian embarrassment! 7 years in confinement...didn't happen on the current presidency...but you logical minds understand that concept...you just don't want to face the reality of it! LOL

 

[Andy]

Once again, you say "It didn't happen under the current president" yet you fail to understand something had to be done with them. They couldn't be released, and can't be put on trial. So GitMo was an answer.

Now our idiot-n-chief has signed an executive order, but no solution to the problem. Yet you want to bring up Bush. Sorry, lame pathetic answer. You can't make mistake after mistake for your first 100 day, and expect everyone to blame the prior administration.

Bush didn't sign the order to close Gitmo without a plan of action for the people there. Obama did that. You can't blame anyone else but him.

 

[PLC1]

...Bush is not the one who "rejected as false" this and that and has now put his foot in his mouth in the process. This, to me, simply shows Obama had little idea of what he was talking about when blasting Bush on the campaign trail for the same actions he has decided to now undertake.

No, but Bush is the one who invaded Iraq, then put "terrorists" who can neither be tried nor released in Gitmo in the first place.

Just one of many conundrums and Gordian knot sorts of problems left over from the past administration.

 

[The Scotsman]

No, but Bush is the one who invaded Iraq, then put "terrorists" who can neither be tried nor released in Gitmo in the first place..

.......exactly! You guys had a bit of fun and games in the tropical paradise of Vietnam where you rounded a bunch of equally nasty chaps, apparently they were all called Charlie!!?? which was probably helpful as it kept the admissions process relatively simple..... anyway, since these guys were classified as terrorists/political prisoners didn't it give your guys a clue as to how to wrestle with the legal and logistical ramifications in Iraq and A'stan?


"The Commander, U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, established a policy that all suspected Viet Cong captives taken by U.S. forces were to be treated initially as prisoners of war by the capturing unit. Capturing units were responsible for all of the enemy taken prisoner during the course of operations, from the time of their capture to the time the prisoners were released to Vietnamese authorities. Captives were to be interrogated and detained by U.S. forces only long enough to obtain from them any legitimate tactical intelligence they possessed. Captives were then to be sent to a combined U.S.-Vietnamese Army interrogation center for classification and further processing. Prisoners of war were sent to prisoner of war camps; innocent civilians were released and returned to the place of capture, if possible; civilian defendants were turned over to Vietnamese civil authorities or the province security committee; former Viet Cong seeking amnesty under the Chieu Hoi (Open Arms) program were sent to the Chieu Hoi center. Chieu Hoi was an amnesty program established by the Vietnamese government to encourage Viet Cong to return to government control."

Major General George S. Prugh
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WASHINGTON, D.C., 1975


..............so substitute Viet Cong for Islamic Insurgent!