No funds to close Gitmo

[ballpeen]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/19/gua...nees/index.html

 

Sources: Senate Dems refuse Obama funds to shut down Gitmo

 

Tue May 19, 2009

 

Ted Barrett, Dana Bash and Ed Hornick

CNN

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Democrats will pull money to close the Guantanamo Bay military prison from a war funding bill instead of face an onslaught of criticism from Republicans, CNN has learned.

 

Sources say Senate Democrats will not approve of the administration's request to close down Gitmo.

 

Democratic leaders made the decision Tuesday morning, according to two Senate Democratic leadership sources. It is a blow to President Obama who announced, as one of his first official duties as president, that he would close the base by next January 22.

 

Republicans have argued it would be reckless to shutter the prison before the Obama administration has decided where to transfer the terrorism suspects who are detained there.

 

The Senate war supplemental bill, which is scheduled to be voted on this week, included $80 million for the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice to begin the process of shutting down the prison.

 

Now, that money will be stripped out and replaced with language saying no funds can be used to transfer detainees from Guantanamo, a military installation in Cuba, to the United States and no additional money will be approved until 60 days after the president submits to Congress his plan to close the facility. That language is similar to a provision in the House bill.

 

Fact Box

These states have introduced legislation this year calling for a ban on Guantanamo Bay detainees on their soil:

 

 

Alabama

California

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Missouri

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

 

(Information courtesy of the National Conference of State Legislatures)

 

Republicans launched a high-profile campaign against closing the base prematurely, just this morning releasing a statement headlined: "Meet your new neighbor, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad?"

 

"Republicans see this as a wedge issue against Democrats and we're not going to let them do it," explained one of the sources.

 

Privately, some Democrats have complained the president put them in an awkward position of having to defend funding the closure before a plan was developed, one of the sources said.

 

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Tuesday that there is "nothing to indicate" the deadline to close Guantanamo by January 2010 is "at all in jeopardy."

 

"As far as I can tell, everything remains on track for action to be taken with regard to the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility ... according to the timeline prescribed by the president in the executive order," Morrell said.

 

He added that the Department of Defense officials who are "most intimately involved" with the effort to shut down the facility, including the Pentagon's general counsel and deputy secretary, are in "near constant meetings with their counterparts at Justice, at State, in the White House on these very, very complicated matters."

 

Senate Democrats follow in the steps of House Democrats, who have demanded that Obama submit a plan spelling out what the administration will do with the prisoners when it closes the facility.

 

Last week, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wisconsin, added that requirement to the $96.7 billion war funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

It directs the administration to provide details to Congress on where Guantanamo prisoners would be transferred, the cost of shutting down the facility and the cost of securing prisoners at other detention centers.

 

The report is due by October 1.

 

The move came as House Republicans introduced a bill called the "Keep Terrorists Out of America Act." It would bar the administration from moving any detainee to the U.S. without first getting approval from the governor and state legislature of any state selected to receive detainees.

 

Rep. Peter King, the top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, said, "The president made a decision to close Gitmo to fulfill a campaign promise, perhaps to satisfy world opinion, without (in) any way thinking through the consequences of his action or what was going to happen next, where these detainees were going to go."

 

Where to send the prisoners has been a hot-button issue on both sides of the aisle -- especially among Republicans who have continued to beat the "Not in my backyard" drum.

 

Several Republicans members of Congress want the administration to halt plans to move "violent terrorists" from Guantanamo.

 

"This presents a clear and present danger to American lives," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas. "All the administration has to do is reconsider. They don't have to keep this misguided campaign promise."

 

''The world suddenly did not become safer on January 20, 2009,'' House Minority Leader John Boehner has said. "Our constituents don't want these terrorists in their neighborhoods.''

 

Kansas, for one, is home to both a federal penitentiary and a maximum security military prison at Fort Leavenworth. The state's top senator is wholeheartedly against moving detainees there.

 

"Please not at Leavenworth," Brownback recently said. "This is a hot topic in my state."

 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a floor speech Monday that the American people "want to keep the terrorists at Guantanamo out of their neighborhoods and off of the battlefield."

 

It's a sentiment his Democratic colleague seems to agree with.

 

"I think that the people who have been held in Guantanamo are being charged essentially for acts of international terror, for acts of war, and they don't belong in the judicial system, and they don't belong in our jails," Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, said on ABC's This Week Sunday.

 

Last Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder, faced with bipartisan resistance, promised a Senate committee he would not release suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo into the United States.

 

He was less clear about what would be done with any detainees the administration decides are not terrorists.

 

Don't Miss

Holder: Suspected terrorists won't be freed in U.S.

"We would not bring them into this country and release them, anyone, we would consider to be a terrorist," Holder told the panel. He said the safety of the American public will be his "paramount concern."

 

Holder emphasized he has made no decisions about whether or when any of the 241 remaining detainees may be moved.

 

But a day after House Democrats rejected the president's funding request to close down the prison, a senior Senate Democrat seemed to suggest he would support the plan.

 

"The president has already said he's going to close it down," said Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, "and we ought to put the money there to continue on the pathway and get it done before the year is out."

 

 

 

 

Personal note....I think the writer tried to politicize things when it was said "Senate Democrats will pull money to close the Guantanamo Bay military prison from a war funding bill instead of face an onslaught of criticism from Republicans"

 

I think onslaught of criticism from their constituency would have been more on point.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Last poll I saw, a majority of Americans supported closing Guantanamo.

 

This is a matter of figuring out what to do with the prisoners, and because Democrats are chicken shit.

 

As if we can't find prisons to put these people in. I mean, come on. We're already holding foreign terrorists in US jails. We hold domestic terrorists. We hold mass murderers and serial killers too. This is the most ridiculous argument I've heard in a long time.

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

See if you can follow this logic. What an ass.

 

 

REID: I’m saying that the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That’s very clear.

 

QUESTION: No one’s talking about releasing them. We’re talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States.

 

REID: Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.

 

QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? …

 

REID: I can’t make it any more clear than the statement I have given to you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.

 

QUESTION: But Senator, Senator, it’s not that you’re not being clear when you say you don’t want them released. But could you say — would you be all right with them being transferred to an American prison?

 

REID: Not in the United States.

 

 

 

 

[Westside Steve]

Last poll I saw, a majority of Americans supported closing Guantanamo.

 

I musta missed that poll. Pretty slim margin? Any polls on releasing 'em here?

 

This is a matter of figuring out what to do with the prisoners, and because Democrats are chicken shit.

 

Uh, no doubt.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

What Kevin Drum said:

 

I read things like this and I realize all over again just what Obama is up against. His own party won't support him against even the most transparent and insipid demagoguery coming from the conservative noise machine. The GOP's brain trust isn't offering even a hint of a substantive case that the U.S. Army can't safely keep a few dozen detainees behind bars in a military prison, but Dems are caving anyway. Because they're scared. And then they wonder why voters continue to think that a party that can be bitch slapped so easily might be viewed as weak on national security.

 

[ballpeen]

Why the problem keeping them where they are??

 

Real talk here. Drop all the political BS for a post or two.

[Westside Steve]

So tell us Heck.

What's the benefit to closing Gitmo?

 

What do we gain?

 

An olive branch to the [insert euphemism]?

The next prison we send the xxxxers to will become the new spotlighted hell hole.

 

You know that don't ya??

Really?

WSS

[choco]

typical spineless Dems.....rattle the sabre to get votes, and do whatever they want after.

[calfoxwc]

There is no freakin reason to close gitmo.

 

Just fix any problems, put a Congressional oversight committee that unrestricted,

 

can verify that it is being run per Congress's wishes.

 

Obama. STOP trying to solve problems by creating far bigger problems.

 

Hey, Heck ! Last poll I saw, the American people don't want another 9/11.

 

It was very dramatically one-sided....

[heckofajobbrownie]

1. To create a more orderly legal process for the people we pick up and detain, rather than simply sending them to an extra-legal warehouse in Cuba.

2. Because Guantanamo is and has been a public relations nightmare for the United States, and closing it would help close the chapter in our history defined by legalized torture and indefinite detention of terror suspects, often in cases where the detainees had never done anything wrong, or had since been cleared of any wrongdoing.

3. Because we can easily house these prisoners in military or Supermax facilities all across the country without worry.

 

So no, I don't think the federal Supermax facility in Colorado or the military prison at Ft. Leavenworth will become known as the next Guantanamo. I don't think much of that argument. They're not going to be any different simply because KSM is there.

 

We want people like KSM to spend his remaining years much like Ramsi Yousef or Ted Kaczynski - locked away in a federal prison, mostly alone and forgotten, until he croaks of old age.

 

Guantanamo doesn't help our cause. It hurts it. Whatever benefits it gives us are equally available at prisons in the United States, and without all the baggage.

 

That's why.

 

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Look, there are a litany of serious and complicated legal and procedural questions to work out, and that would be true whether or not we close Guantanamo.

 

But as a public policy question, I don't see the rationale for maintaining the prison facility at Guantanamo.

[Guest Aloysius]

On Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Jim Webb said he didn't oppose shutting down Guantanamo, but he had problems with how quickly it was getting shut down. He's supposed to be one of the courageous Dems on nat'l security issues, so his bowing to political pressure probably should have been a sign that this wasn't going to get done.

 

If he was making a principled stand, it clearly wasn't one that he had thought out well or was able to articulate clearly.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'll take that over what Harry Reid just said.

[Legacy Fan]

The next Guantanamo

???

 

Where prisoners have gained 20 lbs on average?

 

"The next Guantanamo" is probably called "Sandals"

[heckofajobbrownie]

Leg, you're talking about a prison that the FBI - not exactly a liberal advocacy group - removed its agents from because they knew what was going on there was illegal and wanted no part of it.

 

Let's not pretend it was some happy home for wayward Muslims. That's just nonsense.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

I'm glad to see that the Congress believes the FBI's assessment of the risk posed by these EXTREMELY DANGEROUS terrorists. I'm sure that they have a better idea of the risks then Heck and the other liberals in here. Good going Congress and FBI for letting America's interests outweigh your own.

[heckofajobbrownie]

What is this worst-case scenario for when KSM gets moved from Guantanamo to Supermax in Colorado? Can someone lay it out for me?

 

What happens then? He somehow escapes and single-handedly commandeers a nuclear power plant? Blows up Graceland?

 

Can someone tell me how moving him or any of the other high-value detainees to an American jail is dangerous?

[Legacy Fan]

Leg, you're talking about a prison that the FBI - not exactly a liberal advocacy group - removed its agents from because they knew what was going on there was illegal and wanted no part of it.

 

Let's not pretend it was some happy home for wayward Muslims. That's just nonsense.

 

I know, but with "Waterboarding" as the feature act scrolling across the nation's marquee, it's tough to not want to pretend that these guys added twenty libby's of water weight.

 

Some, not all, of these guys have it better than on the outside (save for the shower rape, and panty-face and whatever else.) Same can be said for guys at Rikers, San Quentin, etc... - is the point I was making.

[ballpeen]

What is this worst-case scenario for when KSM gets moved from Guantanamo to Supermax in Colorado? Can someone lay it out for me?

 

What happens then? He somehow escapes and single-handedly commandeers a nuclear power plant? Blows up Graceland?

 

Can someone tell me how moving him or any of the other high-value detainees to an American jail is dangerous?

 

Why spend tax money moving them when you already have them locked up??

 

It's not that they are going to get away. It's a case where we have them all together, the interrogation teams are in place, and they are in military custody which is where they need to be.

 

You couldn't put them in a military prison. I can see putting them in to the mess hall chow line....they would beg for a waterboard.

 

Face it......nobody wants them in their state. Heck, even California doesn't want them.

 

Here, we have this great big naval base 90 miles off our shore which we are going to have forever. We have a perpetuity lease that can only be broken if both side agree to ending it's terms.

 

That won't happen on our end. Where else are you going to get a tip of a island with a nice, deep water bay large enough to moor multiple warships for $4000 a year that is located in a strategic position??

 

I say we bury our used uranium there.

[Legacy Fan]

And to add to what Ballpeen was saying, I think it's not a matter of moving any of the high-val detainees, but more a matter of moving all of the high-val detainees.

 

 

And then there's this:

WASHINGTON - An unreleased Pentagon report provides new details concluding that about one in seven of the 534 prisoners already transferred abroad from the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has returned to terrorism or militant activity, according to administration officials.

 

75 members on Team Recidivism is nearly 4 times what it took to execute 9/11.

[calfoxwc]

Closing gitmo is just a political slap at Bush's presidency.

 

Popular, maybe, with liberals, but it proves no other point.

 

Changing the geographical location of these monsters is

 

like changing the phrase "war on terror".

 

It's just politically different. Big deal.

[Westside Steve]

I know, but with "Waterboarding" as the feature act scrolling across the nation's marquee, it's tough to not want to pretend that these guys added twenty libby's of water weight.

 

Some, not all, of these guys have it better than on the outside (save for the shower rape, and panty-face and whatever else.) Same can be said for guys at Rikers, San Quentin, etc... - is the point I was making.

 

I'd say a very few of these mugs were waterboarded.

 

I do know a guard that came home fairly recently.

Not even a political guy; I have no idea who he voted for.

But:

He's offended that the lefties misrepresent the treatrment of the prisoners.

 

 

And if anybody gives a rats ass beyond attacking the Bush admin, take a look at "Alcatraz in the Rockies."

Paradise!!!!

 

 

That'll be the next outrage.

 

Remember the enemies of the US hate the whole country, not just GW Bush like their pals here.

That will be the next rallying cry.

Not here though, as those conditions won't be a big deal as long as Obama is in charge.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Funny how when we're talking about closing a prison for strategic and legal reasons we're still supposedly doing it just because we hate Bush.

 

It couldn't be for the strategic or legal reasons. No one is motivated by anything but hatred of Bush.

 

That's pretty weak tea.

[heckofajobbrownie]

"Why spend tax money moving them when you already have them locked up??"

 

This isn't a fiscal issue. This isn't something we can't afford to do. Come on now. Are you really saying your concern is that moving these guys would cost too much? Please.

 

This is about setting up a better system to process people we capture on the battlefield, and about publicly ending the torture policies by closing the prison most associated with them. Because public relations matter, and ideals matter.

 

As for who is going to take them, that's what we've got to figure out. But the first thing we should do is to stop treating these backward Islamist goons as if they're the most powerful and frightening figures we've ever encountered in our history, so much so that not even the bars at Leavenworth can hold them.

 

Enough already.

[Legacy Fan]

What better system could there be than to send people we capture on the battlefield to a facility that doesn't once involve putting them on US terra firma proper?

 

The public relations pendulum swings both ways. Would it cost much more (financially & logistically) to put them in a facility in the US? Probably not. But what is out of sight is out of mind, and there are still enough people in the country that don't think we ought to roll out the red carpet for these assholes.

 

Publicly stand up, grow a pair of fcuking balls Barry, and say "The torture & abuse ends at Gitmo, NOW. This administration will not tolerate it, but we have an isolated facility to detain these people without bringing them on US soil, and that's what we will be using. If you don't like it, or don't believe us, turn around, & throw your rock in the other direction."

 

If the torture & whatever doesn't stop, then McCarthyism 2.0 will sniff out the problems like they've already proven capable of doing and then you address the problem (which is clearly not the location of the facility, but the sophmores you are staffing it with).

[heckofajobbrownie]

What better system could there be than to send people we capture on the battlefield to a facility that doesn't once involve putting them on US terra firma proper?

 

Well, we have numerous facilities like that. Guantanamo takes a very small amount of the people who take off the battlefield. As for bringing them to the US mainland, I still don't see what the worry is. They're not going to escape our prison system. Either they'll be handled by jailers in Gitmo or they'll be handled by jailers at Leavenworth. I guess I just don't share your fear of having them in a US jail as opposed to having them in a jail in Cuba.

 

The public relations pendulum swings both ways.

 

I don't think it does. Not in any meaningful way. There's no PR benefit from keeping the prison and the system operating, but there is from closing it and changing that system.

 

But what is out of sight is out of mind, and there are still enough people in the country that don't think we ought to roll out the red carpet for these assholes.

 

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here, but I'm not aware of anyone who wants to roll out the red carpet for these people.

 

Publicly stand up, grow a pair of fcuking balls Barry, and say "The torture & abuse ends at Gitmo, NOW. This administration will not tolerate it, but we have an isolated facility to detain these people without bringing them on US soil, and that's what we will be using. If you don't like it, or don't believe us, turn around, & throw your rock in the other direction."

 

Well, I guess you think he has some balls since he basically said exactly that - the torture & abuse ends at Gitmo, NOW. And not just at Gitmo, but in all the theaters. He just doesn't agree with you that we should continue using that specific facility. Nor does Robert Gates. Nor do a lot of people.

 

If the torture & whatever doesn't stop, then McCarthyism 2.0 will sniff out the problems like they've already proven capable of doing and then you address the problem (which is clearly not the location of the facility, but the sophmores you are staffing it with).

 

You're admitting that this was torture and that it should stop, and that these are "problems", but the process by which we figured all of this out was some sort of McCarthyism? Even though it's not holding a single person responsible for breaking the law?

 

And if people continue to torture, finding that out would be "McCarthyism 2.0"?

 

Talk about outta site, outta mind.

[Westside Steve]

Funny how when we're talking about closing a prison for strategic and legal reasons we're still supposedly doing it just because we hate Bush.

 

It couldn't be for the strategic or legal reasons. No one is motivated by anything but hatred of Bush.

 

That's pretty weak tea.

 

There are no legal reasons if in fact as you claim we have many such facilitits already.

So all you're left with is a fabricated PR excuse.

 

(And I see that as a negative when Al Queda laughs at us dancing to such a chickenshit charge)

 

And I've read enough about Alcatraz in the Rockies to know that the conditions are shittier there.

If you don't have the honesty to admit it I'm not surprised. I doubt the NYT will care if there's no Bush to chastise for it.

But the actual enemies of the US can and it will be the next recruiting poster even if the American left whitewashes it.

 

http://sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/96-10%20OC...eycallthem.html

 

So tell me Heck. Lets say you work for Al Jezeera (well officially) do you suppose you could whip up a little frenzy as the choirboys at Gitmo are transferred there?

Come now. If a few instances of waterboarding and barking dogs gives you the vapors this oughta be a bonanza of bad press.

 

Oh and the red carpet says ACLU on it.

WSS

[ballpeen]

You don't house prisoners of war with your own citizen prisoners.

 

Again, nobody is worried they will get away.

 

People just don't see the need.

 

PR?? LOL

[Legacy Fan]

Well, we have numerous facilities like that. Guantanamo takes a very small amount of the people who take off the battlefield. As for bringing them to the US mainland, I still don't see what the worry is. They're not going to escape our prison system. Either they'll be handled by jailers in Gitmo or they'll be handled by jailers at Leavenworth. I guess I just don't share your fear of having them in a US jail as opposed to having them in a jail in Cuba.

There's no fear, for me at least. Despite embarrassingly enjoying the movie "ConAir" I don't see that as a real possibility like the others imagine. But you will have to create separate systems within the supermax's or wherever or it is not going to work. Gen pop? Ha! These guys will be begging for the waterboarding. I'm also pretty sure they wont enjoy having the pages of their Qu'ran's torn out and shoved up their asses so they can mule letters back & forth either.

 

I don't think it does. Not in any meaningful way. There's no PR benefit from keeping the prison and the system operating, but there is from closing it and changing that system.

The positive PR comes from Barry finally following through after making the declaration of ceasing torture. But I guess I see your point, why start now?

 

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here, but I'm not aware of anyone who wants to roll out the red carpet for these people.

Just a reference to the level of fanfare these guys are receiving. John Stewart pointed out we've got bigger crazies already in, and these guys are getting the ink.

 

Well, I guess you think he has some balls since he basically said exactly that - the torture & abuse ends at Gitmo, NOW. And not just at Gitmo, but in all the theaters. He just doesn't agree with you that we should continue using that specific facility. Nor does Robert Gates. Nor do a lot of people.

Except for the people who sign the checks. Another great Daily Show clip {After signing the EO to close gitmo: "Is there uh, another uh, order that has the uh, details about how uh?"}

 

You're admitting that this was torture and that it should stop, and that these are "problems", but the process by which we figured all of this out was some sort of McCarthyism? Even though it's not holding a single person responsible for breaking the law?

 

And if people continue to torture, finding that out would be "McCarthyism 2.0"?

 

Talk about outta site, outta mind.

Um no. McCarthyism refers to the zeal & fanfare that a particular person (or group of people) have sought to "out" subversive behavior in our government/military fueled by purely political purposes. And when is the last time the court of public opinion took a backseat? Where have you been? Metaphors are tricky, apparently. Now I'm not saying that they aren't correct in their desire to end abuse/torture, but where are they when it comes to domestic prisoner abuse? Apathetically silent. This PR is about damning the previous admin moreso than improving our nations image in the eyes of the world. The latter being the secondary benefit and the former being the primary benefit. Proven by the inking of the "Close gitmo EO" on Jan. 22, without a thought as to "how to close gitmo." Going so far as to ask, on camera. Smooth.

 

And yes, if people to continue to torture, the zeal to bring them to justice better be matched. Unless you're already giving up on Obama following through on his words (or never believed him to start with).

 

 

[Westside Steve]

Actually McCarthy was after communists and sympathizers when the communists were the actual enemies of the US.

 

 

WSS