![]()
A U.S. guard looks from a tower above the Camp 4 detention facility at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, in Cuba. (AP Photo/Randall Mikkelsen, Pool)
by Frank James
Reports about the complexities that President-elect Obama will have to unknot in order to redeem his promise to close Guantanamo probably help explain why the Bush Administration's initial approach to the prisoners was to essentially lock them up and throw away the key.
Of course, the Constitution doesn't say the nation's chief executive is allowed to sidestep the laws of the land to avoid solving difficult problems which is why we're arguably where we're at now.
The Obama plan which hasn't been finalized amounts to releasing some prisoners outright and bringing the rest to the U.S. where they would either be tried in regular courts or special ones created to deal with those cases involving classified material.
The plan is likely to be controversial with criticism already coming from the left and right. According to the Associated Press:
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."
Among the toughest problems Obama will face will be deciding what to do with the seventeen Chinese Muslims known as Uighurs who have been held at Guantanamo since 2001.
The men were cleared for release after a U.S. court determined that they're no threat to the nation's security.
The men can't be returned to China for fear they would be tortured as political dissidents. Meanwhile, more than 100 countries have refused U.S. requests to resettle them, with some of those refusals responses to Chinese pressure.
Releasing the men into the U.S. to live with Uighur families is a concern as well. Because the men have been held in very severe conditions at Gitmo, there are legitimate worries about their mental status.
In getting a stay last month to block their release from Gitmo, the Bush Administration claimed the men represented a "risk distinct to this nation" in part because of their six years the U.S. confined them at Gitmo.
If Obama decides to release these men into the U.S., there's the obvious risk that one or more of them could wind up in the kind of trouble that could create political problems for him.
But it's untenable, obviously, for him to keep them locked up, especially when a court has determined the men are no threat.











Comments
If he's a true American he'll keep it open. Some of these war criminals have been released only to return to the battlefield only and killed more American forces. I said as war criminals hold them all until the conclusion of hostilities are over. Then have a military tribunal just like they has at the end of WWII.
Posted by: Paul & Bev Bev | November 10, 2008 10:22 PM
If he's a true American, he's going to want to decrease the number of terrorists going after us, not increase it. As such, he's going to want to try these people fairly and get them sorted out as quickly as possible. Those prisoners who are guilty need to get put behind bars forever if need be, but LEGALLY. The ones who are NOT GUILTY need to get OUT as quickly as possible.
*
Holding people who've done nothing but be in the wrong place at the wrong time is providing the enemy with a recruiting platform and creating terrorists where none existed. Treating people fairly but firmly destroys that platform.
Posted by: Op109 | November 11, 2008 10:19 AM
If one could only see how this whole situation plays out on the European TV news...Those people will justify this concentration camp forever. Ulgy stuff folks.
Posted by: j.level | November 11, 2008 10:38 AM
In all of human history, can anyone point to a war that was run by the ACLU--and won?
The notion is of course insane. Only a history-denier would even bring the thought up.
Keep the Gitmo POWs locked up.
Posted by: Regime Change | November 11, 2008 12:38 PM
If hes a true american, he will keep Gitmo open. in there are some of the worlds most wanted men, letting them out, the guilty ones that is, is a stupid idea, unless he wants another 9/11
Posted by: ryuu | January 21, 2009 8:17 PM
Gitmo may be a blight on the character of America but an edict to close it does not clean up the mess. The devil is in the details. Let's assume 25% of detainees are evil terrorists. Although we might "know" this, we cannot prove it legally in any existing US court. Little issues like chain of evidence, cross examinations of eyewitnesses, Miranda rights ... none of these exist. We all want true terrorists in prison. But can anyone show me a legal US or international process to imprison terrorists? It doesn't exist. In the absence of a strategy to put the bad guys in jail, our President's edict to close Gitmo is just political grandstanding.
Posted by: Bob R | January 23, 2009 1:44 AM