Skip to main content

I posted a diary (below) earlier today, about the worldwide GTMO protest, and I'm confused by the lack of response. I know not ALL of my diaries are 'jewels,' but with this earlier diary, I don't think it was about my writing. It just seems people are more and more apathetic about this issue these days.

I'm concerned because, this is how the world is seeing us, and no matter how well Obama performs his job, and I do love the man, this is like a deep cut in our so called democracy and international relations. Each day we detain these prisoners without a trial, and torture them by force-feeding, we are throwing salt into the wound.

So I would surely love to hear thoughts about why the nation and activists don't seem to care. Is it because no one wants to deal with it anymore? I'm perplexed.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  :: sigh :: So many issues (12+ / 0-)

    so little time.

    I think it not accurate to say that people don't care any more, I think they do.

    What happens is that issues lose their "immediacy", for most except those directly concerned, or who concern themselves.

    The rest of us rely on people who take a real interest to keep issues in the spotlight as much as possible, but they do wax and wane, and I understand how frustrating that can be.

    There are just so many issues. So much that is wrong, and so little being done by government to fix it, when it really is their power so to do.

    Keep at it!

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Sun May 19, 2013 at 06:52:36 PM PDT

    •  Huh. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      twigg, oldpotsmuggler, corvo, blueoasis, Lujane

      I didn't notice your comment before I sighed in mine...

      Peace.

      Re: "...will the American people notice, or are they dumb as sticks to quote the social historian Morris Berman who blames the culture for our problems." - don midwest. They're all Woodies and Twiggies, don.

      by Words In Action on Sun May 19, 2013 at 06:58:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks. That does make sense. It's the urgency (9+ / 0-)

      I feel about this that is causing the frustration. And you're right; we all have to choose our battles and this is one of many. Yes, there are many and with as much/much urgency. Alas, I  know these things and sometimes I do still protest. :)

      It just seems like this would be so easily fixed. Is it wrong to think so? I wonder if I'm missing something. Why are these men not receiving a trial or given any end in sight? That alone is torture. So why are we not simply giving them a trial or sending them home? Perhaps I'm naive. Perhaps I'm too close to it.

      "In this world, hate has never yet dispelled hate. Only love can dispel hate." ~ Buddha

      by Leslie Salzillo on Sun May 19, 2013 at 07:00:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well the answer to that is simple (11+ / 0-)

        They are being treated inhumanely, because some members of Congress are behaving in a manner that is barely human.

        Half of those men have been cleared for release for years, yet Congress has made it illegal to release them.

        They are political prisoners, being used by Republicans in a power play against the President ... and they have no shame.

        Then they wonder why they hate us, and become radicalized.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        Who is twigg?

        by twigg on Sun May 19, 2013 at 07:08:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Doesn't the President have a way around this? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens, twigg, Lujane

          Perhaps the Patriot Act? Ironically both are still in place (Patriot Act and GTMO) since Bush/Chaney established them.

          "In this world, hate has never yet dispelled hate. Only love can dispel hate." ~ Buddha

          by Leslie Salzillo on Sun May 19, 2013 at 07:13:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It takes all branches of government (5+ / 0-)

          to get something like indefinite detention in a nation.

          Judicial branch, legislative branch, and executive branch: they are all contributing here. But I'd stress the judicial and executive branch action. The judicial branch nullification of habeas rights, and the bluntly acknowledged indefinite detention policy from the President.

          Guantanamo prisoners can't get a hearing. The hearing won't be fair even if they get one. And they won't be released anyways, even if they win at a judicial level.

          I hope, in Thursday's speech, there will be some sort of walking back from indefinite detention as executive branch policy.  

        •  Really? What's the legislation? (0+ / 0-)
          Congress has made it illegal to release them.
          I recall they could not be transferred to CONUS locations, but don't recall any prohibition re removing them to willing international recipients, once cleared for release.
          •  Here: (0+ / 0-)

            http://www.reuters.com/...

            The United States began repatriating Yemeni prisoners after Obama's election in 2008. The effort was halted in 2010 after a man trained by militants in Yemen attempted to bomb a U.S.-bound plane in 2009 with a bomb concealed in his underwear.

            Yemen itself is in the frontline of the fight against al Qaeda, with Washington providing military support including drone strikes at militants operating mainly in the south.

            The White House insists it wants the facility shut but says restrictions by Congress remain an obstacle.

            Some releases would need senior U.S. officials to certify that countries receiving an inmate were willing and able to stop the individual from acting against the United States - a guarantee few U.S. politicians would want to give.
            - emphasis mine

            Following the Yemeni "Underpant Bomber" incident, Congress halted releases unless a "senior (US) Administration official" undertook that the receiving government would prevent the detainee from engaging in acts of terror.

            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

            Who is twigg?

            by twigg on Mon May 20, 2013 at 10:36:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This comment is inaccurate. (0+ / 0-)

              It was Obama who in January 2010 placed a moratorium on sending any detainees back to Yemen. Congress did not enact restrictions on transferring detainees to other countries until a year later.

              I go over the chronology in my diary How We Can Help Obama Fulfill His Pledge to Close Guantanamo.

              •  You are not correct. (0+ / 0-)

                President Obama imposed a 12 month moratorium on prisoner transfers, Congress extended the ban indefinitely in the National Defense Authorization Bill.

                I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                Who is twigg?

                by twigg on Mon May 20, 2013 at 01:20:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Obama's moratorium was indefinite. (0+ / 0-)

                  I have not read that Obama's moratorium lasted only 12 months. All media reports indicate the contrary. See, for example, this article, in which Senator Dianne Feinstein asks Obama to rescind the moratorium.

                  Obama, in addition, had placed an indefinite hold on release of Yemeni detainees to their homeland after the failed 2009 Christmas Eve bombing attempt of a U.S.-bound airliner by Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian man who was influenced by Yemen’s Al-Qaida of the Arabian Peninsula offshoot. Feinstein supported the freeze at that time, calling Yemen "too unstable."
                  Now, she is asking the administration to reconsider.
                  “Although AQAP still has a strong presence in Yemen, I believe it would be prudent to re-visit the decision to halt transfers to Yemen,” she wrote NSA Director Thomas Donilon.
                  The NDAA restrictions are different from, although they reinforce, the Yemen moratorium. They are not indefinite, but only apply for a twelve-month period.
      •  Others have explained what's going on... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ray Pensador

        ... namely, Obama doesn't want to fix this, and doesn't care how many people protest. So people are casting about to figure out what to do next.

        I think there's a very dangerous political situation going on.  By refusing to listen to the people (on multiple issues) while tolerating really frightening criminality in the "elite", our Washington overlords are radicalizing all the left-wingers in the country.

        Left-wingers are fluffy fluffy bunnies who believe in peace and harmony.  They are slow to anger.  But get enough left-wingers angry enough, and you get the French and Russian revolutions.  For some reason, our elites (including Obama, but also including far more people) are intent on mocking, ignoring, and generally riling up left-wingers.  This is not the situation I want to live in, but there it is.   I expect revolution within my lifetime.

        It can only be averted by getting a government which actually does stuff like closing Guantanamo, and I don't see how to do that either.

    •  Most people have given up on this one. (0+ / 0-)

      Candidate Obama said he would close GTMO as, I believe, his first act as President.

      Uh, no.

      Suddenly, it was "complicated."  That's OK, he'll do it next year.

      Then next year . . . .

      You get the idea.

      The only one who can really close it (without simply relocating the prisoners in similar conditions) is Obama, and he clearly has no desire to do so.

      Congress won't touch it, and even if they defunded GTMO, Obama would, as I said, just move the prisoners elsewhere -- probably to many separate locations.

      Then there would be no easy rallying cry like "Close GTMO."

      I think people are waiting for a new administration.

  •  As I just mentioned in the diary on (12+ / 0-)

    Penny Pritzger, yes, it's outrageously outrageous. But my outrage is currently spread a mile wide and an inch deep. I mean, what doesn't make me want to storm the bastille any more?

    And Gitmo more than most.

    Re: "...will the American people notice, or are they dumb as sticks to quote the social historian Morris Berman who blames the culture for our problems." - don midwest. They're all Woodies and Twiggies, don.

    by Words In Action on Sun May 19, 2013 at 06:57:25 PM PDT

  •  You probably didn't attack Obama enough. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, Wisper

    Your diary appears fair minded, yet demanding of change.

    That won't make it here.

    Try: "It's all part of Obama's secret plot the serve Wall Street." That might get some more recs.

  •  Bush knew what he was doing. Disappear folks as (4+ / 0-)

    needed/desired, put them in Cuba (eventually), put the militrary in charge, ignore them forever.

    To the extent that anything can be done, it will come from the judiciary, or no one. Or just sometime, somehow.

    And you and I can care all we want, but no one has presented anything viable that can be done to make the slightest difference.

    (Hell, on DKOS, people at least know what Guantanamo is. Ask the first 10 people you meet on the street, and I bet you wouldn't get one correct answer. Just saying.)

    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

    by oldpotsmuggler on Sun May 19, 2013 at 07:23:04 PM PDT

  •  Well, I wasn't around yesterday, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deep info, Lujane, chantedor

    but I might have said that my outrage has pretty much faded into resignation.

    Face it: Nobody in Washington wants to do anything about Gitmo.  Well, except for the isolated Barbara Lee or two.  At first Obama wanted to move it to Illinois, as if that should've made me proud to be an American, but he gave up on that long ago too.

    Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

    by corvo on Sun May 19, 2013 at 07:24:22 PM PDT

  •  We've Been Taken Over, We Don't Matter. (6+ / 0-)

    Ownership stops policy with 90% support, and GTMO objection isn't anywhere near that strength in the electorate.

    Activists? We're in a transition period where activists are just beginning to realize that elected government no longer takes suggestions from voters.

    Pick an issue; invariably it comes down to the immunity of government from us.

    It'll be a few years before the logical consequences of that realization translate into action.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun May 19, 2013 at 07:24:59 PM PDT

    •  per a recent huffpo poll, majority (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, chantedor, gramofsam1

      opposes shutting gitmo down and opposes civilian trials.  so maybe gvt is more responsive to the electorate than you think.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      •  I don't care if it stays open as long as the due (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deep info, Ginny in CO, poco

        process of law is taking place - and it's not. How hard is it to put them on trial? I mean really? Put them on trial. If guilty, prosecute. If innocent set them free. Isn't that how we do it here in America?

        "In this world, hate has never yet dispelled hate. Only love can dispel hate." ~ Buddha

        by Leslie Salzillo on Sun May 19, 2013 at 08:17:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The trouble is that they were tortured & kidnapped (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ray Pensador

          The people locked in Guantanamo are mostly not guilty of any crimes under US law, but more importantly pretty much none of them can be proven guilty of any crimes.

          And because they were tortured and kidnapped, they actually have strong cases to prosecute the government.

          The government prefers to protect its own bureaucrats rather than do justice.  Sad to say, Obama goes along with that.  

        •  My understanding from a review in (4+ / 0-)

          the past week or so is the bottleneck of Congress not funding the process and, not being able to find countries willing to take the prisoners (or the GOP). Even where they were citizens. I also think the last two weeks should be a clear lesson on what Obama has to avoid putting anywhere near scandal land.

          As far as the response. I agree on the whole timing issue, spring, those who aren't enjoying the weather are sheltering from it. I am still in the midst of graduation, post graduation move and a surprise, belated visit from my son I hadn't seen since '05, who came to help his sister move to Fresno. Weddings that got scheduled too late for Memorial Day weekend, or around graduations.

          Did you note that the diary #sekritarmy is outraged... OUTRAGED! was at the top of the rec list ~2 pm?  It was excellent and gave everyone no brainer laughs at the weeks of stoopidity.

          Even teacherken was whining.  Please take a bit more than 3 minutes He's got over 2000 followers, it's an uplifting story, 15 recs and 7 comments.

          I spend a lot of time trying to follow the important stuff. Especially the ones that I still don't well enough. I think Gitmo is not hard to understand, it's hard to know what would be effective action. My thought has been the prisoners are doing the first phase and I have signed one petition on the hunger strike. If it goes that long, the first death has the potential to be what pulls the trigger. Hopefully the gun is loaded for bear. Force feeding will stall some, not every death can be avoided. The main thing is to remember whatever the official determination - pneumonia, etc. the primary cause was suicide by starvation.

          When I get the kids off to Fresno, my own move is going to take over. My email box is over 4000, at least 900 need to be trashed but I just won't prioritize. The real trash needs to go out too.

          It is NOT your writing or subjects. The success this year of LGBT and Flush Rush, VAWA, plus progress on gun control and immigration reform are truly impressive. Climate change denial, labor, CU, banks, mass murders, and GOP obstructionism can get the most stoic to weep. Pulling back to unwind, recharge, recommit, etc. is important to do.

          If you don't believe me, have you read Letter from Birmingham Jail today? Written 4/16/1963, the first excerpts were published May 19 in The Atlantic.

          There are some things that don't change, in 50 years or 500. Bringing about change leads that list.

          "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

          by Ginny in CO on Sun May 19, 2013 at 09:56:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There are countries to take most of the (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ginny in CO, anonymous volanakis

            Prisoners. The problem is that we've decided now that these countries aren't good enough. The House, in particular, has had conniption fits over potential transfers to places like Yenen. Well, yeah, Yemen ain't Canada. But we weren't out there rounding up Canadians either.

            The whole thing is a big freaking mess. That's the problem, honestly, with starting a war with no damned idea what the goal is, who the enemy is, or what victory looks like. The Bushies just started throwing crap together and calling it apparatus of war.

            If you built a house -- heck, if you built a manufactured home -- you seriously would have done more planning than the Bush Admin did when we started war after 9/11.

            They built a sewer called Guantanamo, but they never planned for it to drain.

            A contractor would lose his license and end up in court for something as egregious as this.

            I believe the President wants to close it. But as Johnny says, it take all branches to commit to closing to, and I see no moral courage in Congress to do so. I see no urgency from the judiciary. And I see the executive being unwilling to take the step all alone.

            The President often refuses to do things that seem within his power. He's a cautious man by nature. He's spoken of wanting to rein in Bush's excesses. But he's unpredictable in what he does and does not choose to flex Presidential power on.

            But men are going to start dying or suffering irreparable harm that I don't have to explain to you, as they continue their hunger strike.

            It's time for the President to step up. There are many men cleared for transfer. We need to act on them, at least. Then he can push Congress mercilessly on the others.

            These fake scandals seem particularly well timed, don't you think?

            If Congress refuses to act, then my understanding is that the Supermax facility in Colorado has volunteered to take the worst of the prisoners. Transfer those cleared to leave for other countries. Put the alleged "baddest guys"  in Supermax and others in whatever federal facilities we need to,  and put them into the civilian legal  system to be tried without Congress being giving a chance to approve or most likely disapprove.

            America is a country of laws. Our legal system isn't perfect, but we can't pretend we are a country of Constitutional rights if we happily deny those rights to others.

            © grover


            So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

            by grover on Sun May 19, 2013 at 11:09:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You're moving to Fresno? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ginny in CO

            Or did I just make a huge incorrect assumption?

            © grover


            So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

            by grover on Sun May 19, 2013 at 11:12:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  My daughter, who just graduated from (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              grover

              CO School of Mines, is moving to Fresno to start her first pro job as a mechanical engineer, with the engineering design team for Sunrise Medical. One of the biggest US designers of wheelchairs, especially the Quickie, plus the JAY cushion.

              Daniel escaped Anchorage's surprise snowstorm Saturday to get here for the packing and driving. He will fly back from Fresno. It was quite a surprise. Their cousin Lauren's age had come for the graduation 5/10 and they went to New Mexico for his youngest brother's wedding. I was expecting Jay to come with her to pick me up for lunch with my mom. There is a strong resemblance and I was just numb with the idea that it was really Daniel standing there.

              Once they are off, I have to start looking for something much smaller, with more light (not 'garden' level) and closer to the new West light rail line to have fewer transfers to get to medical appointments at National Jewish Hospital and Denver Health.

              And go through stuff to sell, donate or dump. Repack what I unpacked and figure out how it will get from here to the new place.

              I should be getting some sleep to get up tomorrow. Too much adrenal disturbance today, plus bad weather all through extended family hometowns in KS and MO.  

              Time for some Sleepy Time tea...

              "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

              by Ginny in CO on Mon May 20, 2013 at 01:54:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Putting them on trial is actually a huge problem. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gramofsam1

          Any prosecutor in the world will tell you that trying a case a decade (or more) after the offense is a nightmare - memories fade, witnesses disappear, physical evidence degrades or is lost.  Since many of these guys were captured abroad, witnesses are beyond the subpoena power of the federal government.  I assume most of them would be tried on some sort of conspiracy charge, which are among the most complicated kinds of cases to try.  

          I'm not saying they shouldn't be tried, just that it isn't that simple.  

          •  Too damn bad. (0+ / 0-)

            The government COULD have tried them years ago, but chose not to.

            It's not the prisoners' fault they haven't been tried.

            Now it's time to put up or shut up.

            If they really are that dangerous, and the government knows it, then put on your case.

            If you can't, then cut them loose.

            It really is that simple.

            There should be a hard-and-fast time limit for trials -- even for suspected terrorists.

            The guilty have the same rights as the innocent before a trial.

            At least that's the way it used to be.

        •  Agreed. Completely. n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  I beg to differ - (3+ / 0-)

      Our Government does take suggestions from voters......as long as you are connected and can afford a $35K per plate fundraiser....he's all ears then - not sure if he's listening or appeasing.

      The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

      by ctexrep on Sun May 19, 2013 at 07:56:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I can't speak for everyone but it certainly (7+ / 0-)

    isn't top of my list. I'm unemployed, living at home, have massive student debt, no health insurance and no job prospects. So I'm in my own hell right now. But that doesn't mean I don't think about these issues from time to time.

    "It strikes me as gruesome and comical that in our culture we have an expectation that a man can always solve his problems" - Kurt Vonnegut

    by jazzence on Sun May 19, 2013 at 07:35:57 PM PDT

  •  We had a Presidential candidate we (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, deep info, poco

    gave our heart and soul to to get elected who promised to close Guantanamo, then even signed an executive order to do so when he became President.

    And then he broke that promise. Shattered much of what we believed about him.

    Now, no one thinks they can have any influence on Guantanamo policy, so what's the point of trying.

    (My take on it)

      •  Liz Cheney and the media did a pretty good (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco

        job of fear-mongering at the time. That changed a lot of public opinion.

        •  No one said being a leader was easy (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          deep info

          sorry - I don't buy it - if he wanted it closed - it would be closed.

          So Republicans....I want to close GITMO.....No?....OK - I can't do it - they said no.

          That's not leadership.

          The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

          by ctexrep on Sun May 19, 2013 at 08:00:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So you want a dictator. (14+ / 0-)
            if he wanted it closed - it would be closed.
            That's not how the Constitution works. The President does not get extra constitutional powers to take unilateral action simply because he really really wants to do something.

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Sun May 19, 2013 at 08:26:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Did he fight for it? (0+ / 0-)

              Did he use his bully pulpit? Did he name names - did he come up with a good comprehensive plan on how to do it?

              Your comment shows how shallow your thought process is when it comes to governing.

              Your mentioning of "Dictator" means you have nothing other than a distractive comment not relevant to the discussion.

              The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

              by ctexrep on Mon May 20, 2013 at 06:05:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So the question then becomes... (0+ / 0-)

                ...what would you have been willing to sacrifice for it?

                Despite the ridiculous use of the phrase by George Bush, "political capital" is real. Had the President used the bully pulpit and named names on this, it would almost certainly have required that something else on his agenda be given up, particularly as his own party's Congressmembers were too crippled by ridiculous fear to go along with him.

                So if you were President Obama, what legislative priority would you have traded for closing Guantanamo? DADT repeal? The 2009 stimulus package? Health care reform? Dodd-Frank?

                "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                by JamesGG on Mon May 20, 2013 at 06:28:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  From the 4 examples (0+ / 0-)

                  any of the 4 could have gone - if I had to prioritized from what I would have given up 1st.....

                  1 - Dodd / Frank
                  2 - Stimulus
                  3 - HCR
                  4 - DADT

                  Dodd Frank and the Stimulus were nothing more than disguised turds - give-a-ways to those who needed it least.

                  HCR - IMHO - this is not manageable and it's a give-a-way to the insurance industry.

                  DADT goes against fundamental human rights - shouldn't be on the list.

                  Quite frankly, I have no problem with the US holding prisoners at GITMO - closing it is more of a symbol of ending unlimited detention without charges or a trial - if all we're going to do is open up a GITMO in Illinois, why bother?  It's changing the detention policy that goes against the core values of being an American.

                  The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

                  by ctexrep on Mon May 20, 2013 at 07:37:14 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  oh, did i miss where he has this magic wand? (5+ / 0-)

            plese tell me how it is done with this makeup of extremist republican/tea party members of congress?

            or,

            do you not believe that we should be a nation of laws?  right now, as republicans are given free pass to do what they want, the "laws" that are being enacted are a challenge to the very foundation of this nation - yet, people want to point a finger and whine "OBAMA BAAAD!"

            counterproductive, that is.

            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

            by edrie on Sun May 19, 2013 at 10:09:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I want him to take his best shot (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Leslie Salzillo

              which is quite obvious he has not.  I want effort.  I can defend effort - but the half hearted effort that went into closing GITMO is not what I voted for.

              I can accept the reality that if the administration had put an all out effort and the will of the people and Government kept GITMO open, I would still be for closing it but within our framework of Government, I could say we gave it our best effort.  

              You keep defending Mr. Hope and Change when there is no defense and that'll make everything better.

              The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

              by ctexrep on Mon May 20, 2013 at 06:09:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  his best shot? like an executive order the second (0+ / 0-)

                day of his presidency that ordered the close of gitmo?

                is that what you mean? the one that is titled

                Closure of Guantanamo Detention Facilities

                the order that reads:

                EXECUTIVE ORDER -- REVIEW AND DISPOSITION OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT THE GUANTÁNAMO BAY NAVAL BASE AND CLOSURE OF DETENTION FACILITIES

                     By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base (Guantánamo) and promptly to close detention facilities at Guantánamo, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, I hereby order as follows:

                     Section 1. Definitions. As used in this order:

                     (a)  "Common Article 3" means Article 3 of each of the Geneva Conventions.

                     (b)  "Geneva Conventions" means:

                (i)    the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);

                (ii)   the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);

                (iii)  the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and

                (iv)   the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).

                     (c) "Individuals currently detained at Guantánamo" and "individuals covered by this order" mean individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense in facilities at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base whom the Department of Defense has ever determined to be, or treated as, enemy combatants.

                     Sec. 2. Findings.

                     (a)  Over the past 7 years, approximately 800 individuals whom the Department of Defense has ever determined to be, or treated as, enemy combatants have been detained at Guantánamo. The Federal Government has moved more than 500 such detainees from Guantánamo, either by returning them to their home country or by releasing or transferring them to a third country. The Department of Defense has determined that a number of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo are eligible for such transfer or release.

                     (b) Some individuals currently detained at Guantánamo have been there for more than 6 years, and most have been detained for at least 4 years. In view of the significant concerns raised by these detentions, both within the United States and internationally, prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo and closure of the facilities in which they are detained would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice. Merely closing the facilities without promptly determining the appropriate disposition of the individuals detained would not adequately serve those interests. To the extent practicable, the prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals detained at Guantánamo should precede the closure of the detention facilities at Guantánamo.

                     (c) The individuals currently detained at Guantánamo have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Most of those individuals have filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal court challenging the lawfulness of their detention.

                     (d)  It is in the interests of the United States that the executive branch undertake a prompt and thorough review of the factual and legal bases for the continued detention of all individuals currently held at Guantánamo, and of whether their continued detention is in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and in the interests of justice. The unusual circumstances associated with detentions at Guantánamo require a comprehensive interagency review.

                     (e)  New diplomatic efforts may result in an appropriate disposition of a substantial number of individuals currently detained at Guantánamo.

                     (f)  Some individuals currently detained at Guantánamo may have committed offenses for which they should be prosecuted. It is in the interests of the United States to review whether and how any such individuals can and should be prosecuted.

                     (g)  It is in the interests of the United States that the executive branch conduct a prompt and thorough review of the circumstances of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo who have been charged with offenses before military commissions pursuant to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Public Law 109-366, as well as of the military commission process more generally.

                     Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.

                     Sec. 4. Immediate Review of All Guantánamo Detentions.

                     (a) Scope and Timing of Review. A review of the status of each individual currently detained at Guantánamo (Review) shall commence immediately.
                     (b) Review Participants. The Review shall be conducted with the full cooperation and participation of the following officials:

                (1)  the Attorney General, who shall coordinate the Review;

                (2)  the Secretary of Defense;

                (3)  the Secretary of State;

                (4)  the Secretary of Homeland Security;

                (5)  the Director of National Intelligence;

                (6)  the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and

                (7)  other officers or full-time or permanent part-time employees of the United States, including employees with intelligence, counterterrorism, military, and legal expertise, as determined by the Attorney General, with the concurrence of the head of the department or agency concerned.

                     (c)  Operation of Review. The duties of the Review participants shall include the following:

                (1)  Consolidation of Detainee Information. The Attorney General shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, and in coordination with the other Review participants, assemble all information in the possession of the Federal Government that pertains to any individual currently detained at Guantánamo
                and that is relevant to determining the proper disposition of any such individual. All executive branch departments and agencies shall promptly comply with any request of the Attorney General to provide information in their possession or control pertaining to any such individual. The Attorney General may seek further information relevant to the Review from any source.

                (2)  Determination of Transfer. The Review shall determine, on a rolling basis and as promptly as possible with respect to the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo, whether it is possible to transfer or release the individuals consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and, if so, whether and how the Secretary of Defense may effect their transfer or release. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and, as appropriate, other Review participants shall work to effect promptly the release or transfer of all individuals for whom release or transfer is possible.

                (3)  Determination of Prosecution. In accordance with United States law, the cases of individuals detained at Guantánamo not approved for release or transfer shall be evaluated to determine whether the Federal Government should seek to prosecute the detained individuals for any offenses they may have committed, including whether it is feasible to prosecute such individuals before a court established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution, and the Review participants shall in turn take the necessary and appropriate steps based on such determinations.

                (4)  Determination of Other Disposition. With respect to any individuals currently detained at Guantánamo whose disposition is not achieved under paragraphs (2) or (3) of this subsection, the Review shall select lawful means, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, for the disposition of such individuals. The appropriate authorities shall promptly implement such dispositions.

                (5)  Consideration of Issues Relating to Transfer to the United States. The Review shall identify and consider legal, logistical, and security issues relating to the potential transfer of individuals currently detained at Guantánamo to facilities within the United States, and the Review participants shall work with the Congress on any legislation that may be appropriate.

                     Sec. 5. Diplomatic Efforts. The Secretary of State shall expeditiously pursue and direct such negotiations and diplomatic efforts with foreign governments as are necessary and appropriate to implement this order.

                     Sec. 6. Humane Standards of Confinement. No individual currently detained at Guantánamo shall be held in the custody or under the effective control of any officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or at a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, except in conformity with all applicable laws governing the conditions of such confinement, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The Secretary of Defense shall immediately undertake a review of the conditions of detention at Guantánamo to ensure full compliance with this directive. Such review shall be completed within 30 days and any necessary corrections shall be implemented immediately thereafter.

                     Sec. 7. Military Commissions.  The Secretary of Defense shall immediately take steps sufficient to ensure that during the pendency of the Review described in section 4 of this order, no charges are sworn, or referred to a military commission under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Rules for Military Commissions, and that all proceedings of such military commissions to which charges have been referred but in which no judgment has been rendered, and all proceedings pending in the United States Court of Military Commission Review, are halted.

                     Sec. 8. General Provisions.

                     (a) Nothing in this order shall prejudice the authority of the Secretary of Defense to determine the disposition of any detainees not covered by this order.

                     (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

                     (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.


                BARACK OBAMA

                THE WHITE HOUSE,
                    January 22, 2009
                .

                 [bolding, mine - for date and clarity]

                my friggin' GOD, people, what do you WANT from this president, a f*cking pound of flesh?

                is ANYTHING good enough for those on this site who continually blame the president for guantanamo not being closed.

                how about this?  

                S. 370 (111th): Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility Safe Closure Act of 2009

                FULL TITLE
                A bill to prohibit the use of funds to transfer detainees of the United States at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to any facility in the United States or to construct any facility for such detainees in the United States, and for other purposes.
                and here is the full text of the law:
                S 370 IS

                111th CONGRESS

                1st Session

                S. 370

                To prohibit the use of funds to transfer detainees of the United States at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to any facility in the United States or to construct any facility for such detainees in the United States, and for other purposes.

                IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                February 3, 2009

                Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. THUNE, Mr. ROBERTS, and Mr. COBURN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

                A BILL

                To prohibit the use of funds to transfer detainees of the United States at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to any facility in the United States or to construct any facility for such detainees in the United States, and for other purposes.

                Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

                SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
                This Act may be cited as the ‘Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility Safe Closure Act of 2009’.

                SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
                The Senate makes the following findings:

                (1) Since the United States began its Global War on Terrorism, terrorists have been captured by the United States and their allies and detained in facilities at Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility (GTMO), Cuba.

                (2) The detainee complex at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is the only complex in the world that can safely and humanely hold individuals that pose a high-security risk to the United States. It is a secure location away from population centers, provides maximum security required to prevent escape, provides multiple levels of confinement opportunities based on compliance of the detainee, and provides medical care not available to a majority of the population of the world.

                (3) GTMO is the single greatest repository of human intelligence in the war on terror. This intelligence has prevented terrorist attacks and saved lives in the past and continues to do so today.

                (4) New intelligence being collected from detainees at GTMO is being used to fight terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the globe.

                (5) Intelligence information obtained from questioning detainees includes--

                (A) the organizational structure of al-Qaida and other terrorist groups;

                (B) the extent of terrorist presence in Europe, the United States, and the Middle East;

                (C) al-Qaida’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction;

                (D) methods of recruitment and locations of recruitment centers;

                (E) terrorist skill sets, including general and specialized operative training; and

                (F) how legitimate financial activities are used to hide terrorist operations.

                (6) The Expeditionary Legal Complex (ELC) located at GTMO is the only one of its kind in the world. It provides a secure location to secure and try detainees charged by the United States Government, full access to sensitive and classified information, full access to defense lawyers and prosecution, and full media access by the press.

                (7) There are on average two lawyers for every detainee that has been charged or had charges preferred against them at GTMO.

                (8) There are 127 doctors, nurses, and medical technicians dedicated to caring for and maintaining the health of each detainee--a ratio of 1:2 (one health care professional for every two detainees).

                (9) GTMO is operated by the Department of Defense and only interrogation techniques approved by the Secretary of Defense have been used.

                (10) Detainees are being treated humanely.

                (11) There are no solitary confinement facilities at Guantanamo.

                (12) Water boarding has never occurred at GTMO.

                (13) Current treatment and oversight exceed any maximum-security prison in the world.

                (14) Since 2002, more than 520 detainees have departed Guantanamo for other countries, including Albania, Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Belgium, Denmark, Egypt, France, Great Britain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Uganda, the United Kingdom, and Yemen.

                (15) There are approximately 245 detainees from over 30 countries remaining at GTMO. These detainees include terrorist trainers, terrorist financiers, bomb makers, Osama bin Laden bodyguards, recruiters and facilitators, and would-be suicide bombers. Detainees remaining at GTMO fall into three categories:

                (A) Detainees who have been cleared for release but the United States has not been able to find a foreign country willing to accept them.

                (B) Detainees who have been tried, had charges referred to trial, or are awaiting for referral to trial.

                (C) Detainees who are either of high threat to the United States or are from countries where the United States is unable to get sufficient assurances that the country will mitigate their threat if transferred.

                (16) The Pentagon claims that 61 of released GTMO detainees have ‘returned to the fight’.

                (17) Said Ali al-Shihri, suspected of involvement in the bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen on 17 September 2008, was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007, passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program, and has resurfaced as the new deputy leader of al-Qaida in Yemen.

                (18) In 2007, the Senate passed a resolution, 94-3, stating, ‘detainees housed at Guantanamo should not be released into American society, nor should they be transferred stateside into facilities in American communities and neighborhoods.’.

                (19) On January 20, 2009, President Obama instructed military prosecutors to seek a 120-day suspension of legal proceedings at GTMO or what administration officials called ‘a continuance of the proceedings’.

                (20) On January 22, 2009, President Obama ordered the closing of the GTMO prisons within a year.

                (21) The United States is still in a global war on terror, engaged in armed conflict with terrorist organizations, and will, in all probability, continue to capture terrorists who will be detained in a facility.

                (22) If the detention facility at GTMO is closed, some United States domestic or overseas prison will have to house these detainees while they await disposition.

                SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO TRANSFER DETAINEES AT NAVAL STATION GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO ANY FACILITY IN THE UNITED STATES OR CONSTRUCT ANY FACILITY FOR SUCH DETAINEES IN THE UNITED STATES.
                None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to any department or agency of the United States Government may be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:

                (1) To transfer any detainee of the United States housed at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to any facility in the United States or its territories.

                (2) To construct, improve, modify, or otherwise enhance any facility in the United States or its territories for the purpose of housing any detainee described in paragraph (1).

                (3) To house or otherwise incarcerate any detainee described in paragraph (1) in the United States or its territories.

                but... its easier to blame obama, isn't it.  everyone KNOWS he doesn't WANT to close guantanamo cuz, cuz, cuz.... he's a secret whatever...

                what i WANT is a reality based discussion on the problems in this country instead of wild, hysterical fingerpointing at the wrong source of the problems in this country!

                president obama is NOT the problem - the f*cking republicans are!  and unless people start "getting" that before 2014, we stand to lose a helluva lot more in this nation, losses from which we will never recover.

                reality.  try it.

                EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                by edrie on Mon May 20, 2013 at 01:40:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  oh, and fyi - THIS bill was introduced on feb. 3, (0+ / 0-)

                  2009 - less than two weeks after the executive order (which shows that congress really CAN move it's slovenly ass if it wants to do so.

                  when it was passed, it was attached to the defense bill that had the funding for the iraq and afghanistan war funding.  

                  president obama attached a signing statement objecting to the inclusion of the guantanamo provision to that bill in the NDAA (national defense authorization act)... and, yes, he COULD have veto'd the bill, but that would have left the troops on the ground without financial support, so he chose not to do so.

                  that is another story, imho.

                  i REALLY wish everyone on this site would get their facts straight when arguing this issue.  it is one reason that so many of us don't take the extreme left position seriously - it is not based on facts... rather, it is based on distorted misinformation that gets repeated with histronic ferver.  

                  histronics don't bring about change - this type of hyperbole drives people away from those who are so passionate about a subject instead of building a coalition to actually SOLVE the problem.

                  [disclaimer here, i'm not accusing ctexrep of histronics - that post was almost reasoned.  it, at least, acknowledged that this administration has tried - where the post failed is assuming that the executive branch has the authority to override the NDAA restrictions.  it doesn't.]

                  EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                  by edrie on Mon May 20, 2013 at 02:12:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It was never about closing GTMO, (0+ / 0-)

                    it's about giving the people held there a fair shot at contesting the charges against them.

                    Obama could hold trials today, but he won't.

                    He could move the prisoners anywhere he wanted, using the vast budget of the military, but he won't.

                    These are things he could easily accomplish, without consultation or permission from Congress.

                    He doesn't have to close the base to see that justice is done, whether that results in convictions or acquittals.

                  •  Correction - (0+ / 0-)

                    Anywhere he wanted -- but not in the US or its territories.

                    We have a military presence in many places that are not in US territories.

                    •  and no money to get them there? detainees can't (0+ / 0-)

                      just be put on a plane, coach.

                      already, people have been screaming their heads off about "rendition" - honestly, obama just can't please some folk... ever.

                      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                      by edrie on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:21:01 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  He could try them at GTMO (0+ / 0-)

                        The law does not seem to prohibit that.  Those that are convicted are no longer "detainees."

                        Those who are acquitted are no longer "detainees."

                        Military tribunals are still permitted.

                        He could pardon the detainees, or threaten to if Congress does not pass a new bill permitting transport, trials, etc.

                        He has not done so.

                        Also, has he mounted a court challenge to the bill removing nearly all the civil rights of the detainees?  I cannot remember that one.

                        •  my other response to you was somewhat terse. (0+ / 0-)

                          i am frustrated by the lack of understanding of the depth and breadth of this problem indicated by your post.

                          there are so many damned problems in this nation that to devote the expense to just one would be total folly.

                          this country was in a disastrous mess after bushco to the point that it will take decades to fix these problems.  some are more critical than others.  

                          the guantanamo issue is a serious one of those issues but not the most critical.

                          i truly wish people would take a longer look at what this administration and this nation is facing and get some perspective here.

                          i'm too out of sorts to discuss this right now.  not much sleep after yesterday's tragedy.

                          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                          by edrie on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:59:34 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  Trials are an option, but he won't do it. (0+ / 0-)

              That's the rub, isn't it.

              Congress cannot entirely shut down Due Process.  The Supreme Court has already made that ruling.

              Rather than just free the prisoners, try them before a jury.  Let the Government prove its case, if it can.  I'm betting on "can't" for most of these cases, particularly if rules of evidence are used.

              Up or down vote.

              Then, some walk, while others do prison time.  Life sentences, long sentences, time served, whatever.

              Some chance at defending oneself is better than none.

          •  so a President can expressly (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gramofsam1

            ignore and countermand the expressly passed will of the Legislature?  Anytime he wants if he thinks its something important.

            Fantastic.  

            I feel like such a fool now for criticizing Bush over this.....

            #MySocialStudiesTeacherLiedToMe

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Mon May 20, 2013 at 06:08:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  please. don't be dishonest on this by saying (5+ / 0-)

      "he broke that promise".  did you not see where one of his first acts in office was to shut down gitmo but the CONGRESS sabatoged that?

      it is unfair and stupid to continually to place blame where it is not due and to allow the blame NOT to be placed where it is due.

      this shows an incredibly ill-informed, manipulated public view, imho.

      get the facts straight and hold accountable those who are responsible.  simply blaming "obama" gives a free pass to those who stopped the closure of gitmo:  the republicans AND some democrats in congress!

      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

      by edrie on Sun May 19, 2013 at 10:07:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Timing, Leslie. (4+ / 0-)

    It's a lovely summer weekend where I live. I glance on my phone as I'm outside with the family, doing summer stuff.

    It's often harder for heavy-topic weekend diaries to get traction in general. When the weather is bad and folks are sitting around grumpy, issues that cause concern may cause people to come over and gripe a little.

    But when weather is good, especially in the spring, people are working in their gardens, out walking in the sunshine, visiting with friends, soaking up sun. And I think you get a lot of "ugh, Gitmo? Not today. I just want a pleasant day, you know? Talk to me tomorrow when I'm in my cubicle under artificial lighting at work."

    There are just diaries that tend to take root at morning, some that do better at night, some that do better on weekends and some that thrive when everyone is at work on a Monday morning and hasn't yet had their coffee.....

    That's my guess.

    © grover


    So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

    by grover on Sun May 19, 2013 at 07:49:00 PM PDT

  •  I honestly believe that those in power (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deep info, Ray Pensador

    don't care.  As others have pointed out, we can make all the phones calls we can, sign every petition that crosses our path, participate in protests, but the fact remains that our government does not care what we think.  They literally do not hear us any longer.  We are stuck with a totally dysfunctional government and regrettably, GITMO is one of many problems that is not going to be dealt with.  The consequences for this lack of will to bring about resolution will be paid for over a long period of time.   People just don't seem to realize that holding these prisoners there is creating more people who want to get back at us and is fueling the kind of anger and rage that creates more terrorists.

    "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." - from the prophet Jeremiah

    by 3goldens on Sun May 19, 2013 at 07:51:10 PM PDT

    •  changes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens, Ray Pensador

      The activists and anti-war people might be just discouraged and tired after all these years, and civil libertarians are now a tiny sub-set of American society.
      When I was a little kid some social studies teacher said, "It is better for a hundred criminals to go free, than for an innocent person to be imprisoned". But now, I think, the opposite is the generally held view in this country.
      Times just change, and we are in a time when prisoners of all kinds are mistreated and abused, and most Americans don't give a shit. Further, they don't even believe that political prisoners exist.

      I buy and sell well trained riding mules and American Mammoth Jack Stock.

      by old mule on Sun May 19, 2013 at 08:16:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  we've lost alot of wars and barely have (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poco, Nannyberry

    a trace of Justice, Honesty, Fairness or righteous Power left functioning in this country.
    Decades of lies and deals and perks and plums and loopholes, peepholes, creepholes and Pressed flesh have about done us in, looks like.
    Some kogs may lean radical. Maybe more would like to. Our past still has our future in a death grip. How many Americans know which claws are tightest around their throats?
    I'm not a farmer
    I have no land
    Merely some conscience
    That's not in demand

    Monsanto is poison,gotta be stopped. Can't afford rich people anymore;must cut back. People like Dick Cheney are evil, don't belong in government. We need @ 9 different revolutions in this country, and may they all crossoverlap soon..

    by renzo capetti on Sun May 19, 2013 at 08:27:47 PM PDT

  •  I cannot accept that. There politicians that care. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poco, Ray Pensador, chantedor

    very much. And Obama has done  the best he's been able to do in so many areas. That's why I can't help believe there is a missing link - something we are not being told.

    Either way, we are creating more terrorists the more this goes on and the more media attention. That's why I love Anonymous. They at least get out there and light some asses on fire.

    Look at Warren, Sanders, Booker, Brown, Gilliard...

    I've been very involved in the Limbaugh boycott movement from its conception. At first I had people tell me advertisers were not going to listen to consumers, as long as he was making them money. They told me give it up and so many times we get so close... Now, we have 95% of advertisers asking for No-Rush clauses when buying air time. He's taken a big hit no matter how you look at it. His Right-wing 'suppliers' have deep pockets and he's not hurting for money - But we're making a difference and the momentum is stronger with each day. And the message is clear - we are the business and we want change.

    It's the belief that we can change. That's what does it. That's why we have a black president in office in his second term when there is still racial discrimination abound. I mean who who would have believe it could happen? And it DID. Because we did believe and we took action.

    That's the only way it's going to happen for GTMO. We are the government - we are the people and we can make change - if we want and if we believe.

    "In this world, hate has never yet dispelled hate. Only love can dispel hate." ~ Buddha

    by Leslie Salzillo on Sun May 19, 2013 at 08:31:21 PM PDT

  •  In general... (0+ / 0-)

    ...people will respond if you're a well-known name here, almost regardless of content.

    Not well-known but have a fantastic diary? All bets are off.

    Boehner Just Wants Wife To Listen, Not Come Up With Alternative Debt-Reduction Ideas

    by dov12348 on Sun May 19, 2013 at 08:32:50 PM PDT

    •  dov, I've had some amazing responses here - (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dov12348, poco

      really amazing. I don't think that's it. I also published this in another newsgroup where I often get thousands of view hits - it's this subject I believe. It's like a fly in the punchbowl. People want to move on already. And it seems that is what many are doing.

      "In this world, hate has never yet dispelled hate. Only love can dispel hate." ~ Buddha

      by Leslie Salzillo on Sun May 19, 2013 at 08:43:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Leslie, may I suggest you check out the (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Susan G in MN, chantedor, grover, valion

    work of Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald? There's quite a lot you're missing about the situation, and some research would serve you well.

  •  if you want to go after the reason gitmo is still (4+ / 0-)

    in existance, go after the congress.  it was their legislation that prohibited obama from closing the place and bringing the detainees to normal prisons for trial.

    but, it seems that the congress keeps on getting a free pass while people amuse themselves blaming the president (not you, per se - but the general tone of the media, the right AND the left).

    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

    by edrie on Sun May 19, 2013 at 09:59:31 PM PDT

    •  My thoughts exactly, agree totally. /nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      edrie

      "I don't love writing, but I love having written" ~ Dorothy Parker // Visit my Handmade Gallery on Zibbet

      by jan4insight on Sun May 19, 2013 at 11:18:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So your argument is that it's not the President's (0+ / 0-)

      fault it hasn't been closed...he just didn't know what he was talking about when he made the promise?

      I can buy that.

      •  um - first order - to close gitmo. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster, gramofsam1

        congress immediately removed any funding for doing so and prohibited the detainees from being relocated onto u.s. soil.

        did you miss that?  i'm not being snarky - i'm really curious.  president obama tried to close guantanamo and was blocked by congress.

        that this president follows the law (unlike the previous decider-in-chief) is something we said we wanted, didn't we?

        we objected strenuously to the lawless behavior of the prior administration, screamed for prosecutions, condemned the flagrant disregard for our constitution - yet, when we have a president that FOLLOWS the law, does NOT disreagard the legal restrictions placed on him by congress, people scream for his head on a stick?

        i don't get it.

        you can't have it both ways.  we either follow the law or we don't.  can't pick and choose.  (and, yes, there are concerns about continuing some policies from the prior administration, but that doesn't allow for wholesale disreagard of our legal and legislative process, does it?)

        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

        by edrie on Mon May 20, 2013 at 12:50:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  just in case you missed it... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnny wurster, gramofsam1

          here is the executive order:

          EXECUTIVE ORDER -- REVIEW AND DISPOSITION OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT THE GUANTÁNAMO BAY NAVAL BASE AND CLOSURE OF DETENTION FACILITIES

               By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base (Guantánamo) and promptly to close detention facilities at Guantánamo, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, I hereby order as follows:

               Section 1. Definitions. As used in this order:

               (a)  "Common Article 3" means Article 3 of each of the Geneva Conventions.

               (b)  "Geneva Conventions" means:

          (i)    the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);

          (ii)   the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);

          (iii)  the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and

          (iv)   the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).

               (c) "Individuals currently detained at Guantánamo" and "individuals covered by this order" mean individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense in facilities at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base whom the Department of Defense has ever determined to be, or treated as, enemy combatants.

               Sec. 2. Findings.

               (a)  Over the past 7 years, approximately 800 individuals whom the Department of Defense has ever determined to be, or treated as, enemy combatants have been detained at Guantánamo. The Federal Government has moved more than 500 such detainees from Guantánamo, either by returning them to their home country or by releasing or transferring them to a third country. The Department of Defense has determined that a number of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo are eligible for such transfer or release.

               (b) Some individuals currently detained at Guantánamo have been there for more than 6 years, and most have been detained for at least 4 years. In view of the significant concerns raised by these detentions, both within the United States and internationally, prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo and closure of the facilities in which they are detained would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice. Merely closing the facilities without promptly determining the appropriate disposition of the individuals detained would not adequately serve those interests. To the extent practicable, the prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals detained at Guantánamo should precede the closure of the detention facilities at Guantánamo.

               (c) The individuals currently detained at Guantánamo have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Most of those individuals have filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal court challenging the lawfulness of their detention.

               (d)  It is in the interests of the United States that the executive branch undertake a prompt and thorough review of the factual and legal bases for the continued detention of all individuals currently held at Guantánamo, and of whether their continued detention is in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and in the interests of justice. The unusual circumstances associated with detentions at Guantánamo require a comprehensive interagency review.

               (e)  New diplomatic efforts may result in an appropriate disposition of a substantial number of individuals currently detained at Guantánamo.

               (f)  Some individuals currently detained at Guantánamo may have committed offenses for which they should be prosecuted. It is in the interests of the United States to review whether and how any such individuals can and should be prosecuted.

               (g)  It is in the interests of the United States that the executive branch conduct a prompt and thorough review of the circumstances of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo who have been charged with offenses before military commissions pursuant to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Public Law 109-366, as well as of the military commission process more generally.

               Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.

               Sec. 4. Immediate Review of All Guantánamo Detentions.

               (a) Scope and Timing of Review. A review of the status of each individual currently detained at Guantánamo (Review) shall commence immediately.
               (b) Review Participants. The Review shall be conducted with the full cooperation and participation of the following officials:

          (1)  the Attorney General, who shall coordinate the Review;

          (2)  the Secretary of Defense;

          (3)  the Secretary of State;

          (4)  the Secretary of Homeland Security;

          (5)  the Director of National Intelligence;

          (6)  the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and

          (7)  other officers or full-time or permanent part-time employees of the United States, including employees with intelligence, counterterrorism, military, and legal expertise, as determined by the Attorney General, with the concurrence of the head of the department or agency concerned.

               (c)  Operation of Review. The duties of the Review participants shall include the following:

          (1)  Consolidation of Detainee Information. The Attorney General shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, and in coordination with the other Review participants, assemble all information in the possession of the Federal Government that pertains to any individual currently detained at Guantánamo
          and that is relevant to determining the proper disposition of any such individual. All executive branch departments and agencies shall promptly comply with any request of the Attorney General to provide information in their possession or control pertaining to any such individual. The Attorney General may seek further information relevant to the Review from any source.

          (2)  Determination of Transfer. The Review shall determine, on a rolling basis and as promptly as possible with respect to the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo, whether it is possible to transfer or release the individuals consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and, if so, whether and how the Secretary of Defense may effect their transfer or release. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and, as appropriate, other Review participants shall work to effect promptly the release or transfer of all individuals for whom release or transfer is possible.

          (3)  Determination of Prosecution. In accordance with United States law, the cases of individuals detained at Guantánamo not approved for release or transfer shall be evaluated to determine whether the Federal Government should seek to prosecute the detained individuals for any offenses they may have committed, including whether it is feasible to prosecute such individuals before a court established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution, and the Review participants shall in turn take the necessary and appropriate steps based on such determinations.

          (4)  Determination of Other Disposition. With respect to any individuals currently detained at Guantánamo whose disposition is not achieved under paragraphs (2) or (3) of this subsection, the Review shall select lawful means, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, for the disposition of such individuals. The appropriate authorities shall promptly implement such dispositions.

          (5)  Consideration of Issues Relating to Transfer to the United States. The Review shall identify and consider legal, logistical, and security issues relating to the potential transfer of individuals currently detained at Guantánamo to facilities within the United States, and the Review participants shall work with the Congress on any legislation that may be appropriate.

               Sec. 5. Diplomatic Efforts. The Secretary of State shall expeditiously pursue and direct such negotiations and diplomatic efforts with foreign governments as are necessary and appropriate to implement this order.

               Sec. 6. Humane Standards of Confinement. No individual currently detained at Guantánamo shall be held in the custody or under the effective control of any officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or at a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, except in conformity with all applicable laws governing the conditions of such confinement, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The Secretary of Defense shall immediately undertake a review of the conditions of detention at Guantánamo to ensure full compliance with this directive. Such review shall be completed within 30 days and any necessary corrections shall be implemented immediately thereafter.

               Sec. 7. Military Commissions.  The Secretary of Defense shall immediately take steps sufficient to ensure that during the pendency of the Review described in section 4 of this order, no charges are sworn, or referred to a military commission under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Rules for Military Commissions, and that all proceedings of such military commissions to which charges have been referred but in which no judgment has been rendered, and all proceedings pending in the United States Court of Military Commission Review, are halted.

               Sec. 8. General Provisions.

               (a) Nothing in this order shall prejudice the authority of the Secretary of Defense to determine the disposition of any detainees not covered by this order.

               (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

               (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

          BARACK OBAMA

          THE WHITE HOUSE,
              January 22, 2009.

          [bolding mine]

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Mon May 20, 2013 at 12:52:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You're missing the point. (0+ / 0-)

          If he doesn't take action under the law, then the prisoners there will never get due process.

          There ARE actions he can take.

          Obama could hold military trials today, but he chooses not to.  A trial in a military tribunal would be better than no trial at all, though not as straight-up fair (rules-wise) as a trial in a civilian court.

          He could also simply dismiss the charges against them and set them free, but he chooses not to.  He is, after all, the top prosecutor in the nation, as the boss of the Attorney General.

          It's doubtful that enough proof exists at this point even to hold most of them.

          •  um... the president cannot simply "dismiss" (0+ / 0-)

            charges.  really.  i thought you understood the law better than that.

            he is NOT the top "prosecutor" in the nation - that is the job of the attorney general.

            jeebus on a pogo stick - have people on this site really become this divorced from political reality?

            i'm outta here - after watching the tragedy in ok all day, i don't trust myself not to say how i really feel about those who are the obama "critics".

            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

            by edrie on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:38:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Uh, he is the Attorney General's boss. (0+ / 0-)

              That makes him the top prosecutor.  He can fire an AG that does not follow his directives.  AGs like the job, so they do what Presidents say.

              Someone may be divorced from political reality, but it's not me.

              He could direct the AG to dismiss the charges.

              He could pardon the prisoners.

              He could direct that they be tried on the charges, if any, against them.  If they are found not guilty, then they are no longer "detainees."

              He has done none of that.

              •  the ag does not have to "dismiss" the (0+ / 0-)

                charges because the president sez so.  separation of powers.

                pardon the prisoners?  pardon for what?  they haven't been convicted yet - and what about the ones who are an actual threat - or, is it your contention that every person in guantanamo is an innocent (without having tried them according to a court of law).  

                oh, heck.  why not just release everyone in every prison.  

                and as for finding "not guilty" - and their own countries won't take them back - then what? dump them in the middle of the ocean?

                your logic is so twisted that you could open a pretzel shop.

                sorry.

                you haven't thought this through - or if you somehow do have all the magic answers, perhaps you should run for president.  then you could just "fix" everything.

                EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                by edrie on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:55:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Again, did he not appreciate how this government (0+ / 0-)

          works? Did he not know that funding was required? Did he assure thew votes were there before issuing the 'order'?

          Did he think he was issued a magic wand on election day?

          •  really, valion.. NO one anticipated the (0+ / 0-)

            obstruction mounted by the republicans on day one.  from mitch mcconnell stating the entire goal of the republicans was to ensure no second term to the insanity that has infected the republicans in government, NO ONE could have anticipated the level of obstruction.

            for you to imply otherwise either shows a dreadful lack of political history or a willingness to forego that knowledge in an attempt to blame everything on obama.

            why, is my question.

            why?

            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

            by edrie on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:35:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  On day one, he had a veto-proof majority (0+ / 0-)

              in the House and Senate. For a brief period, McConnell et. al were irrelevant.

              The only people I 'blame' are poor planners,

              •  he never had a veto proof majority. if you truly (0+ / 0-)

                believe that, i've got a great bridge for you over the east river.

                EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                by edrie on Mon May 20, 2013 at 10:48:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  He did as a Party leader. n/t (0+ / 0-)
                  •  valion - you know better. you flatly KNOW better. (0+ / 0-)

                    the blue dogs were never going to go along - no matter WHO was in the white house,  so please don't be disengenuous.

                    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                    by edrie on Thu May 23, 2013 at 12:14:09 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Nothing's ever 100%, and leaders have done it (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      joanneleon

                      before with much less to work with, e.g. LBJ re the Civil Rights Bill, GWB re Iraq. One way or the other, they built (to coin a phrase) 'coalitions of the willing'.

                      Show me one time this guy has done that on anything of equal significance. Leading from behind only goes so far.

                      •  first of all... (0+ / 0-)

                        lbj used the assassination of kennedy as his leverage - it worked.  without kennedy's death, that legislation was going nowhere.

                        secondly, gwb used 9/11 - without the attacks, nothing would have happened with iraq.  as the neocons said in their manifesto, "the new american century" - what they needed was a catalytic event to be able to invade iraq.  the twin towers provided that.

                        unless you WANT obama to have something equal to those two catestrophic events, you are not going to see a "coming together" of the parties no matter HOW much he "leads".

                        so, please don't use false and hollow rhetoric to try to blame obama for not succeeding.

                        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                        by edrie on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:02:39 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

  •  War crimes trials (0+ / 0-)

    are for the losers.  USA kicks ass #1.   Is further explanation necessary?

    Welcome to the 21st century, the years of breaking glass.  "Breaking glass" metaphorically even more than physically, the shattering of illusions.  None will be spared.

    Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

    by ActivistGuy on Sun May 19, 2013 at 11:04:57 PM PDT

  •  more worried about loosing my food stamps (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site