Skip to main content

I am writing to address this article: http://www.salon.com/...

Written by Glenn Greenwald, that claims Obama was merely trying to move the inmates to another prison for indefinite detention.

In February, 2009, the Obama DOJ told an appellate court it was embracing the Bush DOJ’s theory that Bagram detainees have no legal rights whatsoever, an announcement that shocked the judges on the panel hearing the case. In May, 2009, President Obama delivered a speech at the National Archives — in front of the U.S. Constitution — and, as his plan for closing Guantanamo, proposed a system of preventative “prolonged detention” without trial inside the U.S.; The New York Times – in an article headlined “President’s Detention Plan Tests American Legal Tradition” – said Obama’s plan “would be a departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of the government either face criminal charges or walk free.” In January, 2010, the Obama administration announced it would continue to imprison several dozen Guantanamo detainees without any charges or trials of any kind, including even a military commission, on the ground that they were “too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release.” That was all Obama’s doing, completely independent of anything Congress did.
Prolonged detention is not indefinite detention, and if the administration has no intention of trying the detainees then why was there all of this debate about military tribunals vs. trials?
Obama took that issue head-on Thursday when he called on Congress to remove restrictions on transferring prisoners to the U.S., announced the Defense Department will establish a domestic site for holding military commissions, defended the idea of trying alleged terrorists on U.S. soil, and lifted the ban on transferring Guantánamo prisoners to Yemen, which could greatly reduce the prisoner population in Guantánamo.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/...
In spite of lawmakers' concerns, the Obama administration plans to send a top al-Qaida suspect held at Guantanamo Bay to New York to stand trial for the deadly 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, an administration official told The Associated Press on Wednesday. The suspect, Ahmed Ghailani, would be the first Guantanamo detainee brought to the U.S. and the first to face trial in a civilian criminal court.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

And why did the administration actually follow through with it?

White House officials said Thursday that the acquittal of Ahmed Ghailani on all but one of more than 280 criminal charges in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa would not undermine their effort to try former Guantanamo detainees in civilian court, even as the mixed verdict reignited debate over that policy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Furthermore I firmly believe that Sanders and Feingold and other progressives had a problem with Obama's plan and that is why they voted against it,

The reason these Democratic Senators voted to deny funds for closing Guantanamo is not because they lacked the courage to close Guantanamo. It’s because they did not want to fund a plan to close the camp without knowing exactly what Obama planned to do with the detainees there — because people like Feingold and Sanders did not want to fund the importation of a system of indefinite detention onto U.S. soil.
However couldn't they have added amendments or provided an alternative? Instead of simply voting it down.

I imagine I am going to get a lot of attacks for criticizing Greenwald but there are plenty of holes in his story and I am rather sick of watching him get by without being challenged. Thanks for reading this. Don't know how often I'll be online to check comments but I am not engaging in any pie fights.

1:31pm : Updated for misspelling of Feingolds name. Sorry about that.

6:33 pm: Edited title at Simian's suggestion.

5:18 PM PT: I just wanted to say I am really glad I posted this. I was expecting a lot more vitriol and most of you were quite nice and we had a good discussion about it. I am really glad we can talk about this without losing it on each other.

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

  •  I do not agree. (14+ / 0-)

    Hiding illegally tortured people in another dungeon is not a solution.

    There is no way they can even have a trial under US judicial standards after what was done to them.

    And as far as I'm concerned window dressing that still allows torturers to go unaccountable.

    •  IF there's no way for them to have a trial (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duhban

      Then don't complain that they are being indefinitely detained and not tried, which is what Greenwald was doing.

      I love president Obama!!!

      by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 11:49:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We are compounding our criminal treatment of them (9+ / 0-)

        by not releasing them.

        AFAIC they can live here fully financially supported as a small compensation for the wrongs we have perpetrated against them.

      •  Who decides who can be "indefinitely detained" (10+ / 0-)

        without trial?  

        I mean, by law, by what principle in our Constitution, may  people may be imprisoned by the United States without trial for as long as the president or whoever else desires?

        There's really no justification for it at all.

        Add torture to extra-judicial --- outside the law and legality --- imprisonment and we have a rogue government.  We have a shadow government of brutal repression. Currently it is not being used against us, but it has been used in the past against US citizens.

        How long should our nation permit this illegality to continue?

        "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

        by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 12:18:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know who decides (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not exactly justifying it. It isn't the black and white issue that Greenwald presents it as however. And it largely is not the presidents fault as he seems to be the only one actually doing something about Guantanamo.

          I love president Obama!!!

          by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 12:21:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't know the answer to this, but throwing it (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tardis10, JesseCW, CenPhx, SamanthaCarter

            open because I think there are likely to be varying answers:

            Under whose authority are these prisoners being held?

            The Department of Defense?
            The Department of Justice?
            The President of the USA?

            The Congress cannot pass a law that sets these prisoners free, because they are being held under executive authority. Somewhere in the executive branch, the responsibility, the authority, for imprisonment is found.

            "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

            by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 12:28:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes but congress has (0+ / 0-)

              continually blocked all efforts put forward by the executive branch to close the prison.

              Don't know if they can actually formulate their own bills. I'll have to look that up. I may have been in error about that.

              I love president Obama!!!

              by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 12:32:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The Congress can block spending of money to bring (4+ / 0-)

                the prisoners to the USA.  But the President, as commander in chief, can order the military to transport the prisoners anywhere in the world outside the USA and the Congress really couldn't do much about that.

                Simply state that it is in the national security interests of the United States and put them on a plane.  Of course, the president would be accused by Republicans of "setting terrorists free" and I suspect  it is that political criticism which inhibits those moves, rather than any real caring about the destiny of the prisoners.

                We avoid going to the United Nations for a solution exactly because the USA has been acting outside international law. But a request could be made to the United Nations to find a location under which the prisoners would be transported and released.

                The argument that we are holding people in isolation from their families, friends and homelands "for their own good" is a bit of a contradiction in terms. Or is it supremely hypocritical? I cannot decide which.

                I suspect the major calculation is political: Not giving the Republicans a reason to scream bloody murder yet again.  Yet, as we all know, as in Benghazi for example, they'll just make shit up anyway.  So who cares what the nutcases think?

                "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

                by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 01:23:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Bills become laws two way. First, they pass (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DeadHead, CenPhx, SamanthaCarter

                both Houses.

                Then the President signs them, or he vetos and they get sent back.

                Both Houses can vote to over ride the veto.

                But the President didn't veto the bill blocking him from closing GITMO.

                He signed it.  He made it law.  He blocked himself.

                Dear Boomers: The dirty Rooskies aren't coming to get you. Breath in sanity through your mouth, breath out the Cold War propaganda through your nose.

                by JesseCW on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 02:59:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Why don't you look at the vote count again? (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm done responding to your claims over and over. If you wanted to talk about this like a rational human being I would be open to it, as I have been doing with others in this article. But you are incapable of doing so.

                  I love president Obama!!!

                  by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 03:03:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm not sure you understand how our system works. (4+ / 0-)

                    There is no "veto proof majority".

                    Presidents can still send the bill back.  There have been many times when they've done so, despite massive majorities the first time around.

                    Thanks for the gratuitous personal attacks, though.  They're the height of reason.

                    Dear Boomers: The dirty Rooskies aren't coming to get you. Breath in sanity through your mouth, breath out the Cold War propaganda through your nose.

                    by JesseCW on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 03:08:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If you don't want to be attacked (0+ / 0-)

                      then don't start the attacks. IT would have been pointless for him to send a bill back that was defeated by 95% of congress. But I guess you want him to waste time doing that instead of handling it the way he has.

                      I love president Obama!!!

                      by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 03:11:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Regardless, (0+ / 0-)

                      it wasn't one bill. They've been continuously introducing bills to close Gitmo, which you know, or should. If you don't want me to respond to you in such a matter do not come onto my diary and proclaim that my signature is all that I care about. All of your comments further on this will be ignored as I do not intend getting into an argument with you.

                      I love president Obama!!!

                      by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 03:13:23 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  I should have written "the claimed authority" (9+ / 0-)

              because I don't really think there is any legal means by which these prisoners are being held.

              They were swept up in their home countries, tortured there, brought to an island prison against their will, many more were tortured again there, and are still held outside the law, in my opinion.

              The fact that there have been various court rulings that the USA could hold people on which we had only the thinnest evidence as being "terrorists" or our preferred term "enemy combatants" doesn't really make this a "legal" imprisonment.  The argued authority of the president (first set out by Bush) that the president can order anyone -- US citizen or otherwise -- as an "unlawful combatant" -- has very little justification in US history, Constitution, values or ideals.

              The very term "unlawful combatant" was invented by the Bush administration as a way to skirt the law -- to intentionally be outside the reach of the law. The whole thing is just crazy, for those who believe in the rule of law over the rule of men.

              "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

              by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 01:18:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If I'm not mistaken (0+ / 0-)

                I believe the current president doesn't use that term.

                I love president Obama!!!

                by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 02:02:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, Bu$h xliii fabricated "enemy combatant" (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                freakofsociety, YucatanMan

                In a real war with real military personnel in real uniforms in real combat, etc., any "combatant" taken prisoner on the battlefield may be held as a prisoner of war until some form of truce, peace treaty, or surrender is arranged. At the end of hostilities these POWs are sent home.

                In asymmetrical warfare with combatants wearing civilian garb and using guerilla tactics with odd weapons (IEDs), etc., the capture and detainment of prisoners becomes a rather tricky problem.

                I served in the Marine Corps long ago and worked in Afghanistan 2005-07 as a civilian. In the old school Corps, we were taught that shooters and bombers and such who wore civilian clothing were essentially "spies." No uniform, then not a military enemy but an irregular or a spy or a turncoat. In Afghanistan, however, the standards were ever-shifting so a Marine could shoot the Afghan in mufti who planted an IED, but could not shoot his brother/cousin standing right alongside. So . . . capture the relative???

                Captured complicit and cooperative "idiots" ended up in the hands of US military personnel. With quintessentially evil leaders such as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Armitage, Perle, etc., in power (and some astoundingly evil generals who were vicious operatives), the sorry bystanders--who were not at all innocent--became the victims of torture on the asinine assumption that these fools "knew something."

                As a result, the fabricated term "enemy combatant" is used to describe captured civilians. Secondarily, the "war on terror" cannot come to a negotiated conclusion so these newly defined victims will be held "indefinitely" since there is obviously no truce or surrender. Thirdly, some of the stupid captives who were released, under various guises, went back to doing the same old stuff. And, fourth, there is a cabal of US senators and representatives who have all along been the "fellow travelers" (with Bu$h xliii, Cheney, the administration managers, and the generals) on a mission to sustain the evil that should put them all in cells at The Hague pending their individual trials for torture, violation of the Geneva Conventions, and crimes against humanity.

                If the Obama administration attempts to unravel the evils of Bu$h & Company, the cabal of fellow travelers will prevent it--by any means necessary.

                We're all just working for Pharaoh.

                by whl on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 04:14:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  The NDAA allows it. (7+ / 0-)

          It also allows the feds to detain anyone for any reason without trial, charges, notification of family members,  or the benefit of a lawyer, indefinitely.

          It's an unconstitutional law, but the Bill of Rights went out the window a long time ago.  

          Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them. Dalai Lama

          by prettymeadow on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 01:16:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  If they've done nothing (6+ / 0-)

        why are we holding them?  It is false imprisonment at the very least and more likely full on kidnapping.

        How anyone could condone holding people indefinitely with no trial is truly beyond me.

        You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

        by Johnny Q on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 12:54:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If there is no way they can be found legally (0+ / 0-)

        guilty, you believe we should default to a de-facto life sentence in super-max?

        Your sig says all you have to say.

        Dear Boomers: The dirty Rooskies aren't coming to get you. Breath in sanity through your mouth, breath out the Cold War propaganda through your nose.

        by JesseCW on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 02:57:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  YEs it does (0+ / 0-)

          I do love the president. Thanks for taking so much notice of my signature. :)

          I love president Obama!!!

          by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 03:00:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I understand. That's all you're here to discuss. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            denise b

            Your personal devotion to a politician and your anger that any mere reporter has told the truth about some of the things he's done wrong.

            This isn't your job as a citizen in a republic.

            Dear Boomers: The dirty Rooskies aren't coming to get you. Breath in sanity through your mouth, breath out the Cold War propaganda through your nose.

            by JesseCW on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 03:10:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Also some of them have been tried and given (0+ / 0-)

      shorter sentences:

      Now it’s the war court — the military commissions that the Bush administration created to hear war crimes cases at Guantánamo, which were reformed by Obama through legislation — or nothing. And only two cases, both proposing military executions, are currently slated to go before the Guantánamo tribunals: those for the 9/11 attacks and for the October 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. To date, the war court has produced six convictions, four of them through guilty pleas in exchange for short sentences designed to get the detainees out of Guantánamo within a couple of years.
      Something which I doubt GG has ever brought up.

      I love president Obama!!!

      by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 02:23:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You were actually (0+ / 0-)

      quite respectful to me though, Horace. Just wanted you to know that I appreciate that. :)

      I love president Obama!!!

      by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 05:22:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You should have called him out 2 years ago, when (10+ / 0-)

    he wrote the article.

    “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

    by 420 forever on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 11:37:55 AM PDT

  •  Gitmo is a national disgrace (6+ / 0-)

    There is no reason to keep our little tropical gulag running and those who set it up and support it should be ashamed at the very least and probably prosecuted.

    Only a git supports Gitmo.

    You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

    by Johnny Q on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 11:49:19 AM PDT

  •  Indefinite detention... (9+ / 0-)

    arises as a possibility because the torturing of some very high-value prisoners (KSM for example) so taints the evidence that it is impossible for a jury to accurately determine the truth of the matter either in trial (reasonable doubt) or tribunal (preponderance of the evidence or whatever rule of decision they use).  Of course, doing a kangaroo court trial with a known verdict gets around the indefinite detention by providing a very long (several lifetimes) sentence that is in effect the same as indefinite detention.

    The administration is trying to hide the fact that the previous administration intentionally set up a situation in which it could so confuse evidence as to make de facto indefinite detention at Guantanamo the only result of capture and extradition.  Guantanamo is neither US soil (US Article III courts) nor international space (Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War).  The people held are neither criminals nor prisoners of war, but some undefined thing called "enemy combatants".

    But this seems to be attack the critics day with two web sites down from DDoS attacks and a two-year-old beef with Glenn Greenwald.  Is this the Earth Day Special?

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 11:54:41 AM PDT

  •  Indefinite detention is legally defined . . . (13+ / 0-)

    as detaining a person without trial.  Substituting the word "prolonged" without charge, trial, and sentence does not change the fact of an indefinite detention any more than "enhanced interrogation techniques" somehow differ from torture.

    cf: http://definitions.uslegal.com/...

    •  Okay but my article (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      edrie, jgilhousen

      provided evidence that many of them are being tried. Which makes Greenwalds article an embellishment at best.

      I love president Obama!!!

      by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 12:09:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree that Greenwald sometimes embellishes (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi, chuckvw

        or slants the facts to fit his narrative, however, that pales in comparison to the wrong that our President commits in the continued and unlawful detention without benefit of due process of the prisoners held in Guantanamo.  

        And I am very fond of President Obama and have no love for what often appears to me to be the grandstanding of GG, and I agree that you are right to point of out embellishments by GG, but Obama has the power of the Presidency and Greenwald does not.

        Worthwhile diary, however.  Thanks for taking the time.

        "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

        by Uncle Moji on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 12:30:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  and that power of the "presidency" was immediately (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fabienne, freakofsociety, Uncle Moji

          trumped by congress when it passed the law prohibiting any of the detainees from being moved to the continental united states.

          one of the first acts of this president was to attempt to close guantanamo but he was blocked by congress.

          it is amazing how many people still try to lay the continuation of guantanamo at the steps of the executive branch instead of at congress, where it rightfully belongs.

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

          by edrie on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 12:44:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Plenty of blame to go around (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tardis10, gulfgal98, chuckvw, Uncle Moji

            For the continuation of the indefinite detention system, and Guantanamo, blame goes to the executive branch, Congress, civilian courts, and the military commissions.

            The very large scale indefinite detention system in Afghanistan should be remembered as well.

            •  Not really on this issue (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Garrett, edrie

              The blame is mostly on congress for Guantanamo not being closed more quickly. They voted against is several times. Obama is the one that keeps pursuing it, not congress.

              I love president Obama!!!

              by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 01:57:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  As an example of the courts, and the executive (6+ / 0-)

                Habeas rights effectively do not exist, because of Al-Adahi v. Obama in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

                After Al-Adahi, the practice of careful judicial fact-finding was replaced by judicial deference to the government's allegations. Now the government wins every petition.

                No Hearing Habeas: D.C. Circuit Restricts Meaningful Review, Seton Hall University School of Law, 2012

                The case is critically important.

                There is plenty of blame to go around, beyond just what congress has done.

                •  I feel incredibly dumb (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Garrett, Uncle Moji

                  but would you care to explain to me what habeus corpus is?

                  Obama is to blame on plenty of things. I just don't agree that not closing Guantanamo should be one of them. I think congress deserves most of, if not all of that blame.

                  You won't catch me arguing that he is totally wrong and could be stopping the NSA abuses for example.

                  I love president Obama!!!

                  by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 04:32:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Habeas corpus is the right to a hearing (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    freakofsociety, tardis10, Uncle Moji

                    to challenge the legality of an imprisonment.

                    The Supreme Court case Boumediene says that Guantanamo prisoners must be able to get a meaningful habeas review.

                    But Al-Adah makes the review not actually meaningful. The court rubberstamps what the government says, in theory, not just in practice.

                    •  Yes I read up on it quite (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Garrett, edrie, Uncle Moji

                      a bit and the administration has actually done a lot of stuff that kind of makes my stomach churn. I don't know what to make of a lot of it. :( I just think Obama should be given some credit for being the only one to actually make progress on closing the thing and getting some people out. And Greenwald is basically saying that that's a myth.

                      I love president Obama!!!

                      by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 05:11:31 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Surrounding the issue he's done (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Garrett, edrie

                  plenty of things that are bad if not at least questionable, Garrett. But on actually closing Gitmo specifically he can't really be blamed that much since he's been the only one actually making progress on it. Do you understand what I mean?

                  I love president Obama!!!

                  by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 04:37:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Yes. They over-rode his veto. (0+ / 0-)

            Certainly.

            That's what happened.

            Dear Boomers: The dirty Rooskies aren't coming to get you. Breath in sanity through your mouth, breath out the Cold War propaganda through your nose.

            by JesseCW on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 03:04:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It's a shared blame (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            freakofsociety

            But the Republicans in Congress and their gutless blue dog Democratic allies have demonstrated a consistent lack of morality and double-standard when it comes to the treatment of these detainees.  

            There is also great (primary) blame for this on the Bush/Cheney regime that started and sanctioned and celebrated this deviation from US laws.

            I know that the President almost immediately tried to shut down Guantanamo, I know that, and I admire him for this.  And I know that Congress blocked any attempt to close it down.  But I also believe the President has not fully used all the power of the Executive branch to find another solution.  I believe it is for the "best" political motivation - to fight the battles for life saving health care, for women's rights, gay rights, to save the middle class, to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... because if he had made Guantanamo his "signature" fight, he (and we) would have lost all that we gained otherwise.  But the price is paid by the commission of the crime of unlawful imprisonment without due process, paid for be the men who have been imprisoned and separated from their families and their homelands for over a decade, including those who have been tortured.  President Obama has my gratitude for all that he has wrought for us who have no champion in the halls of power, but for him and few the few progressive Democrats in Washington, I believe he will be considered among the best Presidents in our country's history.  But.  He also has to take the responsibility for not doing everything he could have, by executive fiat, to free these men.  It's my guilt, too.  That stain is on my hands as well.  And for this reason, I have no doubt that after the 2014 elections and before the end of his Presidency, is the prisoners have not been freed with Congressional approval, he will act alone to do so.    But each day they wait is too long, is too long to wait for justice.

            "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

            by Uncle Moji on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 12:05:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't agree with you (0+ / 0-)

              I think he's used a lot of executive power regarding this issue. He is the only one doing anything about closing Gitmo, so trying to place the full blame on him, as Greenwald has done is really quite ludicrous.

              I love president Obama!!!

              by freakofsociety on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 01:11:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I don't see why Obama being president (0+ / 0-)

          negates the fact that Obama keeps trying to close it and congress voting against it. Or why you seem to be suggesting that because Obama is president he is always wrong. Maybe I misread something?

          I love president Obama!!!

          by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 04:45:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are misreading my comment (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            freakofsociety

            Greenwald is a prick who enjoys his status as gadfly, unfortunately, his personal ambition causes him to be reckless and I don't really have much positive to say about him.  I won't get into what I think about Snowden, except that both Greenwald and Snowden appear to only exhibit the courage to tell truth to power, as long as they don't personally suffer for it - kind of antithetical to the model of civil disobedience practiced by Gandhi or MLK or John Lewis whom are men I admire.  

            Obama knows that as President he is ultimately responsible for what transpired on his watch.  Yes, I know he tried to close Guantanamo, and Congress prohibited it in fact by gutting funding for moving those prisoners from Cuba to the US, effectively blocking his attempt.  I am fully aware of why this happened.  And I have no doubt that in the end, Guantanamo will be closed by the end of his Presidency, because this is what he values.  But in the meantime, whatever Executive Branch options will not be exercised until after the 2014 elections for US political reasons.  I get that, and it's the devil's bargain.  I would have probably made the same one.  But each night I would have one more sleepless night knowing that whatever ultimate good it may do for the fates of healthcare and women's reproductive rights, and voting rights, and gay rights, and college loans, and the American middle class... it will be done on the backs of prisoners who are unlawfully held in contravention of US law, international law, and my own moral code - a code I believe the President shares.  And whatever an asshole Greenwald is, the President's own moral compass on this issue is more of an internal weight to him than anything Greenwald could ever write.  Because the President is a moral man.  And this unlawful detention is immoral.

            "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

            by Uncle Moji on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 11:51:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The president is not (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Uncle Moji

              responsibly for the problem because he is the only one doing anything about it. I can't agree with you this. The executive branch is the only branch that has acted moving forward on Gitmo, what congress does he is not responsible for. There are supposed to be 3 different branches of government.

              I love president Obama!!!

              by freakofsociety on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 01:13:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  You are not understanding what I'm saying (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Uncle Moji

              Despite the indefinite detention no one else has provided a way forward except Obama. This is not specifically about indefinite detention. Greenwald is wrong to blame Obama for Gitmo not being closed and wrong to try to place the issue at Obamas feet despite why certain senators voted a certain way. You need to understand that Obama is the only one taking actions to move this issue forward.

              I love president Obama!!!

              by freakofsociety on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 01:16:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Let's take Greenwald out of this, for a second, (0+ / 0-)

                because we both agree Greenwald is a self-serving ass.  

                What I am saying is that the President, by virtue of being the President, bears the moral responsibility for those things that happen on his watch...I am a supporter of this President, even as I may disagree with him on some things, I believe I know what informs who he is now as a man - he has talked about how his upbringing in Hawai'i informed his world view, and I know that formative course of study when he was a young man, because we both attended the same school and I know its curricula from the 1970s, so I know the moral lessons of history we were both taught and that influence both of our adult lives (we were both community organizers in Chicago at different times).  

                I am not saying that he and he alone is responsible for this, but if we do not hold the President of the United States responsible for those things that occur under his command, for which he has full knowledge, as Commander in Chief, then how can we ever hold Bush jr responsible for the War crime that was Iraq, or Cheney for torture, or Nixon for the murder of Allende and the death of Neruda that were aided by US Special Ops/CIA, or Clinton for failing to act to save the Tutsis during the Rwandan genocide?   With great power comes equal responsibility.  

                We cannot, as moral people, ignore the awesome power of the Presidency of the United States, even as we acknowledge the other equal branches of government.  It remains a shared blame, it remains our blame - even though you and I had nothing to do with the imprisonment of men at Guantanamo - the government acted in our name, so we bear that stain as well, until this ends.  

                I can't simply take credit for those things I agree with as an American, I must also accept blame for those things done in our name that I have spent my life fighting against.  Because however long and however hard I have fought, it remains my failure that my efforts weren't good enough or successful enough to right this injustice.  

                It's taking personal moral responsibility for the acts of our government, because it is a "government of and by the people" even when it doesn't work the way I want it to.  It's why Clinton apologized for slavery.  Because it was the right and moral thing to do.  and Reagan apologized for the internment of the Japanese Americans during WW2.  

                If we are not moral people, then what are we?  

                (and thanks again for this diary, even as we may disagree here, I think it remains important to call out Greenwald as he calls out others.  Kudos to you for this.)

                "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

                by Uncle Moji on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 01:44:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I understand what you are saying (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Uncle Moji

                  But how is the president to blame for Gitmo not being closed yet when he has been the only one moving forward on the issue?

                  He is transported people out of there and they are being put on trial. None of this has been supported by congress.

                  I love president Obama!!!

                  by freakofsociety on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 01:53:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  The executive branch (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Uncle Moji

                  is the only branch acting yet we are blaming the executive branch for it not being completed?

                  I love president Obama!!!

                  by freakofsociety on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 01:55:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Greenwald may blame the President alone (0+ / 0-)

                    because it suits his own self-serving narrative, but I have never blamed the President alone, nothing I have said here blames the President alone, in fact, I blame myself as well, I simply do not free the President from responsibility as I will not free myself.

                    Again, what Greenwald says has a grain of truth about accountability, however, GG wants to distill this down to a continuation of what I view as his on-going anger at the President for not being Glenn Greenwald.

                    "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

                    by Uncle Moji on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 02:31:01 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  If some are not being tried, (6+ / 0-)

        which is also evidenced by the links in your post, then Greenwald is not embellishing by referring to indefinite detention.

        You can tell Monopoly is an old game because there's a luxury tax and rich people can go to jail.

        by Simian on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 12:45:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are people being tried (0+ / 0-)

          which is fact and Greenwald could have easily brought that up in his article. He chose not to. He clearly has a bias.

          I love president Obama!!!

          by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 01:59:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's a different point. You are accusing (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            freakofsociety, jgilhousen

            Greenwald of embellishing specifically when he refers to indefinite detention, and the reason you give is that some are being tried and those are not subject to indefinite detention, by definition.  But because others ARE subject to indefinite detention, Greenwald is not guilty of embellishing when he says prisoners are subject to indefinite detention.  QED.

            You want to go after Greenwald for being biased, fine.  But the "embellishing" criticism misses the mark.

            You can tell Monopoly is an old game because there's a luxury tax and rich people can go to jail.

            by Simian on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 03:11:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fair enough. :) (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Simian, jgilhousen

              n/t

              I love president Obama!!!

              by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 03:14:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Indeed, you had retreated to "Greenwald (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Garrett, tardis10

              is embellishing" after first making the headlined point that
              Glenn Greenwald is Wrong About Guantanamo because "prolonged detention is not indefinite detention."  That was your central thesis.  It is wrong for the same reasons as the "embellishment" point is wrong.  Even "embellishment" means that someone is making things up.

              Nor does focusing on the plight of the indefinite detainees rather than the tribunals (in this instance--he has written about the tribunals numerous times) amount to "exaggeration."  There's nothing exaggerated about the statements quoted.

              You might consider replacing your headline with one that says something like "Glenn Greenwald is being too hard on Obama when he focuses on the Obama administration's most overt human rights violations and ignores its progress with regard to some detainees."

              You can tell Monopoly is an old game because there's a luxury tax and rich people can go to jail.

              by Simian on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 03:21:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Also this is not true (0+ / 0-)

          and he needs to stop with the exaggerations.

          And contrary to the blatant myth propagated by Obama defenders, that has happened not because Obama tried but failed to eliminate it, but precisely because he embraced it as his own policy from the start.

          Seeing as how more than one effort has been put forth to close the prison I don't see how he can accuse him of trying but failing. He's doing it now without any help from congress.

          I love president Obama!!!

          by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 02:08:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  A transcript of the 2009 National Archives speech (7+ / 0-)

    is here: Remarks by the President National Security.

    The plan to close Guantanamo did involve trying to move some inmates to another prison for indefinite detention:

    Now, let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can:  We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people.  Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders -- namely, highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety.
    And, four categories of prisoners were laid out, where indefinite detention is group five:
    Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.  And I have to be honest here -- this is the toughest single issue that we will face.  We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country.  But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States.  Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans.  These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

    Let me repeat:  I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people.

    •  That is true (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gary Norton

      But Greenwald failed to mention that some of them are being tried. And that might have been more of a conditional response to the fact that people were scared about the prisoners. I don't know if they intend to keep them forever without detention. My opinion remains that it is a situation FUBAR, which is not really the fault of Obama. It's hard to say what to do exactly with people who have been kept for so long that they might have become violent.
      It's just not a situation easily solved overnight, especially when congress isn't helping.

      I love president Obama!!!

      by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 12:15:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This claim of Greenwalds (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      edrie

      is not true,

      When the President finally unveiled his plan for “closing Guantanamo,” it became clear that it wasn’t a plan to “close” the camp as much as it was a plan simply to re-locate it — import it — onto American soil, at a newly purchased federal prison in Thompson, Illinois.
      because as I've shown Obama is at least doing things to change the situation from what it was. He's not simply moving the prison.

      I love president Obama!!!

      by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 12:18:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If it were me who was held illegally for an (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      freakofsociety

      extended period of time, you better bet that I would want to seek severe revenge on the people who tortured and detained me.  

      I'm not kidding.  

      If those people are ever let go, I would expect nothing less from them but to seek revenge on a large scale if possible, of the USA's illegal acts of war crimes.  

      This presents a conundrum.  Should we let people go that we have tortured and illegally detained?  

      Yes.  Monitor their activities, but let them go back to their home countries.  This is my opinion.

      Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them. Dalai Lama

      by prettymeadow on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 01:42:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's an idea: Ferry the Gitmo inmates... (0+ / 0-)

    to an isolated strip of land in Yemen and drone them to death.

    /snark

    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

    by HairyTrueMan on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 12:12:50 PM PDT

    •  Okay if thats what you want. (0+ / 0-)

      /snark

      I love president Obama!!!

      by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 12:17:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If we were to do such a thing, we'd have to tell (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HairyTrueMan, JesseCW

      their families where they are, so that the families too could be blown to tiny smouldering bloody bits on their way to reunite with their loved ones.  But of course, that would be done before any reuniting would ever take place. Can't have anyone having positive emotions in connection with any of this. The USA must maximize the tragedy and heartbreak.

      Just because. That's the way our drone program rolls.

      /snark? Or is this just a report on recent reality?

      "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

      by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 12:24:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Perhaps hit the funerals too. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YucatanMan, JesseCW

        There would certainly be some "enemy combatants" in attendance. And we don't even have to worry if they're American citizens. That's just how we roll.

        If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

        by HairyTrueMan on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 12:34:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Any male between the ages of 16 & 60 is, (6+ / 0-)

          by default, an "enemy combatant" per the directives issued by this president under his drone programs.

          The only pardoning factor is IF posthumous evidence is found of innocence.  No evidence of innocence?  Guilty of being an enemy combatant. Dead either way.  

          Yes, I know this sounds like something from Through the Looking Glass with Alice in Wonderland, but those are the actual "rules" such as they are.

          "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

          by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 01:28:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks For Calling Out That Liar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight

    and it's disgusting how some folks just look the other way when Greenwald is telling lies that can easily be debunked. The hypocrisy of those folks makes me want to gag and don't worry about anyone talking trashing to you, because you've posted the truth. Your post is spot on and if someone has a problem with it then they can kiss yours and my arse.

    "You just can't come To church and PRAY on Sunday & go out and PREY on people the rest of the week" Recited by Nancy Pelosi

    by Keeping It Real on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 12:38:07 PM PDT

  •  Thx for your timely commentary (0+ / 0-)

    on an article from 2012.  

    "there are plenty of holes in his story and I am rather sick of watching him get by without being challenged."

    I'm rather sick of seeing green-eyed whiners putting together disjointed nonsense and trying to pass it off as astute analysis.  (more like ass-toot, if you ask me).  

    Your articles range from 2009 to 2012, in no specific order, in an incoherent format.

    What are all these "holes" you're trying to show us?  Congress prevented his bringing the inmates 'in-country', so to speak.  Congress did NOT force him to hold them without hearings or tribunals.

    So what is this belated whine about, exactly?

    •  I believe my diary (0+ / 0-)

      specifically links to how some of them have been given tribunals. That negates Greenwalds claim that Obama simply wanted to move Guantanamo.

      Also I don't understand how you detected whining in my diary.

      I love president Obama!!!

      by freakofsociety on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 04:41:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site