Obama suspends trials at Guantanamo

figs86

Couldn't be happier with him, its fantastic news!

Obama Seeks Halt to Legal Proceedings at Guantanamo

By Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 21, 2009; Page A02
GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba, Jan. 20 -- In one of its first actions, the Obama administration instructed military prosecutors late Tuesday to seek a 120-day suspension of legal proceedings involving detainees at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- a clear break with the approach of the outgoing Bush administration.

The instruction came in a motion filed with a military court in the case of five defendants accused of organizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. The motion called for "a continuance of the proceedings" until May 20 so that "the newly inaugurated president and his administration [can] review the military commissions process, generally, and the cases currently pending before military commissions, specifically."

The same motion was filed in another case scheduled to resume Wednesday, involving a Canadian detainee, and will be filed in all other pending matters.

Such a request may not be automatically granted by military judges, and not all defense attorneys may agree to such a suspension. But the move is a first step toward closing a detention facility and system of military trials that became a worldwide symbol of the Bush administration's war on terrorism and its unyielding attitude toward foreign and domestic critics.



The legal maneuver appears designed to provide the Obama administration time to refashion the prosecution system and potentially treat detainees as criminal defendants in federal court or have them face war-crimes charges in military courts-martial. It is also possible that the administration could re-form and relocate the military commissions before resuming trials.

The motion prompted a clear sense of disappointment among some of the military officials here who had tried to make a success of the system, despite charges that the military tribunals were a legal netherworld. Military prosecutors and other commission officials here were told not to speak to the news media, according to a Pentagon official.

"It's over; I don't want to say any more," said one official involved in the process.

But the action was cheered by military and civilian defense attorneys.

"We welcome our new commander-in-chief and this first step towards restoring the rule of law," said Army Maj. Jon Jackson, a military defense attorney for Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, one of the Sept. 11 defendants.

"This is a good step in the right direction, although we still think that the unconditional withdrawal of all charges and shutting down this tainted system is warranted," said Jamil Dakwar, director of the human rights program at the American Civil Liberties Union. "The president's order leaves open the option of this discredited system remaining in existence."

Pretrial hearings for the 9/11 defendants were scheduled to resume Wednesday. Another case, involving Omar Khadr, a Canadian accused of killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan when he was 15, was also about to begin.

The Bush administration opened a cluster of chain-link cages called Camp X-Ray on this naval base seven years ago, and on Jan. 11, 2002, a military flight delivered the first 20 suspected terrorists and Taliban fighters. In the ensuing years, nearly 800 prisoners would arrive.

But the military commissions system devised by the administration to try the detainees ran into numerous setbacks. The Supreme Court ruled that, contrary to administration claims, detainees at Guantanamo were entitled to challenge their detentions and that the naval base was not beyond the reach of federal law.

Eventually more than 550 detainees were released; only three were ever put on trial and convicted.

Global opinion turned dramatically against U.S. use of the facility. Organizations such as Amnesty International called it a "gulag." And both Obama and his opponent for the presidency, Sen. John McCain, said they wanted it closed -- as, finally, did former president George W. Bush.

But former vice president Richard B. Cheney said late last year that Guantanamo should be kept open until "the end of the war on terror" -- a time, he noted, that "nobody can specify."

President Obama has acknowledged in recent interviews that shutting the facility is likely to be prolonged and complex. And the administration now faces a number of potentially daunting challenges to following through on the president's campaign promise. Obama is expected to sign an executive order soon that will lay out in detail his plan to empty the facility.

banquo

Wow. He's certainly making the most of his political capital!

Thrill

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html

Orders to close Guantanamo facility drafted, officials say

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba (CNN) -- The Obama administration is drafting executive orders calling for the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, two administration officials said.

KyussBishop

Very promising news indeed; the make or break decision for me though, as far as Obama's credibility is concerned, is whether or not he's going to put Bush/Rumsfeld on trial for war crimes (authorizing torture).

Will be very interesting to see, if he does.

Overheal

Im sure the best lawyers in DC have been dreaming about that one. no doubt they are immunized by either a lack of evidence or a magic loophole.

Call Me Jimmy

KyussBishop wrote: »

Very promising news indeed; the make or break decision for me though, as far as Obama's credibility is concerned, is whether or not he's going to put Bush/Rumsfeld on trial for war crimes (authorizing torture).

Will be very interesting to see, if he does.

You think that's even a possibility? No way. That'll never happen and if it does I'll eat my cat.

Matt Holck

They put Saddam Hussein up for war crime so there is a recent precedence

Ludo

KyussBishop wrote: »

Very promising news indeed; the make or break decision for me though, as far as Obama's credibility is concerned, is whether or not he's going to put Bush/Rumsfeld on trial for war crimes (authorizing torture).

Will be very interesting to see, if he does.

NEVER going to happen. In an ideal world they would indeed be prosecuted but in reality there is no way this can ever happen. It would tear the country apart and sideline everything else Obama tries to do. Unless things go completely pear shaped fopr him and he needs a major distraction of course.

Pocono Joe

Just when I get comfortable with thinking that the Washington comPost is nothing more than a Left Wing/Democratic lovefest, they come out with a realistic, sensible and poignant piece like this. Dang them!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103215.html

Matt Holck

America marked 2,688 days without a terrorist attack on its soil.

How many days before 9/11 without a terrorist attack on its soil?

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Just when I get comfortable with thinking that the Washington comPost is nothing more than a Left Wing/Democratic lovefest, they come out with a realistic, sensible and poignant piece like this. Dang them!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103215.html

Great!!!!.....You seem to have linked some right wing rant dogged with faulty logic by mistake though....

Ludo

America marked 2,688 days without a terrorist attack on its soil.

Define a terrorist attack please?

Here is a list from the ultimate reliable source (wikipedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2000-present

looks like there have been lots of them depending on your definition of terrorism.

Or do they not count as they are not Al Queda. Before 9/11 you gotta go back to 1993 for the previous one on US soil by an Al Queda related group. That is one attack early in Clintons administration and one earlyish in the Bush administration. If we are going to get into silly debates, then technically Clinton kept America safer for longer than Bush...and he is a democrat...oh my god!

So whats the point of this article exactly?

Matt Holck

why the world trade center?

Pocono Joe

Ludo wrote: »

So whats the point of this article exactly?

The answer to your question might best be poised in the form of another question... Why close Gitmo?

Ludo

Do you really need us to answer that? A few reasons...It hasn't kept the USA any safer than it was before it opened and has created massive unpopularity for the USA around the world as it is basically a black hole to throw people into without any due process. "Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". Bush failed in his duty as the constitution, which it is his primary job to defend, was completely ignored.

Any comment on the rest of my post above or are you just going to ignore reality like the article author did?

JohnMc1

KyussBishop wrote: »

Very promising news indeed; the make or break decision for me though, as far as Obama's credibility is concerned, is whether or not he's going to put Bush/Rumsfeld on trial for war crimes (authorizing torture).

Not going to happen. I think you people need to read up on what torture really is. They got their 3 meals a day got to pray to Mecca when they wanted too. Nobody was maimed or mutilated. They're all healthy and still breathing properly [which is alot more than most these ****s deserve] Wow we doused them with water how horrible. The bastards needed baths anyway.

Get over the Bush hate people. I guarantee you won't be cheering Guantanimo's closing if they revealed that the prisoners ar coming to your prisons. Typical liberal hypocrites.

Pocono Joe

Ludo wrote: »

Any comment on the rest of my post above or are you just going to ignore reality like the article author did?

Sure. Detaining prisoners at Gitmo and Waterboarding three terrorists has saved lives from planned terror attacks. No brainer!

Jim_Are_Great

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Sure. Detaining prisoners at Gitmo and Waterboarding three terrorists has saved lives from planned terror attacks. No brainer!

I don't think everyone agrees with that, and I also don't think that's been proved. I could be wrong. If I am, show me the links.

Ludo

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Sure. Detaining prisoners at Gitmo and Waterboarding three terrorists has saved lives from planned terror attacks. No brainer!

As I pointed out, Clinton managed to avoid an attack for longer without lowering himself to the level of the terrorists by engaging in torture...so what did gitmo achieve?

Pocono Joe

Jim_Are_Great wrote: »

I don't think everyone agrees with that, and I also don't think that's been proved. I could be wrong. If I am, show me the links.

Here is a quick one from a simple internet search. It really wasn't too difficult at all to find. I picked one from a source I consider to be nonpartisan in order to avoid the borish "right wing" clap trap type comments that are usually noted with my links when individuals can't dispute the facts, and just attack the source.
http://thehill.com/byron-york/when-waterboarding-works-2007-12-13.html

GuanYin

KyussBishop wrote: »

Very promising news indeed; the make or break decision for me though, as far as Obama's credibility is concerned, is whether or not he's going to put Bush/Rumsfeld on trial for war crimes (authorizing torture).

Will be very interesting to see, if he does.

Will never happen and really it isn't up to Obama either.

What he *can* and *should* do is refuse to grant a pardon for any offences while in office.

That way the AG can, if it likes, go after Bush.Rumsfeld.

oscarBravo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Nobody was maimed or mutilated. They're all healthy and still breathing properly [which is alot more than most these ****s deserve] Wow we doused them with water how horrible. The bastards needed baths anyway.

That whole Bill of Rights nonsense is utterly overrated, anyway.

GuanYin

JohnMc1 wrote: »

They're all healthy and still breathing properly [which is alot more than most these ****s deserve] .

How can you tell who deserves what when nobody got due process?

Overheal

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Why close Gitmo?

Because of the waterboarding, the abuse and humiliation of unconvicted detainees, and more importantly, Gitmo now stands as a direct oppossition to the Geneva Convention. Besides the Iraq War, its one of the single greatest reasons the US has been looked down upon in recent years.

But I suspect you already know that, and I call shenannigans.

JohnMc1 wrote:

They got their 3 meals a day got to pray to Mecca when they wanted too. Nobody was maimed or mutilated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp#Conditions

"On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 18, 24 hours or more."

Saar, a former U.S. soldier, repeats allegations that a female interrogator taunted prisoners sexually and in one instance wiped what seemed to be menstrual blood on the detainee.

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer in June 2005, Dick Cheney defended the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo: "There isn't any other nation in the world that would treat people who were determined to kill Americans the way we're treating these people. They're living in the tropics. They're well fed. They've got everything they could possibly want."

JohnMc1

GuanYin wrote: »

How can you tell who deserves what when nobody got due process?

When they are willing to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up and take as many of us with them as possible they don't deserve due course. Their still breathing and in one piece. That more than they deserve and the people defending them are pieces of ****.

Overheal

JohnMc1 wrote: »

When they are willing to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up and take as many of us with them as possible they don't deserve due course. Their still breathing and in one piece. That more than they deserve and the people defending them are pieces of ****.

I could interpret that as hostility or personal abuse.

The point being made here is of the 539 245 detainees (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_detainees.htm) still being detained at gitmo, we dont know which of them are innocent of the crimes they are being detained for and which are guilty. All the same, they are being treated in the fashion in my above post.

If you were part of a group of 100 detainees, where 2 of them were terrorists, and you were all being tortured, humiliated, and forced into positions for days on end where you were forced to urinate or defecate on yourself, how would you feel Johnny?

JohnMc1

Overheal wrote: »

I could interpret that as hostility or personal abuse.

I could care a less how you interpret it.

The point being made here is of the 539 detainees still being detained at gitmo, we dont know which of them are innocent of the crimes they are being detained for and which are guilty. All the same, they are being treated in the fashion in my above post.

They were caught on the battlefield. They are terrorists. If you want to believe the troops randomly rounded up Iraqis thats your problem.

If you were part of a group of 100 detainees, where 2 of them were terrorists, and you were all being tortured, humiliated, and forced into positions for days on end where you were forced to urinate or defecate on yourself, how would you feel Johnny?

How would you feel if you lost or nearly lost a loved one on 9-11 and the thought of our Commie President and Dem/Communist party wanted to put these terrorists in your states prison? If you say you wouldn't mind you are full of it.

Overheal

They were caught on the battlefield. They are terrorists. If you want to believe the troops randomly rounded up Iraqis thats your problem.

So the 202 detainees released so far were....? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_detainees.htm

Prove to me my government is Communist or GTFO.

JohnMc1

Overheal wrote: »

Prove to me my government is Communist or GTFO.

Touchy all of a sudden. Must have hit a nerve.

oscarBravo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

They were caught on the battlefield. They are terrorists. If you want to believe the troops randomly rounded up Iraqis thats your problem.

"He was caught at the crime scene. He's a gang-banger. If you want to believe the cops randomly rounded up brothers that's your problem."

For six marks, can anyone tell me why the phrase above is not routinely heard in American courts of law?

How would you feel if you lost or nearly lost a loved one on 9-11 and the thought of our Commie President and Dem/Communist party wanted to put these terrorists in your states prison? If you say you wouldn't mind you are full of it.

Dude. You're on an Irish website. Around a decade ago, 98% of us voted to release our own home-grown terrorists to walk around on the streets, never mind give them due process.

Stow the self-righteousness. It's a piss-poor excuse for the blatant disregard for the very document that makes America justifiably see itself a great nation, and your so-called "Commie President" can see that, even if you can't.

Overheal

You havent answered my question. Bear in mind forum rules http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055396904