Obama Tries to Restore Order on Gitmo, After Senate Blocks Closure Funds
http://www.foxnews.com/po...ats-gitmo/

A 90-6 vote is pretty overwhelming , ouch!

The NIMBY syndrome seems to be in full effect as people want the prison closed but nobody wants them in their state.

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va, said on a Sunday talk show that he opposes the release into the United States of 17 Chinese Uighurs who were captured in Afghanistan after Sept. 11, 2001. The prisoners, de-listed as enemy combatants by a federal court that deemed them not a danger to the U.S., are eligible for release.

The administration is considering releasing them in Northern Virginia, something Webb vehemently opposes. Webb's language left the door open to an even broader opposition to any Gitmo detainees being released in the United States.

Sens. Jon Tester and Max Baucus, both Montana Democrats, have said emphatically that no detainees will be brought to their state. The same goes for Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.

I'd just keep the prison open and have the trials down there as it looks like nobody wants them in their home State.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (5/20/2009)]

[Moved to the "National News, Politics & Issues" forum]

Did you just add the National News forum? I missed that. Thanks for the move.

i hear they were trying to move national terriorists that are being held at guantanamo bay to the Hardin Detention Facilty.

http://billingsgazette.ne...pinion.txt

I know that everyone has wanted it closed form Bush to McCain and now President Obama. I guess I don't see the reasoning, it's serving the purpose, It's apparently funded, and has been rock solid in containing the prisoners. I'm not sure what more we want. If they are going to be held I say hold them there.

I totally disagree with Baucus and Tester.

We should house them all here - we have lots of desolate wasteland and a whole population who would dare them to think about busting out or having their buddies show up for them.

It's jobs.

I say leave them there too!!! I honestly don't wish for terrorist to be in my backyard. It's just plain unsettling.

C'mon T - it's an excuse to buy guns and be paranoid.

T-Pain: How many terrorists in Gitmo have escaped to date?

Please tell me why you - and anyone else amongst the NIMBY crowd - are so fearful that having these prisoners housed in Hardin (or somewhere else in the United States)?

Personally, I am less concerned about where the prisoners are housed than how they are treated. I do not want them treated any better or worse than any other supermax-level prisoner, but I want them to be treated ethically. If this cannot happen at Gitmo, then they need to be moved somewhere where they can. If that place is Hardin, MT, so be it.

C'mon T - it's an excuse to buy guns and be paranoid.

Don't forget boats, Buck. Must buy boats.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (5/20/2009)]

Brian's lowering the bar somewhat. Before it was habeas corpus, a Johnnie Cochran for every detainee, and due process.

Now its, "Hey, as long as we treat 'em halfway decent, what does it matter"

Tribunals, indefinite detention... it's all good now with the Big 'O' seal of approval.

Except that part of the pro-Gitmo argument used to be that habeas corpus need not apply to foreign detainees on foreign soil. They told us even that was a crime, however. Now they want to move detainees to American soil and still deny them their "rights" but still insist it was the old policy that was the devil. Does the new Obama precedent mean non-citizens on US soil have no HC rights? If you'd listened to these guys over the last 5 years or so, you'd have to assume so.

The magic of hopechange. Bush² with a new logo.

I drove thru Hardin the other night and that new prison is all lit up.....Wonder who is paying the electric bill??

Brian's lowering the bar somewhat. Before it was habeas corpus, a Johnnie Cochran for every detainee, and due process.

Now its, "Hey, as long as we treat 'em halfway decent, what does it matter"

That's not at all what I said, Rick. What I said was:

"I do not want them treated any better or worse than any other supermax-level prisoner, but I want them to be treated ethically."

I figured you were bright enough to read between the lines when it came to the term "supermax-level prisoner." You know, the whole habeas corpus bit.

For Richard to get it, probably not. But you, I guess I gave you too much credit.

"For Richard to get it, probably not. But you, I guess I gave you too much credit."

I don't think you are treating me "ethically", Brian.

Brian....In my mind they are still hardened criminals. I still say, leave them where they are....If they're moved here, You, me and everyone else have to pay to move them, feed them, cloth them, pay for their medical bills, etc., etc., etc. I know that our federal taxes already pay for most of that already, but I also pay taxes to the state of Montana as well...and I'm pretty sure that our state taxes will go there too!!! Look....I don't think that prisoners should be treated the way they "say" that the Gitmo detainees are being treated...but who's to say they're going to be treated any better in Hardin??? Sh*t happens everywhere. What happens behind closed doors.....yadayadayada. Besides...I guess that I'm just a little jumpier these days...thinking about the future....I just found out I'm going to be a Grandma!!!

Congratulations!

Regarding criminals from the Hardin area ... You'd have far more to fear from some of the people who live in (and to be more precise, around) Hardin than the Gitmo prisoners who would be detained at Two Rivers.

This is the problem with the expansion of presidential powers by the Bush Administration (and to some extent several administrations before his). Obama can say he's going to reverse this stuff, but then when he gets into office then he's bound to think "actually, I can do a lot of good with this stuff, plus it makes my job easier". This is true, but the reality is that not too many presidents are going to take power away from themselves, and even if they don't do anything bad with it, they are leaving the door open for someone else down the line.

The people who should be putting the brakes on this is the congress, who have given up a ton of their authority over the last few decades, but it seems like no one in congress has the stones to do it, especially in the instance of declaring war. The president cannot declare war, only the congress can, but presidents have been getting around this by having "police actions" and the like. The US has not declared war since WW2 even though we have invaded and overthrown the governments of two countries in the last decade. If that's not declaring war, I don't know what is and the president should not be able to do it without congress taking responsibility. Congress doesn't really want the responsibility of sending troops to war, so they let the president do it (yeah I know they had a meaningless little vote about it) and then they can say that they were on board if it goes well, and blame the president if it doesn't. I think any large-scale deployment of troops that last more than 4-6 months should require a formal declaration of war by congress.

Either way, expansion of power by the president or reduction of rights in an "emergency" should not be tolerated because no matter how well intentioned the next administration is, they are not likely to remove power from themselves, and we need to think of these powers as not something that "our guy" has, but something that all future US presidents will have, no matter which side they come from.

I'm not sure why people are freaking out about this: it's not like we're trying to incarcerate Khan and the supermen, they don't have the floorplan for every detention center tattooed to the undersides of their scrotums, they can't overpower the guards with jedi mind tricks - I imagine there's probably a couple dudes currently residing in Pine Hills that could kick the ass of any one of the Guantanamo inmates. The US is a prison nation - incarcerating people is one of our core competencies.

Bring them to the US, put them on trial in civilian courts, and let the chips fall where they may. At the very least, it will restore our moral authority.

But again, it's awesome to see Rick standing up for due process and human rights. I'll expect to see him at the next Amnesty International meetup.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (5/21/2009)]

But again, it's awesome to see Rick standing up for due process and human rights. I'll expect to see him at the next Amnesty International meetup

It's like musical chairs really. One chair says "Civil Rights, Schmivil Rights" the other "Feign Indignation"

By my book, the score is now tied.

I know I'm going to regret this, but here goes....

I've been pretty much keep this to myself because I know it is a touchy subject, but this one has remained fairly civil, so what the hell...

I've liked, some of what my new Commander and Chief has done and some things I haven't liked, however, this seems like a waste of time, energy and money. We currently have a facility, that is set, funded, manned and has a ton of oversight. In the name of trying to undue past sins, real and percieved, we are going to move these prisoners out of Gitmo and to the states. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Well said, Jeremy.

Yeah!!! Exactly what I was trying to say in a round about way. Thanks for putting it in words that I was thinking! Well said Jeremy.