Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama to issue signing statement on Guantanamo restrictions (219 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Error-filled comment (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eglantine, bartcopfan

    Oh, my. Your comment is filled to the brim with
    misinformation:

    We can't simply return them to their home countries or other countries because their home countries or other countries won't take them (some have, and that's brought the numbers of detainees down, but these are the sticky 148 that cannot be repatriated).

    This is the heart of your claim, and it's absolutely false.  The majority of detainees remaining are Yemeni.  The government of Yemen has long demanded that its citizens be returned to it, but Obama refuses.

    Obama has been picking a Yemeni here and there to release, and Yemen takes them every time.

    Beyond Yemen, the governments of virtually every detainee there would take them back.  They've been demanding them:  "Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have all accepted Guantanamo detainees back into their countries."

    It's fine to defend Obama for keeping Gitmo open despite his promises, but you shouldn't make up facts to do it. Thats what you did.

    then, 7 years later we have an election and the new guy comes in and tries to shut down the place and gets a 98-0 vote against shutting the place down

    This is also false.  The vote was not 98-0, and most of the Dem Senators who voted against it said they did so because they wanted to see Obama's plan first.  Many (like Feingold) weren't going to vote to close Guantanamo if Obama planned to just move the same system of indefinite detention to Illinois.

    Let's say we try them in an Article III court, and they cannot be convicted.  So even if we decide that continued detention will turn on conviction (if you are convicted, you are imprisoned like a criminal, but if you are not convicted you are subject to release), what do we do with those who are not convicted?  Where do we send them?  

    Leave aside that your whole premise is false about their governments not taking them.

    You should really take some time to think about what you're saying!!

    You're saying that if a country kidnaps people from around the world, and puts them in a prison, and then finds out they're innocent, they should just keep them imprisoned anyway, because the only other alternative is to release them in their own country.

    Imprisoning innocent people is one of the greatest evils there is.  So is imprisoning people without charges.  And it's what you're advocating because the logistics of not doing so are, in your view, complex.  Nasty.

    •  Wonderful comment (0+ / 0-)

      I wish I could recommend it a hundred times.

    •  The comment also misses the fact that defunding (0+ / 0-)

      eliminates the ability simply to take them to a civilian court. They are not now in a federal district, and there is no money to take them there and no money to provide the judges and court to try any of them. And apparently provisions in the NDAA amendment limiting the manner in which they may be tried, by defunding. The EX branch may print money, but Congress determines how that money will be spent, and EX can't fund and pay for what Congress specifically defunds, which has happened here.

    •  Excellent Reply (0+ / 0-)

      Wish I'de have seen prior to replying.

      Thanks!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site