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.