PDA

View Full Version : Closing Guantánamo Fades as a Priority



PoliCon
06-27-2010, 02:09 AM
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: June 25, 2010

WASHINGTON — Stymied by political opposition and focused on competing priorities, the Obama administration has sidelined efforts to close the Guantánamo prison, making it unlikely that President Obama will fulfill his promise to close it before his term ends in 2013.

When the White House acknowledged last year that it would miss Mr. Obama’s initial January 2010 deadline for shutting the prison, it also declared that the detainees would eventually be moved to one in Illinois. But impediments to that plan have mounted in Congress, and the administration is doing little to overcome them.

“There is a lot of inertia” against closing the prison, “and the administration is not putting a lot of energy behind their position that I can see,” said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and supports the Illinois plan. He added that “the odds are that it will still be open” by the next presidential inauguration.

And Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who also supports shutting it, said the effort is “on life support and it’s unlikely to close any time soon.” He attributed the collapse to some fellow Republicans’ “demagoguery” and the administration’s poor planning and decision-making “paralysis.”

The White House insists it is still determined to shutter the prison. The administration argues that Guantánamo is a symbol in the Muslim world of past detainee abuses, citing military views that its continued operation helps terrorists.

“Our commanders have made clear that closing the detention facility at Guantánamo is a national security imperative, and the president remains committed to achieving that goal,” said a White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt.

Still, some senior officials say privately that the administration has done its part, including identifying the Illinois prison — an empty maximum-security center in Thomson, 150 miles west of Chicago — where the detainees could be held. They blame Congress for failing to execute that endgame.

“The president can’t just wave a magic wand to say that Gitmo will be closed,” said a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal thinking on a sensitive issue.

The politics of closing the prison have clearly soured following the attempted bombings on a plane on Dec. 25 and in Times Square in May, as well as Republican criticism that imprisoning detainees in the United States would endanger Americans. When Mr. Obama took office a slight majority supported closing it. By a March 2010 poll, 60 percent wanted it to stay open.

One administration official argued that the White House was still trying. On May 26, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, James Jones, sent a letter to the House Appropriations Committee reiterating the case.

But Mr. Levin portrayed the administration as unwilling to make a serious effort to exert its influence, contrasting its muted response to legislative hurdles to closing Guantánamo with “very vocal” threats to veto financing for a fighter jet engine it opposes.

Last year, for example, the administration stood aside as lawmakers restricted the transfer of detainees into the United States except for prosecution. And its response was silence several weeks ago, Mr. Levin said, as the House and Senate Armed Services Committees voted to block money for renovating the Illinois prison to accommodate detainees, and to restrict transfers from Guantánamo to other countries — including, in the Senate version, a bar on Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia. About 130 of the 181 detainees are from those countries.

“They are not really putting their shoulder to the wheel on this issue,” Mr. Levin said of White House officials. “It’s pretty dormant in terms of their public positions.”

Several administration officials expressed hope that political winds might shift if, for example, high-level Qaeda leaders are killed, or if lawmakers focus on how expensive it is to operate a prison at the isolated base.

A recent Pentagon study, obtained by The New York Times, shows taxpayers spent more than $2 billion between 2002 and 2009 on the prison. Administration officials believe taxpayers would save about $180 million a year in operating costs if Guantánamo detainees were held at Thomson, which they hope Congress will allow the Justice Department to buy from the State of Illinois at least for federal inmates.

But in a sign that some may be making peace with keeping Guantánamo open, officials also praise improvements at the prison. An interagency review team brought order to scattered files. Mr. Obama banned brutal interrogations. Congress overhauled military commissions to give defendants more safeguards.

One category — detainees cleared for release who cannot be repatriated for their own safety — is on a path to extinction: allies have accepted 33, and just 22 await resettlement. Another — those who will be held without trials — has been narrowed to 48.

Still, the administration has faced a worsening problem in dealing with the prison’s large Yemeni population, including 58 low-level detainees who would already have been repatriated had they been from a more stable country, officials say.

The administration asked Saudi Arabia to put some Yemenis through a program aimed at rehabilitating jihadists but was rebuffed, officials said. And Mr. Obama imposed a moratorium on Yemen transfers after the failed Dec. 25 attack, planned by a Yemen-based branch of Al Qaeda whose members include two former Guantánamo detainees from Saudi Arabia.

As a result, the Obama administration has been further entangled in practices many of its officials lamented during the Bush administration. A judge this month ordered the government to release a 26-year-old Yemeni imprisoned since 2002, citing overwhelming evidence of his innocence. The Obama team decided last year to release the man, but shifted course after the moratorium. This week, the National Security Council decided to send the man to Yemen in a one-time exception, an official said on Friday.

Meanwhile, discussions have faltered between Mr. Graham and the White House aimed at crafting a bipartisan legislative package that would close Guantánamo while bolstering legal authorities for detaining terrorism suspects without trial.

Mr. Graham said such legislation would build confidence about holding detainees, including future captures, in an untainted prison inside the United States. But the talks lapsed.

“We can’t get anyone to give us a final answer,” he said. “It just goes into a black hole. I don’t know what happens.”

In any case, one senior official said, even if the administration concludes that it will never close the prison, it cannot acknowledge that because it would revive Guantánamo as America’s image in the Muslim world.

“Guantánamo is a negative symbol, but it is much diminished because we are seen as trying to close it,” the official said. “Closing Guantánamo is good, but fighting to close Guantánamo is O.K. Admitting you failed would be the worst.”

Thom Shanker contributed reporting.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/us/politics/26gitmo.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1277618728-J2xU0h9YzfN10DwDrl+7lQ#

lacarnut
06-27-2010, 04:40 AM
Obummer's left wing liberal base is really going to be pissed if he does not close Gitmo and end the war before the 012 elections.

PoliCon
06-27-2010, 09:53 AM
Obummer's left wing liberal base is really going to be pissed if he does not close Gitmo and end the war before the 012 elections.

How will they know that he hasn't? The MSM?

Apocalypse
06-27-2010, 11:51 AM
Don't believe it quite yet.

I live near to it, about 30 min away.

In the Clinton Hearld there was an article about the Government is going ahead with buying the prison this fall, and near by cities are gearing up with massive home construction under the instruction of the Feds to attract and house all the new prison guards and staff that will be moving into the area looking for a place to live.

Lager
06-27-2010, 12:01 PM
Obummer's left wing liberal base is really going to be pissed if he does not close Gitmo and end the war before the 012 elections.

Maybe not so much. Gitmo had become one of their sanctioned symbols of all things Bush. Perhaps as the memory of his term fades, it has lost its power as a symbol to them.

fettpett
06-27-2010, 01:39 PM
anyone that actually thought that the prison would be closed after that 6mos and it didn't, were delusional. It's not going to close, not for a long time

m00
06-27-2010, 02:54 PM
anyone that actually thought that the prison would be closed after that 6mos and it didn't, were delusional. It's not going to close, not for a long time

No, but I'm sure the media will be able to spin Gitmo as a necessary holding area for enemies of Democratic presidents.

PoliCon
06-27-2010, 03:44 PM
anyone that actually thought that the prison would be closed after that 6mos and it didn't, were delusional. It's not going to close, not for a long time

no one here bought that line. You can go back over posts here on CU and see that we all pretty much agreed from the get go that Obama wasn't going to meet his self imposed deadline.

3rd-try
06-27-2010, 05:44 PM
“The president can’t just wave a magic wand to say that Gitmo will be closed,” said a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal thinking on a sensitive issue.


Why the hell not?! He could always print some more money to throw at the states/districts of enough opponents to change the outcome in congress. It would have to be dirt cheap compared to the healthcare deal. He hasn't got a clue how the present dept can be paid, so what's a little more?

Tecate
06-27-2010, 09:29 PM
anyone that actually thought that the prison would be closed after that 6mos and it didn't, were delusional. It's not going to close, not for a long time
He was going to start withdrawing troops from Iraq right away
He wasn't going to have any lobbyists in his administration
He was going to end NAFTA and GATT
He was going to end warrantless wire-tapping
He was going to scale back the Patriot Act
He vowed never to use 'signing statements' as an end-run around Congress

All lies... The people who voted for this clown should be furious.

Sonnabend
06-28-2010, 04:02 AM
He vowed never to use 'signing statements' as an end-run around Congress

They never were.

Odysseus
06-28-2010, 12:16 PM
How will they know that he hasn't? The MSM?
It will become apparent when a Republican administration takes over and they begin protesting again.

No, but I'm sure the media will be able to spin Gitmo as a necessary holding area for enemies of Democratic presidents.
No, the conditions are too humane and pleasant. They will spin the waterboarding, though.

He was going to start withdrawing troops from Iraq right away
He wasn't going to have any lobbyists in his administration
He was going to end NAFTA and GATT
He was going to end warrantless wire-tapping
He was going to scale back the Patriot Act
He vowed never to use 'signing statements' as an end-run around Congress

All lies... The people who voted for this clown should be furious.
They would be if they hadn't lied to themselves first.

lacarnut
06-28-2010, 05:38 PM
It will become apparent when a Republican administration takes over and they begin protesting again.

No, the conditions are too humane and pleasant. They will spin the waterboarding, though.

They would be if they hadn't lied to themselves first.

Many of the Obamanut voters are too stupid; they do not think he has lied. Ask We We, Wilbur & Shu.

Odysseus
06-28-2010, 06:48 PM
Many of the Obamanut voters are too stupid; they do not think he has lied. Ask We We, Wilbur & Shu.

It is Wei, Wilbur and Shoe who have lied to themselves. You can lead a horse to Kool Aid, but you can't make him drink it. He has to choose to do it.

PoliCon
07-02-2010, 07:59 PM
He was going to start withdrawing troops from Iraq right away
He wasn't going to have any lobbyists in his administration
He was going to end NAFTA and GATT
He was going to end warrantless wire-tapping
He was going to scale back the Patriot Act
He vowed never to use 'signing statements' as an end-run around Congress

All lies... The people who voted for this clown should be furious.

You left out how he was going to be transparent. :rolleyes:

fettpett
07-03-2010, 05:34 PM
You left out how he was going to be transparent. :rolleyes:

he's about as transparent as his skin color

PoliCon
07-03-2010, 06:35 PM
he's about as transparent as his skin color

be that as it may - he was going to have the most transparent administration in history. :rolleyes: And we were gonna all get pony's . . . . and unicorns . . . .

fettpett
07-03-2010, 06:52 PM
be that as it may - he was going to have the most transparent administration in history. :rolleyes: And we were gonna all get pony's . . . . and unicorns . . . .

OMG OMG!!! i wanna unicorn!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

lacarnut
07-03-2010, 06:54 PM
be that as it may - he was going to have the most transparent administration in history. :rolleyes: And we were gonna all get pony's . . . . and unicorns . . . .

After the Democrats get trounced in Nov., I look for the Magic Negro to start using the billions left in the stimulus fund to dish out one time refunds to taxpayers. Kinda like what Bush did. He gotta buy votes some kinda way cause he is in deep shit politically. .

Kay
07-03-2010, 09:00 PM
He was going to start withdrawing troops from Iraq right away
He wasn't going to have any lobbyists in his administration
He was going to end NAFTA and GATT
He was going to end warrantless wire-tapping
He was going to scale back the Patriot Act
He vowed never to use 'signing statements' as an end-run around Congress

All lies... The people who voted for this clown should be furious.


You left out how he was going to be transparent. :rolleyes:

And everything was going to be posted online for 48 hours before it got voted on
And all committee meetings were going to be on C-span

Odysseus
07-03-2010, 09:29 PM
You left out how he was going to be transparent. :rolleyes:

He is transparent. Anyone with a brain can see right through him.

RobJohnson
07-03-2010, 09:44 PM
And everything was going to be posted online for 48 hours before it got voted on
And all committee meetings were going to be on C-span

Congress does not even get 48 hours to read what they vote on now. :D

Odysseus
07-03-2010, 11:47 PM
Congress does not even get 48 hours to read what they vote on now. :D

Why bother? Pelosi has made it clear that we have to pass legislation in order to find out what's in it. Sort of like having to eat a toxic pile of sewage in order to know that it's a toxic pile of sewage. :rolleyes:

Zathras
07-04-2010, 02:28 AM
He is transparent. Anyone with a brain can see right through him.

Unfortunantly the majority of voters in the last election don't have the brainpower to see just what a Snake Oil Salesman the Obumbler was. Otherwise we wouldn't be in the situation we are today.

m00
07-04-2010, 08:40 AM
Unfortunantly the majority of voters in the last election don't have the brainpower to see just what a Snake Oil Salesman the Obumbler was. Otherwise we wouldn't be in the situation we are today.

I don't necessarily agree with this. I think we are in a cycle of but-the-other-guy-is-worse-ism. I know a lot of people that voted for Obama, because well... McCain eats babies and Palin's head is filled with ice-cream churned by the Amish wing of Satanism. Likewise, I know a lot of people that voted for McCain because Obama is a Muslim agent, born on the 4th moon of planet Bat, in the Libromeda star system, where people actively seeking the destruction of the Universe because the only fair policy is one where nothing exists.

But this is a false dilemma. We have 3rd parties, but nobody votes for them because nobody else votes for them. As long as voters have such a mentality, they get what they deserve.

PoliCon
07-04-2010, 09:26 AM
Voting AGAINST the other guy is NEVER a good idea. :(

RobJohnson
07-04-2010, 03:15 PM
Thompson, IL could use the jobs. The city spent a ton of money extending water to the new prision for it to never open.

Odysseus
07-04-2010, 08:22 PM
I don't necessarily agree with this. I think we are in a cycle of but-the-other-guy-is-worse-ism. I know a lot of people that voted for Obama, because well... McCain eats babies and Palin's head is filled with ice-cream churned by the Amish wing of Satanism. Likewise, I know a lot of people that voted for McCain because Obama is a Muslim agent, born on the 4th moon of planet Bat, in the Libromeda star system, where people actively seeking the destruction of the Universe because the only fair policy is one where nothing exists.

But this is a false dilemma. We have 3rd parties, but nobody votes for them because nobody else votes for them. As long as voters have such a mentality, they get what they deserve.
It's not a false dilemma. Third parties in a parliamentary system can become part of a governing coalition, but in a republic, they simply detract from the two major parties. The result is that the party with stronger discipline wins, even if it lacks popular support. This is how Bill Clinton was elected in 1992.

Thompson, IL could use the jobs. The city spent a ton of money extending water to the new prision for it to never open.
This doesn't make closing Gitmo a good idea. It still puts terrorists into CONUS, where every ACLU hack will be looking to get them released into the US.

Tecate
07-04-2010, 08:56 PM
I don't necessarily agree with this. I think we are in a cycle of but-the-other-guy-is-worse-ism. I know a lot of people that voted for Obama, because well... McCain eats babies and Palin's head is filled with ice-cream churned by the Amish wing of Satanism. Likewise, I know a lot of people that voted for McCain because Obama is a Muslim agent, born on the 4th moon of planet Bat, in the Libromeda star system, where people actively seeking the destruction of the Universe because the only fair policy is one where nothing exists.

But this is a false dilemma. We have 3rd parties, but nobody votes for them because nobody else votes for them. As long as voters have such a mentality, they get what they deserve.
Exactly... It's like choosing between being punched in the face on the left side or the right side. Either way, you're still getting punched. The swinging left-right pendulum is a phony distraction used to control and manipulate us. When you look at how these people actually govern, you really can't tell them apart from one another.

These people are all bought and paid for by special interests set forth by the real power structure. They are puppets. Anyone who denies that is extremely naive. The government gets caught participating in corrupt activities practically every day, and what happens to them? Nothing.