While I would applaud President for wanting to close Guantanamo prison I regret to say his actions are one year too late with this announcement. This announcement should have been done in 2015 and not 2016. Doing this now is very bad timing.
In this very political season, the Republicans will want to paint a very big brush on the Democratic nominee for President by painting the nominee as being soft on terror and terrorists. All they need to do are to put billboards up, with the face of Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Sanders on the billboard, with this simple message. "Would you want this nominee closing Gitmo and putting the nation in danger? These billboards or TV ads could devastate the Democratic nominee for President and greatly reduce the nominee ever winning the White House.
Bad move Mr. President
In this very political season, the Republicans will want to paint a very big brush on the Democratic nominee for President by painting the nominee as being soft on terror and terrorists. All they need to do are to put billboards up, with the face of Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Sanders on the billboard, with this simple message. "Would you want this nominee closing Gitmo and putting the nation in danger? These billboards or TV ads could devastate the Democratic nominee for President and greatly reduce the nominee ever winning the White House.
Bad move Mr. President
I've often been struck by the ironic stance of those who extol the United States as exceptional and great but who nevertheless seem to feel that our justice system is incapable of dealing with a group of would-be murderers. The only conclusion I can come to is that their rage fosters a lynch-mob fury in which the law is viewed merely as a possible impediment to "getting" those on whom they want to wreak their vengeance.
4
"When Congress asked the White House last year for a plan to close the base, it posed one question that the administration has largely sidestepped and must now confront. As the United States ramps up military campaigns in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya, lawmakers have asked what detention authority and protocols should apply to future cases involving terrorism suspects who cannot be prosecuted in federal court.
There is no easy answer, but that is an issue that the administration, in consultation with Congress, should address."
Wow, sounds like we should find someplace like Guantanamo.
There is no easy answer, but that is an issue that the administration, in consultation with Congress, should address."
Wow, sounds like we should find someplace like Guantanamo.
1
During the Second World War we had prisoner of war camps on US soil. We kept enemy combatants there. We didn't give them trials. They hadn't knocked over a 7-11. They were enemy combatants. If the war had gone on for 20 years, why would anyone think they wouldn't have been detained in these camps for 20 years?
What is different about captured terrorists? Is it because they don't represent a country? Or maybe because they don't wear a distinctive uniform? Why should they be treated any differently than captured Nazis?
What is different about captured terrorists? Is it because they don't represent a country? Or maybe because they don't wear a distinctive uniform? Why should they be treated any differently than captured Nazis?
4
Here's what Wikipedia says about the hundreds of prisoner of war camps the US had during WWII.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_prisoner-of-war_camps...
Was this "shameless"? What else would we have done with prisoners of war, pray tell? Try them in court for being bad guys?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_prisoner-of-war_camps...
Was this "shameless"? What else would we have done with prisoners of war, pray tell? Try them in court for being bad guys?
1
It's a little late to "help restore America's standing as a champion of human rights". That's like a thief who gives back the object he stole in order to restore his standing as an honest man. It will take America many, many years to live down it's reputation as a nation that tortures, a nation that, when push comes to shove, jettisons civil rights and human rights with incomparable ease. And it doesn't help that Donald Trump has promised to torture enthusiastically, that Cruz will do so reluctantly and that Rubio will do whatever it takes to extract information. I don't think that means dinner and a movie.
9
If President Obama really wanted to close down Gitmo. he would have opposed the idea.
14
A sad legacy of the war criminals in the Bush Administration
3
Is the Ed. Board a bit blasé when they slipped in, "There will inevitably be a small number of detainees whom the government deems ineligible for prosecution and too dangerous to release"?
Most nations gave up this practice some time after the lessons of The Roman Empire and Magna Charta.
Not all, but does the Board then agree to add the US to the list of those "nations" who take a man's life without even a "never mind"?
If so, then we have moved on past a republic and are now officially a dictatorship.
The Board is on strong grounds to call for Gitmo closure, but are shameless to settle for a kangaroo court hearing for some of those lost souls.
Convict them or set them free.
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything might be trite, but it's true.
See George W. Bush for the index case.
Most nations gave up this practice some time after the lessons of The Roman Empire and Magna Charta.
Not all, but does the Board then agree to add the US to the list of those "nations" who take a man's life without even a "never mind"?
If so, then we have moved on past a republic and are now officially a dictatorship.
The Board is on strong grounds to call for Gitmo closure, but are shameless to settle for a kangaroo court hearing for some of those lost souls.
Convict them or set them free.
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything might be trite, but it's true.
See George W. Bush for the index case.
1
Yet another opportunity for the GOP and their sad followers to prove to the rest of us just how gutless and cowardly they are.
I laugh at them.
I laugh at them.
1
You are being naive, editors. If some of the detainees are brought to the American soil, then they cannot be held in detention indefinitely, without facing charges or without being set free. They will begin to enjoy the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, lawyer up, and move the courts to charge them or be set free. The evidence collected under the 'enhanced interrogation techniques' aka torture are inadmissible in our courts of law, and they will have to be set free or acquitted.
How do you and Obama figure that holding prisoners indefinitely on our soil without charging them in reasonable time and bringing them to trial is not in violation of due process rights guaranteed in the Constitution, to which rights they will willy-nilly become entitled once they come on our soil?
That Obama was posturing was evident in that he did not indicate to which jurisdiction the remaining prisoners will be transferred and in which they will be held. People would much rather tolerate nuclear waste or landfill in their backyard than the no-good punks picked up in the lawless tribal regions of Afghanistan.
Attention-seeking maneuver. Nothing else.
How do you and Obama figure that holding prisoners indefinitely on our soil without charging them in reasonable time and bringing them to trial is not in violation of due process rights guaranteed in the Constitution, to which rights they will willy-nilly become entitled once they come on our soil?
That Obama was posturing was evident in that he did not indicate to which jurisdiction the remaining prisoners will be transferred and in which they will be held. People would much rather tolerate nuclear waste or landfill in their backyard than the no-good punks picked up in the lawless tribal regions of Afghanistan.
Attention-seeking maneuver. Nothing else.
2
We, as well as most civilized nations, have been at war with terrorism and terrorists. Have we won that war? Should we let the former combatants housed at Gitmo rejoin their comrades in arms so they can fight another day? Who writes this garbage?
When their war against us is over they can go home, otherwise they can continue to be housed there until they die.
When their war against us is over they can go home, otherwise they can continue to be housed there until they die.
1
My solution is to put the ones found guilty of crimes against America against a wall and shoot them. If this sounds harsh just look around you and see what these animals would do to you if they could. Why are we spending millions on keeping these threats to our way of life alive?
1
If the opposition believes that detaining enemy combatants was legal, with what rationale can they prevent them from being incarcerated on American soil?
2
We should not be in Guantanamo at all. It is one of the last colonial outposts of any supposedly advanced country in the world - a leftover from the Spanish-American War. When I was in the Marine Corps in the early 1960s we were frequently warned that we could be sent to “Gitmo” to defend our little piece of Cuba from the Castro communists. What about our continuing claim to our little piece of Cuba? Why, in the 21st century, do we even have a little piece of Cuba? The answer now is that it is a convenient place for the military to hide atrocities and legal recourse to the prisoners, but there is still the notion that the US needs a naval base in the Gulf/Caribbean region. That was hard to justify in 1959 let alone in 2016. Still, it is handy to have a piece of land in which the military can rule without oversight and hold innocent people and others without formal charges. The very claim to Guantanamo is a blot on this country.
3
GITMO should be closed immediately. It will save millions to US tax payers. The prisnors there can be transferred to Saudi Arabia or some other middle eastern country for final justice based on their crimes. US should should free itself from such a past. We have plenty to do other things inside our country.
1
Send the detainees...one and all...to New York.
Let New York's Congressional Democrats explain how it happened.
Schumer, Gillibrand, Israel, Nadler, Engle, Lowey, et al...all of them.
Explain it...defend it.
Then, celebrate...and welcome the detainees from Guantanamo to New York.
Given the crimes committed by these detainees...it's where they belong, no?
Let New York's Congressional Democrats explain how it happened.
Schumer, Gillibrand, Israel, Nadler, Engle, Lowey, et al...all of them.
Explain it...defend it.
Then, celebrate...and welcome the detainees from Guantanamo to New York.
Given the crimes committed by these detainees...it's where they belong, no?
2
Detention of prisoners at Guantanamo without due process and without calling them prisoners of war is a human rights violation. Just because this land that the US owns is outside our boundaries does not excuse us from respecting human or civil rights. Guantanamo is a huge black spot on our country's soul.
7
Another nitwittish editorial by the NYT. There is nothing shameful about Gitmo. Gitmo was created as a POW camp designated as the place where we would hold captured enemy combatants in the "war on terror" and was run by the U.S. Army in strict compliance with the tGeneva Conventions. Any alleged "torture" conducted on detainees was done at. "black sites" by the CIA. And when a nation goes to war it is obliged by international law to create a POW camp like Gitmo Nations that don't do that tend to adopt a policy of "taking no prisoners", of laying waste to the battle field, which is the most outrageous violation of the laws of war. and which is exactly what Obama has done.
He sent Seal Team 6 to raid Osama's compound in Pakistan and kill him and every other male they found there, and they did it even though they could have easily captured Osama and most of the other males there. That was shameful. And ever since then he has been flinging drones all over the ME killing God knows whom. He and the CIA claim he is only killing "terrorists" but where is the evidence? And he ordered the CIA to kill al Awlaki with a drone, claiming that he couldn't have been captured, but he was killed in a part of Yemen that was under the control of the Yemen government, our ally. All that is what is shameful. And stupid. Unlike Gitmo, all that surely has infuriated the Muslim world and created more terrorists that it has eliminated.
He sent Seal Team 6 to raid Osama's compound in Pakistan and kill him and every other male they found there, and they did it even though they could have easily captured Osama and most of the other males there. That was shameful. And ever since then he has been flinging drones all over the ME killing God knows whom. He and the CIA claim he is only killing "terrorists" but where is the evidence? And he ordered the CIA to kill al Awlaki with a drone, claiming that he couldn't have been captured, but he was killed in a part of Yemen that was under the control of the Yemen government, our ally. All that is what is shameful. And stupid. Unlike Gitmo, all that surely has infuriated the Muslim world and created more terrorists that it has eliminated.
1
Sadly, we cannot wash the stains of torture off our nation's flag. GITMO was one of Obama's main campaign pledges, and this is too little, too late. We already lost our integrity before the world. Our only moral recourse is to send Bush and Cheney to the Hague to face prosecution for war crimes. As a Christian and a Quaker, this is the right action in my view. Moral reparations. Obama has lost all credibility. His legacy is nearly non existent. He's trying to make up for 7 lost years.
3
Not only should the US government shut the prison, it should go farther, and return Guantanamo to Cuba. Didn't we scam the "lease in perpetuity" from some dictator early in the 20th century, and hasn't the Castro government refused to cash the preposterously low checks we send them every month?
4
The cost per inmate is a red herring. The base needs to be there and there is a cost overhead to that. We should instead expand the mission as we see opportunities for diplomatic progress in Cuba and South America.
Terrorist are not entitled to "human rights" as they are sub-human. If you support (fight for) a sub-human culture, you made a dangerous choice that has harsh consequences. The SOLE aim of GITMO, and all national defense policies, should be the preservation of American lives. If the imaginary rights of dangerous extremists must be trampled in order to do so, I do not see that as even a remotely close call. I'd sacrifice a million terrorists, and terrorist sympathizers, to save one American. I can't conceive of any Loyal American objecting to that equation.
1
Close the hell hole immediately. If American jails are secure enough to hold our domestic terrorists, Americans who wreak havoc on our society every day, including our infamous mass shooters, they can securely hold Gitmo detainees. The U.S. cannot lecture other countries about human rights and rule of law while running Gitmo, whose sole purpose was to skirt domestic and international law. SHAME.
3
The democrats have never had any intention of closing Guantanamo.
If they did, they could have done so during the first two years of the Obama Administration when they controlled the White House, and both Houses of Congress.
All the Obama Administration is doing is trying to calculate an emotional equation that will inspire more Democrats to go to the polls in November, and vote against the Republicans.
Now that the Republicans have control of both Houses of Congress the Democrats can blame the Republicans for the Gitmo prison still being around in an election year.
The Times Editorial Board is free to hold it's collective nose, and urge support of the President and his Party. But please don't tell us it smells good.
A cynically broken campaign promise, by any other name, still stinks.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promis...
If they did, they could have done so during the first two years of the Obama Administration when they controlled the White House, and both Houses of Congress.
All the Obama Administration is doing is trying to calculate an emotional equation that will inspire more Democrats to go to the polls in November, and vote against the Republicans.
Now that the Republicans have control of both Houses of Congress the Democrats can blame the Republicans for the Gitmo prison still being around in an election year.
The Times Editorial Board is free to hold it's collective nose, and urge support of the President and his Party. But please don't tell us it smells good.
A cynically broken campaign promise, by any other name, still stinks.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promis...
4
That foreign-soil military base reay is part of Cuba, and should pass back to the Cubans. The US could have gotten it only through blatant imperialism -- which is sometimes disguised as 'purchase'. In trying to right a world tilted by so many patently improper and/or illegal 'acquisition', the US could begin the slow transition to Honor and Justice abroad.
Give Guantanamo back, thereby also ending immoral American incarceration there. It is not our territory, and we also don't need it.
Give Guantanamo back, thereby also ending immoral American incarceration there. It is not our territory, and we also don't need it.
1
It is difficult to imagine that our maintaining a prison for terrorists in a remote area in Cuba is the main recruiting tool for ISIS and stains our world image.
In order to have President Obama's view of Gitmo - you would have to believe that the US is the problem and that the terrorists will stop when we disengage.
It may be President Obama's policies and failure on the world stage that feeds the recruitment of terrorists and raises the perception that the terrorists are winning and we are weak and disengaged - thus staining our reputation.
In order to have President Obama's view of Gitmo - you would have to believe that the US is the problem and that the terrorists will stop when we disengage.
It may be President Obama's policies and failure on the world stage that feeds the recruitment of terrorists and raises the perception that the terrorists are winning and we are weak and disengaged - thus staining our reputation.
5
If you were trying to promote the idea that America was at war with Islam, what better example is there than the arbitrary and extrajudicial incarceration of Muslims at Guantanamo?
There were terrorists before Guantanamo, there will be terrorists after Guantanamo is closed.
But you can't deny that the optics of Muslims being held without charges, tortured, and mistreated doesn't put the United States in the terrorist's crosshairs when they are trying to recruit impressionable young people.
If you don't believe that there is something wrong with holding people indefinitely without charges, force-feeding detainees, waterboarding, practicing sleep deprivation, and any manner of insults and humiliations, then the stain on our reputation comes from people that believe as you do.
There were terrorists before Guantanamo, there will be terrorists after Guantanamo is closed.
But you can't deny that the optics of Muslims being held without charges, tortured, and mistreated doesn't put the United States in the terrorist's crosshairs when they are trying to recruit impressionable young people.
If you don't believe that there is something wrong with holding people indefinitely without charges, force-feeding detainees, waterboarding, practicing sleep deprivation, and any manner of insults and humiliations, then the stain on our reputation comes from people that believe as you do.
1
How oddly does this huckster from Chicago lie about his old promises and about Gitmo.
The imprisonment of bloodthirsty thugs there is a perfectly affordable part of keeping America safe. Not one of these bad guys has taken part in the murders of Americans or other nations the entire time that thy have been there: therefore it works.
Part of Obama's grudge against Gitmo - which was SO easy to make a promise to close - is that it seems to violate HIS values. But it is a successful reaffirmation of the American values of making the world safer by keeping dangerous people locked up. The only alternative that keeps people safe would be to shoot them or use one of the terrorists' methods of executing them.
Gitmo works and it succeeds every day. What ISN'T working is having an anti-American political activist in the White House, but time heals all wounds.
The imprisonment of bloodthirsty thugs there is a perfectly affordable part of keeping America safe. Not one of these bad guys has taken part in the murders of Americans or other nations the entire time that thy have been there: therefore it works.
Part of Obama's grudge against Gitmo - which was SO easy to make a promise to close - is that it seems to violate HIS values. But it is a successful reaffirmation of the American values of making the world safer by keeping dangerous people locked up. The only alternative that keeps people safe would be to shoot them or use one of the terrorists' methods of executing them.
Gitmo works and it succeeds every day. What ISN'T working is having an anti-American political activist in the White House, but time heals all wounds.
8
It doesn't violate HIS values alone.
It violates my values and the values of America in general.
That fact that you and those who agree with you don't get it is truly scary.
If I were to guess, you probably think that the internment of Asian Americans during WWII was reasonable, since not one of them fought for Japan while they were interned.
It violates my values and the values of America in general.
That fact that you and those who agree with you don't get it is truly scary.
If I were to guess, you probably think that the internment of Asian Americans during WWII was reasonable, since not one of them fought for Japan while they were interned.
2
Another GOP coward posts drivel.
Why are you afraid?
Why are you afraid?
Are these guys criminals or are they enemy combatants? If the latter, to what organization do they belong that is waging war against the US? And if there is a war being waged against the US, it seems they are very ineffective at its prosecution. They basically staged one outrageously successful surprise attack and then nothing since.
If you want to say we are at war, say with whom. It is not war to fight against a political tactic (War on Terror). That's just metaphorical bombast.
The Supreme Court sacrificed a great deal of its legitimacy when it allowed the US to pretend these guys were neither criminals (so that criminal procedural and substantive rights applied) nor prisoners of war (so that the Geneva Convention applied). The Supreme Court basically told the Bush and Obama Administrations that it would look the other way; that the Constitution was not a suicide pact, even though the country was not then and never has been existentially threatened by any ragtag bunch of Islamic fundamentalists.
Guantanamo makes more enemies than it harbors, just as our presence in the Levant and Afghanistan and Libya and etc., etc., etc., fuels the hatred for us we so often see expressed by Islamic fundamentalists. Had we never fought the first Gulf War and stayed on the sidelines in the Middle East after the Cold War ended, we'd likely not have had 9-11 and all the carnage that followed, not least to our own Constitution.
If you want to say we are at war, say with whom. It is not war to fight against a political tactic (War on Terror). That's just metaphorical bombast.
The Supreme Court sacrificed a great deal of its legitimacy when it allowed the US to pretend these guys were neither criminals (so that criminal procedural and substantive rights applied) nor prisoners of war (so that the Geneva Convention applied). The Supreme Court basically told the Bush and Obama Administrations that it would look the other way; that the Constitution was not a suicide pact, even though the country was not then and never has been existentially threatened by any ragtag bunch of Islamic fundamentalists.
Guantanamo makes more enemies than it harbors, just as our presence in the Levant and Afghanistan and Libya and etc., etc., etc., fuels the hatred for us we so often see expressed by Islamic fundamentalists. Had we never fought the first Gulf War and stayed on the sidelines in the Middle East after the Cold War ended, we'd likely not have had 9-11 and all the carnage that followed, not least to our own Constitution.
3
If Congress decides to be pigheaded and obstruct his thoughtful plan to close Guantanamo AND hamstring the Supreme Court with a 4-4 tie for purely political reasons, then take executive action and close it. Who's going to stop him? Promise kept. The Republicans are damaging the country and have shredded the Constitution. The creation of a prison-torture camp on an enemy island was a dubious creation of President Bush. Closing it unilaterally would be no less dubious.
5
To all who seem to think that Gitmo is some kind of deterrent to terrorists: why? Why wouldn't a lengthy sentence in a federal supermax be just as frightening a consequence of their evil deeds? Of which, BTW, many haven't been convicted. Put them in a supermax, try them, and sentence them (if appropriate).
1
Unfortunately, both this administration and the Times Editorial Board have failed to make a key distinction. Those housed at Gitmo are alleged to be terrorists. The corrections systems in the US are designed to house those convicted of criminal acts.
The reality is that terrorism is focused on the destruction of western civilization, especially any modern development that occurred after the time that the Prophet Mohammed lived.
The criminal acts that our corrections systems were designed cannot meet the criteria noted for the captured terrorist. Until this distinction is understand and acted upon by our political class (both Democrats and Republicans) in a practical/responsible manner, this issue will not go away.
The reality is that terrorism is focused on the destruction of western civilization, especially any modern development that occurred after the time that the Prophet Mohammed lived.
The criminal acts that our corrections systems were designed cannot meet the criteria noted for the captured terrorist. Until this distinction is understand and acted upon by our political class (both Democrats and Republicans) in a practical/responsible manner, this issue will not go away.
3
“…would make the United States safer” = absurd! Is the Editorial Board or Obama truly naïve enough to believe that ISIS jihadists would then lay down their arms and go home? Even I don’t think you could be that deluded.
This action will only deepen the current political discord, alarm most Americans, and provide Republican candidates with another wedge issue to use against Hillary. A foolish and unnecessary move, especially at this point in time, but it seems clear that he just doesn’t care about anyone or anything other than himself.
This action will only deepen the current political discord, alarm most Americans, and provide Republican candidates with another wedge issue to use against Hillary. A foolish and unnecessary move, especially at this point in time, but it seems clear that he just doesn’t care about anyone or anything other than himself.
3
Guantanamo is yet one more massive, costly failure brought to us from the Bush era. Calling it 'shameful' is something of an understatement, particularly since so many of those brought and confined there had done nothing to deserve such a Kafka-esque fate. Shutting it down is just one way of cleansing the conscience of America, but the scars of this will remain for a very long time, sadly.
3
"There will inevitably be a small number of detainees who the government deems ineligible for prosecution and too dangerous to release."
Is the Hillary lobby writing about the United States of America or some fantasy world in which the Executive Branch has the powers of a monarchy?
Is the Hillary lobby writing about the United States of America or some fantasy world in which the Executive Branch has the powers of a monarchy?
There is simply no justification for Gitmo. We did not have to stoop to the level of our adversaries, since we should have treated all captives as if they were soldiers. We do not have a rational leg to stand on in this episode of injustice and outright torture in some cases. The fact that a Republican Congress will not cooperate in any real way in creating a solution, and in fact obstructs the development of one in any way they can, speaks volumes about the Republican Party, and places them a notch or two below the SS, explainingg all too well how we got into this situation in the first place. The "wars" are over and these people simply need to be released, unless we can prove their guilt in terms of war crimes of some sort of way or other, like the kind that we performed. It is a totally ludicrous and a juvenile defense to suggest that these people will just return to the battlefield, not only because the world has been so shattered since the onset of this entire debacle, but because if it was our own soldiers, they would be returned to the battlefield. There is simply no justification for the continued imprisonment of these men, and unless the country moves to charge them with some kind of crime and try them in some forum or another, we should end it now. This is just one more reason to hope that the Republicans lose their majority in the House.
3
Spend $475 million to outfit new prisons in order to save $10 million a year. So the breakeven is 48 years - that's some deal.
1
"The cost to taxpayers in the 2015 fiscal year was an astounding $445 million, which translates into a per-detainee amount that is exponentially higher than the cost of housing maximum-security prisoners at a federal correctional facility."
1
If I may add done final thought
In a June 5-8 Gallup poll the following question was asked
“Do you think the United States should or should not close this prison (Gitmo) and move this prison and move some of these prisoners to US prisons
Republicans Yes 13% NO 84%
Independent Yes 30% NO 64%
Democrats Yes 41% NO 54%
54% of Democrats. That's a simple majority so for the board to make this a partisan issue is completely disengenous. There are Democratic Senators who oppose this.The board is intentionally omitting these facts. Why? Is controlling their narrative with their talking points that important? Clearly
The 4 facilities that have been designated are NOT Super Max facilities. Can the board factually prove to me that they will have contact with other prisoners? And if they do can they prove to me that they will not be successful in radicalizing other inmates?
Having worked as a parole agent for the California Department of Corrections I will state as a fact that if you allow them among the general population in time you will see unprecedented violence. Inmates who oppose them will feel the need to protect their status so what happens? They will riot. I was involved in 25 riots in my career. The brutalilty and hate is something none of you has experienced. It's real easy for the board to advocate this Why not? They don't have to go on the unit every day, we did/do. We're the one's taking the risk not them. Maybe they should try it
In a June 5-8 Gallup poll the following question was asked
“Do you think the United States should or should not close this prison (Gitmo) and move this prison and move some of these prisoners to US prisons
Republicans Yes 13% NO 84%
Independent Yes 30% NO 64%
Democrats Yes 41% NO 54%
54% of Democrats. That's a simple majority so for the board to make this a partisan issue is completely disengenous. There are Democratic Senators who oppose this.The board is intentionally omitting these facts. Why? Is controlling their narrative with their talking points that important? Clearly
The 4 facilities that have been designated are NOT Super Max facilities. Can the board factually prove to me that they will have contact with other prisoners? And if they do can they prove to me that they will not be successful in radicalizing other inmates?
Having worked as a parole agent for the California Department of Corrections I will state as a fact that if you allow them among the general population in time you will see unprecedented violence. Inmates who oppose them will feel the need to protect their status so what happens? They will riot. I was involved in 25 riots in my career. The brutalilty and hate is something none of you has experienced. It's real easy for the board to advocate this Why not? They don't have to go on the unit every day, we did/do. We're the one's taking the risk not them. Maybe they should try it
2
Move proof that the GOP is full of gutless cowards.
It would be poetic justice to send all the detainees to Mitch McConnell's state. As close to his house as possible.
3
I didn't get the part "help restore America’s standing as a champion of human rights". Sorry, USA doesn't have, and never did, a good reputation on human rights.
1
Is it correct that "Rebuscado" means affected or pretentious in English. If so, the translation helps one understand your post.
Who cares! The entire concept of "human rights" for sub-human extremists is utterly irrelevant if America is kept safe.
2
Republicans will continue to block this, just as they swore today to not hold hearings on a new Supreme Court Justice. Senator Bernie Sanders - GET OFF Hillary Clinton's speeches to Wall Street and do something important with your national media attention. Tell your supporters to stop attacking Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton and as soon as President Obama announces a candidate to use their energy to storm the Senate with communications of every kind and in-person pressure to DEMAND that the Senate hold hearings and confirm President Obama's appointment. Right now, Senator Sanders, you and your "feel the bern" supporters are not doing America any good. You can bet the nra, fox so-called news and every "conservative" publication and organization is telling their people to get out and vote so THEY can pick the next nominee if, as DT says, they can delay, delay, delay until after the election. WE must not let them. WE must act as soon as the President speaks and then WE must get out the vote for democrat/independent control of the White House and the Senate for the next eight years. Come on
people - do what is right.
people - do what is right.
3
Now, what would be slick would be for Mr. Obama to nominate Ted Cruz to replace Scalia.
In one step, he would rid liberals of both parties of their biggest headache in the Senate AND simplify electoral thinking for everyone. Had Obama actually served in the Senate long enough to have the first clue about how deals are reached, this might have been a possibility.
Imagine that it was Justice Ginsburg had died. Would Niglea be here calling for just any nomination from either President Bush?
In one step, he would rid liberals of both parties of their biggest headache in the Senate AND simplify electoral thinking for everyone. Had Obama actually served in the Senate long enough to have the first clue about how deals are reached, this might have been a possibility.
Imagine that it was Justice Ginsburg had died. Would Niglea be here calling for just any nomination from either President Bush?
3
you might want to check your history. From June 2003 to Jan 2003 your Democratically controlled Senate Judiciary Committee refused to even consider 32 Bush appointees. Democrats also filibustered Miguel Estrada for 28 months. So where do you have a right to complain? 25 Democratic Senators also filibustered Alito in 2005. Why is it OK for your party to do it but you complain when Republicans do the same thing?
By the way former Majority leader Harry Reid said in 2005
"the duties of the Senate are set forth in the Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential appointees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote."
You are making accusations of Republicans when your party blocked 32 Bush appointees and filibustered Alito. Based on those facts and Reid's 2005 statement you're argument falls apart
By the way former Majority leader Harry Reid said in 2005
"the duties of the Senate are set forth in the Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential appointees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote."
You are making accusations of Republicans when your party blocked 32 Bush appointees and filibustered Alito. Based on those facts and Reid's 2005 statement you're argument falls apart
Check the "Biden Rules" that stem from Joe's tongue wagging in 1992 when he chaired the Judiciary Committee. Biden then said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” He said that the president (Bush No. 1) should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.
Different strokes for different folks, njglea?
Different strokes for different folks, njglea?
I could not disagree with President Obama more. Most of his arguments defy common sense! For example:
Closing Gitmo and putting the prisoners in a jail in the states will lessen the propaganda of terrorists against the US. The terrorists will then obviously use the US prisons as the basis of their complaint. Where is irrelevant.
Closing Gitmo will save $85 million a year. We spent $450 million last year and expect to spend $250 million this year to house 98 prisoners. That is $2.5 million per prisoner, a ridiculous number. Why not just cut the amount we spend by 2/3 rds. That is still a ridiculous number of $833 thousand per prisoner!
We will move the prisoners to other countries and the US mainland. We have already found what other countries do. No one in the US wants them here.
A much better solution is to try the prisoners and get it over with. We can then close Gitom and have almost no expense except to maintain our rights. Of course, those will be given u next.
Closing Gitmo and putting the prisoners in a jail in the states will lessen the propaganda of terrorists against the US. The terrorists will then obviously use the US prisons as the basis of their complaint. Where is irrelevant.
Closing Gitmo will save $85 million a year. We spent $450 million last year and expect to spend $250 million this year to house 98 prisoners. That is $2.5 million per prisoner, a ridiculous number. Why not just cut the amount we spend by 2/3 rds. That is still a ridiculous number of $833 thousand per prisoner!
We will move the prisoners to other countries and the US mainland. We have already found what other countries do. No one in the US wants them here.
A much better solution is to try the prisoners and get it over with. We can then close Gitom and have almost no expense except to maintain our rights. Of course, those will be given u next.
2
A lot of the prisoners cannot be tried using even ordinary military rules. There's not a lot of evidence, and the rules even under international military law or rules of war would give them too many advantages. Bluntly put, a trial would expose the fact that we cannot easily justify why we arrested them, let alone have kept them. Add to that the issue that many still just don't want them to be free - ever - and you can see why they have not been tried. Too many prisoner rights have been violated, too little evidence to justify their prior treatment exists - it's a cesspool of violations. If we could have tried them, it would have happened already.
It's a whole lot of old and ugly decisions which need resolving. It does not mean that Gitmo should stay open, simply because we cannot find a way around the hole we dug for ourselves. Two wrongs still don't make a right. I am glad that that Obama is making the effort. It's the humane, moral, decent, and internationally correct thing to do.
It's a whole lot of old and ugly decisions which need resolving. It does not mean that Gitmo should stay open, simply because we cannot find a way around the hole we dug for ourselves. Two wrongs still don't make a right. I am glad that that Obama is making the effort. It's the humane, moral, decent, and internationally correct thing to do.
1
Where is exactly relevant. Gitmo has become, with justification, synonymous with illegal confinement and torture. DIspersed among the federal prisons, there is no single symbol.
You have failed to substantiate your argument that the expense of housing at Gitmo can be cut.
You have failed to substantiate your argument that the expense of housing at Gitmo can be cut.
1
February 23, 2016
Lessons in the GITMO - Greater Islamic Transformative Muslim Orientation, era:
“War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today.”
John F Kennedy quotes
Quotes Latin:
“A man is not where he lives, but where he loves.”
“Love is a kind of military service’
JJA Manhattan, N. Y.
Lessons in the GITMO - Greater Islamic Transformative Muslim Orientation, era:
“War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today.”
John F Kennedy quotes
Quotes Latin:
“A man is not where he lives, but where he loves.”
“Love is a kind of military service’
JJA Manhattan, N. Y.
1
I listened to a significant amount of his speech. What kept coming back to me throughout his talk was the truthfulness of all his past promises. "if you like your plan you can keep it. If you like your doctor you can keep him." And, "none of these migrants will be eligible for government entitlements." Every promise he has made on his initiatives has all proven to be lies. Does he expect us to believe him now. Personally, I don't care how much it costs to keep Gitmo open, I don't want ANY of the terrorists housed in the United States. Hell, before he leaves office he'll probably try to pardon them and then followup by granting them citizenship!! Leave Gitmo alone. And if you believe Gitmo is a shameful chapter in our history, I suggest you go online and look at the videos of 9/11. We should never apologize for defending ourselves at whatever cost.
7
If you want to wallow in the same cesspool of behavior and policy as our supposed enemies in the war on terror, then Gitmo is fine. No rule of law, internment without indictment or trial, torture...sound like what we accuse "them" of. American exceptionalism means that we answer to a higher authority- the rule of law, fairness, and humanity despite what out enemies do. But I guess not any more. American exceptionalism is now just that we are exceptionally stupid, thoughtless, and cruel. and by the way these are not POWs. No war was ever declared or approved by the spineless republican chicken hawks.
7
The entire epic history of GITMO mounts to a war crime in its capture and hilding of detainees, except that the United States and/or the world are not willing and/or able to admit that because of who we are. And if somehow a number of releasted prisoners returned to combat, what difference would it make?
3
What difference would it make?
It would definitely matter to the families and friends of the people these terrorist murderers ran out and killed as soon as they were released from Gitmo. You DO understand all these men were captured in the battlefield during war, right?
It is the same thing as a guy being caught by the cops trying to kill all the people in a house down your street. You WOULD want that guy in jail, right?
It would definitely matter to the families and friends of the people these terrorist murderers ran out and killed as soon as they were released from Gitmo. You DO understand all these men were captured in the battlefield during war, right?
It is the same thing as a guy being caught by the cops trying to kill all the people in a house down your street. You WOULD want that guy in jail, right?
2
They were not all captured on the battlefield during war. Eighty percent or so were, in fact, turned in by locals for bounty payments.
http://law.shu.edu/publications/guantanamoReports/guantanamo_report_fina...
http://law.shu.edu/publications/guantanamoReports/guantanamo_report_fina...
Actually, they weren't all captured on the battlefield.
In some cases they were turned in for a reward.
Others were turned in to settle old scores among rivals.
In some cases they were turned in for a reward.
Others were turned in to settle old scores among rivals.
2
Consider the 46. If in all these years, despite torture and severe deprivation and isolation, they have not been charged and convicted of crimes, then clearly it is because they were just swept up in the Bush-Cheney zeal to act like tough bullies (instead of the wimps they really are).
Maybe one way to focus the Republicans in Congress on closing Guantanomo would be for President Obama to make use of the USA Patriot Act. For example, he could unilaterally declare Mitch McConnell to be a terrorist and ship him off to Guantanomo for indefinite imprisonment like the others!
Maybe one way to focus the Republicans in Congress on closing Guantanomo would be for President Obama to make use of the USA Patriot Act. For example, he could unilaterally declare Mitch McConnell to be a terrorist and ship him off to Guantanomo for indefinite imprisonment like the others!
7
It is an Obama plan. Congress must approve it to make it legal. Congress is controlled by Republicans. Republican members of Congress do not approve Obama plans. End of story......
4
Apparently we live in the land of the free but the home of the afraid.
12
NO! Keep Gitmo open. It's finally time to stop turning "a blind eye" from the "war crimes" we committed there, and what better time than in the last year of the Obama Administration. Just tell Congress that it can't be ever closed without accounting for all the torture conducted there under the Bush-Cheney Administration. Perhaps the threat of prosecuting some of those "too powerful to jail" officials and sending them there might just get their attention. And who knows, Congress may just rush to close it and throw in confirming a Supreme Court nominee for good measure.
1
The core of this problem is a Supreme Court that failed in its duty. Years ago they should have given the Government a hard deadline to assign each person at Gitmo to one of the following categories:
1. Criminal, to be transferred to the regular Court System
2. Prisoner of War, to be accorded full Geneva Convention Rights
3. Neither of the above, to be released immediately either to a country that will accept them and provide trustworthy assurance of their safety, or else onto the streets of America.
Of course, some of them cannot be tried in a regular Court because key evidence was obtained by torture. Efforts must be made to obtain untainted evidence, but if only tainted evidence is available then they must go free.
1. Criminal, to be transferred to the regular Court System
2. Prisoner of War, to be accorded full Geneva Convention Rights
3. Neither of the above, to be released immediately either to a country that will accept them and provide trustworthy assurance of their safety, or else onto the streets of America.
Of course, some of them cannot be tried in a regular Court because key evidence was obtained by torture. Efforts must be made to obtain untainted evidence, but if only tainted evidence is available then they must go free.
35
The US Supreme Court is made up of nine brain dead people Who have condoned all this and mass surveillance and reading of your mail and tapping of phones worldwide and more.
2
Even by the usual standards of ignorance and fakery on the Right these days, these comments show remarkable ignorance.
And some of the leftish comments--and I'll bet a few of them are from fakes--are pretty much as bad.
Many of these guys we're holding are bad guys. But some aren't, and we're holding them anyway.
Not many or them were grabbed for shooting at Americans. They were grabbed because they were believed to be threats, in many cases for darn good reasons.
They're not POWs. They weren't in a army, there was no declared war. They're "detainees," a term chosen to put them outside the law and the Constitution.
They're in Guantanamo--and Bush was explicit about this!--on the theory that there, they're not subject to the law or the Constitution.
Their actual trials would be difficult: we tortured people.
And no, the President can't just sign some clever executive order: Congress explicitly made that illegal.
It's absolutely shameful: the Right goes on and on about them commies doing away with the Constitution, and building secret prisons under Walmarts. And here IS a secret prison built to duck the Constitution, and they're cheering.
Disgusting. Illogical. And worst of all, cowardly.
And some of the leftish comments--and I'll bet a few of them are from fakes--are pretty much as bad.
Many of these guys we're holding are bad guys. But some aren't, and we're holding them anyway.
Not many or them were grabbed for shooting at Americans. They were grabbed because they were believed to be threats, in many cases for darn good reasons.
They're not POWs. They weren't in a army, there was no declared war. They're "detainees," a term chosen to put them outside the law and the Constitution.
They're in Guantanamo--and Bush was explicit about this!--on the theory that there, they're not subject to the law or the Constitution.
Their actual trials would be difficult: we tortured people.
And no, the President can't just sign some clever executive order: Congress explicitly made that illegal.
It's absolutely shameful: the Right goes on and on about them commies doing away with the Constitution, and building secret prisons under Walmarts. And here IS a secret prison built to duck the Constitution, and they're cheering.
Disgusting. Illogical. And worst of all, cowardly.
6
President Bush and John McCain wanted to close Gitmo after we had won the war on terror. Not that they are POWs (they are actually unlawful combatants not entitled to all the rights of POWs), but since when did any country release their POWs before the war was ended. I don't believe he (the President) actually believes the war is over, but like a typical liberal, he places ideology over facts. Yes, Gitmo is bad PR in the Middle East. That is not in dispute, but what we need to consider is if we are will be safer keeping dangerous terrorists in our custody, or trusting our Middle East "allies" to do that job for us? Why do say "allies"? I remember President Obama praising Yemen as a model of cooperation one week before a coup that at the leats unleashed chaos and at the worst put Yemen in the camp of Iran. In terms of bad PR, the only way to make the followers of ISIS like us would be to submit (the definition of the word Quran) to the imposition of their rules and morality on us..
4
Listen to yourself: "President Bush and John McCain wanted to close Gitmo after we had won the war on terror." Wow!
An important issue is not being dealt with, if the U.S. captures more terrorists (as the "U.S. ramps up military activities in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Syria") would not GITMO be the most logical place to put them.
3
Under what circumstances are these people being captured?
If they are fighting against our troops, they are enemy combatants and should be held in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
If they are killing civilians, they are criminals and should be tried in a court of law.
If they are fighting against our troops, they are enemy combatants and should be held in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
If they are killing civilians, they are criminals and should be tried in a court of law.
2
We were unprepared for modern terrorism/war and how to deal with the legal ramifications. That is no longer an excuse - we SHOULD (and almost certainly will not) figure out the rules for the future.
2
“American officials are separately exploring the possibility of sending some detainees to allied countries that might be willing to prosecute them”. How interesting! The same countries that ran “Black sites”, the torture chambers, on behalf of America? The same unrepresentative regimes that America helps install and their puppet governments? Where the rule of LAW is replaced by servitude to America, in return by the freedom for princelings, and thugs to run that country. Indeed what a diabolical plan with endorsement from NYT.
1
What do you propose, Jamil M. Chaudri? Do you want them housed in Huntington?
Foolish we would be to close Gitmo. It stands as a deterrent to terrorism. Gitmo is not about money, it is about the idea that if you are picked up on the 'battlefield' you will be kept safe from harming Americans. So, why we have but one of these combatants, we need to leave it open. It is the cost of freedom.
Make no mistake, O is planning to give Gitmo back to Cuba as a way of 'sealing the deal'. That way he can say it is 'gone'.
Make no mistake, O is planning to give Gitmo back to Cuba as a way of 'sealing the deal'. That way he can say it is 'gone'.
3
I would argue quite the opposite, that Guantanamo stands as a recruitment tool for terrorists. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment and see how you would view it: a foreign power maintains a prison where alleged enemies are tortured and kept indefinitely without charge or chance of arguing their innocence. Your people are on that foreign power's list of suspicious characters. Would that make you more likely to cower and submit to their will or more likely to rise up and offer to take the fight to them? I think most people with any pride or desire to self-determination would choose to fight.
3
Thank you, Mr. President, for a clear-eyed and well thought out presentation for why we should close Gitmo. I thank our lucky stars yet again for an intelligent, moral leader who is willing to talk sense in this chaotic, polarized world.
We may never see his likes again.
We may never see his likes again.
9
Do Americans really believe we should keep these people imprisoned in Cuba until they die?
We're going to have to deal with Guantanamo for another 50 years?
We're going to have to deal with Guantanamo for another 50 years?
8
And tell me, does the US Government still issue an annual report grading other Nations on the state of their human rights? Laughable!
8
We need to give Guantanamo back to Cuba.
5
If Guantanamo is closed it might be construed as admitting error, defeat, and a sign of weakness. Closing Guantanamo will be compared to closing Auschwitz. That will play right into the hands of our enemies. Keep it open. It is a small price to pay for freedom.
1
Oh My, This Is A Terrible Idea!
What is the Obama Administration thinking?
First, don't they know that terrorists around the world greatly fear incarceration at Guantanamo Bay? To remove that threat to rational terrorists will just encourage them to commit more dastardly acts.
Second, don't they know that every prison in the United States where terrorists will be relocated will become targets of the world-wide, highly-organized, and coordinated Nation of Terrorists against whom we have a declared war?
Let's see, are there other down-sides to closing Gitmo?
First thing you know, the Obama Administration will want to sell our lease of that property back to Cuba.
Oh, the irrationality of it all!
What is the Obama Administration thinking?
First, don't they know that terrorists around the world greatly fear incarceration at Guantanamo Bay? To remove that threat to rational terrorists will just encourage them to commit more dastardly acts.
Second, don't they know that every prison in the United States where terrorists will be relocated will become targets of the world-wide, highly-organized, and coordinated Nation of Terrorists against whom we have a declared war?
Let's see, are there other down-sides to closing Gitmo?
First thing you know, the Obama Administration will want to sell our lease of that property back to Cuba.
Oh, the irrationality of it all!
5
Terribly conclusive article. The Editorial Board asserts, "It (the closing of Gitmo) would make the United States safer, help restore America’s standing as a champion of human rights and save taxpayers millions of dollars." However, elephant in the room, the board does show or provide how the closing of Gitmo would make the US safer and help restore the US as a champion of human rights. Additionallly...I would like to ask, if the prison hold some of the wors ehuman rights offenders on the planet, would releasing them not negate any attenmpt by the USA to protect human rights?
5
Idiots in Congress are always screaming about government spending but here is a clear case where they can do something about it. If only Obama was not a Black Democrat. There seems to be no amount of money these charlatans
will spend if only to thwart Obama.
will spend if only to thwart Obama.
10
Another no by congress.
2
Why would we GIVE the Castro brothers this huge gift?
"There will inevitably be a small number of detainees who the government deems ineligible for prosecution but too dangerous to release." WHY? In a nation of laws how can this be? Who is the "government" that has the God-like power to throw people into black holes for the rest of their lives without due process? Does it have anything to do with the American people and the American Constitution, or is it some alien being sent to rule over us?
47
Gitmo is a direct affront to any claim that America believes in unalienable rights. We should not just close the prison, but return the land to Cuba and put an end to our imperial holdings.
9
The land already belongs to Cuba and always has. US has been leasing since 1903
1
Since the terms of the lease call for America to protect Cuba's independence, it seems there's a case to be made that America has long been in violation of the lease, at least in its original state. Since it's to be a "Coaling or naval station," and "for no other purpose," such as a prison, the case gets even stronger that we are in violation. Too bad that "might" makes "right" in a case of this sort.
1
Of course, in their zeal to endorse the closing of the prison at Guantanamo, the dear Editorial Board neglects to factor in the legal costs of allowing prisoners relocated to domestic prisons when they challenge their detention in our courts.
Those costs would be borne by the taxpayer, and could easily end up costing them billions of dollars as appeal after appeal is filed.
Short-sightedness appears to be a condition that is demanded as part of the qualifications for membership on this liberal, rubber-stamps voice of the New York Times.
How sad.
Those costs would be borne by the taxpayer, and could easily end up costing them billions of dollars as appeal after appeal is filed.
Short-sightedness appears to be a condition that is demanded as part of the qualifications for membership on this liberal, rubber-stamps voice of the New York Times.
How sad.
4
If only the Republicans in Congress could "rubber stamp" something meaningful and useful. But it will not happen - they have no concept of the words 'meaningful' and 'useful'.
Barack Obama was elected -- and re-elected -- in part on a promise to close Guantanamo. It is, to use the Republicans' pet phrase, "what the American people want."
7
There is NO chance whatsoever a majority of Americans would approve of closing GITMO. Most could care less how muslim extremists are treated. That these creatures are still breathing is a testament to how we value human rights. Due Process is for American citizens only. I value one American life more than that of a million muslim extremists.
1
This is never going to happen. One thing about Obama is that he plays by the rules and he never gives up. The irresponsible Republicans on the other hand mean to spite him. His plan is dead on arrival. They will never allow him what they perceive to be a victory. If this has to be done, Obama will have to find a way to do it without them. Period. He ought to know that by now.
4
"One thing about Obama is that he plays by the rules"
This is the same Obama who issues executive orders stating that he will not enforce laws passed by Congress, the legally elected representatives of the American people? Or does that one have a brother to whom you are referring?
This is the same Obama who issues executive orders stating that he will not enforce laws passed by Congress, the legally elected representatives of the American people? Or does that one have a brother to whom you are referring?
5
Executive orders are the prerogatives of presidents.
1
Unless they are deemed unconstitutional.
What the NYT Editorial Board conveniently omits is that closing GITMO and releasing people who have maimed, tortured and killed Americans to go back to their day jobs of killing and maiming Americans because Obama wants to look good strutting out of the Oval Office next year is such a bad idea that Obama's defense secretary was forced out over it, and the current defense secretary has refused to approve any more releases until Congress approves Obama's scheme--something they will never do because Congress passed a law specifically to stop Obama from the very thing he's proposing today.
This is another Obama boondoggle.
This is another Obama boondoggle.
11
Except that you have provided no basis for the assumption that everyone held at Gitmo has "maimed, toruted and killed" Americans because the processes for judging that, if even applied, were badly flawed.
1
It is time for our leaders to lead us away from the 9/11 mania. The attacks were terrible but not an existential threat on the country. It is time we stop acting like it was. The use of fear to permit the violation of our values and intelligent policy has been shameful.
9
Closing Gitmo is such a minor aspect of the whole disgusting fiasco of "The War on Terror." It is just an attempt to wash away what it really stands for--America's descent to "the dark side." I only wish President Obama would redirect that energy to punishing those who engaged in torture that created this prison rather than sweeping it under the rug for future Republicans to resurrect. The failure to confront illegal, criminal behavior by those at the highest-level of our government, as with those on Wall Street, is the single biggest failure of Mr. Obama. It is a shameful stain on his legacy that has left us with a broken, two-track criminal justice system; one that is overzealous in its punishment of the poor and the whistle-blowers while covertly supporting a "too big to jail" policy for the rich and powerful.
4
Isn't the case that if the detainees are moved from Gimo to U.S. soil they will obtain rights they don't currently have to use habeas corpus petitions and other remedies to challenge their continued incarceration, particularly if the evidence against them is tainted by the use of "enhanced interrogation" methods? You should have discussed that issue in your biased editorial.
9
"Republican lawmakers all too often have been reflexive and thoughtless in their opposition to closing Guantánamo..."
Now they will be thoughtful, political and conniving. No way will this Congress allow the president a political success of any way shape or form. They fear a political victory at this stage in the election cycle, would help Democrats more than their obstructionism will hurt Republicans.
Now they will be thoughtful, political and conniving. No way will this Congress allow the president a political success of any way shape or form. They fear a political victory at this stage in the election cycle, would help Democrats more than their obstructionism will hurt Republicans.
5
There was nothing shameful about the creation of Gitmo or went on there. When a nation goes to war it has an obligation under the Wof War to create a POW camp where it can hold captured enemy combatants until the end of hostilities. When a nation doesn't do that it adopts a policy of taking no prisoners which is an outrageous violation of the law of war. And the Bush Administration put it at Gitmo because the thinking was that if it didn't put it on US soil, like in Alabama where we held captured Germans during World War II
7
The Bush Admin was explicit: they used Guantanamo because, they argued, prisoners held there weren't subject to the Constitution.
And the claim about POWs is idiotic, for two reasons:
1. These "detainees," and "enemy combatants," which is what they are called, were not captured in a declared, defined war.
2. POWs, under the Geneva Accords, would not be treated in the ways we've treated these men.
Oh and by the way: there are men there we've KNOWN to be innocent of anything. For years.
And the claim about POWs is idiotic, for two reasons:
1. These "detainees," and "enemy combatants," which is what they are called, were not captured in a declared, defined war.
2. POWs, under the Geneva Accords, would not be treated in the ways we've treated these men.
Oh and by the way: there are men there we've KNOWN to be innocent of anything. For years.
3
The USA never intended to close Guantanomo despite the many official and unofficial declarations made.
Guantanomo could have been closed long ago by the annulation, revocation, of the laws and administrative staff measures which brought to life so quickly when America decided it will be convenient to have a consontration facility which applies law selectively i.e. Politically.
That is the reason the USA chose an outside Americal location where only convenience and political objectives decree what law or laws to apply.
Guantanomo came into existence in less than a moth , it could have been closed by rescinding , revocation, of what ever was used to bring to life BUT thr USA never intended to close it under present political conditions particularly now that it is at war against the same foe and Gitmo may be soon used for new detainees? Convicts ? suspects ?
Guantanomo could have been closed long ago by the annulation, revocation, of the laws and administrative staff measures which brought to life so quickly when America decided it will be convenient to have a consontration facility which applies law selectively i.e. Politically.
That is the reason the USA chose an outside Americal location where only convenience and political objectives decree what law or laws to apply.
Guantanomo came into existence in less than a moth , it could have been closed by rescinding , revocation, of what ever was used to bring to life BUT thr USA never intended to close it under present political conditions particularly now that it is at war against the same foe and Gitmo may be soon used for new detainees? Convicts ? suspects ?
1
I am appalled at the politics that hinders the President from closing this horrid blot on U.S. history. Congress has blocked this every step of the way and added fear of terrorists to the mix. I hope there is some way around Congress that can make this plan work.
There is more to fear from everyday gun deaths than from terrorists in U.S. prisons. As the President said in his speech, there are terrorists currently in our prisons after speedy federal trials. Does the average citizen pay any attention to this reality? This is frustrating and another example of ongoing obstruction.
History will be a harsh judge of our current politics!
There is more to fear from everyday gun deaths than from terrorists in U.S. prisons. As the President said in his speech, there are terrorists currently in our prisons after speedy federal trials. Does the average citizen pay any attention to this reality? This is frustrating and another example of ongoing obstruction.
History will be a harsh judge of our current politics!
33
Why no mention of the fact that polling has consistently shown that the U.S. public opposes the closure of the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay by roughly a two-to-one margin.
It's not just GOP lawmakers who oppose the closure, is it?
Of course, majorities of Americans opposed the passage of Obamacare and the Iran "deal" too, didn't they?
It's not just GOP lawmakers who oppose the closure, is it?
Of course, majorities of Americans opposed the passage of Obamacare and the Iran "deal" too, didn't they?
14
Our politicians' contemptuous disregard for public opinion has inspired anti-establishment candidacies for president.
1
You are mistaken, most in the US wanted the health care law to pass.
Obama should shut down the entire base--not just the prison. As a former coaling station for navy ships, Gitmo has served no strategic purpose for nearly a century.
Republicans are always looking for offsets to democratic spending initiatives, so here's a good one. Close the base and redirect the cost savings to overhaul of our nation's railroads and other essential infrastructure.
Republicans are always looking for offsets to democratic spending initiatives, so here's a good one. Close the base and redirect the cost savings to overhaul of our nation's railroads and other essential infrastructure.
2
This article by the editorial board of this paper is shameful. The truth is that closing Gitmo will not make our world safer -- it makes it much more dangerous.
Simple and shameful political hay is the only reason such a plan was ever proposed and now pursued. That is how our president, some in congress, and this paper operate. Political hay, the easy and expedient is where this paper and it editorial board seem to live. Already many of the terrorists that were held in that prison are now actively engaged in destroying the civilized world, plotting to kill us. This article shamefully aides their evil plans. You -- and the President -- are helping them.
Simple and shameful political hay is the only reason such a plan was ever proposed and now pursued. That is how our president, some in congress, and this paper operate. Political hay, the easy and expedient is where this paper and it editorial board seem to live. Already many of the terrorists that were held in that prison are now actively engaged in destroying the civilized world, plotting to kill us. This article shamefully aides their evil plans. You -- and the President -- are helping them.
5
I say keep them in Gitmo till they are tried in a military court if that takes forever then so be it. The people there are a threat to the US. I do not accept the argument on cost when Obama will spend untold millions on failed green energy projects. I do not accept the argument we are to show compassion to those willing to kill as many of us as they can, wherever they can. Neither do I accept the argument Gitmo is a recruiting site for ISIS and the Taliban, if that is the case then Obama moving them to a place near us just makes many more recruiting sites here on US soil. I believe Obama is not thinking of what's next, only that he wants to close Gitmo, what happens after is not his concern.
8
How can you be so sure the people there are a threat to the US? All of them? Can we have specific examples?
Suddenly the pivot to an accusation of Obama spending untold millions on failed green energy products. What is this about? Do you have examples? Any dollar figures? Have there been no successes? Seems implausible.
Maybe some of these complaints should have some facts/data???
Suddenly the pivot to an accusation of Obama spending untold millions on failed green energy products. What is this about? Do you have examples? Any dollar figures? Have there been no successes? Seems implausible.
Maybe some of these complaints should have some facts/data???
2
That's the problem. The military courts won't try them because they know many of these men were taken wit little evidence they are dangerous terrorists.
In fact, for terrorism cases, civilian courts are FAR better and gain greater convictions.
In fact, for terrorism cases, civilian courts are FAR better and gain greater convictions.
3
Explain why we can't bring them to the U.S. ?? Oh, that would require justice must be done. Red neck justice is your choice
4
Obama has avoided adding to Gitmo's numbers through his use of assassination by drone policy. He has no policy regarding prisoners of war except to deny them of any form of the rule of law that we as a supposed civilized nation profess.
9
He has never said Gitmo is his choice. Military prisons in the U.S. is his choice
What is your policy? How about putting them in New Mexico? Check out the POW camps in Albuquerque and Lordsburg. in WWII. Maybe they can be reopened.
You are joking, right? Where have you been all these seven years?
This is incrementalism in practice.
4
Closing Gitmo would be an act of lunacy. Only the most liberal of liberals see this as a good idea.
I appreciate the common sense of the Republican controlled Congress. Only a liberal journalist as yourself would call this "thoughtless".
I appreciate the common sense of the Republican controlled Congress. Only a liberal journalist as yourself would call this "thoughtless".
11
I wish you could tell us why exactly it would be an act of lunacy?
3
Had I been president I would have shut down this US Torture Facility in about five minutes. I would have ceded the place to Cuba and ordered aplane to disburse all the prisoners or sent them to Havana and used the good offices of the Cuban government to repatriate all of them. I would hope that Cuba would establish a Museum of Troture. We should be so ashamed of what we did and are still doing there, but we are not, to our great shame. The World has seen who we really are.
7
"Republican lawmakers all too often have been reflexive and thoughtless in their opposition to closing Guantánamo, one of the most shameful chapters in America’s recent history."
Please explain exactly what has been shameful about Guantanamo?
Please explain exactly what has been shameful about Guantanamo?
12
We've thrown people into Guantanamo without much evidence of guilt. Often arrests occurred because of tribal rivalries and they gave our military names of their enemies.
It's unheard of in war that we keep prisoners after the war is over. And, yes, the war is over.
It's unheard of in war that we keep prisoners after the war is over. And, yes, the war is over.
6
Um, water boarding? Prolonged imprisonment without charges? Denial of legal representation?
8
Treblinka, Auschwitz, Devil's Island, and Guantanamo and the Russian Gulag will all be remembered in the same breath. Shameful is too mild a term. Don't let me hear another lecture on human rights uttered by any American Government in the future.
6
th building of th pyramid at kufu took less time than closing gitmo
4
gee I wonder what congress will do. Considering that they have said no to almost everything our president has requested I am sure there will be no change here. The fact that republicans consider themselves 'conservative' is a joke. They are willing to spend close to a half a BILLION a year to house less than 100 prisoners is ridiculous - all the while wanting to cut food stamps for the poor. There are lots of places in hell reserved for this republican congress.
37
If you are asking for a reasoned rationale for what this Congress does you will wait an eternity.
"The heads of the armed services committees in the House and the Senate should seek to work constructively with the administration after it unveils its plan for closing the base."
Unfortunately you set the bar too high for this dysfunctional Congress. Working with the President in an election year runs counter to the Republican game plan. Actually, that has been the case since 2009.
A party that claims we are an exceptional, brave, freedom loving people who believe in the rule of law, is scared stiff when it comes to actually prosecuting and jailing purported terrorists in the U.S.
Using the phraseology of their champion Scalia, that sounds a lot like lilly livered jiggery-pokery.
Unfortunately you set the bar too high for this dysfunctional Congress. Working with the President in an election year runs counter to the Republican game plan. Actually, that has been the case since 2009.
A party that claims we are an exceptional, brave, freedom loving people who believe in the rule of law, is scared stiff when it comes to actually prosecuting and jailing purported terrorists in the U.S.
Using the phraseology of their champion Scalia, that sounds a lot like lilly livered jiggery-pokery.
5
Guantanamo ought to be shut down by returning it to the Cuban people. We seized it by force over 100 years ago; restoring it to the nation of Cuba(they've asked for it to be returned)would help end over 50 years of enmity.
7
This is likely under consideration for different reasons. The Marine Corps most likely does not need an expensive base in Cuba whether or not bad guys are held there. They have enough to pay for without a legacy base. I would not be surprised to see the US negotiate the return of the base in exchange for the Cubans running it...you heard it here first.
2
You would voluntarily give a US Military base, strategically located inside the one Communist country located a short 330 miles from the US mainland, back to Cuba's Communist government? Unbelievable.
3
Good idea. The truth is, it does not belong to the US. We have been leasing it since 1903, when a crazy lease that never expires came into being.
1
"The heads of the armed services committees in the House and the Senate should seek to work constructively with the administration after it unveils its plan for closing the base." You're absolutely right, they should, but maybe you've forgotten? These are the people who vowed on the evening of Mr. Obama's inauguration that they would oppose everything he tried to do, and have carried through on that promise ever since. When in the past 7 years have the Republicans worked constructively with this president on anything at all?
7
I never understood the reason for gitmo, unless it enabled us to hold these people indefinitely & not be forced to let them have their day in court, which is contrary to our Justice system & breaking our laws.Couple this with water boarding & other means of torture, it distorts what America is supposed to represent.There is this tendency among Republicans to operate at the lowest level to obtain their objectives. From Nixon's desire to put the Military Guard at the White house in Prussian Uniforms, to water gate, to Reagan's visit to the gravesite of the Nazi SS.They have no regard for our constitution, although, they continue to trumpet their devotion to our constitution.
11
Obama will probably close it by creating a nature preserve or historical monument... what a childish obsession he exercise just to stay relevant! Of course. democrat candidates can use it to appear normal as they pursue leading a socialist world order historically flush with such facilities.
6
Official reports reveal that more than 30% of Guantanamo prisoners have returned to the battlefield and terrorist activities upon their release. That is reason enough to keep Guantanamo open, and to start sending more Islamic terrorists there. But of course Obama will ignore these facts and close the facility. Reality is ignored in favor of partisan politics by this president. He cares more about fulfilling a campaign promise than he does about keeping our troops and the American public safe.
7
You refuse to recognize that our failure to apply law and reason to each prisoner, to 'adjudicate,' to make a public judgment of these cases, makes us exactly as guilty of lawlessness as the most vicious detainee. Your ideology makes it impossible for you to recognize it as a complex issue; in fact it imprisons you just as the detainees are enchained by their hate filed ideology.
It is unkind, I know, but I have to say, you deserve each other.
It is unkind, I know, but I have to say, you deserve each other.
1
Please provide links or references to those "official reports."
1
Please please please stop calling it a prison. You lose all credibility when you cannot use the correct technical terminology in the FIRST SENTENCE.
Secondly, i have been there, in camps 5 and 6, i have seen detainees. Why do people in the US continue to forget that the detainees in GTMO are evil - they would slit your throat as your children watched and then slit your children's throats, and then rape your mother because she is a dirty pig in their eyes. I know firsthandl; they told me so. Tell me again - why do you want to close GTMO detainee operations?
Secondly, i have been there, in camps 5 and 6, i have seen detainees. Why do people in the US continue to forget that the detainees in GTMO are evil - they would slit your throat as your children watched and then slit your children's throats, and then rape your mother because she is a dirty pig in their eyes. I know firsthandl; they told me so. Tell me again - why do you want to close GTMO detainee operations?
11
Because, no matter how much you dislike and fear the inmates, the concept of a facility run by the USA in a location that confuses or precludes the use of humane US laws has created a huge recruiting bonanza for Islamic terrorists. I am not sure what your concern is....perhaps you think there is some plan to try to mainstream these inmates and make them US citizens and give them VISA cards and leased cars so they can live in American suburbs? Maybe get them jobs at Piggly Wiggly or the Sears Tire Center?
7
What's the difference between these camps and prison?
How do you know they will slit my throats in front of my children? Shouldn't we actually try them in front of a court? Can we try them for something they could, in your mind, do?
How do you know they will slit my throats in front of my children? Shouldn't we actually try them in front of a court? Can we try them for something they could, in your mind, do?
4
Had I been there, like you have, I would not admit it. It makes you guilty and I hope you will be eventually prosecuted.
1
What cases do you have that can not be prosecuted in court. Some of the current crop in GITMO would have trouble in a Federal court because they were tortured making anything they have said inadmissible. The war crime behavior of our government has created this difficulty. Terrorists have been charged in Federal court with successful conviction and imprisonment. No Terrorist have escaped from maximum security prison. GITMO allowed those that hate the idea that prosecutions have to follow the guidelines of the Constitution. It is time to remove the site of one of the most shameful chapters of our country.
51
Why didn't Obama sign an executive order on Day 1 to close it? He boasted that he was going to do this so why didn't he.
The board talks about the cost. Would they also like to talk about the $43 million they spent to build a gas station in Afghanistan no one can use? OR what about the $500 million to train 5 Iraqi solders. What is the cost of armaments left behind by the Obama administration when they left Iraq?
The board compares the cost of housing them and compares them to housing an imate in a federal prison.I would ask how many of the Gitmo inmates are in for GTA? Armed robbery? Domestic violence? You cannot make that comparison because they type of person you are dealing with is radically different.They killed our soldiers on the battlefield. How many federal Inmates are locked up for killing American soldiers on the battlefield
Might be willing to prosecute? And what happens if they say that but change their mind when they get there. What does the board say then, "my bad?"
If the board wants to talk about human rights violations they could address why the Obama administration did nothing to stop the genocide committed against Coptic Christians and Muslims in Iraq. They could also address why they didn't destroy Assad's chemical weapons when they had evidence of their blatant use. The board only talks about violations when they can pin Republicans but say nothing about Obama's failure to act to defend the human rights of these people. Why? Obama can do no wrong
The board talks about the cost. Would they also like to talk about the $43 million they spent to build a gas station in Afghanistan no one can use? OR what about the $500 million to train 5 Iraqi solders. What is the cost of armaments left behind by the Obama administration when they left Iraq?
The board compares the cost of housing them and compares them to housing an imate in a federal prison.I would ask how many of the Gitmo inmates are in for GTA? Armed robbery? Domestic violence? You cannot make that comparison because they type of person you are dealing with is radically different.They killed our soldiers on the battlefield. How many federal Inmates are locked up for killing American soldiers on the battlefield
Might be willing to prosecute? And what happens if they say that but change their mind when they get there. What does the board say then, "my bad?"
If the board wants to talk about human rights violations they could address why the Obama administration did nothing to stop the genocide committed against Coptic Christians and Muslims in Iraq. They could also address why they didn't destroy Assad's chemical weapons when they had evidence of their blatant use. The board only talks about violations when they can pin Republicans but say nothing about Obama's failure to act to defend the human rights of these people. Why? Obama can do no wrong
6
Remember when Obama was first elected, Dems had control of the House and Senate and they refused to close Gitmo. Now the left wants to blame Republicans? I guess they forgot about 2008 and 2009 when Dems could do, and did, most anything they wanted.
11
Yeah...not sure that with the economy imploding, the auto industry about to go down forever, a trillion dollar budget to repair the economy in the works, a new health care insurance law two wars going sideways ....is the best time to shoot from the hip and close a facility holding very dangerous criminals. You have inadvertently reminded us of the problem of having American Presidents like Bush (or justices like Scalia)....it takes gazillions of dollars and tens of years to even get in the ballpark to where we were as a country before they damaged it.
It is far past time for this to end. With Cuba opening up now, it becomes even more ridiculous. One reason no doubt that the Obama administration has reestablished official ties with Cuba is that Russia has become very active there. Do we really want a major installation like Guantanamo near Russian interests?
Budget conscious Republicans should jump on this. They are too doctrinaire no doubt to do so, but this is a good attempt to resolve a serious problem. The United States is quite capable of secure prisons and facilities within its own borders.
Budget conscious Republicans should jump on this. They are too doctrinaire no doubt to do so, but this is a good attempt to resolve a serious problem. The United States is quite capable of secure prisons and facilities within its own borders.
44
Nearly 800 detainees were held at Guantanamo. Now there are only 91. Where did the others go? The Department of Defense said the reason these people were being held were that they were terrorists- not your run of the mill terrorists- but the "worst of the worst." Nearly 700 hundred have been released. That means our government is re-populating the planet with terrorists or... we were lied to? If these guys were, in fact, the "worst of the worst" we ought to have ample evidence against them, the kind that would make convictions a slam dunk in any court, especially a military court where, let's be frank, sympathy for orange jumpsuits would be at an all-time low. Yet there have only been three convictions. Only three. Were we lied to? Yes, we were lied to.
7
We had ample evidence of their guilt.
The problem comes with Obama and his administration's unwillingness to use it to obtain the convictions that were warranted.
Obama pledged to close the place in his first year. He failed for many reasons.
And nothing has changed over the succeeding years to change the equation, legal or political. But he cares not as along as he checks the box on this ill-advised campaign "red line in the sand".
It is a shame that he views this a a political "must have" when he has failed so many times to honor his other "red lines" which had far more importance to our nation.
The problem comes with Obama and his administration's unwillingness to use it to obtain the convictions that were warranted.
Obama pledged to close the place in his first year. He failed for many reasons.
And nothing has changed over the succeeding years to change the equation, legal or political. But he cares not as along as he checks the box on this ill-advised campaign "red line in the sand".
It is a shame that he views this a a political "must have" when he has failed so many times to honor his other "red lines" which had far more importance to our nation.
3
"Guantánamo, one of the most shameful chapters in America’s recent history." Which history is that, that portion which covers the entirety of President Obama's administration? 'Gitmo' has been open that whole time and President Obama had the luxury of the option of having the prison at Guantamo Bay.
Now that he's going neither the next President nor the US can have it? It was okay for his 8 years, but not after? Well, he is consistent in his approach I'll give him that. Nauseating, but sure as heck consistent.
8 years of Gitmo under his belt and that war in Afghanistan that he never did wrap up, and without a peep from the left. Their hypocrisy is stupefying.
Now that he's going neither the next President nor the US can have it? It was okay for his 8 years, but not after? Well, he is consistent in his approach I'll give him that. Nauseating, but sure as heck consistent.
8 years of Gitmo under his belt and that war in Afghanistan that he never did wrap up, and without a peep from the left. Their hypocrisy is stupefying.
11
Should consider it? A plan?
This was a crime, and a major crime, a dozen years ago when Cheney pushed it. It was a continuing crime when Obama promised to end it if elected. It remained a continuing crime that Obama has now done for as long as Cheney did it.
What should happen is war crimes trials, by international intervention if necessary.
This was a crime, and a major crime, a dozen years ago when Cheney pushed it. It was a continuing crime when Obama promised to end it if elected. It remained a continuing crime that Obama has now done for as long as Cheney did it.
What should happen is war crimes trials, by international intervention if necessary.
32
If it makes you (and a whole lot of other NYT commenters) feel better I will get behind in absentia hearings for Bush and Cheney in the Hague. Your tax dollars at work.
2
How much of our decaying infrastructure are we willing to trade to keep Guantanamo open for 1/2 Billion dollars annually to keep 50 aging detainees locked up? That's the question that the candidates and office holders need to answer.
60
They kept Spandau open for 42 years after WWII ended, housing just one prisoner at the end.....
1
Didn't the President promised to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility in 2008 (8 years ago)?
11
He tried, no one would OK the transfers. It takes more than 1 man and if that one man has so many determined not to let him get anything done, is it all on him?
7
That is the reason that the Repubs are blocking the closing. Regardless of the result of the 16 election, it will probably be closed by the next President.
3
Democrats, during Obama's first two years of his presidency, Mr. Wires, when he had "full cooperation" of a Democrat-dominated Congress, objected strongly to the closing of Guantanamo.
This is not Democrats and the President vs the Republicans. This is the President vs The People.
And The People should prevail.
This is not Democrats and the President vs the Republicans. This is the President vs The People.
And The People should prevail.
3
"Unfortunately, Congress has passed legislation that bars the administration from bringing Guantánamo detainees onto American soil. White House officials have suggested that the ban unduly restricts the president’s executive authority, raising the possibility of a constitutional showdown during the final weeks of the Obama presidency."
This would be an absolute disaster for any Democratic presidential candidate. Can you imagine the uproar among the general public if Obama were to executive-order the placement of the terrorists at Guantanamo in American prisons? The right wing media would be absolutely apoplectic.
If you want to hand the White House to Trump, by all means bring those "too dangerous for release" here.
This would be an absolute disaster for any Democratic presidential candidate. Can you imagine the uproar among the general public if Obama were to executive-order the placement of the terrorists at Guantanamo in American prisons? The right wing media would be absolutely apoplectic.
If you want to hand the White House to Trump, by all means bring those "too dangerous for release" here.
5
Should have never opened, but there have been so many should have never situations since the days of the hanging chad. What a joke this all has become. Brainwashing has really served the ignorant well throughout our continually re-scripted history. Look what we have allowed the ignorant to accomplish. Is that irony or pathetic irony?
21
Closing a torture center which has not been used in years will not restore 'America as a champion of human rights'.
Calling out Saudi Arabia on their genocide in Darfur and Yemen, stop gifting weapons to the so called moderate rebels, stop psychiatry from drugging babies, those are actions that will set us back in the right direction.
Closing a place that has not been used just for so we feel happy inside, will not.
Calling out Saudi Arabia on their genocide in Darfur and Yemen, stop gifting weapons to the so called moderate rebels, stop psychiatry from drugging babies, those are actions that will set us back in the right direction.
Closing a place that has not been used just for so we feel happy inside, will not.
4
"The heads of the armed services committees in the House and the Senate should seek to work constructively with the administration after it unveils its plan for closing the base." Good one. Insane considering Republican refusal to hear or constructively respond to any Obama proposal, but still a good one. Ha ha.
6
I think it likely that Congressional Republicans will draw a leaf directly from the Iranian playbook (and not for the first time!): reconciled to the logic of closing Guantanamo, they'll wait until Obama is definitely out of office and then proceed with the formalities to effect its demise.
They're really needlessly vengeful people, when you get right down to it.
They're really needlessly vengeful people, when you get right down to it.
23
Maybe. I don't think President Carter has lost any sleep worrying about the exact moment that a bunch of Iranian thugs released hostages. I am sure he was very happy to know that they had been released. Nor will Obama care if the Republican thugs arrange to close Guantanamo during Hilary's presidency.
I am not sure that anyone in Iran thinks it was wise to have a partial impact on an election that got Reagan elected.
I am not sure that anyone in Iran thinks it was wise to have a partial impact on an election that got Reagan elected.
1
The Times has been championing closure so as to scuttle military commissions and place Islamic fanatics captured on battlefields in US Courts. That is the true agenda of the Obama Administration. Close the prison and the Armed Forces have no choice but to transfer prisoners to the US---and hence automatic jurisdiction physical or otherwise, by federal courts. No way. The US Constitution does not extend to foreign battlefields. What was good enough for the Nazis---military prisons and commissions, is good enough for the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the rest of their ilk.
6
How many POW camps existed in the US during WWII? I lived next to railroad tracks when I was about 15 years old and would watch for the trains carrying GI's when the trains stopped for water. The soldiers would throw out their letters and post cards for me to mail along with their nickels and dimes. But when the train stopped and gun toting GI's stepped out along the tracks. it was a POW train. All the windows remained closed and many of these Germans and Italians were mere boys along with some older men as well.
WE had thousands of POW's then but we are scared to death of 91. Brave aren't we?
WE had thousands of POW's then but we are scared to death of 91. Brave aren't we?
4
A different time and different sort of prisoner, Desmo. We too had POWs close by when I was a boy. The camp was just a few miles from my childhood home. The POWs were German, many from Rommel's Afrika Korps. They worked on local farms each day, under guard of course, and were trucked back to the camp in the evening. And here is the difference between then and now: the German soldiers were just men who'd been on the side that lost. Most of them were just happy to be alive and didn't seem to pose any threat to our way of life. I seriously doubt that any of them were radical religious nuts who would have been interested in flying into any buildings in NYC or anywhere else, for that matter.
When and if Gitmo is shut down it will be way too little to late to save American values, interests and honor from future emulation by other nation states and NGO's. With a mere 0.75% of Americans volunteering to put on an American military uniform since 9/11/01 most Americans will not be in harms way. But American civilians will at be at risk in every foreign venue.
From extraordinary rendition aka kidnapping to enhanced interrogation techniques aka torture to preventive detention aka held with out any charges, Americans will one day suffer the same fates. And America and Americans will have no moral nor legal basis for complaining. Congressional Republicans are aided and abetted in keeping Gitmo open by the Democratic New York, New Jersey and Connecticut congressional delegations led by the insufferable Charles Schumer.
Every war or conflict that America engages in is about defending and maintaining our values and interests. The fact that our enemies engage in such heinous behavior does not justify our doing the same things. If we become like them then we have nothing to fight for or defend. Treating these terrorist criminal thugs like warriors worthy of incarceration outside of the United States elevates them and diminishes our soldiers. And it is a recruiting tool that fits well within a narrative that America is engaged in a hypocritical crusade against Islam.
From extraordinary rendition aka kidnapping to enhanced interrogation techniques aka torture to preventive detention aka held with out any charges, Americans will one day suffer the same fates. And America and Americans will have no moral nor legal basis for complaining. Congressional Republicans are aided and abetted in keeping Gitmo open by the Democratic New York, New Jersey and Connecticut congressional delegations led by the insufferable Charles Schumer.
Every war or conflict that America engages in is about defending and maintaining our values and interests. The fact that our enemies engage in such heinous behavior does not justify our doing the same things. If we become like them then we have nothing to fight for or defend. Treating these terrorist criminal thugs like warriors worthy of incarceration outside of the United States elevates them and diminishes our soldiers. And it is a recruiting tool that fits well within a narrative that America is engaged in a hypocritical crusade against Islam.
9
yes commenters, the law enforcement model employed by the Clintons after the first World Trade Center attack was so effective that the World Trade Center was never attacked again, Thank God. The law enforcement model (I vow to bring the perpetrators to justice- Bill Clinton) ignores State sponsorship of terrorism and treating it as a law enforcement matter now just forgets Bill Clinton's bungled history on the matter. In an ironic aside, this may be the only time in history your average NYT reader expresses confidence in law enforcement of any type, in any situation.
4
Yes, the measures taken by Clinton were effective. The first WTC bombing wasn't committed by al-Qaida, which was still stuck in Sudan. Ramzi Yousef and his ring were rounded up (they were never members of AQ) as was the support network centered around Omar Abdel-Rahman.
4
The next president might prefer to incarcerate enemy combatants at Gitmo and eschew the collateral damage entailed by drone attacks.
I'm guessing Obama has been watching too much ESPN so he's missed the stories about those released from GITMO resurfacing again as terrorist leaders.
8
As I recall Mr. Obama pledged on the election trail 8 yrs. ago he would close Quantanamo when elected. He had every resource to do it in his first 2 years in office with a Dem. majority congress, yet he failed on that promise, as with many others. A shame, really.
7
While never an admirer of the late Justice Scalia's originalism, I have to wonder how the courts squared this prison's existence with any concept of the rule of law the founding fathers could have possibly held.
13
U.S. law, with very limited exceptions, doesn't apply to foreign nationals held on foreign soil. That is the Gitmo dilemma. If the U.S. brings detainees to U.S. soil, that exclusion no longer applies. In many cases, it has been reported, the evidence against the detainees was obtained through "enhanced interrogation" and wouldn't stand up in U.S. courts if challenged in a habeas corpus petition.
After 7 years, what part of "Obama's" don't you understand.
2
The abuses associated with Gitmo stem from the original refusal to follow the well-established procedures of our criminal justice decision. Federal prosecutors and the courts had already demonstrated their capacity to cope with cases related to terrorist acts. The Bush administration's decision to transfer jurisdiction to the CIA and the military virtually guaranteed a process which would feature abuse of detainees and long imprisonments without benefit of trial.
Some of the inmates pose a genuine threat to the U.S. and in fact have committed acts of terror. Many others, however, had merely aroused the enmity of the people who turned them over to American officials or had been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Justice Department lawyers would have sifted through the evidence to determine whom to indict and whom to release. But the CIA and the military assumed the guilt of all detainees and therefore had no interest in identifying the large number of innocent inmates.
The federal judiciary bears part of the responsibility for this corruption of American justice. The refusal to require the Bush administration to follow the law exposed detainees to a process that implicitly violated the fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty. Gitmo will rank with the Japanese internment camps of WWII as case studies of America's periodic failure to uphold the ideals that are supposed to define us as a nation.
Some of the inmates pose a genuine threat to the U.S. and in fact have committed acts of terror. Many others, however, had merely aroused the enmity of the people who turned them over to American officials or had been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Justice Department lawyers would have sifted through the evidence to determine whom to indict and whom to release. But the CIA and the military assumed the guilt of all detainees and therefore had no interest in identifying the large number of innocent inmates.
The federal judiciary bears part of the responsibility for this corruption of American justice. The refusal to require the Bush administration to follow the law exposed detainees to a process that implicitly violated the fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty. Gitmo will rank with the Japanese internment camps of WWII as case studies of America's periodic failure to uphold the ideals that are supposed to define us as a nation.
6
Gitmo equals torture and murder just like intentionally created wars for profit we have all around us. War on drugs, war on thoughts, war on self made terror, war on compassion, war on sanity, war on reality, war on helping one and other and don't forget their favorite, war on peace.
6
"There will inevitably be a small number of detainees who the government deems ineligible for prosecution and too dangerous to release."
This is completely unacceptable, and the fact that the Editorial Board would just breeze right past this point demonstrates that they miss the purpose of the calls to close Gitmo.
There are 2 reasons Gitmo is a human rights tragedy:
1. The torture, which violates US law and international law. And has never been prosecuted by anybody, despite the fact that we are required by treaty to do so.
2. It violates what was supposed to be a bedrock principle of the United States, enshrined in the Sixth Amendment: No person should be locked up for an extended period without a chance to prove their innocence at a trial.
The Obama administration's policies half-deal with the first problem: They've by all accounts stopped torturing people. But they've never prosecuted those responsible for torturing people, and never accepted the idea that the people in Gitmo are innocent until proven guilty.
If they can't be prosecuted, then they must be released. They may go and join ISIS or something, but 1 more gunman isn't going to make the difference between their victory and defeat. The real reason that they aren't being released isn't because they're going to join ISIS, but because they know something that they aren't supposed to know, e.g. who among the US intelligence agencies is a war criminal.
This is completely unacceptable, and the fact that the Editorial Board would just breeze right past this point demonstrates that they miss the purpose of the calls to close Gitmo.
There are 2 reasons Gitmo is a human rights tragedy:
1. The torture, which violates US law and international law. And has never been prosecuted by anybody, despite the fact that we are required by treaty to do so.
2. It violates what was supposed to be a bedrock principle of the United States, enshrined in the Sixth Amendment: No person should be locked up for an extended period without a chance to prove their innocence at a trial.
The Obama administration's policies half-deal with the first problem: They've by all accounts stopped torturing people. But they've never prosecuted those responsible for torturing people, and never accepted the idea that the people in Gitmo are innocent until proven guilty.
If they can't be prosecuted, then they must be released. They may go and join ISIS or something, but 1 more gunman isn't going to make the difference between their victory and defeat. The real reason that they aren't being released isn't because they're going to join ISIS, but because they know something that they aren't supposed to know, e.g. who among the US intelligence agencies is a war criminal.
78
Since when did our Constitution apply to the battlefield? Now the murders of the Taliban have the right to a speedy trial? Wow , new law.
4
They were designated enemy combatants therefore the rule does not apply
At trial a defendant is allowed to present character witnesses. If they had Osama bin Laden as one would you personally allow him to come? If so why?
If you're so sure they were tortured why don't you present evidence. You don't' think this wasn't investigated? Do you honestly believe that the Bush administration did not research this carefully?
You offer an opinion and nothing more. Show me existing Supreme Court cases which supports your contention. You say the reason they haven't been released is they know something they're not suppose to know. Prove it. Provide me factual data that proves your contention. You're nothing but a conspiracy theorist with an obvious axe to grind.
Why don' t you ask the families on 9/11 how they feel about this. It's real easy to state you position when you don't have skin in the game isn't it.
If you're going to take that tact then Obama should be tried for killing 6 Americans with drones without due process, including Alawaki. Was he given a trial? If so when did it take place? At the end of a drone? So using your logic Obama is a war criminal. Glad we cleared that up
At trial a defendant is allowed to present character witnesses. If they had Osama bin Laden as one would you personally allow him to come? If so why?
If you're so sure they were tortured why don't you present evidence. You don't' think this wasn't investigated? Do you honestly believe that the Bush administration did not research this carefully?
You offer an opinion and nothing more. Show me existing Supreme Court cases which supports your contention. You say the reason they haven't been released is they know something they're not suppose to know. Prove it. Provide me factual data that proves your contention. You're nothing but a conspiracy theorist with an obvious axe to grind.
Why don' t you ask the families on 9/11 how they feel about this. It's real easy to state you position when you don't have skin in the game isn't it.
If you're going to take that tact then Obama should be tried for killing 6 Americans with drones without due process, including Alawaki. Was he given a trial? If so when did it take place? At the end of a drone? So using your logic Obama is a war criminal. Glad we cleared that up
3
@HealedByGod
"If they had Osama bin Laden as one would you personally allow him to come? If so why?" Of course I would! Why? Because as soon as he was done testifying, we could have arrested him and put him on trial for his crimes.
"If you're so sure they were tortured why don't you present evidence." My primary piece of evidence were statements by Dick Cheney and George W Bush made to major news networks in which they stated that they ordered those imprisoned at Gitmo to be waterboarded. The United States decided waterboarding to be a form of torture back in 1945 at the International Tribunal for the Far East, and if it was torture when the Japanese were doing it, it's torture when the Americans were doing it. It's an open-and-shut case with a completely uncoerced confession by one of the conspirators.
And I completely agree that Obama is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder for the exact reason you stated. I'm less clear on the war criminal charge there: Murder is not seen as either a crime against humanity (like torture is) or a crime against the peace.
"If they had Osama bin Laden as one would you personally allow him to come? If so why?" Of course I would! Why? Because as soon as he was done testifying, we could have arrested him and put him on trial for his crimes.
"If you're so sure they were tortured why don't you present evidence." My primary piece of evidence were statements by Dick Cheney and George W Bush made to major news networks in which they stated that they ordered those imprisoned at Gitmo to be waterboarded. The United States decided waterboarding to be a form of torture back in 1945 at the International Tribunal for the Far East, and if it was torture when the Japanese were doing it, it's torture when the Americans were doing it. It's an open-and-shut case with a completely uncoerced confession by one of the conspirators.
And I completely agree that Obama is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder for the exact reason you stated. I'm less clear on the war criminal charge there: Murder is not seen as either a crime against humanity (like torture is) or a crime against the peace.
2
I'm not so sure this is a good idea. When Trump becomes President, there are going to be lots of disaffected Americans looking for a new place to live.
13
@ A. Stanton---Yup. Club Med Gitmo. But if Trump were in the White House, it would have to have his name on it.
3
Closing the prison in Guantanamo Bay is solution in search of a problem. The Times refers to the Guantanamo as "one of the most shameful chapters in America's recent history," but provides zero evidence to support this characterization. Guantanamo has been open during over seven years of the Obama Administration. What evil has the Administration been perpetrating at Guantanamo that the Times has failed to report yet informs their view? Even if you consider waterboarding three hardened terrorists beyond the pale, they were waterboarded in Afghanistan and Poland. Even if you believe that some practices at Guantanamo Bay were wrong, the practices are not inherent to the location, and might have been practiced elsewhere. It is an article of faith among Leftists that closing Guantanamo will make us safer, but the proposition is unsupported by facts or logic. The idea that closing Guantanamo will deprive terrorist of recruiting incentives is nothing short of delusional. The attractiveness of the Islamic State to potential recruits is rooted in their success, a success that is apparent to everyone in the world, except members of the Obama Administration, who are convinced that they are the junior varsity and contained.
17
Thank you Charles. It's always interesting to read the libs comments on Gitmo. I might add that Obama's increased use of drone strikes (many more than Bush by 5X) , with civilian casualties and deaths, is the #1 recruiting tool used by terrorists. When the libs hear the word "water boarding " they immediately go off the deep end. Drone attacks are ok though. I'd like Diane Feinstein to put in as much time on Obama's indiscriminate use of drones as she did on her water boarding and torture report of the Bush administration. Perhaps Andrew Rosenthal will devote an editorial on this important yet rarely reported issue.
5
Why do you think Isid dresses up its victims in orange jump suits before cutting their throats? If you want to an idea of the utter inhumanity of Gitmo, read the memoirs of Mohamedou Ould Slahi. Guantanamo should be given back to its real owners, the Cubans, who have always refused to cash the check for the derisible rent.
4
@Brian Hussey
Drone attacks are made on militants and are as legitimate under international law as any military strike; torture is never legal. Further, Obama's drone offensive has caused far few civilian deaths than Bush's unjustified shooting up of Iraq. The percentage of civilian killed is low enough as to refute the idea that they are indiscriminate.
Drone attacks are made on militants and are as legitimate under international law as any military strike; torture is never legal. Further, Obama's drone offensive has caused far few civilian deaths than Bush's unjustified shooting up of Iraq. The percentage of civilian killed is low enough as to refute the idea that they are indiscriminate.
2
Whatever happened to the courage of our convictions? Are we afraid of these men, even now, after years of imprisonment and some likely torture? Let's try them in our long established traditions. Convict and imprison the guilty. Release the rest to cooperative foreign governments. Close Gitmo and save some vestige of American, dare I say, exceptionalism.
54
Who wants to know how to handle terrorists who can't be prosecuted? The mere fact that such a person thinks terror can't be constitutionally prosecuted seems a darn good indication of unsuitability to the role of lawmaker.
17
Gitmo is a National Disgrace.
President Obama should have ordered it closed on DAY ONE of his presidency, not allowed the paranoid military and lunatic right wing fringe to drag out its existence for another SEVEN YEARS.
The sooner this black mark on our nation, it's international standing and our collective conscience is shuttered the better!
President Obama should have ordered it closed on DAY ONE of his presidency, not allowed the paranoid military and lunatic right wing fringe to drag out its existence for another SEVEN YEARS.
The sooner this black mark on our nation, it's international standing and our collective conscience is shuttered the better!
85
Since that was one of Obama's campaign promises to shut Gitmo immediately do you think that just possibly he learned when he took office that they weren't the boy scouts people think they were. Seems no one wants them in their country. Must be a reason for that.
3
He did order it closed day one of his presidency. He's just been blocked by congress and a nervous pentagon.
47
Why didn't he just wave his pen and order it gone then?
1
The day that I read that hundreds of men were being rounded up, hand cuffed, shackled and blind-folded, then flown half way around the world chained to the belly of an aircraft, I knew that it was not a good idea. It sounded too much like the slave ships. Taking people from their native lands implies some kind of "ownership". It turned out that the many of the captives were not "guilty" at all, just in the wrong place at the wrong time, "sold" to the American herders of "justice".
With Guantanamo we have created deep wells of ill will and distrust in the Arab world. Can you imagine if hundreds of Americans had been rounded up in Kansas and then flown to a prison in Afghanistan and held there for 15 years?
With Guantanamo we have created deep wells of ill will and distrust in the Arab world. Can you imagine if hundreds of Americans had been rounded up in Kansas and then flown to a prison in Afghanistan and held there for 15 years?
140
You've been reading too many "white privilege" stories. Spare me the slave references. Obama's had the chance to close it with a filibuster proof senate and the House but not even Democrats would vote for it (shot down on Bipartisan basis). Obama's answer was to become the judge, jury, and executioner with his drone strikes. Do some research on what Nobel Prize winner Malala Yousafzai told him when she visited the White House. Drone strikes, not Gitmo, were a recruiting tool.
1
Leave it open a couple of Republicans could spend the rest of their live there.
11
Or we could ship Mrs. Clinton there -- the only presidential candidate being investigated by the FBI.
2
Right after Hillary is convicted of treason.
1
We're keeping it comfy for Hillary.
1
NYT Edit Board - you are entitled to your opinions but not your own facts.
The Obama Administration's plans to "close" Gitmo do not in any meaningful way mean "close" in the sense we normally understand the word. Instead it would import the lawless detention to the U.S soil or send it to other countries. "Republican lawmakers" are not "reflexively" opposing these measures. Instead it's a common thread among perceived-liberal outlets like yours to "reflexively" blame Republicans for even valid opposition to their Dear Leader's policies.
Read:
https://theintercept.com/2015/08/12/democrats-continue-lie-obamas-failed...
The Obama Administration's plans to "close" Gitmo do not in any meaningful way mean "close" in the sense we normally understand the word. Instead it would import the lawless detention to the U.S soil or send it to other countries. "Republican lawmakers" are not "reflexively" opposing these measures. Instead it's a common thread among perceived-liberal outlets like yours to "reflexively" blame Republicans for even valid opposition to their Dear Leader's policies.
Read:
https://theintercept.com/2015/08/12/democrats-continue-lie-obamas-failed...
9
"Republican lawmakers all too often have been reflexive and thoughtless . . ."
They will continue with more of the same for any proposal from President Obama, it is their only game in that town on the Potomac.
They will continue with more of the same for any proposal from President Obama, it is their only game in that town on the Potomac.
26
Don't forget all the Nazi soldiers that we held as prisoners-of-war. According to the NY Times' reasoning, that would be one of the most "shameful chapters" in American history, too. Perhaps the NY Times prefers President Obama's solution to the prisoner-of-war problem: instead of capturing them, just kill them in the field (with drones).
8
"There will inevitably be a small number of detainees who the government deems ineligible for prosecution and too dangerous to release."
No such thing. If you can't prosecute them, you must release them. We could prosecute Nazi war criminals who were far worse.
No such thing. If you can't prosecute them, you must release them. We could prosecute Nazi war criminals who were far worse.
60
Enemy combatants can be legally detained until the end of hostilities under the Geneva Conventions.
The Nazi war criminals were prosecuted after the end of hostilities.
The Nazi war criminals were prosecuted after the end of hostilities.
2
@ebmem, Clearly these people are non-state actors, i.e., belligerents, even if they are organized - they are not backed by a national military.
Geneva Conventions cover all human beings with regard to combatant status, and terrorists fall clearly into processing by national criminal courts.
Geneva Conventions cover all human beings with regard to combatant status, and terrorists fall clearly into processing by national criminal courts.
7
I agree that Gitmo is a shameful chapter. The presence of a prison on foreign soil (though the base has been our space for decades) is not the issue. The issue has been 1) torture; 2) confinement without charges or access to a lawyer or any court hearing. We have kept human beings, only some of which are truly guilty of evil acts, confined without recourse or hope for a decade or more. That is not the behavior of a country which is a world leader and which cares about human rights; a country many of whose citizens are Christians or claim to be.
As to closing it, though, it likely will not happen. The GOP is very intent on painting Mr. Obama a "failure." They will surely block these efforts (likely by stoking their base's fear of a 'terrorist' loose in the land), then hypocritically accuse Mr. Obama of "not fulfilling a campaign promise."
As to closing it, though, it likely will not happen. The GOP is very intent on painting Mr. Obama a "failure." They will surely block these efforts (likely by stoking their base's fear of a 'terrorist' loose in the land), then hypocritically accuse Mr. Obama of "not fulfilling a campaign promise."
128
WAS a world leader, until Bush/ Cheney and Gitmo
4
I beg to differ. Mr. Obama has needed no one's help at proving himself a failure.
GITMO certainly is NOT “one of the most shameless chapters in America’s recent history”. It was a rational response to an episode in our history that hadn’t seen like example since Pearl Harbor. It was a rational response to a type of warfare that we certainly didn’t start or want but were forced to defend ourselves against, in which enemy forces wore no uniforms, were not state actors, which embedded themselves in civilian populations and followed no precepts of honor that we had any obligation to respect. It was a rational response to adversaries who sought the death of our innocents while contemptuous of the deaths of their own.
It also was something else. It became an ideological target of opportunity to protest an administration that we all should have closed ranks to support – if not in their pursuit of Iraq then at least in their very effective efforts to protect us at a time before we had mobilized other means to do that. GITMO has been seized on by liberals as nuclear energy has, as has accelerated transition to green sources of energy regardless of impacts to jobs and even regressive taxes that disproportionately affect our poorest, as global disengagement has regardless of the consequences to global stability – convenient, politically correct targets of opportunity.
But by all means clear out GITMO of current patrons, then shut it down. Congressional Republicans should accept that this has become a political albatross that we need to put behind us.
It also was something else. It became an ideological target of opportunity to protest an administration that we all should have closed ranks to support – if not in their pursuit of Iraq then at least in their very effective efforts to protect us at a time before we had mobilized other means to do that. GITMO has been seized on by liberals as nuclear energy has, as has accelerated transition to green sources of energy regardless of impacts to jobs and even regressive taxes that disproportionately affect our poorest, as global disengagement has regardless of the consequences to global stability – convenient, politically correct targets of opportunity.
But by all means clear out GITMO of current patrons, then shut it down. Congressional Republicans should accept that this has become a political albatross that we need to put behind us.
47
"It became an ideological target of opportunity to protest an administration that we all should have closed ranks to support."
No. It became a place where prisoners were held to avoid prosecuting them under due process, and outside the reach of the US courts. It was immoral, and we are better than that.
No. It became a place where prisoners were held to avoid prosecuting them under due process, and outside the reach of the US courts. It was immoral, and we are better than that.
215
Is honor, airstrikes on defenseless civilians, drone strikes that kill more of the same in an attempt to kill someone we suspect as a terror guy? The US has no more honor than those it fights against. That includes those we so arbitrarily labeled terrorists. Have you ever noticed that the terrosits are always the other guys?
This article should have been about the end to the ongoing occupation of Gitmo so that we can move on with relations with Cuba.
This article should have been about the end to the ongoing occupation of Gitmo so that we can move on with relations with Cuba.
25
If a rational response is violating the Geneva convention, rendering people including innocents, holding them in secret prisons and torturing them, then continuing to hold them indefinitely without evidence or prosecution, whether innocent or not, I would hate to see what a irrational response.
Guantanamo should not be closed. It should be turned into a museum to preserve the "rational" responses from the US, with exhibits on waterboarding, shackling people naked in below freezing temps, and force feeding through tubes. It should serve as a eternal marker in time where the Bush administration found a way to justify torture against all moral and religious beliefs, and the moment when the United States lost its status as the world's banner carrier of justice.
Guantanamo should not be closed. It should be turned into a museum to preserve the "rational" responses from the US, with exhibits on waterboarding, shackling people naked in below freezing temps, and force feeding through tubes. It should serve as a eternal marker in time where the Bush administration found a way to justify torture against all moral and religious beliefs, and the moment when the United States lost its status as the world's banner carrier of justice.
211
He wants to close Gitmo, but continues to bomb people all over the world in his unchecked drone campaign and secret special forces insertions. He is more shrewd than his predecessor, and without the media spotlight.