home

It's Time to Close Guantanamo

By TChris, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 07:53:25 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Guantanamo has been a well documented embarrassment. John Murtha is looking for a way to force the military to close the detention center.

"We're looking at a schedule -- a reasonable schedule -- to close it down in stages," Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said on National Public Radio's Morning Edition. "We can limit the funds for it, and that would shut it down."

Maybe, maybe not.

The Pentagon declined to respond to a query about Murtha's plan -- how feasible the proposal is and whether there is in fact Guantánamo-specific funding that Congress could cut from future appropriations.

< Heading Home:Open Thread | Loitering While Black >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    It's Time to Close Guantanamo | 13 comments (13 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    closing GITMO (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by diogenes on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 09:14:38 AM EST
    Bush has taken a lot of grief about GITMO-why should he bother anymore?  He should let the Saudis open a prison camp in Saudi Arabia and send the assorted  suspects there. I'm sure they'll get much better treatment and speedy, just trials, and the Saudis will certainly share information obtained through their torture-free interrogations.

    diogenes (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 09:28:05 AM EST
    Why is it that wingnuts have such a difficult addressing the the topic at hand rather than always doing your utmost to divert with strawmen to an entirely different discussion to avoid uncomfortable topics and responsibility?

    Is is genetic? Is it a disability of some kind? Or is it just the best you guys have to offer?

    Parent

    They're (none / 0) (#3)
    by Al on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 10:03:22 AM EST
    delusional.

    I've been working on something (none / 0) (#4)
    by scribe on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 10:06:28 AM EST
    re this and other things needing correction, for a while.  I call it the "Presidential Accountability Act of 2007".  I won't put it up here in toto, if only because it runs to 9 or 10 single-spaced pages in Word.  One of the sections deals with Gitmo, and reads:

    Section 10.  (a)  The United States shall, within 90 days of the enactment of this Act, undertake to begin relinquishing to the Republic of Cuba any and all right, claim or title to that land and improvements thereon, located at Guantanamo Bay on the Island of Cuba, commonly known as Guantanamo Bay Naval Station and shall complete such negotiations and actions as are necessary to complete such relinquishment within one year of the enactment of this Act, subject to the requirements and provisions of the treaty between now existing between the United States and the Republic of Cuba pertaining to such land and improvements.  

    (b)  Any law, regulation or executive order to the contrary notwithstanding, no funds of the United States may be used for any operations or activities at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station later than the earlier of (1) January 20, 2009 or (2) that date one year following the enactment of this act.

    (c)  Any and all persons now, or in the future, at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station or any facilities thereon, shall be brought, within thirty days of the enactment of this Act
     (1) to a secure place within the continental United States, or
     (2) shall be forthwith returned at the expense of the United States to
        (A) their home countries or
        (B)  a country of their choice which may accept them, or
     (3) shall be released.

    (d)  The provisions of all sections of this act shall apply in favor of all persons held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station or any facilities thereon, regardless of the place to which they  shall be brought in fulfillment of subsection (c) of this section.

    I won't go into a lot more detail here, but section 9 of my proposed Act repeals the Torture Act (formally known as the Military Commissions Act), explicitly gives private rights of action under the Geneva Conventions, creates presumptions (some conclusive, some rebuttable) in favor of applicability of the Geneva Conventions, waives any immunity to suits for damages, makes inapplicable the "state secrets", "unitary executive" and other BS theories, makes judgments for damages caused by torture, etc., non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, and so on.

    Sections 4 and 5 reorganize the Office of the Vice President.  He gets two secretaries, a driver, a military aide, and two clerks.  The secretaries he can choose.  The clerks are from the Civil Service.  And no one from the Executive Branch can be "seconded" (like Scooter was) to the OVP to circumvent these restrictions.

    Section 3 strips away, as acceptable (non) responses to congressional subpoenas, the "executive privilege", "state secrets" privilege, unitary executive theory, "deliberative process" privilege, "attorney-client" privilege, when the attorney is an employee, servant or agent of the United States, and claiming that classification of information, documents or things precludes disclosing same in response to the subpoena or subpoena duces tecum.

    The Act also explicitly takes away the "just following orders" defense.

    Please give me your thoughts....

    Excuse the noise (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 10:15:59 AM EST
    The loud thud you heard was just my jaw hitting the floor.

    Before even getting into reading the details of your proposal, I'll just say I think this is a great concept, scribe.  

    How about asking Feingold and Leahy and Dodd, among others, for their thoughts on it too. Maybe you can convince one or more of them to table it.

    Parent

    I don't want it tabled (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 10:24:01 AM EST
    I want it put out for a debate.  A full-blown debate.  10 minutes per member in the House.  Maybe more.  The more the better.  

    Let the Rethugs scream and howl about it, and tie themselves further to the mast of the sinking ship which is the Cheney/Bush administration. That shows they don't want accountability.

    Let Bushie veto it (I think it should be appended to the supplemental funding request he's seeking for Iraq - which he can't veto).

    If he vetoes it, he's shown himself clearly as against being accountable.

    If it's attached to the supplemental he wants and he still vetoes it, he hates the troops.

    Oh, yeah.  I didn't mention.  There's also a subsection which makes clear that "signing statements" do not, and never did, have any force as law and makes it a crime to rely on one to go around a law.

    Parent

    What avenues are you pursuing (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 10:30:04 AM EST
    or who do you intend to approach to try to get it put out for a debate?

    Parent
    Chris Dodd (D-CT) (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 10:37:00 AM EST
    just introduced his "Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007" bill on Tuesday.

    Your proposal sounds right up his alley.... why not contact him, scribe?

    Parent

    You ask: (none / 0) (#10)
    by scribe on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 11:40:03 AM EST
    why not contact him, scribe?

    (1) Because I like the anonymity a pseudonym gives me.  In Bushworld, it's a thin reed, but a reed nonetheless.  Contact = loss of anonymity.

    (2) Because if a lot of you start making noise* for this sort of legislation, it'll go a whole lot further than me just writing in a nice letter to a Congresscritter/Senator of whom I may or may not be a constituent and which will likely only be read by some low-level staffer (if it's read at all) before it hits the files and is forgotten.

    (3)  I tried the "call your Senator" stuff last fall during the Torture Act debate - told Senators (one up for election) I'd never vote for them again (and tell all my friends to do the same) if they voted "for".  They gave me immediately-identifiable strok-ey answers about how "concerned" they were but, in the end, voted "for".  I carried through, though the one up for election won without me.  I remain morally pure.

    (4)  If these Dems had any nads, they'd have long since drafted and rammed through something similar to what I've written.  They work there, they have the "experts" on the federal code, they know Congressional procedure, and all these fu*ks get nice government paychecks (which I don't).  I'm not seeing any action, which tells me there's no spine yet.  It's not my job to find their spine for them - I have to find my own and pay my own bills every day and that's quite enough work on its own, thank you.

    *As I understand it, TL does not want this site being made a place for crusades, save maybe re the criminal law.  I agree with her (and that goes beyond "like I couldn't; it's her site").

    FWIW, I get the feeling that the public mood recognizes there's a whole lot more, and far more serious, trouble brewing than the Congresscritters or the media are letting on.  In the last couple weeks, I've gotten more requests to draft wills and living wills than in the last year.  John Q. and Jane M. Public might not know the details but they smell trouble, just like a dog knows someone's sick even when that person shows no outward signs, and they're reacting accordingly, probably without knowing why or even having a clue they are reacting.

    It's like something which happened almost 2 years ago.  I went to a fundraiser for a Dem Congresscritter with whom I am acquainted.  Critter got up and started speaking, telling us "we are losing" in Iraq, situation's not getting better, won't get better, etc.  To this day, despite the recognition Critter expressed, Critter has done little if anything beyond bitc*ing in private or non-floor circumstances, despite moving up in the mid-range of seniority.  No bills, no nothing.  At least Critter voted "against" the Torture Act.

    Parent

    Right on, Scribe. I instinctively knew... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 01:36:27 PM EST
    there was somethin' about you that agreed with the rebel in me.

    And I though my proposed resolution was radical!

    Congress recognizes that president bush has called for an eternal War Against Terror.
    Congress further recognizes that there can be no eternal wars or wars of any kind declared by the president as a Declaration of War against any definable entity or nation lies within the exclusive purview of Congress in accordance with the Constitution of these United States of America.

    Be It Therefore Resolved that Congress by these presents does hereby reject the premise of an Eternal War and specifically hereby declares that no such War on Terror, an undefined and undefinable War and Enemy, is now or will at any future date be Prosecuted by the Military Forces of the United States of America, and that the use of the term War Against Terror is for Descriptive or Informational use only and carries no Force of Law or Requirement for a Military Response. [end]



    Parent
    Political Cowardice (none / 0) (#9)
    by jarober on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 10:46:52 AM EST
    Murtha is a political coward.  If he had the courage of his convictions, he would be working for an immediate defunding of Gitmo and the war.  Instead, he's playing games.  I have more respect for someone like Kucinich, who I completely disagree with - at least he knows what he stands for, and is willing to argue for it.  Murtha - he's a corrupt clown desperately trying to avert attention from his multiple ethical problems.

    Corrupt Clown? Say who designated and prove it. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 01:31:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Before We Close It Down We Need To Open It Up (none / 0) (#13)
    by john horse on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 08:06:45 PM EST
    Before we close Guantanamo I hope the Democrats conduct congressional hearings.  Guantanamo may be an embarassment but it is an embarassment that the American public is generally not aware of. The Bush administration operates prisons like Guantanamo outside of public view because they know that if the public ever knew what was going on they would never support what they are doing.   The best disinfectant for the darkness that is Bush is light.

    It's Time to Close Guantanamo | 13 comments (13 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment