home

AG Holder Says Obama Will Still Try to Close Guantanamo

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 07:47:49 AM EST
Tags: Guantanamo (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In Brussels, Attorney General Eric Holder said Obama remains committed to closing Guantanamo despite Republican opposition. If he doesn't get it done before the election, he'll keep trying after.

"We will be pressing for the closure of the facility between now and then - and after that election, we will try to close it as well," Holder said. "Some people have made this a political issue without looking at, I think, the real benefits that would flow from the closure of the facility."

He also said there will be no return to harsh interrogation techniques/torture:

Holder also said that the United States would stick to the "fundamental break" with some interrogation techniques that were criticized around the world as amounting to torture...."We have indicated that certain techniques that were used previously are in fact torture, and will not be engaged in again by the United States," Holder said.

< Mick Jagger's "SuperHeavy" Album Released | Former Pres. Clinton Speaking at Global Initiative >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • AG Holder Says Obama Will Still Try to Close Guantanamo | 23 comments (23 topical)
    Well, shoot - who needs Gitmo when we've (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 08:18:19 AM EST
    got plans to build a huge  prison at Bagram?

    Glenn:

    As the Obama administration announced plans for hundreds of billions of dollars more in domestic budget cuts, it late last week solicited bids for the construction of a massive new prison in Bagram, Afghanistan.  Posted on the aptly named FedBizOps.Gov website which it uses to announce new privatized spending projects, the administration unveiled plans for "the construction of Detention Facility in Parwan (DFIP), Bagram, Afghanistan" which includes "detainee housing capability for approximately 2000 detainees."  It will also feature "guard towers, administrative facility and Vehicle/Personnel Access Control Gates, security surveillance and restricted access systems."  The announcement provided: "the estimated cost of the project is between $25,000,000 to $100,000,000."

    [snip]

    In one of the first moves signalling just how closely the Obama administration intended to track its predecessor in these areas, it won the right to hold Bagram prisoners without any habeas corpus rights, successfully arguing that the Supreme Court's Boumediene decision -- which candidate Obama cheered because it guaranteed habeas rights to Guantanamo detainees -- was inapplicable to Bagram.  Numerous groups doing field work in Afghanistan have documented that the maintenance of these prisons is a leading recruitment tool for the Taliban and a prime source of anti-American hatred.  Despite that fact -- or, more accurately (as usual), because of it -- the U.S. is now going to build a brand new, enormous prison there.

    Human Rights First:

    The secrecy surrounding the U.S. prison in Afghanistan makes it impossible for the public to judge whether those imprisoned there deserve to be there. What's more, because much of the military's evidence against them is classified, the detainees themselves have no right to see it. So although detainees at Bagram are now entitled to hearings at the prison every six months, they're often not allowed to confront the evidence against them. As a result, they have no real opportunity to contest it.

    I'm sorry, but Eric Holder, the DOJ and the man who's setting policy - Obama - have as much regard for the concept of "justice" as their immediate predecessors, which is to say, not much.

    There were plans made by Bush (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 08:32:09 AM EST
    for a new prison there in 2008 at a cost of $60 million for the initial stage. I wrote:

    Is this where the Bush Adminstration (or John McCain, if elected to succeed him) will ship the Gitmo detainees.

    Guess I never contemplated Obama might also. Is this the same prison that's now in the new budget? Is it a completion of what was started in 2008 or something entirely new?

    Parent

    This appears to be (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 09:09:57 AM EST
    An RFP for bids for the initial project phase.  This may or may not be the one approved in 2008, but it looks like a new project that's starting.

    Parent
    I'll believe it when I see it (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 09:44:08 AM EST
    but until then, this is just more campaign bullsh*t.

    Yup, another serving of Please the Liberals fluff (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jawbone on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 12:41:12 PM EST
    With Obama, trust his actual actions, not his fine words.

    When this president says he will do something, open a pound of salt to take with his words.

    Surely someone somewhere has a list of his broken promises? I think this one needs updating.

    Parent

    Words, just words (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 09:46:40 AM EST
    Nothing but smoke and mirrors to fool the rubes.

    But he's upping his game. (none / 0) (#6)
    by observed on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 10:37:21 AM EST
    I'm quite impressed, to be honest.
    Obama is turning the corner just in time to make a difference in people's perceptions for the election. At the same time, he has the excuse of 2012 being an election year if nothing actually happens.


    Parent
    Words, perceptions and excuses? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 10:49:46 AM EST
    Seen that movie already.

    Actual real world problems remain unchanged while Obama talks a good game.  A winning strategy for Obama that maintains a losing strategy for average citizens. That doesn't impress me a whole heck of lot but that's just me

    Parent

    I'm impressed with his politics, not (none / 0) (#8)
    by observed on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 10:59:01 AM EST
    with his game.

    Parent
    Obama has always been a (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 11:18:11 AM EST
    "fierce advocate" for Obama and has a great marketing team for "campaign Obama."

    Still I question some of politics of his current actions. If the actual facts on his proposed changes to Medicare and Medicaid ever get exposed to public scrutiny once the cheering for tax the rich dies down, I'm not sure how enthusiastic people will be to vote for "cut the safety net benefits" Obama.    

    Parent

    Where does politics get us? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 11:34:49 AM EST
    Nowheres.

    Unless we can get Brand D to be in campaign mode all the time, and actually deliver on promises before the next election, it is utterly totally meaningless.  Fraud even.

    Parent

    President Obama senses electoral danger, (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 11:25:22 AM EST
    and seems to be ready to assume, at least for the campaign,  centrist, and maybe, even "blue" rhetoric.  Up until now, he seems to have felt politically invulnerable, able to take much of his base and ardent supporters for granted, even being able to ridicule with abandon those expressing concerns  while pursuing ossified Republicans and fickle Independents.  Or, worse, pursuing the latter's policies because he believes in them and his magical powers of persuasion.

    The president's polls reveal invulnerability to be, in reality, the vulnerability of immured naivete. The recent comment from campaign official, Jim Messina, that lefty grumbling was really just "Washington conversation" does not augur well for change, but maybe the new WH memo did not yet reach Chicago.

    While the rhetoric is welcomed, the professional left who, in large measure, are no longer naive, will be looking for follow-up actions.  Lefties who have offered constructive criticism, as opposed to those supporters who disserved with blind loyalty whatever came down from above, should feel vindicated--at least a little.  

    Parent

    Except (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 11:33:03 AM EST
    This is red meat to his liberal base.  

    Many in the middle or independents may or may not consider closing Gitmo to be of the highest importance when unemployment is over 9%.

    Parent

    Obama's red meat often turns out to pressed (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jawbone on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 12:44:21 PM EST
    vegetable paste or unidentified meat bits.

    I would avoid swallowing it...and keep that salt handy for the grains --or handfulls-- with which to take his words and promises.

    Parent

    Oh, that's absolutely true (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 12:51:57 PM EST
    But Dan argued that the president is opening up the campaign by trying to appeal to centrists and Blue Dogs.

    Closing Gitmo isn't necessarily a Blue Dog argument, at least, probably not in the top 10.

    This is purely a campaign gimmick to appease the liberal base that is so ticked off with him (among the many others of groups also ticked off with him).

    Parent

    "Unidentified meat bits" (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 12:53:26 PM EST
    Good heavens, his "red meat" is.....Spam©!  Yeah, I try to avoid that, all right.  I just wish Obama would avoid it.

    Parent
    In my mind it isn't so much the blue dogs (none / 0) (#17)
    by sj on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 01:40:19 PM EST
    he's targetting as it is the low-information/FoxOrMSNBC-Viewing voters.  He's hoping there's enough of them.

    Ironic that it is O who is now reduced to "hope".  It may work out for him.  Which is kind of too bad.

    Parent

    Why does he need Congress to close it? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 03:39:41 PM EST
    He is CIC, it is a military prison.  Seems to me he can should be able to close it -- AS AN OBVIOUS STRATEGIC MOVE, which is within his rights as CIC -- it whenever he pleases. But Gitmo, so it goes, is a congressional creation so only Congress can close it.  I love when legal rationale doesn't even meet the standards of kindergarten logic.  

    What about a signing statement, I wouldn't mind a little reverse abuse of this power?  Congress and the law get shafted by these statements all the time.  C'mon, B.O., use your great legal mind and out-argue these creeps?

    Of course, that would mean he really has the fighting desire to close it.  And B.O. doesn't have a fighting desire for anything.

    As I understand it, it costs money to (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 03:44:35 PM EST
    shut the place down, and Congress isn't inclined to give it to him.

    They are, however, no doubt happy to spend millions and millions of dollars to build a new prison, out of the country, with less oversight.

    But the talking point is what they're after, not actual action.

    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 04:09:57 PM EST
    CinC has control of the Pentagon budget.

    He has all the money he needs to not have to spend to run a military prison.

    Parent

    No, (none / 0) (#22)
    by jccamp on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 09:27:53 PM EST
    Congress must appropriate the money. in the last Defense funding bill, Congress specifically prohibited moving the detainees to another country or the mainland. Although the President said the expected as he signed the bill into law, there was some suspicion that Obama realized that he had prisoners in custody who are too dangerous to release, but are held based on coercion or harsher. So, the prisoners may be, in effect, impossible to convict in a civil court with rules of evidence, but also be too dangerous to release because they really are bad guys. What may be happening is that Obama, while he doth protest too much, really has no good idea for the prisoners now in Guantanamo, and he is going to make noises, blame the right, and postpone doing anything until after 2012.

    Maybe it's a little cynical, but perhaps the current administration is imagining releasing a bunch of detainees who cannot be convicted in a court, and then having one of them show up in a major terrorist action. Before the election...

    Parent

    yeah i know (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 09:34:39 PM EST
    it's handy. anytime he doesn't want to do something he won't go out and campaign for support for what he says he wants, and there are always lots of excuses people who won't criticize him for it will buy

    he's utterly powerless to accomplish anything, therefore he needs all the support in the world for 2012, poor guy.

    Parent

    I can't stop laughing! (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 04:22:23 PM EST
    Because (a) Holder actually said that and (b) a lot of Dems will believe it.

    This administration is gonna put The Onion out of business.

    AG Holder Says Obama Will Still Try to Close Guantanamo | 23 comments (23 topical)