NY Times: Guantanamo Decaying

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 09:30:30 AM EST
Tags: Guantanamo (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The New York Times has some new articles on the decaying of Guantanamo. Camp X-Ray is now a "ghost prison." Here are the photos.

The original complex, Camp X-Ray — with kennel-like cages that were used for about four months in 2002 while Delta was built — is a ghost prison, overrun by vegetation and banana rats, tropical rodents the size of opossums.

There's also a "FAQ" section on the future of Gitmo. Gitmo costs $443 million a year to operate -- $3 million per inmate (currently there are 143 inmates.) [More...]

From the article on the decaying of Gitmo:

The unit that houses the most notorious detainees is built on unstable ground — a floor is described as buckling — and will need replacement for any long-term use. In the kitchen building, temperatures soar to 110 degrees at midday, steel supports are corroded, and workers must cover dry goods with plastic tarps during storms because of a leaky roof. In the troops’ quarters, some guards are required to live six to a small shack, with poor ventilation and no attached bathrooms.

Who's guarding the detainees? (from the photos page.)

The detainees are now guarded by young enlisted soldiers who were in elementary school when their predecessors arrived here to build Camp X-Ray.

< Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Army Lawyer Resigns, Alleges "Show Trial" | Labor Day Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

NY Times: Guantanamo Decaying | 13 comments (13 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

My little brother, the Marine officer... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Dadler on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 09:42:11 AM EST

...who is as committed to fighting violent extremism as any soldier we have, who is more loyal and hardworking, even HE, when the subject of Guantanamo comes up, shakes his head in shame and mutters, "We HAVE to close that goddamn place."

Too bad our "leaders" aren't that wise.

: Leaders? (none / 0) (#2)
by squeaky on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 10:08:52 AM EST

More like the voters.. Obama wanted to closes that horrorshow ASAP... no one would take the detainees . NIMBY
The Congress reflected the will of the voters... keep those terrorists in Gitmo!
Except most of them are not terrorists, but the voters are afraid of letting the hardened sheep farmers out, because they may hold a grudge.

Color me skeptical, (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by NYShooter on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 10:26:10 PM EST

The United States of America, the richest and most powerful country the world has ever seen, can't find a home for a small group of aging conscripts?

First of all, and, in my opinion only, a strong and forceful President could, with the use of his bully pulpit, shame the crap out the weasel wimp opposition party. "Hey, Governor Perry, Big Shot, you've got no problem sending scores of virile, murderous killers to die at your whim, but, a few skinny, over-the-hill knuckleheads, scares the living bejezus out of the big, heat packing, Texan?"....or. something like that.

Or, with all the wealth and other inducements we have, we can't bribe some dirt poor dictator wanna-be to take them?

Nah, I don't buy it. There's more to it than, "nobody will take them."

: "There'smore to it..." (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by sj on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 12:22:35 PM EST

I think there is "less" to it. Simply not enough political will. Posturing, and huffing and puffing is preferable to admitting that we made a mistake and that many of them never belonged there in the first place.

There's a metaphor (none / 0) (#3)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 02:57:24 PM EST

In there someplace

What should be done with the detainees (none / 0) (#4)
by Green26 on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 05:15:23 PM EST

at Guantanamo?

Uruguay said they would take some (none / 0) (#5)
by fishcamp on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 06:20:56 PM EST

of the Gitmo detainees but they seem to have backed out until their elections. You comment often on the Middle East so where do you think they should go? Cuba? Venezuela? Nobody wants them.


Fishcamp, I don't see many good (none / 0) (#7)
by Green26 on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 11:41:12 PM EST

places for the detainees to go. Most countries don't want any or many. Politicians in states with federal prisons don't want them. Personally, at this point, I don't care if they stay where they are. If the prison is closed, then I suppose they should go to one or more US prisons. Releasing them, or most of them, doesn't seem like a good idea, nor would it seem to work politically.


Green26, it was (none / 0) (#9)
by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 12:49:38 PM EST

the political grandstanding that made closing Gitmo difficult.

I do not agree with just defaulting to keeping them there becasue of the political objections of some.


But, not really (none / 0) (#10)
by jbindc on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 12:58:49 PM EST

President Obama Can Shut Guantanamo Whenever He Wants, Congress isn't actually stopping him.


Disingenuous (2.00 / 1) (#11)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 01:19:24 PM EST

Even for you


: Pfft (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by jbindc on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 07:13:06 AM EST

Even CAP agrees there's a way. No, it wouldn't be easy, or even necessarily politically popular, but he really wanted to do it, there are ways.
I know it hurts your heart to think that he is above reproach, but get over it.

And Stale (none / 0) (#12)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 01:19:51 PM EST

And Eric Poser
