Cactusboy Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Great read Sunday, January 15, 2012 Close the Guantánamo Gulag Travelers to Cuba and music lovers are familiar with the song “Guantanamera”— literally, the girl from Guantánamo. With lyrics by José Martí, the father of Cuban independence, Guantanamera is probably the most widely known Cuban song. But Guantánamo is even more famous now for its U.S. military prison. Where “Guantanamera” is a powerful expression of the beauty of Cuba, “Gitmo” has become a powerful symbol of human rights violations—so much so that Amnesty International described it as "the gulag of our times." That description can be traced to January 2002, when the base received its first 20 prisoners in shackles. General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned they were "very dangerous people who would gnaw hydraulic lines in the back of a C-17 to bring it down." We now know that a large portion of the 750 plus men and boys held there posed no threat to the United States. In fact, only five percent were captured by the United States; most were picked up by the Northern Alliance, Pakistani intelligence officers, or tribal warlords, and many were sold for cash bounties. The Guantánamo story starts in 1903, when the U.S. Army occupied Cuba after its war of independence against Spain. The Platt Amendment, which granted the United States the right to intervene in Cuba, was included in the Cuban Constitution as a prerequisite for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the rest of Cuba. That provision provided the basis for the 1903 Agreement on Coaling and Naval Stations, which gave the United States the right to use Guantánamo Bay “exclusively as coaling or naval stations, and for no other purpose.” read the rest on the link below. http://www.marjoriec...namo-gulag.html Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 The more important question to ask is, why isn't Guantanamo closed? A president who ran with "I will close Guantanamo Prison" as one of the planks in his platform has yet to close it. Why? Some answers: Congress has used its spending oversight authority both to forbid the White House from financing trials of Guantánamo captives on U.S. soil and to block the acquisition of a state prison in Illinois to hold captives currently held in Cuba who would not be put on trial — a sort of Guantánamo North. The latest defense bill adopted by Congress moved to mandate military detention for most future al Qaida cases. The White House withdrew a veto threat on the eve of passage, and then Obama signed it into law with a “signing statement” that suggested he could lawfully ignore it. On paper, at least, the Obama administration would be set to release almost half the current captives at Guantánamo. The 2009 Task Force Review concluded that about 80 of the 171 detainees now held at Guantánamo could be let go if their home country was stable enough to help resettle them or if a foreign country could safely give them a new start. But Congress has made it nearly impossible to transfer captives anywhere. Legislation passed since Obama took office has created a series of roadblocks that mean that only a federal court order or a national security waiver issued by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta could trump Congress and permit the release of a detainee to another country. Neither is likely: U.S. District Court judges are not ruling in favor of captives in the dozens of unlawful detention suits winding their way from Cuba to the federal court in Washington. And on the occasions when those judges have ruled for detainees, the U.S. Court of Appeals has consistently overruled them in an ever-widening definition of who can be held as an affiliate of al Qaida or the Taliban. Meanwhile, Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon’s top lawyer, believes that Congress crafted the transfer waivers a year ago in such a way that Panetta (and Robert Gates before him) would be ill-advised to sign them. (In essence, the Secretary of Defense is supposed to guarantee that the detainee would never in the future engage in violence against any American citizen or U.S. interest.) Read more here: http://www.miamihera...l#storylink=cpy It's not as easy as Obama just declaring that we close Guantanamo. He can't do it alone, and Congress has made sure he won't be able to without a fight. This isn't an Obama problem. It's a congress problem. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 It's not as easy as Obama just declaring that we close Guantanamo. He can't do it alone, and Congress has made sure he won't be able to without a fight. This isn't an Obama problem. It's a congress problem. Even when Obama had a Democrat majority in both Houses of Congress. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 The more important question to ask is, why isn't Guantanamo closed? A president who ran with "I will close Guantanamo Prison" as one of the planks in his platform has yet to close it. Why? Is it safe to say it would be closed if Congress would allow it to be closed. I don't think BO is the bottleneck here. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Is it safe to say it would be closed if Congress would allow it to be closed. I don't think BO is the bottleneck here. Obama hasn't taken the issue to Congress, or to the American people since his election campaign. I wonder if he will discuss it agin this year. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 It's not as easy as Obama just declaring that we close Guantanamo. He can't do it alone, and Congress has made sure he won't be able to without a fight. This isn't an Obama problem. It's a congress problem. Even when Obama had a Democrat majority in both Houses of Congress. Fat lot of good that majority did for the Dems, right? That was the most do-nothing congress we've ever seen. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 It's not as easy as Obama just declaring that we close Guantanamo. He can't do it alone, and Congress has made sure he won't be able to without a fight. This isn't an Obama problem. It's a congress problem. Even when Obama had a Democrat majority in both Houses of Congress. Fat lot of good that majority did for the Dems, right? That was the most do-nothing congress we've ever seen. Yes and no. They got a lot done actually...but not enough and not enough on the big things. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Every congress gets a lot done by volume. But you're right - the big things is where they failed. Nancy Pelosi has to be one of the worst Majority Leaders in history. Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 It's not as easy as Obama just declaring that we close Guantanamo. He can't do it alone, and Congress has made sure he won't be able to without a fight. This isn't an Obama problem. It's a congress problem. Even when Obama had a Democrat majority in both Houses of Congress. Was that a filibuster proof majority? Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 It's not as easy as Obama just declaring that we close Guantanamo. He can't do it alone, and Congress has made sure he won't be able to without a fight. This isn't an Obama problem. It's a congress problem. Even when Obama had a Democrat majority in both Houses of Congress. Was that a filibuster proof majority? What is their reason for not making them actually filibuster?? Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 What is their reason for not making them actually filibuster?? That is a question only the Dems can answer. I would LOVE to hear their answer, too. A real, honest answer (I know, politicians) about why they didn't push any kind of meaningful agenda when they had that majority. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 What is their reason for not making them actually filibuster?? That is a question only the Dems can answer. I would LOVE to hear their answer, too. A real, honest answer (I know, politicians) about why they didn't push any kind of meaningful agenda when they had that majority. Why not just make them filibuster instead of caving at every threat of them using it. Make them stand up there for days blabling on and on. I would love to ask one of the Dems this. Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 It's not as easy as Obama just declaring that we close Guantanamo. He can't do it alone, and Congress has made sure he won't be able to without a fight. This isn't an Obama problem. It's a congress problem. Even when Obama had a Democrat majority in both Houses of Congress. Was that a filibuster proof majority? What is their reason for not making them actually filibuster?? Probably because it is a waste of time for everyone. Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 What is their reason for not making them actually filibuster?? That is a question only the Dems can answer. I would LOVE to hear their answer, too. A real, honest answer (I know, politicians) about why they didn't push any kind of meaningful agenda when they had that majority. Do you mean a meaningful agenda regarding Guantanamo or a meaningful agenda regarding anything? Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Fat lot of good that majority did for the Dems, right? That was the most do-nothing congress we've ever seen. Was that a filibuster proof majority? There was a time when there were 60 Dems in the Senate. But the Republicans didn't need 60 to pass their agenda. Unfortunately when it come to voting with Wall Street and for wars, too many Democrats support the Republican agenda. Link to comment
Recommended Posts