General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWill anyone disagree with this? President Obama deserves harsh criticism over the Gitmo horror
It's a Kafkaesque nightmare. It's torture of men who have largely been cleared for release and the Obama administration is doing it. It's disgusting and horrifying and it's yet another reason that the fabric of my faith in the President as a leader, is now frayed beyond repair.
Hunger strike at Gitmo: ‘We are dying a slow death here’
I’ve just returned from Guantanamo, where my clients and a majority of the other 166 men there have been on hunger strike for over two months. Most of them have been cleared for release or will never be charged. But the Obama administration has refused to send them home.
I met with men who are weak and have lost between 30 and 40 pounds. They told me of other men who are skeletal and barely moving, who have coughed up blood, passed out, and one who tried to hang himself.
One of the men I met with, Sabry Mohammed, a Yemeni who remains detained years after he was approved for release by the Obama administration, said, “We are dying a slow death here.” Yet the authorities say they will not let men die–they will force-feed them when their body weight drops dangerously low, strapping them into chairs and forcing a tube up their noses that pumps formula into their stomachs. The military reports that so far, 11 men are being “saved” this way. Yet as one of the men put it, the irony is that “the government will keep us alive by force-feeding us but they will let us die by detaining us forever.”
Today, 166 men remain at Guantanamo, more than eleven years after they arrived in hoods and shackles. Most are being held without charge and will never be charged. The Obama administration has approved more than half of the men–86–for transfer, but hasn’t mustered the political will to overcome congressional hurdles, despite saying it can and will. As their indefinite detention stretches into a second decade, men are aging, declining and dying. Last September, Adnan Latif, a husband and a father, a man twice cleared for transfer under the Bush and Obama administrations, was the ninth prisoner to die. The current crisis at the base had specific triggers, but there has been an emergency at Guantanamo for years.
<snip>
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/04/13/hunger-strike-at-gitmo-we-are-dying-a-slow-death-here/
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/04/13/hunger-strike-at-gitmo-we-are-dying-a-slow-death-here/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Drale
(7,932 posts)The President tried to close Gito with an executive order but Congress refused to go along with it and withheld the money.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Because that's what Cali does.
Thanks for the informative reply.
cali
(114,904 posts)Always accusing cali of Obama bashing, doesn't make you look any better.
tridim
(45,358 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Cali is a decent Human Being, thoughtful, insightful, and intelligent.
If she has changed her mind on certain issues here,
it was not without soul searching and grief.
She has earned respect on this board,
not unwarranted attacks from the peanut gallery.
Sincerely.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Pres Obama can do no wrong.
<snip>
The instant Guantánamo is mentioned, the people in the faction who spent years denouncing it as a Great Evil now instead rush to exonerate President Obama for any responsibility or blame. They insist that the fault rests with Congress for preventing Obama from fulfilling his pledge to close the camp.
I've written many times before why this claim, though grounded in some truth, is misleading in the extreme. I won't repeat all of that here; click the links and read the documentation proving its truth. In sum, Obama sought not to close Guantánamo but simply to re-locate it to Illinois, and in doing so, to preserve what makes it such a travesty of justice: its system of indefinite detention. The detainees there are not protesting in desperation because of their geographical location: we want to be in Illinois rather than a Cuban island. They are sacrificing their health and their lives in response to being locked in a cage for more than a decade without charges: a system Obama, independent of what Congress did, intended to preserve. Obama's task force in early 2010 decreed that "48 detainees were determined to be too dangerous to transfer but not feasible for prosecution" and will thus "remain in detention": i.e. indefinitely imprisoned with no charges. Given these facts, one cannot denounce the disgrace of Guantánamo's indefinite detention system while pretending that Obama sought to end it, at least not cogently or honestly.
<snip>
"Clear-cut tyranny", says Yemen's president. But in January, 2010, Obama - not Congress, but Obama - announced a moratorium on the release of any Yemeni detainees, even ones cleared for release. As Amnesty International put it at the beginning of this year:
"But President Obama adopted the USA's unilateral and flawed 'global war' paradigm and accepted indefinite detentions under this framework.
<snip>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/15/obama-guantanamo-hunger-strike-moqbel
try again- though I think it's incomprehensible that any liberal could defend the administration when it comes to this issue.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Obama tried to close Gitmo, Congress stopped it. Period.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)He tried to "close" Gitmo by moving it to Illinois:
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/creating-gitmo-north-alarming-step-says-aclu
He still fully intended to detain Gitmo prisoners indefinitely without charges:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/07/AR2011030704871.html
Even if Congress prevented Obama from shutting Gitmo, he has no excuse for continuing to hold prisoners that the U.S. Government has cleared for release.
From the Greenwald article:
But Obama's responsibility for the Guantánamo disgrace extends beyond that. Moqbel, the author of this Op-Ed, is Yemeni. More than half of the remaining 166 detainees at the camp are Yemeni. Dozens of those Yemenis (along with dozens of other detainees) have long ago been cleared for release by the US government on the ground that there is no evidence to believe they are a threat to anyone. A total of 87 of the remaining detainees - roughly half - have been cleared for release, of which 58 are Yemeni. Not even the US government at this point claims they are guilty or pose a threat to anyone.
The Yemeni government not only is willing to take them, but is now demanding their release
tridim
(45,358 posts)Weird.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Transporting the population of Gitmo from Cuba to a prison in Illinois in order to "close" Gitmo would have accomplished nothing other than a shallow PR victory for the administration. The injustice would continue nonetheless.
If Congress had approved the transfer of detainees, and the prison at Guantanamo Bay had been closed, we could say that Obama fulfilled his campaign promise. But would that really mean anything if the detainees continued being victimized by the indefinite detention policy? It's the policy, not the location, than is reprehensible.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)There was other information in Cali's post, but you chose to focus on Yemen's president's statement?
You're willfully being blind and that makes you part of the problem.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)I don't know how else to get this through to you.
Charge or release the prisoners. If they are innocent, there's no need to close Gitmo , just release the prisoners (which doesn't require Congressional authorization)!
Good grief, it's not that complicated.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)to keep them in prison indefinitely.
Response to Drale (Reply #1)
Post removed
zeemike
(18,998 posts)That is a military base and a military run prison...if the CIC gives an order it must be obeyed...so the buck stops there.
The money was extra funding...now don't tell me that they could not use some of the other 400 billion they have to execute a simple operation of closing the prison...which would save money by the way...it would pay for itself in less than a year.
tritsofme
(17,376 posts)In our system of government, it is in fact, a thing.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But they cannot tell the president he cannot order the military to do something...all they can do is defund things that need additional funding...the military has the power to decide where to spend the money they already have in operations.
I read it cost 840K a year per prisoner...they could save a lot by closing it.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)Are you saying it's cheaper to keep it open than it would be to close it?
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)... doesn't want to hear that.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)....or Jesus wouldn't come back.
Not only that, but the earth would open up and bat winged demons would fly out and ruin your back yard barbeque.
elleng
(130,865 posts)and we really should get our facts straight so we can properly attribute 'blame,' and vote the bums OUT!
olegramps
(8,200 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)a prison in another country? Let Gitmo sit idle.
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)he was happy that a lot of Dems voted against it. Executive Order my foot. Please read!
Blue Owl
(50,349 posts)Your chances of being killed by lightning are 25 times higher than being killed by the kind of terrorist Gitmo was designed for.
It's a shameful waste of money and resources, and a tribute to the Neocon's failed war.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Obama signed an executive order to close Guantanamo, but Congress did an end-run around him with legislation prohibiting transfer of the detainees to the US and prohibiting funding of such an endeavor.
cali
(114,904 posts)His admin's policy is to hold dozens of men without charge, who have been cleared for release. Those are the FACTS.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)And Congress put the kibosh on that plan.
... and now you are moving the goal posts.
In your quest to place blame on you-know-who, you apparently aren't satisfied with the FACT that Congress passed legislation prohibiting (and inhibiting) transfer of detainees to American mainland prisons.
cali
(114,904 posts)is what it's about for these prisoners?
And no, dear. I'm not satisfied with what Congress did, so don't put words in my mouth. The President could do many things to provide relief. He has not. HE is the one responsible for holding these people without charge- something I'll do you the courtesy of assuming you do not approve of.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Your opinion ... Why not just speak your mind instead of starting a passive-aggressive OP?
Whatever blame you apportion to Obama is rendered moot by the fact that Congress passed laws making it impossible to change the status quo at Guantanamo and they did that with the assistance of Democratic votes.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Go to Congress and say HE is on a hunger strike until they close Gitmo? He cannot actually do it himself, by law. I think the place is now a total disgrace and we are totally violating their international rights if they are innocent and we never plan to bring up charges. But Obama, I just don't know what he could do about it...maybe be extremely vocal.
What can he do to get the placed closed down? How can he force Congress to do it?
cali
(114,904 posts)brutal treatment.
Rex
(65,616 posts)just not shutdown the place? Is that correct?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)
hughee99
(16,113 posts)There's nothing congress did that prevents him from releasing the prisoners. All congress did was prevent him from RELOCATING the camp from Gitmo to the US.
Angelonthesidelines
(70 posts)Obamabots reflexively defend him at all costs to logic and reason, that's what makes them "bots".
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)There have been a lot of New Names suggested for Them, like Professional Obama Defenders (POD People - ahahahahaha), or Tom Tomorrow's thoroughly Awesome Unwavering Apologists (ahahahahahahaha!!!!!), but sometimes it's just COOL to see somebody use one of the Classics:
Obamabots!
Yeah! YEAH!!!!! YEAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! I also love Cheerleaders, Pom Poms, True Believers, Enablers (got the last two classics DOWNTHREAD - Team Awesome is EVERYWHERE!!!) and all the old names to call Them!
Give 'em Hell, Angelonthesidelines!!!!!
Team Awesome forever!!
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 15, 2013, 06:02 PM - Edit history (1)
does not compute, output victimhood_obama_supporters_on_du.txt
Rex
(65,616 posts)So he has the power to at any given time to order their release?
He could order the military to either charge them or release them. If he wanted to, he could pardon them. The issue he may have releasing them is that their country of origin may not be willing to take them back and if so, where do you send them?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Which it needs to be too. I did not know what actual power he had in these cases. I wonder what will be said if one of them dies from forced starvation? A prison or a gulag?
Solly Mack
(90,762 posts)Those that enacted it. Those that wrote memos as a means to cloak it. Those who voted for any part of it. Those who enabled any part of it. Those who rewrite any part of it. Those who pretend, by word or by deed, that war crimes weren't committed. Those that pretend it is too late to do anything about accountability. Those that tell others, by word or by deed, that there's nothing to be held accountable for.
I blame those Americans who turn a blind eye to what's happening now and what happened over the last 12 years by embracing the lack of accountability as a good thing or the inevitable that must be accepted.
I blame those who have always cheered abuses and war crimes.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)I'll add to it and say that it's no surprise to me that the same people are trying to steal Soc. Sec., they already tried to "privatize" it during the criminalbush years. Same banks, same corrupt politicos, same torture camp enablers.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)
mike_c
(36,281 posts)eom
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Obama deserves no blame for anything , ever under any circumstances.
So sayeth the true believers......
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)+1000!
cali
(114,904 posts)Who Are the Guantanamo Prisoners Not Being Prosecuted But Who the Obama Administration Refuses to Release?
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/03/26/who-are-the-guantanamo-prisoners-not-being-prosecuted-but-who-obama-administration-refuses-to-release/
The Unending Gitmo Nightmare
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/13/the-unending-gitmo-nightmare.html
the administration
xiamiam
(4,906 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Holding people without charges for years is un-American. Or at least it should be.
Angelonthesidelines
(70 posts)Now it's patriotic.
JEB
(4,748 posts)Disgrace and shame that our country will have a hard time removing.
xocet
(3,871 posts)Tuesday, 29 January 2013 14:41 By Sam Sacks , Truthout | Op-Ed
...
By the time President Obama took office in 2009, the vast majority of Gitmo detainees - more than 500 - had already been released. Five had died at the facility. And only one at the facility had actually been convicted of any crime before a military commission.
They were not walking menaces. And besides, speaking directly to Senator Thune's point, there are already well over 300 individuals currently in prisons in the United States facing terrorist charges, and not a single community is in danger as a result of these nearby incarcerations.
But the Senate had spoken, and the president's fight to close Gitmo would be more difficult than he likely imagined. But rather than doubling down on his efforts to remove this scar from our national moral character, he retreated.
It's a common theme with this president. He just doesn't seem willing to fight.
...
http://truth-out.org/news/item/14231
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)What's with the root-root-root-for-my-home-team crowd? Do you have a problem with international law, Geneva Conventions, US law, etc?
Trashing a thread because you don't like what you see is pretty damning ... for you.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)... it must be hate!!!
That's the most logical conclusion.
Good grief.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Ignore me all you want ... stick your head in the sand and keep it there.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)Obama Signing Statement Takes On Congress’ Refusal To Close Gitmo
By: Sarah Jones
Dec. 23rd, 2011
Today when the President signed H.R. 2055, the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012? into law, he issued another signing statement in his battle with congress over the closure of Gitmo. Ever since Obama issued an executive order to close Gitmo, Congress has been running end games around funding the closure and transfer of detainees. This year was no different.
In his signing statement, Obama noted, “I have previously announced that it is the policy of my Administration, and in the interests of promoting transparency in Government, to indicate when a bill presented for Presidential signature includes provisions that are subject to well-founded constitutional objections. The Department of Justice has advised that a small number of provisions of H.R. 2055 raise constitutional concerns.”
A signing statement is something of a public pronouncement a president might make about a bill they are signing into law. They have been used to clarify their positions or elaborate dissent. In this case, Obama is once again noting that he will seek the repeal of measures in the act that prohibit transfers of Guantanamo Bay detainees.
In this bill, the Congress has once again included provisions that would bar the use of appropriated funds for transfers of Guantanamo detainees into the United States (section 8119 of Division A), as well as transfers to the custody or effective control of foreign countries unless specified conditions are met (section 8120 of Division A). These provisions are similar to others found in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. My Administration has repeatedly communicated my objections to these provisions, including my view that they could, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. In approving this bill, I reiterate the objections my Administration has raised regarding these provisions, my intent to interpret and apply them in a manner that avoids constitutional conflicts, and the promise that my Administration will continue to work towards their repeal.
http://www.politicususa.com/obama-ndaa-signing-statement.html
A simple google would have provided proof positive that you are shit stirring, and nothing more.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)Lots of those around, it seems.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)marriage equality, draconian voter id laws, but we're treated to shit like this. It's not only potentially divisive, but it's a diversion tactic. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that a few of these folks are on the Koch Bros payroll. Get us fighting amongst ourselves, to ensure that absolutely nothing gets done on the issues we "claim" to care about.
It's shitty, but it's shrewd. You Better Believe It!
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)so much anti material on DU.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Who cares if they are in Gitmo or Illinois! If they are innocent, release them! It's not a question of closing Gitmo, it's a question of releasing, or charging the prisoners there, many of whom have been declared innocent by the government. So, in essence, you are arguing a straw man.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)What do we do in that case? We can't even pay these governments to take 'em back. And even if we could, Congress wouldn't allocate the funds for it. So, release them to where? 
libodem
(19,288 posts)Obstructionist Reprehensible Republicans, that block every move. Those bastards don't sit around in billion dollar financed think tanks just jerking each other off, they plan for the next 30 years, how to make America a Plutocracy run by corporate(which now means a person without conscience or consequences) capitalism.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)"As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists."
Looks like he violated the Geneva Convention and broke his promise. Lesson is ...don't promise what you can't deliver ON YOUR OWN. He knew he needed congress to agree when he made that promise.
democrank
(11,093 posts)What would the enablers say about the current conditions at Guantanamo if George Bush was still in the White House? Would they be searching for excuses?
I`m with you, Cali....."my faith in the President as a leader is frayed beyond repair."
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)could deny that Obama deserves criticism here. Many deserve it. But there is the usual crowd (growing smaller day by day) that will deflect blame from this president regardless of his actions or inactions. In this case, the usual tactic is to refer to how weak and impotent a president Obama is. This is their excuse. By their reasoning, we screwed up in spending time electing a Democrat because according to their arguments, the office of President is a puppet position run by congress. So, by their reasoning, you can't hold bush and cheney guilty for the war in Iraq. It had to be congress that did it.
Bullshit. When the government does inhumane things while you are president, it is on you. The commander in chief my ass.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)It's okay, apparently, you're not the only one who had trouble with basic Civics. 
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)your snarking could be considered a good ploy.
A man campaigns on closing Gitmo. He gets elected, and doesn't do it. According you to, Obama has trouble with basic Civics. That silly man thought he could close Gitmo. I thought he could. That's one reason I campaigned and voted for him.
So did you know that Obama was as stupid as you now say back then. I mean, you are telling all of us that only someone with trouble understanding basic Civics would think that could happen. So you are saying that when you voted for him, you thought he had trouble with basic Civics?
Why did you vote for someone so stupid?
See where your circum-logic gets you? I think I'm smarter than you about Civics. I think Obama is smarter than you about Civics. I think you know better too, but your position is weak enough that you felt the need to try to run this silliness by.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Try 'em or let 'em go.
This shit is un-American.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)... but you missed the point by a mile.
The issue isn't whether Obama should move them to Illinois. The issue is either charging them or releasing them, which he doesn't need Congress to do. Civics, indeed!
<insert cute snarky wavy face here>
mythology
(9,527 posts)Set them on the other side of the line between Guantanamo and the rest of Cuba? Many of these people aren't wanted by their home countries. We have released the cleared inmates from countries like the U.K. or Germany, where there is a stable government. We haven't returned inmates from Yemen because frankly Yemen's political situation is untenable.
Additionally there are specific laws to block any money to move these prisoners. That doesn't impact money spent to maintain the prison. So the idea that it's cheaper to let them go than keep them in Guantanamo isn't reflective of the underlying legal situation.
Some of the prisoners who can't be charged, can't be charged because they gave evidence under torture. But if they are guilty of what they were captured for, no President is going to even consider letting them go even if they can't be charged. It's easy to ignore that if you aren't in a position of power, because it also means you aren't in a position to be accountable for the consequences.
It's a lot more complicated than it's being credited with in this thread. It's easy to say that all Obama has to do is release them, but fails to account for all of the different competing interests and needs.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Obama should have gone to the International Community to take them.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)the U.N., the Red Cross, or any other organization to come to Guantanamo and pick them up.
They could bring their own boats.
If that's what he really wanted to do, how could Congress stop him?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)What the President should have done was close the fricking place down and send home or repatripate the innocents at Gitmo. This is one promise President Obama failed to keep!
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)And they deserved their fate.
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)And since they're gone, they can't vote either.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)This is an absolute travesty.
"Home of the free, land of the Brave", my ass.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)By Hina Shamsi, Director, ACLU National Security Project & Jamil Dakwar, Director, ACLU Human Rights Program
<...>
Guantánamo was not a problem that President Obama chose, but it's a problem he now owns and must solve. When the President took office, he promised to close Guantánamo within a year. As he moves further away from that promise, the futures of the detainees appear more hopeless to them. General John F. Kelly, head of the U.S. Southern Command, told the House Armed Services Committee last month about the Guantanamo prisoners, "They had great optimism that Guantánamo would be closed. They were devastated, apparently, when the president backed off."
An official from the International Committee of the Red Cross, whose delegates recently visited the prison and spoke to some of the hunger strikers, told the Russia Today news site:
What I can tell you is that from our observations those tensions and this anguish that the detainees are experiencing are clearly related to the lack of a clear legal framework in Guantanamo. This has now been having a real impact for detainees for some time – on their mental health, on their emotional health.
And who can blame them? Sixty-five prisoners were released in the first two years of President Obama's first term, but that number plunged to just five during 2011 and 2012 combined, largely because of irresponsible restrictions imposed by Congress in an attempt to prevent Guantanamo from closing. But the Obama administration is also at fault. It has shown no signs of progress towards transferring the 86 detainees cleared for release, which it can still do despite Congressional restrictions. Instead, it recently closed the State Department office designated to work on prisoner transfers. Six prisoners face military commission trials; the Obama administration has slated over 40 of the rest for indefinite detention. It is no wonder that for at least some of the men at Guantanamo, death may appear the only way out. It need not be that way.
Today, the ACLU and a coalition of organizations are calling on President Obama to take two immediate steps to avert the human rights crisis:
- First, the president should authorize the secretary of defense to use existing certification procedures to repatriate and resettle abroad all prisoners who have been cleared for release.
- Second, the president must appoint a point person in the administration who is responsible for leading the effort to close Guantánamo.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-human-rights-prisoners-rights/urgent-white-house-action-needed-avert
Congress banning the use of funds is a huge problem.
Rex
(65,616 posts)even if Gitmo does not get closed down, he can make the decision to at least move the process forward for the prisoners to be freed and then actually free them. I see the ACLU calling on him to do this too, do you think it will happen?
RedCloud
(9,230 posts)Good guys cannot condone bad guy stuff.
broadcaster75201
(387 posts)This is just one of many.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
G_j
(40,366 posts)
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)and provide multi-million dollar jobs to politicians after retirement, nothing can be done.
And frankly, I'm disappointed that some on DU want our President to circumvent the rules. The rule that only rich players can get anything done applies to all Americans, even to our guests at Guantanamo.
Regards,
Third-Way Manny
still_one
(92,138 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)men be made available and published, Congress would come around.
I can understand why the men are being kept. It is reasonable to think that even if they did not hate the US before they went to Guantanamo, they do now.
Why not simply treat them well and let them live as a community in comfort and peace? Why do we treat them as we do?
We have nothing to lose by being kind.
When I lived in Germany and Austria, older men would come up to me and thank me as an American because they had enjoyed their treatment, living among Americans on farms all over the country when they were American prisoners of war.
Want to fight a war and then make friends with the people of the country you just fought once the war is over? Treat your prisoners well.
We, rather, the Bush administration and our military with Obama's approval, have really messed this one up. We made big mistakes. We missed our chance to make friends of enemies and in some cases made enemies of friends.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)in another country like Afghanistan? Let Gitmo rot.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)But, then...we have a new tragedy to focus on.
I would hope that our President and his Advisors could juggle two plates at a time... but, then. I don't know if that's possible.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)They considered all sides of this issue, even stating at one point, how long should they be held? Until the "war on terror" is over? The "war on terror" not being a standard war between countries, and could even never be over? So do you hold someone without charges for the rest of his life?
There is a case (or two) on this. They are the ones who decided this issue.
Some people from Gitmo have been released, but I don't know how many or why.
Hekate
(90,645 posts)It is an evil thing in our name, I agree. But lay this one at Congress's feet, because that is where it belongs.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Hekate
(90,645 posts)Congress stands squarely in the way. We have 3 branches of government, not a king.
annm4peace
(6,119 posts)It is sick.
Check out CagePrisoners. read their stories. and share with others.
Obama and his "advisors" have no credible excuses. It shames our country and especially shames the Democrats.
they torture the when they shove feeding tubes down their noses... It is sick.
Thousands of us have protested all over this country for the last 10 years against these illegal detentions... millions have signed petitions. And it continues and Obama gives one excuse after another.
I've done so much protesting over these years.. suppose to be the best years of my life 36-46.. for what?
So a Democrat President can ignore International Law? Humanity? It broke me, mentally.
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)not going to do anything about Gitmo. Guess when some Dems voted against moving the prisoners at Gitmo, it was a feather in his cap.
By the way, he did say he would close down Gitmo prior to 2008.
I am not against President Obama but sometimes I think he is renegeing on his promises.
Hope those lost souls in Gitmo will be freed one day. Most of those people are innocent as far as I know! Kinda sad if you know or feel that one of them are innocent! Am so confused!
Best regards
It is an abomination. It crossed my mind today that these bombings today could be blowback for some of the awful things fine in our name. May have nothing to do with it, but it's possible.
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)they had to invade Iraq for no reason and the attrocities the US used against Iraq is an obomination! I wonder when people will wake up and realise that the US creates war to make money!
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)
