America cannot assert moral authority while Guantánamo remains open
For those not charged with any offence, their long detention is a most serious stain on the human rights record of the US
Editorial
The Observer, Saturday 20 April 2013
In 2009, defending the promise he made to close Guantánamo Bay, President Barack Obama insisted: "The existence of Guantánamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained."
This weekend, the case for the closure of Guantánamo Bay, promised by Obama on his second day in office, has never been more compelling. A hunger strike by the camp's inmates, half of whom had been cleared for release, has underlined the growing desperation of those 166 still detained. Of that number, some 86 had been approved for transfer (while the rest had been earmarked for trial) but have become stuck in a political and legal limbo that has seen such transfers almost completely halted in the last two-and-a-half years. A recent report by a bipartisan panel of experts has condemned both the conditions there and the use of abusive interrogation techniques ...
The reason that Guantánamo remains operational, and with so many stuck within it, has nothing to do with practical issues concerning release or transfer or how some should be tried. Instead, those trapped in Guantánamo are the victims of a political conflict, specifically between Congress and the White House over plans to house and try alleged terrorists in the US. Congress cut off funds to move accused men to the US for detention and insisted on onerous conditions for the transfer of those remaining out of the US, including elaborate arrangements for monitoring ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/21/observer-editorial-guantanamo-bay-should-close
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)As long as we keep re-electing the same senators and congressmen, Gitmo will remain open. In CA, we had a chance to give DiFi the boot by electing Mike Strimling. It would have at least sent a grave message to the other senators that the people are willing to get rid of pro-war, pro-corporate congresscritters.
Before the Democratic primary in 2012, I came to DU to ask for support for an experienced DiFi opponent - Mike Strimling. I posted both in the GD and California threads. I kept reposting. I tweeted. I FBed. I went door-to-door but my range was limited. In the end, Mike Strimling got fewer votes than Orly Taitz!
If I can't even get fellow Californians at DU to support change, what hope can we realistically have to ever change the political landscape and send a warning to those congresscritters that we've had enough?
It's clear that the proponents of term limits have been correct from the start - there needs to be term limits for Congress people just like there are for the president. We are otherwise stuck with what we've got. But in order to do that, Congress needs to pass a new law, and that isn't going to happen with a pro-Corporate Congresscritters hell-bent on staying in their powerful seats and willing to vote, as a united bloc, to keep America's concentration camp in Cuba open.