Request

Posted on 05/22/2009 at 9:46 am by Bob Cesca

I know it’s important to hold the president accountable — and especially on topics like indefinite detentions — but can we get Guantanamo closed first before we start arguing in favor of turning some of the detainees loose?

I’m just saying.

A solid position is wasted if the timing screws another solid position.

In other words, we obviously have our work cut out for us getting our weakling Democratic representatives to cough up money to close Guantanamo. But the argument in favor of closing Guantanamo is solid and airtight, plus it has the vocal backing of the president. Do we really want to mix in a second layer of debate in which the upshot is actually the worst nightmare of every member of Congress (being blamed for turning detainees loose)?

We should seriously fight the indefinite detention thing, but… now?

This entry was posted in Terrorism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://nanotyrnns.blogspot.com/ Nanotyrannus

    It’s their tiny little movie-minds at work again. How many movies/tv shows have we seen where the bad guy is broken out of prison during a transfer? That’s what’s on their mind, the last episode of CSI:Miami.That’s what’s most galling about these fucking wimps. What the Republicans are essentially arguing is that if these prisoners are brought the United States, your local police, your national guard, our FBI will not be able to protect you from the suiciders that will come here to avenge the terrorist detainees!As usual, the Republicans manage to insult the qualifications of American institutions while at the same time championing their hard work and patriotism against the designs of the unappreciative and unAmerican Evil Democrat Socialists. They do it well, and with no serious opposition from the Democrats who consistently go along with the narrative through inaction and acquiescence to Republican demands.The reason we have to go slow is that our own leadership cowers in the face of Republican opposition.

  • gypsy

    have i missed something? i thought it was just indefinite detention after trial. no?

  • ceu

    Tom Harkin said last night (can’t remember which MSNBC show I heard it on) that the $$ to close Gitmo (which was voted down) was part of a supplemental bill and come September, the money would be there – meaning voted on & passed.Maybe we should accept him at his word…

  • http://cousinavi.wordpress.com cousinavi

    How much money does it take to CLOSE the joint?Is that more or less than it takes to maintain it?There’s something wrong with the math here. There are already planes flying back and forth; Leavenworth and Pelican Bay are already waiting for more bodies.You bring the Marines home (I’ve heard they could be useful elsewhere), box up the computers and files, and hand the deed and the keys over to Raoul. There would fat American tourists snorkelling there two months later. Fuck…who wouldn’t pay for a Detainee Getaway Experience (waterboarding optional)?Where is the requirement for some massive amount of cash to shut the joint down?Seems to me that, by any measure, it’s got to be cheaper to hold them in the US than it is to maintain a military base/prison in Cuba.Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

  • ceu

    sorry – meant to put the above on previous thread.

  • thespacecowboy

    Hell, Gates says it’s a good idea to close it.

  • Jan

    Why does it cost $80M to close the place?I’m still waiting for someone in the corrections unions to stand up in outrage and ask why these scaredy cats think that they are doing such a bad job as to not be able to keep these guys contained. If there’s one thing we do well here it is lock people up. At least a million to date.

  • http://homepage.mac.com/wildlifeweb/bird/flamingo/honolulu/flamingo01.jpg veralynn

    good point Jan…I will hold my breath lol

  • Jan

    I must be high, thinking a union could like, stand up (as we watch EFCA circle the drain).oh WELL.

  • http://www.ieatgravel.com/ I Eat Gravel in Alaska

    Umm, don’t you have to figure out what you’re doing with the detainees before you close down the prison? Or are we going to go Terrorassic Park and just let them run around the bay until we come back to do whatever it is we’re eventually going to do.

  • http://www.ieatgravel.com/ I Eat Gravel in Alaska

    Umm, don’t you have to figure out what you’re doing with the detainees before you close down the prison? Or are we going to go Terrorassic Park and just let them run around the bay until we come back to do whatever it is we’re eventually going to do?

  • http://annette-justmylittlepieceoftheworld.blogspot.com/ Annette

    One of the blogs I follow works for a not for profit organization of attorneys.. her sister is one of them and is ultra liberal.She asked her sister about this indefinite detention and she has posted her answer with more to come over the weekend. It is a good explanation and is pretty informative if anyone is interested in it.ZenYenta

  • http://arkytek.blogspot.com/ ∇•B=0  Silly Ratfaced Git  ∇•D=ρ

    It isn’t that the Unions don’t have the cojones, It’s the MSM that will not let them speak.When was the last time you heard the MSM even mention a Union? During a strike? And wasn’t the strike described as the evil union’s fault? The MSM are wholly owned and operated by ‘the management.’People still don’t get it that the News media is a propaganda distribution system. If you want truth, look elsewhere.

  • rob

    Article 97 of the Third Geneva Convention provides that “prisoners of war shall not in any case be transferred to penitentiary establishments . . . to undergo disciplinary punishment therein.”http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention#Article_97You cannot legally move them to US prisons under the Geneva Accords.

  • http://annette-justmylittlepieceoftheworld.blogspot.com/ Annette

    Who said anything about keeping them in prison… they would probably be kept on a military installation, would be my guess. And that is just a guess on my part… That is one of the details to be worked out later.That is what was done with the POW’s in WWII who were kept here.. they were kept in or near military bases or in encampments… My dad was a guard near Elwood, IN with German POW’s.. that’s where he met my mom..

  • ceu

    interesting point, rob.

  • mrspeel

    “We should seriously fight the indefinite detention thing, but… now?” I totally agree!

    I had to turn off MSNBC last night when Rachel started beating up on Obama about this. In fact, I’m getting really tired of the whining a lot of groups and organizations are doing lately because President Obama isn’t doing things the way they want, or chastising him for delaying some actions.

    I think the President has been impressive in what he has accomplished in his first 100+ days and the critiques, in my opinion, are way too premature.

    President Obama hasn’t forgotten what he was elected to do and he will get them done. He’s got enough problems on his plate right now, so let’s cut the man some slack!

  • thruwithbuzz

    So, Rob they’re prisoners of war now? I bet during the Bush years you called them enemy combatants. You know why Bush called them enemy combatants? So he didn’t have to abide by the Geneva Convention.

  • rob

    That’s the point, thru. Which is it?

  • thruwithbuzz

    My point is: I bet when Bush was President you called them “enemy combatants” but now that Obama’s President you’re calling them “prisoners of war”. Meaning that according to Bush and his supporters “enemy combatants” aren’t covered by the Geneva Convention, but “prisoners of war” are.