Senate Votes to Keep GITMO open: Denies Closure Funds in 90 to 6 Vote

In a major blow to Obama's plan to close Guantanamo Bay, the Senate voted overwhelmingly (90 to 6) to deny funding for Obama's plan to transfer detainee's to the US. This follows a similiar vote in the house. Republican concerns about terrorists being shipped to various congressional districts all over the country seems seems to have trumped Democrats desire to work with the admininstration. It looks like GITMO will stay open for a long time.

In a rare, bipartisan defeat for President Barack Obama, the Senate voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to keep the prison at Guantanamo Bay open for the foreseeable future and forbid the transfer of any detainees to facilities in the United States.

Democrats lined up with Republicans in the 90-6 vote that came on the heels of a similar move a week ago in the House, underscoring widespread apprehension among Obama's congressional allies over voters' strong feelings about bringing detainees to the U.S. from the prison in Cuba.​

Obama has vowed to close GITMO by 2010, but his chances were further decreased by a statement issued by the FBI expressing serious concern about the increased risk of terrorist attacks with these prisoners on our soil and a recent court decision saying some prisoners can be detained indefinitely.

Obama's maneuvering room was further constrained during the day when FBI Director Robert Mueller told a congressional panel that he had concerns about bringing Guantanamo Bay detainees to prisons in the United States. Among the risks is "the potential for individuals undertaking attacks in the United States," said Mueller, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2001 and is serving a 10-year fixed term in office.

Additionally, U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled this week that some prisoners _ but not all _ can be held indefinitely at Guantanamo without being charged, thus increasing the pressure on the administration to develop a plan for the men held there. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/senate-votes-to-block-fun_n_205797.html​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I find this extraordinary.

I have no idea what went on in Gitmo. I haven't studied it enough. But one wonders what the Senate has seen that the rest of us haven't.

I guess the real pressing question moved their hands: Where the hell are we going to move these people to? SHIT! Even the Democrats voted overwhelmingly to keep it open. So, what we have now is an Obama who's running his foreign policy from the right, keeping military tribunals, keeping Gitmo, not really pulling out of Iraq. I find this extraordinary. Wonder if getting into the big chair and being exposed to everything a President is, makes them realize that keeping all those lofty Democratic promises is just plain impossible.

My thought was Diego Garcia, but that's a British Island leased by the USA, so I suspect a legal issue.

Who knows.

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can't say I buy the Republicans bullshit, but it's interesting that when push comes to shove, the Dems didn't want these guys here, either.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's a broad topic that includes a lot of dopey stuff.

~String

 

OK.

To be specific, I don't get this manufactured fear of having these terrorists in their district. These guys are locked up. They can't do anything. And then you get the FBI saying that bringing them here increases the possibility of attacks. Again, how? They are locked up. The way some people have talked about this issue, you would think we are importing terrorists here and then letting them go in our shopping malls or something. A jail here is as good as jail there, if you ask me.

 

This could just be a good old case of NIMBY

 

True.

They always mention having the terrorists in "their backyard". Are they putting them up in the local motel? Are we importing them along with their explosives? Are they attached? It's pretty lame.

There are several super-maxes in the USA capable of holding these men who number--what?--two hundred?

ADX is pretty much unbreakable. Give that place a try.

~String

 

What will the ACLU be doing when they arrive in America?

 

what a surprise, US votes to avoid the conquences of there own actions. like anyone expected anything else

 

Putting really dangerous prisoners on an island as a final barrier to their escape has long been regarded as a pretty good idea. I'd think it prevents most prisoners from even trying to escape because, even if they get out of prison, where do they go from there? Any prison in the continental US would be less secure than keeping them @ Gitmo.

For this reason, I've always doubted that Obama would ever really close Gitmo. Say he closes it, and some detainee's somehow manage to escape and then commit some atrocity in the US. Obama would be toast. I expect that, although he'll protest about congress blocking his plan, he's secretly perfectly happy to have congress "force" him to keep GITMO open.

 

Probably the same thing they are doing now.

Personally, I'd like to see them tried as quickly as possible.

Asguard, with your usual lack of understanding (and reasonable explanation) you make absolutely ridiculous statements. This vote doesn't in any way "avoid" any consequences. Bringing the terrorists to the USA (or leaving them in Gitmo) would change little. They'd still never leave their cells. The only real reason why they are still overseas is because Americans just don't want them in their backyards.

~String

 

So would I, and there is a court of jurisdiction that was constituted by congress, (in a bipartisan bill), with jurisdiction, in GITMO.

This could all have been over by now but for the ACLU and the endless suites;


In December 2006, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passed and authorized the establishment of military commissions subject to certain requirements and with a designated system of appealing those decisions. A military commission system addressing objections identified by the U.S. Supreme Court was then established by the Department of Defense.

 

Granted an Island prison is more secure than a non-island prison, in terms of practicality, but the chances here of escape are next to nil, and so putting this forward as some sort of reasoning for keeping Gitmo open is more than a little ridiculous. Certainly, the paranoid arguments Congressmen are making are little more than theater. These guys aren't going to ever get the chance to do anything, anywhere.

I'd go further and argue that Obama isn't really "closing" Gitmo at all. He's simply taking the prisoners and moving them to several locations. This makes for great symbolism -- ie, the "closing." But in reality, he is practicing exactly the same policy as Bush -- again. I'm more concerned about getting these villains some kind of due process. Where they stay while they get this process isn't important to me.

 

I have no objections to the courts that were established or to keeping them where they are, necessarily, but I also don't see all the hubbub about bringing them to the country. It's not like they'll be on the sides of highways picking up trash with bombs strapped around their waists.

~String

 

The fact that the ACLU would then sew to have them tried in criminal court, in which classified information could not be used as evidence as it is a open court.

These people are not criminals, they are terrorist, and the jurisdiction is military, not civilian.

That is why the cases haven't moved forward, the constant suites by the ACLU to have the Terrorist move into the Civilian Court system, and have them tried under criminal law.

 

I don't think that will happen, though.

Obama has recently recanted on the tribunals, which the Supreme Court upheld by the way, so they seem poised to move forward. The ACLU can file all the suits it wants, but it can't show standing and with the Supreme Court already validating the process, I fail to see where the group would make progress.

 

lets see, you abduct a group of mostly innocent people, you lock them away indefinitly, you torture them, you then put them through sham trails and you wonder why they are pissed at you?

where else have i herd similar stories? burma, nazi germany ect

you shall reep what you show, you should be forced to take them in and whatever they do next is on your own head

 

Yes.. It was "Leased"..

But at what cost?

 

and lets see the people who have been most effective at dealing with terrorism have treated as a CRIMINAL offense. Look the british and spanish do and they have managed to keep their terrorism to a minimum.

 

Are they "terroriststs"? Have any of them been charged? How many are there who have not been charged but will not be released?