BBC - US to Restart Guantanimo Trials

[Scotteq]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12671777

7 March 2011 Last updated at 16:52 ET


Obama to restart Guantanamo military commissions

Mr Obama had pledged in January 2009 to close the Guantanamo Bay prison within a year


US President Barack Obama is lifting the two-year freeze on new military trials for detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison.

Mr Obama also announced a new process for continuing to hold those detainees not charged or convicted but deemed too dangerous to free.

He said the measures would "broaden our ability to bring terrorists to justice".

Mr Obama had pledged in January 2009 to close the prison within a year.

"The American system of justice is a key part of our arsenal in the war against al-Qaeda and its affiliates," Mr Obama said in a statement.

He added that military commissions "ensure that our security and our values are strengthened".

US defence secretary Robert Gates issued an order on Monday revoking his previous suspension on the "swearing and referring of new charges in the military commissions".

New military commissions at the prison, which holds a number of top suspects from the 9/11 attacks and other strikes against the US, have been suspended since January 2009.

The White House said Mr Obama remained committed to the eventual closure of Guantanamo Bay.

< STORY CONTINUES - PLEASE FOLLOW THE ORIGINAL LINK >

Interesting that the President is backpedaling on such a key campaign promise. This is quite surprising to me.

 

[boomerang]

I'm not surprised, it's an integral part of his move to the center. The outrage amongst the left has died down over Guantanamo not being closed so this is a good move in their eyes. I'm confident that Holder will be able to run interference as needed for the remainder of Obama's term.

What's very important to remember is that without the House changing control it would have been business as usual. Any move to the center was brought about by that change of power.

 

[Narmer]

Does Obama stand for anything anymore?

 

[Aegeon]

It should be noted that Congress definitely should be the primary target of criticism in this case since they passed a bill with a previous funding resolution which basically made it mostly impossible for Obama to transfer any additional Guantanamo inmates to US soil for civilian trial. (Obama decided not to resort to a signing statement and ignoring the law in this case given the previous abuses by Bush in that area.)

 

[spidey07]

The only thing he's doing right is continuing some of Bush's policies. What's the precedent of a president over ridding is own executive order so shortly? Keep in mind he's doing this because of an election coming and nothing else.

 

[wuliheron]

The Presidency has become the modern equivalent of a living God in the ancient tradition of empires. He is judge, jury, and executioner empowered to torture and kill just about anyone or even declare war on a whim. He can spy on your every phone call if wants. The difference is that instead of being a position inherited for life we now replace him every few years with another lawyer.

It's more civilized that way. No more "et tu Brute" on the steps or anything else that might disrupt business and fewer scandals because lawyers are trained to hide the facts and spin anything.

 

[irishScott]

Does Obama stand for anything anymore?

He never stood for anything beyond a catchy slogan to begin with. Only reason I voted for McCain was because I sensed insincerity, and at least McCain was a known quantity. I so called it.

 

[JS80]

The only thing he's doing right is continuing some of Bush's policies. What's the precedent of a president over ridding is own executive order so shortly? Keep in mind he's doing this because of an election coming and nothing else.

Remember to always point out that he is a hypocrite when he does the "right thing."

 

[waggy]

is anyone suprised? now this thread will blowup with people calling for him to be impeached and war tribunal setup for war crimes right?

 

[Throckmorton]

Guantanamo is (or was) bad for PR, but what's wrong with military tribunals to begin with? I'd expect them to be MORE fair than civilian trials, and this is what they were invented for...

 

[spidey07]

Remember to always point out that he is a hypocrite when he does the "right thing."

Pay attention to this man. Listen to his words, deeds and actions. Pay very close attention to him. Document his incompetence.

 

[IronWing]

Obama has completed his transformation from candidate Obama to President W2.

 

[lothar]

Guantanamo is (or was) bad for PR, but what's wrong with military tribunals to begin with? I'd expect them to be MORE fair than civilian trials, and this is what they were invented for...

Military tribunals ARE more fair than civilian trials.
Unfortunately most people on the extreme left and even some progressives don't understand this and when they see anything with the word "military" in it, they leave their brain at the door.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Disgusting.

 

[RedChief]

So, hows all that Hope and Change working out for you?

or

All promises made by candidate Obama have a expiration date. All of them.


I'm just not sure which is the better response here.

 

[Monster_Munch]

Military tribunals ARE more fair than civilian trials.
Unfortunately most people on the extreme left and even some progressives don't understand this and when they see anything with the word "military" in it, they leave their brain at the door.

How can they be more fair?

 

[between]

...

 

[Doppel]

Obama has completed his transformation from candidate Obama to President W2.

:thumbsup:

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Military tribunals ARE more fair than civilian trials.
Unfortunately most people on the extreme left and even some progressives don't understand this and when they see anything with the word "military" in it, they leave their brain at the door.

Link to proof of this?

Last I heard, they had looser rules of evidence, where hearsay testimony was allowed. That would, if true, be LESS fair then civilian trials.

EDIT: Also, isn't Obama claiming that even if found not guilty, they still will be locked up? That would totally be less fair then a civilian trial. You can't hold someone after a civilian trial.

 

[lothar]

Link to proof of this?

Last I heard, they had looser rules of evidence, where hearsay testimony was allowed. That would, if true, be LESS fair then civilian trials.

EDIT: Also, isn't Obama claiming that even if found not guilty, they still will be locked up? That would totally be less fair then a civilian trial. You can't hold someone after a civilian trial.

By comparing the conviction rate and average prison sentences.
88&#37; conviction rate in civilian trials vs. 15% in military tribunals.

The vast majority of the "few" terrorists that were convicted in military tribunals were essentially given a slap on the wrist.
If military tribunals have such loose rules, why do civilian courts have a higher conviction rate?

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_14226220#
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/57503
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/nyregion/28nyc.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis.../military-tribunals-civilian-courts-terrorism

 

[Scotteq]

By comparing the conviction rate and average prison sentences.
88% conviction rate in civilian trials vs. 15% in military tribunals.

The vast majority of the "few" terrorists that were convicted in military tribunals were essentially given a slap on the wrist.
If military tribunals have such loose rules, why do civilian courts have a higher conviction rate?

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_14226220#
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/57503
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/nyregion/28nyc.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis.../military-tribunals-civilian-courts-terrorism

Around here, it's actually rather rare for something to go to an actual trial. More normally a deal is made.

 

[ElFenix]

Link to proof of this?

Last I heard, they had looser rules of evidence, where hearsay testimony was allowed. That would, if true, be LESS fair then civilian trials.

EDIT: Also, isn't Obama claiming that even if found not guilty, they still will be locked up? That would totally be less fair then a civilian trial. You can't hold someone after a civilian trial.

if your lawyer can't get hearsay evidence in you need to fire him. the hearsay rule has so many holes it might as well be abolished.

 

[werepossum]

Guantanamo is (or was) bad for PR, but what's wrong with military tribunals to begin with? I'd expect them to be MORE fair than civilian trials, and this is what they were invented for...

Agreed. At worst, Obama intentionally lied about Guantanamo during the election for political gain - hardly a shocking concept. At best, he has honestly recognized that his preference - civilian trials - don't work well for terrorists captured on foreign soil. In between is the possibility that the Republicans winning control of the House has forced him to move to the center, or to at least publicly sacrifice enough left-wing positions to appear to move to the center. Either way, I approve of the move, so I'm hardly going to criticize him for making it, not making it sooner, etc.

 

[Jaskalas]

Does Obama stand for anything anymore?

He has, and always will, stand for the Government. Like the man before him, and the next man.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

By comparing the conviction rate and average prison sentences.
88% conviction rate in civilian trials vs. 15% in military tribunals.

The vast majority of the "few" terrorists that were convicted in military tribunals were essentially given a slap on the wrist.
If military tribunals have such loose rules, why do civilian courts have a higher conviction rate?

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_14226220#
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/57503
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/nyregion/28nyc.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis.../military-tribunals-civilian-courts-terrorism

Wait, you are basing "fair" on conviction rates? That doesn't even make sense. How do you figure that? Conviction rates has NOTHING to do with fairness. LOL, clueless.

How about addressing my points?

Hearsay testimony is in general not allowed in the US court system, but these kangaroo courts will allow it.

And what about the fact that if found innocent, the US will keep them locked up anyway?

Why don't you answer those questions and tell us how that makes it more "fair"? Doesn't sound fair to me.