Obama Planning U.S. Trials for Guantanamo Detainees

[red states rule]

This idiot is out of his damn mind


Obama Planning U.S. Trials for Guantanamo Detainees
The president-elect's advisers quietly craft a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials

WASHINGTON -- President-elect Obama's advisers are crafting plans to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and prosecute terrorism suspects in the U.S., a plan that the Bush administration said Monday was easier said than done.

Under the plan being crafted inside Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and others would be charged in U.S. courts, where they would receive constitutional rights and open trials. But, underscoring the difficult decisions Obama must make to fulfill his pledge of shutting down Guantanamo, the plan could require the creation of a new legal system to handle the classified information inherent in some of the most sensitive cases.

Many of the about 250 Guantanamo detainees are cleared for release, but the Bush administration has not been to find a country willing to take them.

Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans aren't final.

The plan being developed by Obama's team has been championed by legal scholars from both political parties. But as details surfaced Monday, it drew criticism from Democrats who oppose creating a new legal system and from Republicans who oppose bringing terrorism suspects to the U.S. mainland.

The move would mark a sharp change from the Bush administration, which established military tribunals to prosecute detainees at the Navy base in Cuba and strongly opposes bringing prisoners to the United States. At the White House, spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday that President Bush has faced many challenges in trying to close the prison.

"We've tried very hard to explain to people how complicated it is. When you pick up people off the battlefield that have a terrorist background, it's not just so easy to let them go," Perino said. "These issues are complicated, and we have put forward a process that we think would work in order to put them on trial through military tribunals."

But Obama has been critical of that process and his legal advisers said finding an alternative will be a top priority. One of those advisers, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, acknowledges that bringing detainees to the U.S. would be controversial but said it could be accomplished.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/10/obama-planning-trials-guantanamo-detainees/

[Psychoblues]

The article is fairly comprehensive (very unusual for FauxNews) and obviously far beyond your wildest imagination for genuine comprehension, rsr. The article talks about how it is the gwb administration and the courts that have attempted to solve these issues but little progress has been made. At one point it even says that gwb has been negotiating with Yemen, the home country of the largest population detained at Gitmo, to just allow the prisoners to be released to the custody of Yemen with some agreement for rehab, etc. This subject is far more complex and internationally legalistic for your small mind to adequately consider, rsr. But, that's just my opinion. I'm certain I will be hearing more about yours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

[Immanuel]

I know this is going to get me in trouble, but this is something I agree with P.E. Obama on. I have never felt any human being should be held in prison without a proper trial and representation. No, not even a suspected terrorist.

If they are guilty, then let them rot in prison. But, after they receive due process. How many are being held today that we are now risking losing the testimony of witnesses because of the length of time between the "crime" and the trial or tribunal?

Immie

[red states rule]

These are the same people who have said that if they are let free, they will kill Americans ... and Obama wants to bring them to this country?

If they must go on trial, why can't it be done outside this country?

Libs have failed to learn from the past errors, and still want to fight a PC war

[Psychoblues]

There have been one or two that said that, rsr. The rest have never said such a thing at all. Do you know how many prisoners there are at Gitmo? I don't either. That info is TS.



These are the same people who have said that if they are let free, they will kill Americans ... and Obama wants to bring them to this country?

If they must go on trial, why can't it be done outside this country?

Libs have failed to learn from the past errors, and still want to fight a PC war

Nothing PC about due process and justice, rsr.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

There have been one or two that said that, rsr. The rest have never said such a thing at all. Do you know how many prisoners there are at Gitmo? I don't either. That info is TS.




Nothing PC about due process and justice, rsr.

Psychoblues

Terrorists are NOT covered under the US Constitution. BY bringing them here, they will then have those rights - which is what libs like Obaba want

Under Obama, terrorists will run free in the USA.

Then the ACLU lawyer defending the terrorists will have the case tossed since the troops did not read them their rights when they captured them

http://www.baxtercountyrepublicans.com/obama-flakes-gary-varvel.jpg

[Psychoblues]

Just where do you get all that bullshit, rsr?



Terrorists are NOT covered under the US Constitution. BY bringing them here, they will then have those rights - which is what libs like Obaba want

Under Obama, terrorists will run free in the USA.

Then the ACLU lawyer defending the terrorists will have the case tossed since the troops did not read them their rights when they captured them

http://www.baxtercountyrepublicans.com/obama-flakes-gary-varvel.jpg

**edited by moderator** I've run into your kind before!!!!!!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

I see you are falling flat on facts so it is back to your personal attacks

Under Obama, the US will become a paper tiger again. Terrorists will be allowed to roam free in our country and they will strike us again and again.

Dems do not know how to prosecute a war, especially hard lefties with no idea on how to protect a country.

[Psychoblues]

There are plenty of retired Generals that openly vote Democratic and would refute every word you just said, rsr.


I see you are falling flat on facts so it is back to your personal attacks

Under Obama, the US will become a paper tiger again. Terrorists will be allowed to roam free in our country and they will strike us again and again.

Dems do not know how to prosecute a war, especially hard lefties with no idea on how to protect a country.

There are a lot of active duty ones that feel the same way and they are anticipating their retirements so that they can openly voice those same opinions. Your argument is the one that doesn't hold up, dumbo. You sound even worse than the German SS in WWII. You certainly don't espouse any American values that I can identify with.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

There are plenty of retired Generals that openly vote Democratic and would refute every word you just said, rsr.



There are a lot of active duty ones that feel the same way and they are anticipating their retirements so that they can openly voice those same opinions. Your argument is the one that doesn't hold up, dumbo. You sound even worse than the German SS in WWII. You certainly don't espouse any American values that I can identify with.

Psychoblues

From what I have seen, the military vote vote went 3 to 1 for McCain. It followed the usual trend

I do not know what happened to people like you and Virgil. For some reason, you have put your party ahead of your country - and you do not care if terrorists kills inocent people - as long as you score some political win over your political rivials

I guess this is the part where McCain was saying Obama had no foreign affairs experience. What is next form your messiah? Does this mean since they will be in the country they will be given licenses and allowed to vote?

Obama can promise them a prayer rug in every terror cell

[Immanuel]

These are the same people who have said that if they are let free, they will kill Americans ... and Obama wants to bring them to this country?

If they must go on trial, why can't it be done outside this country?

Libs have failed to learn from the past errors, and still want to fight a PC war


Terrorists are NOT covered under the US Constitution. BY bringing them here, they will then have those rights - which is what libs like Obaba want

Under Obama, terrorists will run free in the USA.

Then the ACLU lawyer defending the terrorists will have the case tossed since the troops did not read them their rights when they captured them



It seems to me like you do not have a lot of faith in the U.S. Justice System. Do all/most criminals get set free?

Immie

[red states rule]

It seems to me like you do not have a lot of faith in the U.S. Justice System. Do all/most criminals get set free?

Immie

I remember the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in VA. it took over a year, cost the taxpayers millons, and the liberal media painted him as a victim.

I know how libs operate, and OBL said he would use the laws of the US against us. He knows how liberals operate as well

[Immanuel]

I remember the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in VA. it took over a year, cost the taxpayers millons, and the liberal media painted him as a victim.

I know how libs operate, and OBL said he would use the laws of the US against us. He knows how liberals operate as well

Then are you suggesting we send them to Yemen and let Yemen's justice system try them?

That very idea sounds foolish to me. We lose all control and hope that a Middle Eastern country will dispense our justice?

Or are you suggesting we hold them in prison for life or the end of the war (aka life) without any hope of proving their innocence?

Immie

[red states rule]

Then are you suggesting we send them to Yemen and let Yemen's justice system try them?

That very idea sounds foolish to me. We lose all control and hope that a Middle Eastern country will dispense our justice?

Or are you suggesting we hold them in prison for life or the end of the war (aka life) without any hope of proving their innocence?

Immie

The simple answer is to keep them at Gitmo, and have military trials

Immie, this is war, and there have been several examples off "innocent" terrorists who have been released who have been picked up again on the battlefiled; or became homicide bombers

[retiredman]

my guess is that the Obama adminstration will achieve some sort of legal closure on each of the detainees and will remove the blight on our international reputattion that Gitmo has caused.

[Immanuel]

The simple answer is to keep them at Gitmo, and have military trials

Immie, this is war, and there have been several examples off "innocent" terrorists who have been released who have been picked up again on the battlefiled; or became homicide bombers

Do you have any proof of that or just some blog on the net that claims this?

Also, I'm sorry, that does not mean everyone held in Gitmo today will do the same. That is why we have a justice system and trials.

As for holding them in Gitmo and having military trials... when do you anticipate actually getting under way? Sometime this century?

Immie

[red states rule]

Do you have any proof of that or just some blog on the net that claims this?

Also, I'm sorry, that does not mean everyone held in Gitmo today will do the same. That is why we have a justice system and trials.

As for holding them in Gitmo and having military trials... when do you anticipate actually getting under way? Sometime this century?

Immie

Immie, they have had trials at Gitmo - including OBLs driver who got about 6 months

The terrorists who are released only to resume their terrorist activities is a fact

Here is one example

Guantanamo Bay Inmate Released, Becomes Terrorist: Still U.S. Fault?
Alissa Rubin on a man released from Guantanamo who became a suicide bomber: "As many as 36 former Guantánamo detainees have taken part in violent acts against Western targets after their release, a Defense Intelligence Agency report said. Their violent acts raise the question of whether the men should have been released, but also whether their detention radicalized them."

Posted by: Clay Waters
5/9/2008 2:06:50 PM



Alissa Rubin followed up on her Thursday story on Iraqi terrorist Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi, who served three years in Guantanamo Bay and later lead suicide attacks in Mosul, in Friday's "Bomber's Final Messages Exhort Fighters Against U.S." But instead of portraying Ajmi's 2005 release as a misstep on the part of the United States, Rubin played it the other way, wondering whether it was his incarceration that transformed Ajmi into a terrorist.

The last words of a suicide bomber in Mosul were a rallying cry for Muslims to join the fight against Americans.

His taking-off point was his experience at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

In two accounts -- a transcript of his conversation in a jihadist chat room and a suicide message on tape -- both posted on Web sites devoted to Al Qaeda after his death, the bomber, Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi, 29, described his detention as “torture” carried out by infidels. He was in Guantánamo from 2002 to 2005.

The American military confirmed that Mr. Ajmi, a Kuwaiti, carried out a suicide bombing in Iraq last month. His relatives were the first to make public his death, and Kuwaiti newspapers reported on Thursday that he was one of three Kuwaiti suicide bombers involved in an attack in Mosul that killed several Iraqi soldiers.

As many as 36 former Guantánamo detainees have taken part in violent acts against Western targets after their release, a Defense Intelligence Agency report said. Their violent acts raise the question of whether the men should have been released, but also whether their detention radicalized them.

At the Pentagon on Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was asked about the risk of former Guantánamo detainees returning to kill Americans or their allies. He said the recidivism rate was 5 to 10 percent, based on one dozen to three dozen known instances.

“So I would say that I think we do as careful a vetting job as we possibly can before releasing these people,” he said at a news conference.

The American military’s account of the reasons for Mr. Ajmi’s detention and his behavior at Guantánamo depict a defiant, often silent prisoner, but there is no suggestion in available documents that he was involved with Al Qaeda at that time.

Mr. Ajmi’s own account of his time at Guantánamo describes a man emboldened by religious devotion, who found solace in prayer and who hoped others would see his death as a righteous a

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080509140407.aspx

[Immanuel]

Immie, they have had trials at Gitmo - including OBLs driver who got about 6 months

The terrorists who are released only to resume their terrorist activities is a fact

Here is one example

Guantanamo Bay Inmate Released, Becomes Terrorist: Still U.S. Fault?
Alissa Rubin on a man released from Guantanamo who became a suicide bomber: "As many as 36 former Guantánamo detainees have taken part in violent acts against Western targets after their release, a Defense Intelligence Agency report said. Their violent acts raise the question of whether the men should have been released, but also whether their detention radicalized them."

Were those 36 "men" tried and found "not guilty" or were they simply released due to insufficient evidence? If it is the latter, then it would have been the fault of the Bush Admin for not trying them in the first place. That is why we have due process.

The point is that we have a justice system that for the most part works, yet because of the scare tactics of the Bush Admin, we are not using that system. It sure makes sense politically to hold those people indefinitely if you can get away with it rather than going through the experience of a trial only to have it come out that you have held innocent victims.

Immie

[red states rule]

Were those 36 "men" tried and found "not guilty" or were they simply released due to insufficient evidence? If it is the latter, then it would have been the fault of the Bush Admin for not trying them in the first place. That is why we have due process.

The point is that we have a justice system that for the most part works, yet because of the scare tactics of the Bush Admin, we are not using that system. It sure makes sense politically to hold those people indefinitely if you can get away with it rather than going through the experience of a trial only to have it come out that you have held innocent victims.

Immie

Immie, terrorists do not have US Constitutional rights. We are at war Immie, and I do not recall FDR granting a trial to every Nazi picked up on the battlefield

Amazing how some are more worried about the "rights" of terrorists then defeating them

[red states rule]

So the messiah wants to give enemy combatants Constitutional rights but can't seem to afford the time to do the same for actual Americans. The messiah is a clever guy, he is importing constituents.

The next 4 years sure are going to be fun, if you want to destroy America and kill as many of us as possible

[Immanuel]

Immie, terrorists do not have US Constitutional rights. We are at war Immie, and I do not recall FDR granting a trial to every Nazi picked up on the battlefield

Amazing how some are more worried about the "rights" of terrorists then defeating them

I honestly don't care if they have Constitutional Rights or not. There are things called Human Rights and quite frankly, I believe Human Rights trump Constitutional Rights. In fact, our Constitutional Rights were conceived from Human Rights.

Why is it that you believe one can not be concerned about BOTH human rights and defeating terrorists?

Immie

[red states rule]

I honestly don't care if they have Constitutional Rights or not. There are things called Human Rights and quite frankly, I believe Human Rights trump Constitutional Rights. In fact, our Constitutional Rights were conceived from Human Rights.

Why is it that you believe one can not be concerned about BOTH human rights and defeating terrorists?

Immie

Immie, the terrorists are well taken care of at Gitmo. They are fed well, and they have gained weight. The guards are respectful to their religious customs, and some do not want to leave

The crap the left sprews about them being mistreated is just that - crap

[Immanuel]

Immie, the terrorists are well taken care of at Gitmo. They are fed well, and they have gained weight. The guards are respectful to their religious customs, and some do not want to leave

The crap the left sprews about them being mistreated is just that - crap

Then try them and allow them the opportunity to leave.

Any that decide to stay... CHARGE THEM RENT!

Immie

[red states rule]

Then try them and allow them the opportunity to leave.

Any that decide to stay... CHARGE THEM RENT!

Immie

Have the trials at Gitmo, and have them serve their sentences at Gitmo

Or, allow them to live in the White House with Obama, and the terrorist loving libs

[Immanuel]

Have the trials at Gitmo, and have them serve their sentences at Gitmo

Or, allow them to live in the White House with Obama, and the terrorist loving libs

Have the trials... that is the only thing anyone has been saying.

Now, answer the next question... when are you planning on having these trials? Sometime this century?

Also, back to the FDR thing, I wouldn't have approved of holding NAZI's without trials and I would have damned sure been opposed to holding Japanese American Citizens in concentration camps.

Immie

[red states rule]

Have the trials... that is the only thing anyone has been saying.

Now, answer the next question... when are you planning on having these trials? Sometime this century?

Also, back to the FDR thing, I wouldn't have approved of holding NAZI's without trials and I would have damned sure been opposed to holding Japanese American Citizens in concentration camps.

Immie

Have them at Gitmo. Have them now.

I guess this is the start of the "change". Its funny, so many people blame Pres Bush, but it seems that any of his good policies, Obama wants to do away with. that makes no damn sense

Change for the sake of change. It's not whether the change is positive or not it is just simply change

[retiredman]

Have the trials... that is the only thing anyone has been saying.

Now, answer the next question... when are you planning on having these trials? Sometime this century?

Also, back to the FDR thing, I wouldn't have approved of holding NAZI's without trials and I would have damned sure been opposed to holding Japanese American Citizens in concentration camps.

Immie


bravo! well said

[red states rule]

bravo! well said

Obama's supporters chickens are coming home to roost.

[Immanuel]

Have them at Gitmo. Have them now.

I guess this is the start of the "change". Its funny, so many people blame Pres Bush, but it seems that any of his good policies, Obama wants to do away with. that makes no damn sense

Change for the sake of change. It's not whether the change is positive or not it is just simply change

That first part is all I have been saying.

On the second part, I must admit that if you were to hold a gun to my head and say, "name a good policy instituted by President Bush by the count of 5 or die", I would be dead by 5. I'm sure there must be something, but I could not come up with one off the top of my head.

Immie

[red states rule]

That first part is all I have been saying.

On the second part, I must admit that if you were to hold a gun to my head and say, "name a good policy instituted by President Bush by the count of 5 or die", I would be dead by 5. I'm sure there must be something, but I could not come up with one of the top of my head.

Immie

Thanks to his policies (as far as the war on terror) we have not been hit again since 9-11

With Obama running things (along with Reid and Pelosi) the terrorists know they will have a much easier time carrying out their activities

[Immanuel]

Thanks to his policies (as far as the war on terror) we have not been hit again since 9-11

We have no proof that Al Qaeda is or was prepared to hit us again after 9/11 or that Bush's policies have done anything at all to interfere with any planned attacks. It is a good thing that we have not been attacked since 9/11.

Bush and company can beat there breasts and say that they are responsible for holding Al Qaeda at bay for seven years and you can bet that they will especially if there is an attack any time during the Obama administration. That doesn't make it so.


With Obama running things (along with Reid and Pelosi) the terrorists know they will have a much easier time carrying out their activities

Obama has not been tested. He may very well be weak as you say, but he may also be something totally unexpected.

Immie

[red states rule]

We have no proof that Al Qaeda is or was prepared to hit us again after 9/11 or that Bush's policies have done anything at all to interfere with any planned attacks. It is a good thing that we have not been attacked since 9/11.

Bush and company can beat there breasts and say that they are responsible for holding Al Qaeda at bay for seven years and you can bet that they will especially if there is an attack any time during the Obama administration. That doesn't make it so.



Obama has not been tested. He may very well be weak as you say, but he may also be something totally unexpected.

Immie

Immie, AQ has a track record of continuing their attacks. Policies like (that libs opposed) like tracking their money, their bank records, listening to their phone calls put a damper on them

Meanwhile, libs rant about their rights being violated - and terrorists bust out laughing

[Immanuel]

Immie, AQ has a track record of continuing their attacks. Policies like (that libs opposed) like tracking their money, their bank records, listening to their phone calls put a damper on them

Meanwhile, libs rant about their rights being violated - and terrorists bust out laughing

Just because they have a track record does not mean they were ready for another attack. I'm not so sure they were ready for America's reaction to this attack and yes, that has some to do with President Bush, but maybe they had simply expended their American resources and have not yet set up the next move.

You can claim those policies put a damper on Al Qaeda all you want. It is easy to say, "we stopped them", but that does not make it the case. I hope and pray that George Bush can say the day after he leaves office, that we only had one attack on our soil under his watch. He can brag about that if he so chooses. That doesn't make him a success and it doesn't mean Al Qaeda was defeated by George Bush or that his policies did it.

Immie

[red states rule]

Just because they have a track record does not mean they were ready for another attack. I'm not so sure they were ready for America's reaction to this attack and yes, that has some to do with President Bush, but maybe they had simply expended their American resources and have not yet set up the next move.

You can claim those policies put a damper on Al Qaeda all you want. It is easy to say, "we stopped them", but that does not make it the case. I hope and pray that George Bush can say the day after he leaves office, that we only had one attack on our soil under his watch. He can brag about that if he so chooses. That doesn't make him a success and it doesn't mean Al Qaeda was defeated by George Bush or that his policies did it.

Immie

We can agree to disagree Immie

I do know how disappointed liberals are there have been no more attacks. Like in Iraq, the left was hoping for failure and only the worst occur. Now with Obama and the defeates left running things, I am sure if we are ht again - they will not take the responsibiity - they will blame Pres Bush

[bullypulpit]

This idiot is out of his damn mind


Obama Planning U.S. Trials for Guantanamo Detainees
The president-elect's advisers quietly craft a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials

WASHINGTON -- President-elect Obama's advisers are crafting plans to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and prosecute terrorism suspects in the U.S., a plan that the Bush administration said Monday was easier said than done.

Under the plan being crafted inside Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and others would be charged in U.S. courts, where they would receive constitutional rights and open trials. But, underscoring the difficult decisions Obama must make to fulfill his pledge of shutting down Guantanamo, the plan could require the creation of a new legal system to handle the classified information inherent in some of the most sensitive cases.

Many of the about 250 Guantanamo detainees are cleared for release, but the Bush administration has not been to find a country willing to take them.

Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans aren't final.

The plan being developed by Obama's team has been championed by legal scholars from both political parties. But as details surfaced Monday, it drew criticism from Democrats who oppose creating a new legal system and from Republicans who oppose bringing terrorism suspects to the U.S. mainland.

The move would mark a sharp change from the Bush administration, which established military tribunals to prosecute detainees at the Navy base in Cuba and strongly opposes bringing prisoners to the United States. At the White House, spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday that President Bush has faced many challenges in trying to close the prison.

"We've tried very hard to explain to people how complicated it is. When you pick up people off the battlefield that have a terrorist background, it's not just so easy to let them go," Perino said. "These issues are complicated, and we have put forward a process that we think would work in order to put them on trial through military tribunals."

But Obama has been critical of that process and his legal advisers said finding an alternative will be a top priority. One of those advisers, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, acknowledges that bringing detainees to the U.S. would be controversial but said it could be accomplished.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/10/obama-planning-trials-guantanamo-detainees/

Why, pray tell is he "out of his mind"? In nearly seven years, the Bush administration has yet to successfully prosecute a case against any of the detainees at GITMO under the military tribunals set up under the horribly flawed Military Commissions Act of 2006, where evidence obtained through torture, hear-say, and where the defense cannot question witnesses.

Had the Bush administration simply settled for courts martial under US military jusidiction and under the UCMJ, GITMO would never have been a problem. Instead, he had to set up legal black-holes outside of US jurisdiction where the treatment of the prisoners virtually guarantees that none of the evidence obtained in these facilities can be used in US civil or military courts.

[red states rule]

Why, pray tell is he "out of his mind"? In nearly seven years, the Bush administration has yet to successfully prosecute a case against any of the detainees at GITMO under the military tribunals set up under the horribly flawed Military Commissions Act of 2006, where evidence obtained through torture, hear-say, and where the defense cannot question witnesses.

Had the Bush administration simply settled for courts martial under US military jusidiction and under the UCMJ, GITMO would never have been a problem. Instead, he had to set up legal black-holes outside of US jurisdiction where the treatment of the prisoners virtually guarantees that none of the evidence obtained in these facilities can be used in US civil or military courts.

They aren't eligible to be tried in our court system.

This will only feed the terrorist beast by providing them the US and world media to broadcast their hateful message to the world.

Obama continuing the failed Clinton policies of trying these guys in our courts instead, allowing them protections under our constitution (They aren't citizens and few if any have committed crimes on our soil.), of which they have sworn to destroy.

They operate more like an army than common criminals. They were captured in a war zone. They have a military like command structure and they operated from Afganistan which they considered their country and had committed an act of war by "bombing" the towers with a kamakazi like attack.

[red states rule]

Back to the topic at hand,

Does it say whether or not these people would be released on our soil if they are found "Not Guilty" or would they be sent back where they came from?

Or will Obama and the Dems offer them citizanship as a way to express their sympathy for the way the poor terrorists were treated?

[Gaffer]

Back to the topic at hand,

Does it say whether or not these people would be released on our soil if they are found "Not Guilty" or would they be sent back where they came from?

Or will Obama and the Dems offer them citizanship as a way to express their sympathy for the way the poor terrorists were treated?

He'll offer them citizenship and a cabinet post. And there are CIA positions coming available. Not to mention the citizen security force.

[Kathianne]

Flames/off topic/etc., moved to cage. Discussion on President's Fault or not, new thread.

[Kathianne]

Could it be?


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/washington/15gitmo.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=slogin


NEWS ANALYSIS
Post-Guantánamo: A New Detention Law?

By WILLIAM GLABERSON
As a presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama sketched the broad outlines of a plan to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba: try detainees in American courts and reject the Bush administration’s military commission system.

Now, as Mr. Obama moves closer to assuming responsibility for Guantánamo, his pledge to close the detention center is bringing to the fore thorny questions under consideration by his advisers. They include where Guantánamo’s detainees could be held in this country, how many might be sent home and a matter that people with ties to the Obama transition team say is worrying them most: What if some detainees are acquitted or cannot be prosecuted at all?

That concern is at the center of a debate among national security, human rights and legal experts that has intensified since the election. Even some liberals are arguing that to deal realistically with terrorism, the new administration should seek Congressional authority for preventive detention of terrorism suspects deemed too dangerous to release even if they cannot be successfully prosecuted.

“You can’t be a purist and say there’s never any circumstance in which a democratic society can preventively detain someone,” said one civil liberties lawyer, David D. Cole, a Georgetown law professor who has been a critic of the Bush administration....