One of the complaints – observations, really – about the early days of Barack Obama’s presidency, is that the many declarations of intent have not been translated into action, or deeds.
No better example exists than the Guantanamo detention centre for suspect al-Qaeda/Taliban terrorists.
A key plank in Obama’s campaign to be president was his vow to close Gitmo – something his predecessor, George Bush, also said he’d like to do, but had no other place that was convenient to send the bad guys.
What to do with the detainees seemed not a concern for Obama. He was going to close the facility come what may. To the huzzahs of the Democratic Lib-Left, soon after he took office he issued an executive order that within a year the Gitmo detention centre would be no more.
Already his intentions have hit a snag.
Democratic Congressman David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has rejected an $80 million request from the White House to begin moving some 240 detainees out of Guantanamo.
“Move them where?” is Obey’s unasked question. “So far, there is no concrete program. I’m not much interested in wasting my energy defending a theoretical program,” he was quoted in U.S. News and World Report. “When the White House gets a plan together they are welcome to come back and talk to us about it.”
Until then – no cash.
So where will the detainees go? Even Obama acknowledges many at Gitmo are hardened terrorists and that it’d be folly to release them. Moving or dispersing them into prisons on the U.S. mainland seems improbable. “What congressman wants that in his backyard?” asks the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto.
On Fox News it was suggested that some island in the Hawaiian archipelago might make a suitable substitute for Guantanamo, but that’d be unlikely to thrill Hawaiians.
As it is, the Obama White House feels (correctly) that 17 Uighurs held at Gitmo should be released. They were rounded up in Afghanistan and lumped with al-Qaeda suspects. Uighurs are Turkic-speaking, capitalistic Muslims, mostly located in China’s central Asian province of Xinjiang.
Usually Uighurs identify with Western values, and oppose China’s repressive policies and supporting radical Islam.
Uighurs are not enemies of the U.S. or West, but of China. The dilemma for the U.S. is how to release them and not offend China which views all Uighurs as potential terrorists. In fact, most are nationalists who want some freedom from Beijing’s repression – rather as Tibetans do.
Longtime Democratic Senator from Hawaii, Dan Inouye, appropriations chairman in the Senate, agrees that his colleagues want to know the “precise plan” for closing Gitmo and moving detainees. His committee is expected to come up with its version of a spending bill.
Ironically, Congress Daily reports that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has long campaigned to close Gitmo, also supports Congress’ demand for more details before appropriating $80 million.
As it is, the White House says $50 million would go to relocate detainees and military and support staff; $30 million is slated to go to the Justice Department to review all the Gitmo cases and determine who should face trial and who should be released – as well as to pay compensation or litigation expenses for those who may be released.
None of that answers the big question: Where is, and what is, the Obama administration’s plan for detainees when Gitmo is closed?
One suspects there is no plan, which provokes even more interesting questions.
5 responses so far
1 balconesfault // May 13, 2009 at 7:38 am
Why is imprisoning those detainees who are considered a real threat if released not feasible? I know these are bad guys – but worse than Crips and Bloods locked up in prisons throughout California? Worse than narco gangsters in prison in Texas and Florida? Or for that matter – that Al Qaeda is really more threatening or violent than domestic gangs or drug syndacates? Too many conservatives are hanging their hat on selling the idea that Americans are inherently cowards. Not a great place to be.
2 barker13 // May 13, 2009 at 8:06 am
“So where will the detainees go? Even Obama acknowledges many at Gitmo are hardened terrorists…”
You TRY them.
You CONVICT them.
And upon conviction…
You EXECUTE them!
Next question…???
“…17 Uighurs held at Gitmo…”
Are they TERRORISTS…??? That’s the question. Are they terrorists in the sense of the accepted meaning of the term to the average American – you know… people who engage in “terror”… people who deliberately attack civilian targets in an effort to spread “terror”… people who don’t wear uniforms, are not “official” members of a recognized signatory to the Geneva Conventions… are they the sort of people whom WE would consider terrorists if their actions were aimed at us?
If the answer is yes… turn them over to China.
If the answer is no… turn ‘em over to Ban Ki-moon – make it the UN’s problem.
BILL
3 krove // May 13, 2009 at 9:23 am
More fear mongering for effect.
Bush detained hundreds of innocent rural farmers at Gitmo. Kids as young as 13 and old men of 90. Most were handed in for ransoms.
Of all the hundreds only two (2) have been tried and convicted after 7 years in torture camp.
Bush released hundreds after 5+ years in the Gulag and repatriated them. The whole process was chaotic and grossly unfair. Nothing new there, the whole Bush presidency was one of gross incompetence.
Yes there are a very few hard core terrorists there. Give them a fair trial and sentence them, if it’s a death sentence then fine, however most of these have been tortured so to get a conviction is a moot point.
There are communities here in the USA willing and able to take these people. We have far more dangerous people here in prison. This is another false argument from the right. Bush wanted to close gitmo. McCain wanted to close gitmo.
Obama has put a year long review in place to sort out the total mess he was left regarding gimo. Paperwork was missing and chaotic.
What is your solution to this problem? Answer NONE
4 sinz54 // May 13, 2009 at 9:54 am
From a Gallup Poll taken in January:
35% responded that Gitmo should be closed.
45% responded that it should not be closed.
20% had no opinion.
The breakdown by ideology shows that it’s mostly liberals who want Gitmo to be closed. Not moderates, and certainly not conservatives.
http://tinyurl.com/7noume
So Obama closing Gitmo is simply a payoff to the Wimp Left, who want to fight terrorists according to the rules of chivalry. Nobody else needs this, or wants this.
5 balconesfault // May 13, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Not sure the point of the “Wimp Left” thing … are we asserting somehow that it’s manly to detain people in an offshore military facility outside of US laws, but that it’s wimpy to process them in the American justice system and hold them in domestic prisons?
You must log in to post a comment.