So, it costs 32 times as much to house an inmate at Guantanamo Bay ($800,000/year) than it does to house them in a federal prison ($25,000). So, why don’t we double Guantanamo like Mitt Romney once suggested? Or, more seriously, why don’t we close the goddamned disgraceful facility and have the collective courage to act like we believe in our system of justice? The administration is still trying to talk reason to Congress, but it’s hopeless.
… the Obama administration had made attempts to rein in costs of detaining prisoners by urging the closure of the facility. [Army Brig. Gen. Greg] Zanetti’s report said that Attorney General Eric Holder and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta wrote a letter to GOP congressional leaders noting that while Guantánamo spends “more than $800,000 per detainee,” “our federal prisons spend a little over $25,000 per year, per prisoner, and federal courts and prosecutors routinely handle numerous terrorist case a year well within their operating budgets.” Nonetheless, Republicans — who claim to be concerned about the deficit about all else — have refused to even seriously consider shuttering the camp.
It’s not totally fair to blame it all on Republicans. True, they’re the one’s instigating the fear-mongering and if they would cease and desist, no Democrat would make a peep. But they’ve scared most of the Democrats in Congress into complete humiliating capitulation on the issue of closing Gitmo. Almost none of them had the president’s back when he tried to close it and they’re not going to be there for him now.
Still, it shows you how little the Republicans really care about wasting government resources that they’re willing to pay 32 times the going rate to incarcerate a group of people that still includes some innocents.
Shows hoe gutless Republicans really are that they are afraid of a terrorist inside a maximum security prison.
Still, why is Obama continuing to hold innocent prisoners? And why isn’t he bringing the guilty to trial? Not even the kangaroo court military tribunals? Isn’t ten years of fruitless torture enough to prove their innocence? Do we have to bind the witches and see if they float?
Some may criticize me for hyperbole, but I regard Gitmo as a blot on the human race equal to that of the Nazi courts whose judges were tried at Nuremburg.
What a surprise, it’s all Obama’s fault!
What a surprise, none of it is Obama’s fault.
Harry Truman had a sign, “The Buck Stops Here”.
That’s the sign of a leader.
This particular issue is not Obama’s fault, no. Where is the funding going to come from if the people in Congress won’t provide it? And no, Obama’s not faultless on this because even if he could get the funding he would still hold people indefinitely. But it doesn’t matter because the funding won’t be provided anyway. So why bash him needlessly? Focus on the real culprits.
And Joe is not an apologist, he just sees politics for what it is. I don’t get all of this “you apologist” or “you fan boy” crap. Pols are pols.
It takes funds to have trials, true. This is the reason people are imprisoned without trial, there are no funds for the trial?
Kind of makes a mockery of the Constitution’s right to a speedy trial doesn’t it? Gitmo is a mockery of the Constitution. The Republicans barred transferring prisoners to CONUS. They also barred real court trials, but Obama still has options. He also has obligations to the Constitution. Or do you agree with Bush that the Constitution is “just a God-damned piece of paper”?
Regarding Joe, did I say in my original post that everything is Obama’s fault? No. So why did he accuse me me of saying it? But we’ve sunk pretty low if we are saying that the Chief Executive, sworn to protect and preserve the Constitution gets a pass on his duties because it’s bad politics.
That’s what we didn’t like about Republican’s defense of George W. Bush. And the current Republicans in Congress; they don’t get a pass because their obstruction is good politics.
Agreed. They are the main culprits. But Obama could hold trials or tribunals and dispose of the cases. I’m sure you know that indefinite detention without charge or disposition was one of the grievances the American rebels had against the British crown.
If we start holding military-tribunal trials, without any civilian trials, it’s game over for civilian trials.
Given your love of the Constitution, you must be pissed that Obama has declined to defend DOMA in court and is no longer deporting non-violent illegal immigrants.
After all, he’s sworn to enforce all the laws, even the ones he dislikes and disagrees with, right?
Because we’ve sunk pretty low if we are saying that the Chief Executive, sworn to protect and preserve the Constitution gets a pass on his duties because it’s good politics to stop enforcing laws unpopular with Latinos and Gays.
No. I believe DOMA is unconstitutional. Perhaps Holder and Obama agree. Perhaps it’s just politics. Motive doesn’t matter if the action is correct.
As for non-deportation, I’m not familiar with the policy you cite. Certainly, whether to deport or not is for the courts to decide. If the policy you are talking about is to not bring cases to court, then yes, that is wrong. If the policy is to not look too hard (ala Don’t ask, Don’t tell), then that is an allocation of resources question. If the law takes away all judicial discretion, then the law may be unconstitutional. I’m not a lawyer, but I believe laws have been declared unconstitutional for that reason. Perhaps not.
Just because you think DOMA is unconstitutional doesn’t make it unconstitutional.
As of right now, it’s a legal law. It’s been on the books for 15 years.
If you believe in the rule of law, then you can’t pick and choose which laws to enforce. You have to enforce all of them, even ones you don’t like.
Yet I don’t hear lefties scream about the rule of law on this matter.
I never heard a lefty scream about the rule of law back in 2004 when then Mayor Gavin Newsome was marrying gays and lesbians in violation of state law.
They only squawk about the rule of law when it makes them feel good.
What are you talking about? Obama is enforcing DOMA. They’re not defending it from appeals, but they continue to enforce it. There have been several cases challenging the law filed recently, based upon the government’s refusal to provide benefits to same-sex couples because of DOMA.
The administration is not defending DOMA from legal challenges, but they have stated that they will continue to enforce it, as they have always done, until it is repealed or ruled unconstitutional.
I’m sure the people who say this are also deficit scolds; this is of course a great way to spend our money.
So is this:
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1665387/infographic-of-the-day-what-s-more-expensive-prison-or-princeton
“Camp Justice”. Right. And if you called s*** roses, I guess it would smell nice and look pretty in a vase.
Seems like a serious inconsistency in the administration’s position.
Yes, we are at war, they say.
Yes, al-Qaeda and other terrorist captives are POWs, detained enemy combatants, and unlawful ones to boot.
Hence, the argument goes, it is in principle lawful to detain some, or any, or maybe all of them for the duration of hostilities – in practice, indefinitely – without trial.
They are not, the theory goes, being held because they are suspects or actual criminals but because they are combatants.
Because they are unlawful combatants the administration has the option of trying them for their war crimes, but is not required to do so to continue to detain them simply as POWs.
And there are other reasons why the last thing the administration wants to do is put at risk the claims that these guys are warriors and we are at war.
That is an important element of their defense of their killings of OBL and of al-Awlaki.
And it is an important element of their defense of the continued drone war in Yemen and the continued US support for elements combating Islamist forces in eastern Africa.
But closing Gitmo and bringing them into the federal system would lend credence to a theory the administration rejects that they are not POWs but only criminals deprived of their rights who now deserve, at last, their day in court.
The Republicans are, in that regard, doing no more than saving Obama from his own inconsequence.
Truman, by the way, fought the Korean War with no form of congressional authorization at all.
He just did it.
So an admirer of Truman complains about Obama’s constitutional fecklessness.
Very good.
What inconsistency?
The administration wanted to close GITMO.
The senate voted 90-6 to prohibit the funding of transfer.
Included in the 90 are liberal icons Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown, Christine Gillibrand, and Bernie Sanders.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&sessio
n=1&vote=00196
But no, this is all evil Obama’s fault, not the yellow-bellied Senate.
The inconsistency he just laid out: POW, or criminals. Can’t be both.
And if they are POWs, then the Geneva Convention applies.
The Geneva Conventions authorize trying people held as POWs for crimes they committed. It even specified how they are to be tried – by a “regularly constituted tribunal” that provides the same rights and procedural protections that a soldier in one’s own military would have if charged with a crime.
The covention specifies how they are to be tried but does not require that they be tried.
And the point is that POWs can be held indefinitely, though not longer than the duration of the war, without trial.
The covention specifies how they are to be tried but does not require that they be tried.
Well, no, but it allows them (those that committed crimes or fought illegally, anyway) to be tried.
Which means it’s perfectly legitimate to hold them like POWs, and also then try them as criminals.
He says, “but closing Gitmo and bringing them into the federal system would lend credence to a theory the administration rejects that they are not POWs but only criminals deprived of their rights who now deserve, at last, their day in court.”
They never were going to be a part of a federal judicial system. Never. Just because they would have been on US soil and in a prison camp would not have made them part of the judicial system.
During World War II, there were German prison camps within the United States. They were never part of the federal judicial system. This would have been similar.
You can bring a POW to trial if they commit an obvious crime. Not all POWs have committed the same acts. Some have committed crimes, some have simply engaged in combat. It’s a mistake to say Bin Laden’s acts are the same as a someone picked up planting land mines outside a military base in Kabul.
Similarly, during World War II, Nazi spys and saboteurs were processed differently than a Nazi solider planting land mines outside a military base in Tobruk.
The difference also pertains to where the act occurred and against whom.
So a Nazi sabotaging a bridge in Bastogne against US troops versus a Nazi trying to sabotage a bridge in New York City, will be treated differently even though they involve similar underlying acts. Acts committed on US soil and against civilians have traditionally been treated differently than acts committed in battlefield conditions.
German soldiers taken prisoner at Omaha Beach were later released even though they killed thousands of GIs coming up the beach. Yet, German soldiers who killed thousands of civilians were not released and were tried for crimes.
Even more relevantly, German troops who killed American soldiers in battle at Omaha Beach were let go, while German troops who killed American soldiers who had surrendered and were no longer in the fight at Malmedy were tried as criminals.
They never were going to be a part of a federal judicial system.
Actually, Holder and Obama want to bring numerous Gitmo detainees into federal court to face criminal charges in a civilian court. Don’t you remember the big fight over the proposed trial in New York?
So when’s the war gonna be over, joe?
Let’s not jack the thread, now. This really has nothing to do with the legal question you brought up.
It has everything to do with it. Of course you can try a POW as a criminal eventually. But IS THIS A WAR, or not? If not, it’s bullshit. If it is, when’s it end? In this context, they cannot be both.
Or rather, they can be both…but they’ll just be stuck rotting there until they die and then we can declare the war over. I think that’s what’s in the cards. At this point, I have no faith Gitmo will ever be closed, especially not in symbolism.
Of course it’s a war. Congress invoked its war powers by passing an AUMF, and the President is using the military to prosecute it.
Where did you dream up this notion that one has to know when a war is going to end in order for it to be a war? Nobody knew in 1942 when World War Two was going to end.
So, once again, in the context of this war, these detainees can be both held as POWs, and also be tried for crimes. Just like in every other war.
You are right on the law.
My point was about the politics of the thing.
Of course they can be both. The Geneva Conventions specify how to try criminals among POWs. What do you think all of those uniformed war criminals tried at Nuremberg were?
“Truman, by the way, fought the Korean War with no form of congressional authorization at all.”
———————————————–
That’s untrue. Congress has power of the purse. They could have cut off funding any time they wanted. By happily “authorizing” war appropriations, Congress explicitly “authorized” military action.
They also have the power of impeachment. If they felt Truman was acting unconstitutionally, they had the discretion to remove him. They didn’t. Therefore, they additionally provided implicit consent to it’s legality.
Truman had a UN mandate. The UN treaty and all treaties supersede Acts of Congress. At least that’s what they taught me back in school.
Congress didn’t pass Defense Authorizations and Appropriations including funds for Korea? I think they did. This was the first of the back door declarations of war.
Don’t I recall something called the Korean Emergency Act? It gave wide sweeping powers to the President, including the power to force contractors to take contracts at the government’s terms. I’ve been told that for decades the DoD used this power to procure uniforms at DoD dictated prices from reluctant clothing manufacturers.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Truman did not have a declaration of war and did not ask for one.
Nor did he have any form of congressional authorization for the user of force.
Sure, congress could have cut off the money.
But my point was that Truman ignored the Constitution even more emphatically and boldly than anyone since, including Obama and including GW.
He is the wrong guy to cite as an example of presidential rectitude when you are complaining about Obama ignoring the Constitution.
There is no inconsistency. An individual can be both a combatant and a criminal. What do you think all of those uniformed war criminals tried at Nuremberg were?
Read the Geneva Conventions. You can certainly hold someone as a POW, and then try them for crimes. You can’t try them for merely fighting in the war according to the laws of war, but if they were committing crimes while fighting, you can try them for those.
BooMan writes about “cowards,” but it’s important to remember that the argument about terror suspects being a special security risk is just a pretext.
The real reason people like Graham and McCain want Gitmo to stay open is because they want an overseas prison, off American soil, where it is easier to abuse prisoners. Remember, this was the reason why Rumsfeld opened it in the first place – just think of the arguments they made about what protections detainees do not enjoy off of American soil. Obama closed the CIA black sites. His withdrawal from Iraq has included ending the American involvement in running prisons in Iraq. We’ll be pulling out Afghanistan at some point, meaning that Baghram will be closed. That just leaved Guantanamo.
Even though this administration is not torturing detainees there, it would be much easier for a future Republican administration that wishes to do so to start up the water boarding again if there is an existing overseas prison camp.