Hacker News Reader

Comment by VLM | Hacker News Reader

"Obama claims his hands are tied"

Its a pity he's not Commander in Chief of the military. Then he could issue orders to soldiers in charge of a military facility. Perhaps whoever is the Commander in Chief should step forward and solve the problem.

I am well aware of the true arguments that he would be unable to defund or outright eliminate the facility, Congress would have to do that. It is WELL within his ability to, say, directly order all prisoners released, or order all troops to leave the facility and no troops to re-enter the facility.

View on HN

Obama never wanted to end the injustice of Guantanamo, he merely wanted to move it:

Long before, and fully independent of, anything Congress did, President Obama made clear that he was going to preserve the indefinite detention system at Guantanamo even once he closed the camp. President Obama fully embraced indefinite detention — the defining injustice of Guantanamo — as his own policy.

...

hen the President finally unveiled his plan for “closing Guantanamo,” it became clear that it wasn’t a plan to “close” the camp as much as it was a plan simply to re-locate it — import it — onto American soil, at a newly purchased federal prison in Thompson, Illinois. William Lynn, Obama’s Deputy Defense Secretary, sent a letter to inquiring Senators that expressly stated that the Obama administration intended to continue indefinitely to imprison some of the detainees with no charges of any kind. The plan was classic Obama: a pretty, feel-good, empty symbolic gesture (get rid of the symbolic face of Bush War on Terror excesses) while preserving the core abuses (the powers of indefinite detention ), even strengthening and expanding those abuses by bringing them into the U.S. http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/

I think in a way you're being unfair to President Obama. I believe his actual intention was to get the prisoners onto continental American soil and into a Federal prison so that the Supreme Court would feel more inclined to require they be released or charged in the civilian system. He'd get the outcome he wanted (I think he really does believe Gitmo and unlimited detention are bad ideas) without having to take political responsibility for it himself.

President Obama's stranger decisions can often be explained as an attempt to vote "present".

You think he said to himself "I'd like to shut guantanamo bay, but only if I can do it without getting credit or blame, if I have to take credit or blame I just won't do it" ?

Seems to me he's in his final term - it's not like closing guantanamo bay would be the thing that stopped him getting re-elected.

More likely, in my opinion, is that after being elected he received secret information (maybe proving the detainees are guilty, maybe proving they've been subject to torture which they'd go to the press about, maybe both) and he decided he didn't want them released.

Chicago politics - Chicago politician - Illinois prison. I hadn't been aware of that nugget.

It is WELL within his ability to, say, directly order all prisoners released

Released where? To Cuba? Into the sea?

If you want to release people, you need to send them someplace. Congress has banned the government from sending them to the US. You can't send them to other countries because those countries won't take them. So...where do they go?

or order all troops to leave the facility and no troops to re-enter the facility.

How do the prisoners eat after the US Navy leaves?

> Released where? To Cuba? Into the sea?

If your father/mother/son/daughter was kidnapped when you were 5, and you didn't know where they were for years and then found out he is in Gitmo, pretty sure you'd like to see them back at your house?

Why "the country/town/house" they were kidnapped from isn't even a choice on your list?

Because those countries generally don't want them back. Or because they don't want to go back. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_detainees_at_Guantanamo_... for an example

The US government has ruled that many Gitmo detainees are no threat and have been trying to repatriate them but their home countries (which are not always the countries they were taken from) resist. That is stupid and wrong, just like taking them in the first place. But you can't just wish that inconvenient fact away.

I get that this is a nightmarish horrific injustice. But that shouldn't allow us to lose all rationality and start living in a fantasy world. Ordering the US Navy to abandon the facility won't help Gitmo detainees: they're run out of food and water and they'll still be thousands of miles from their families with no way to get home.

Why not take them with them then?

Do you mean have the US Navy take the detainees with them?

If so, then the question is: where? You can't take them into the US because Congress has made that illegal. You can't take them into other countries because those countries won't let you. So where do they go?

Take them to the US anyway, then by the time the Supreme court rules on the matter (and it may go either way) it will be too late - there is putting that genie back.

It is hardly less legal than the spying program or plenty of other things the president has done.

It is the very least the US government can do as a token of reparation for the huge injustice that was/is Guantanamo.

No governor wants to be pegged with "letting a flood of foreign terrorists" settle in their state.

I seem to recall there was a similar issue with Iraqi refugees during the last war. To get that to work you would have to expect far too many people to fall politically on their swords, and then the refugees have an almost impossible time actually assimilating because doubtless they'll be put onto some sort of watchlist as if they were a felon or pedophile, and employers would refuse to hire them, and no one would rent to them, and credit would be impossible to get, etc.

Although I agree we should at least be trying. We seem to have given up as a nation on even accepting the possibility of a productive solution that doesn't just involve having them all die then pretending like it never happened.

If government has ruled that detainees are no threat, why are they still treated as if they are, shackled even when alone and watching television? It costs $2MM per year per detainee to keep them in Gitmo. Wouldn't it be much more cost-effective to provide some relocation assistance? I get that repatriation isn't always possible but can it really be true that less than 200 people can't get at least temporary visas somewhere else? That's less than the capacity of a single trans-oceanic flight. It seems silly (and apparently very expensive) to me to perpetuate the farce, and wringing our hands and talking about rationality while letting people rot in prison just because they can't be repatriated without exploring other options seems either equally silly, or not to be the real reason they remain there.

why are they still treated as if they are, shackled even when alone and watching television?

Because the government is stupid and evil and because treating the detainees fairly is politically impossible. Everytime an idiot congressman visits Gitmo and sees humane treatment, he can pitch a fit about how the administration is soft on terror. That helps him politically because most voters hear Gitmo and think 'Osama's best buddies'. That political constraint puts a ceiling on how well the Gitmo detainees can be treated.

This is obviously horribly immoral. That being said, I don't know how to fix that problem.

The real problem here is that most Americans, especially most red-state Americans, believe that Gitmo detainees are dangerous monsters rather than just a bunch of guest workers who were in the wrong place at the wrong time plus a few low-ranking fighters. If you fixed this problem, Gitmo would cease to be an issue because there'd be no political benefit to opposing humane treatment or settlement in the US.

Wouldn't it be much more cost-effective to provide some relocation assistance?

Sure. Where would you relocate them to? I mean, the government has been trying but most countries are not interested in taking these people, even though most of them have done precisely nothing wrong.

without exploring other options

I'd love better options. Can you suggest any?

Seriously, all the options I see suck and are unjust. If you have any suggestions I really, honestly, would love to hear them. But I haven't seen any yet.

The real problem here is that most Americans, especially most red-state Americans, believe that Gitmo detainees are dangerous monsters...

You must live on a coast, if not actually inside the Beltway. I live in a Red State, and no one here gives a shit about terrorism or any other militarist bugaboo anymore (this includes my Fox-News-on-ten-hours-a-day grandparents). There was a poll about bombing Syria; you might have seen it? All the "outrage" we see when completely closing Guantanamo is discussed is fake anyway: shills who have a commercial interest in increasing fear in a USA that is not only safer than it's ever been, but is in the running for the safest nation in recorded history. They need to update the script, though. The defense industry has gone to that same well too many times: nobody believes the bullshit anymore. Perhaps for their purposes it's enough if politicians believe that voters believe the bullshit.

>Because those countries generally don't want them back. Or because they don't want to go back.

Then house them at Guantanamo in homes with telephones and the internet, instead of like people who have been accused and convicted of a crime. If we don't want them, why do we hold them incommunicado in a prison?

Or is that irrational fantasy world logic?

Released where? To Cuba? Into the sea?

Most of the men abducted to Guantanamo have been released. All of those went somewhere. Most just went home, although some went to more colorful locales like Palau and Albania, particularly if they had been abducted while abroad so their native land had some excuse not to accept their return. This isn't surprising, since the vast majority of these men were not "combatants" and had little connection to AQ or any other terrorist organization. The "recidivism" of released abductees has been calculated at 4%, which is such a mind-blowingly low number that it speaks more to the indiscriminate nature of the abductions rather than the rehabilitational effectiveness of Guantanamo.

Besides, what's your brilliant solution? Maintain this obscenity until the last abductee dies of old age in about 60 years? Thanks for reminding us of the typical practicality of status quo Beltway-insider conventional wisdom.

I think the US government should offer most of the detainees visas to come and live in the US and should offer them financial compensation for unjust imprisonment. That is politically impossible, so I think the government should continue working to repatriate them and improve living conditions in Gitmo itself.

That's not a good solution. But it seems like the best feasible solution. I'd love to be proven wrong. Can you do that? Or are you going to make a big public display of your moral purity by talking down on pragmatism?

It takes a lot of chutzpah to ask the question, "Into the sea?" as if that's what anyone wants, as if a rational being could ever commit that misunderstanding, and then get all butt-hurt when someone points out that the vast majority of abductees have been released with no problems.

Aren't you the ass who came up with "green lanternism"? I actually googled it: the first usage was Brad DeLong pulling heroic pundit duty on the Fed Chair campaign of Larry Summers. Just as I said: status quo Beltway-insider conventional wisdom. Do I have a sixth sense about this shit or something?

Now you want "to be proven [sic] wrong"? Please. If anyone has a burden of proof, it's whoever who describes Guantanamo as "pragmatic". Good grief. If the commander-in-chief wanted prisoners in any USA military facility in the world transferred to any other USA military facility in the world, he could send an email and have wheels up within an hour. Of course, keeping a campaign promise might have consequences for him. He might have to send a Joint Chief to testify to Congress or something. I'm not sure how he'd recover from that harrowing ordeal, but I still think he should keep his promise.

as if that's what anyone wants

I don't think anyone wants that, but I do think some people haven't thought through the consequences of their policies.

Aren't you the ass who came up with "green lanternism"?

I didn't invent it but I did mention it. Here's a more original description: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/845

Just as I said: status quo Beltway-insider conventional wisdom.

This is so weird. The invocation of green lanterism was coined to make fun of Beltway insiders and their bizarre fixation on using magical thinking to solve all problems.

he could send an email and have wheels up within an hour.

Except for when Congress passed a law making that illegal. Hey, are military officers required to obey illegal orders?

...magical thinking to solve all problems.

The problems are created when some defense contractor's lobbyist floats some vile proposal and then makes it worth a few Pentagon staffers' time to implement it. The magical thinking is saved for the talking-head shows, when enough of the public notices the travesty. Then an ex-general or columnist or whoever must be sent around to argue the dubious proposition that stopping indefensible conduct is much more difficult than starting it. As if that were even an argument. When I fuck up, I experience the consequences. Why is that impossible for people in the federal government?

Hey, are military officers required to obey illegal orders?

Now I know you're trolling me. Anyway, Obama signed that law in 2011.

NOTE: I am not the OP

>Now I know you're trolling me.

Come on, seriously? There's no need for that.

>Anyway, Obama signed that law in 2011.

... and in 2010, 2012, and 2013. It's been part of the National Defense Authorization Act every year Mr. Obama has been in office. The last two years he's stumped around the time the bill was moving through the house, trying to use the Bully Pulpit to remove the prohibition of funds being used to relocate the prisoners. So far, he has been unsuccessful.

The important part is, "Obama signed that law". No one held a gun to his head. No one will be holding a gun to his head next year while he signs it either. Every year, Obama chooses to sign the law that gives him a pretext to continue operating the Guantanamo obscenity for another year. Is it so hard to see this pattern?

Sure, it might cost him some political capital to do the right thing. That merely illustrates that to Obama, keeping his campaign promise is not worth spending some political capital. That's a far cry from this "impossible" bullshit I've been reading.

> Most of the men abducted to Guantanamo have been released.

Yes, they were either tried or sent back to their home countries. The ones that are left are the ones that no state is willing to host a trial for (not trying Guantanamo detainees in Alexandria became a political issue in Virginia state politics recently), or whose home countries don't want them back. What do you do with them?

I think the decent thing to do would be to give everyone not convicted of an offense US citizenship and a chunk of money by way of compensation.

Of course, that's not going to happen....

Exactly right! To our shame, the reason decent things don't happen isn't because they're impossible, but because they might have some political fallout. To a certain species of troglodyte, "impossible" and "some political fallout" are the same thing.

That would be the decent thing to do, but Congress has explicitly blocked that. Under no circumstances can a detainee be transported to the United States.

Right, but the President and Congress are not elected to do the "decent thing" but rather to implement the will of the people. When the Senate voted to block transfers from Guantanamo to the U.S. by 98-0, that suggests that they understood that the political will in the U.S. was strongly against such an action.

I apologize - I didn't know that had explicitly been blocked.

Yes into Cuba. The US commander in chief orders the soldiers to withdraw and vacates the base then lets the Cubans get it.

Now all the prisoners are in Cuban and they can return them (which they will because it is a huge propaganda coup).

If the detainees home countries refuse to take them now, why would they suddenly agree when Cuba offers? I mean, at least the US can do some horsetrading on this issue (which it seems to have), but Cuba is much poorer and has a lot less to offer.

It seems like the most likely outcome is that the detainees end up as Cuban prisoners.

They likely stay in Cuba, yes, but at least they are semi-free (and will be completely free once Cuba gets rid of the commies).

Castros government will treat them well because it is a huge propaganda victory for them.

"If the detainees home countries refuse to take them now, why would they suddenly agree when Cuba offers?"

I find this rather unlikely. The enemy of my enemy is my friend so anyone not willing to deal with the USA because we're, well, the USA, would bend over backwards to cooperate with Cuba.

Cuba has a moderately good international rep. They don't get involved in too much international empire building once the Soviets broke up, and they export good doctors to the 3rd world. And they're an enemy of the greatest current Imperial power. I think they'd do pretty well..

In the United States, Congress controls the so called "purse strings." The House, where all spending bills must originate under the US Constitution, passed a bill denying any funds being used toward the closing of Guantanamo or the relocation of the prisoners. This has been happening yearly in the National Defense Authorization Act since Obama took office.

So Mr. Obama's hands are, in fact, tied, by law from "issu[ing] orders to soldiers in charge of a military facility."

This does not, of course, preclude him from using the so called "bully pulpit" to make a case to the American people. He also could take the more drastic measure of vetoing the NDAA, but he would then run the risk of leaving the military unfunded. The first option is plausible (and he has, on occasion, taken to discussing Guantanamo in his stump speeches around the time the NDAA is moving through the lower chamber), the second would be an incalculable political risk.

Could someone take up a collection for the funds, and bypass the Congress?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com