Barack Obama will resume military tribunals at GITMO
The Obama regime announced earlier today that they would resume trying the detainees held at GITMO in military tribunals on the much maligned base. This is a clear reversal of one of Barack Obama’s biggest campaign promises and one that should draw the ire of all those voters who felt that Barack Obama would make good on his promise to restore the standing of America in the world by shutting down GITMO.
During the campaign Barack Obama called GITMO a “recruiting tool” for al Qaeda which was making the world a more dangerous place. He promised to bring the detainees at GITMO to the United States, give them rights under the constitution, and try them in civilian courts–treating these terrorists as simple criminals instead of enemies of the United States. He said this would show the world that we are better than the terrorists because we would be providing them with the same rights as American citizens even in light of the fact that the terrorists were trying to destroy America and the rights we stood for; they would gain rights under the very same constitution they were trying to destroy.
But a funny thing happened on the road to closing GITMO–reality set in and Barack Obama was forced to govern rather than simply opposing the current policies of the United States at the time. It was easy for Barack Obama to oppose GITMO when the only real stake he had in the issue was to use it as a tool to get elected, but now that he is the one making the decisions he was forced to admit that President Bush was right all along.
This means that Barack Obama was either lying about closing GITMO or he was simply naive. I happen to think that Barack Obama knew all along that closing GITMO was probably something he was not going to be able to do, but he campaigned on the promise that he would do just that. And he did it simply to appease the far left. Surely if he honestly felt that GITMO was a recruiting tool for al Qaeda–as he repeatedly claimed–and if he honestly believed that GITMO was making the world less safe while at the same time he believed that GITMO was causing the United States to lose respect across the globe he wouldn’t abandon this position now that he is in a position to do something about it, would he? If he truly believed these things than to suddenly change course would be irresponsible, so this suggests to me that he was lying all along in order to gain political points with the far left.
One of Barack Obama’s first actions once he was sworn into the presidency was to sign an Executive Order to close GITMO within a year–seemingly making good on that campaign promise, but I said at the time that I felt this was simply a PR move and today’s decision confirms that that is exactly what it was. Even as he signed this Executive Order he probably understood that he would not be able to fulfil it, but just like most other liberal policies, this was a move that made the left feel good even if the results are non-existent.
It is not very often that Barack Obama does something that I agree with but this is one of those times. Those being held at GITMO as enemy combatants and enemies of the state have no right to the protections granted under the constitution–especially in light of the fact that our very constitution is exactly the reason why they are fighting against us in the first place.
This move should upset the far left, but I am left wondering if the far left is even paying attention to this. In their ecstasy after the election all eyes were focused on Barack Obama as he signed the Executive Order, but since that time the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have gone virtually unnoticed in the mainstream media–gone are the daily body counts and gone are the hourly reports on the violence occurring in that region. It is almost as if the media silently declared the wars over on the day that Barack Obama signed the order to close GITMO.
But the wars still feel far from over and if the left is still paying attention they should be deeply disturbed by this announcement from the Obama regime for he has continued yet another Bush policy in the war on terror and in the face of his glowing anti-war rhetoric during the campaign the left must finally realize that Barack Obama was playing them all along.
America's Watchtower 
It’s funny how Libs flop when reality meets their lofty opinions.
At least we can praise Obama for doing the right thing.
LikeLike
I don’t think I would use the word praise. 🙂 He only did the right thing because he had no choice.
LikeLike
Somethong is wrong here, Steve. I think I smell a rat. What the rat is up to, I still don’t know. I don’t think he has had a change of heart. He is changing his stategy to achieve some goal that is not obvious.
LikeLike
Part of his move to the center to appease the moderate voters? That could be true, but I think he painted himself into a corner on this issue and has no other choice. But then again, I wouldn’t put anything past him–I do not trust this man at all.
LikeLike
I agree.
LikeLike
We blew it with GTMO.
I don’t know how many know this, but a great many German POWs were interned in western states. When they were freed, they elected to stay here. There doubtless many reasons, but one of them was the fact that they learned, even as captives, that Americans (and Canadians) are at heart a good people.
When I heard we were going to intern prisoners from GWOT in GTMO, I thought this was a perfect opportunity. I thought we’d give them decent living quarters, decent meals, basic respect and they’d see that we’re not the blue-eyed devils their leaders portray us to be.
Something went wrong somewhere, and many of us turned out to be the personification of those blue-eyed devils. And I’m not even talking about wild stories about idiots trying to shove Korans down toilets – I really don’t believe that. But the petty abuse and stupid torture (if you think torture is justified when there’s an imminent danger, why on earth would you torture someone who’s been a captive for years? What could he possibly know that’s “imminent?”) They didn’t need their demagogues; ours were good enough for both sides.
About this concept of “giving them rights.” According to those who spout their love of the Constitution, the government doesn’t give rights, it protects them, and the Constitution recognizes them. Those who complain about “giving Constitutional rights” are saying that these people are either somehow not entitled to the rights the good Lord gave the rest of us, and that we’re somehow empowered to make that decision, OR that we haven’t got the prosecutorial know-how to get a conviction against terrorists unless we rig the game.
Another thing – and Steve, I know you didn’t mention it, but I hear it all too often – the rights guaranteed under the Constitution aren’t just for American citizens. With all due respect to the naturalized citizens among us, the overwhelming majority of people who screech about foreigners being given Constitutional rights without earning them are people who got those rights by virtue of being born here and nothing else – they did precious little to earn them, but they’re more than willing to deny those God-given rights to others.
Now, as to the GTMO prisoners – yes, the President has obviously learned that the platitudes and pious pronouncements of the civics classroom have their limitations, and he’s made arrangements for the continued incarceration of those for whom trials cannot be performed because of the sensitive nature of the evidence against them, or how it was gathered. He’s not proposing to release those people, though, because they’re considered too dangerous. Thus, the US is holding people indefinitely without trial. Liberal or conservative, think about that – without a verdict or sentence being rendered, we’ve decided that some people are too dangerous to try and too dangerous to free. It’s something we’d trash another nation for doing.
It’s a paradox.
This isn’t a partisan thing, and those who attempt to paint it as such are fools. Mr. Bush was headed down this road as well.
Okay, as usual, I’ve ranted on too long.
Take good care, all, and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
Yank, no one has ever been able to demonstrate that ANYONE at Gitmo has been mistreated in any way. The TWO people who were waterboarded were elsewhere at the time, in the hands of intelligence, not the military. And people have a tendency to confuse (either by ignorance or deliberate action) Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.
Further, remember the kerfluffle concerning the “Koran in the toilet” complaint that turned out to have been actually done by the complainer, who was trying to flood his cell? I honestly do not believe any complaints of “torture” or any other mistreatment. An Al Qaeda handbook found in Scotland stated, flatly, that if they were caught, at every opportunity to complain loudly that they were being tortured whether it was happening or not. So torture complaints are SOP for Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Frankly, these people are NOT POW’s, they’re illegal combatants, which, according to the Geneva Conventions, we had the right to SHOOT as soon as they were identified. The fuss about Geneva Conventions has, all along, been about how to identify the prisoners. These people are terrorists, and we owe them nothing but a bullet to the head.
And, no… the people who were picked up under suspicious circumstances have all been released by now (and many of the releasees, BTW, have rejoined terrorist groups). There were around 770 prisoners at the peak, and now it’s down to about 200, all of whom are bona fide hard-core terrorists who were caught on the battlefield.
LikeLike
I have to agree with mamapajamas on this TGY, there have been some accusations of mistreatment at GITMO but nothing has ever been proven.
LikeLike
Steve, we’re on opposite sides of the political debate – it’s inevitable that from time to time, despite our sparkling personalities and naturally friendly demeanors, we’re going to disagree about things.
At any rate, the most recent legitimate accusations (from my perspective) were from 2007 and earlier. I pretty much assume that things at GTMO are as they should be . . . and I did say I never believed that wild tale about the Koran.
I was on too much of a roll there, because I really thought that American supervision of the prisoners, no matter where, would wind up being good for us, and it wound up being a disaster. What should it matter if the prisn were in Iraq or Cuba? If we’d treated the prisoners at Abu Ghraib well, it would have taken a lot of the wind out of the sails of the accusations at GTMO.
And you know what? The snarky remark about some of the released prisoners “rejoining” terrorist cells. Was it really REjoining? How many of those kids were picked up in that shameful bounty program and, in their years in GTMO, turned into hardened terrorists by the real terrorists who were there? I’ll bet they thanked their lucky stars we were nice enough to deliver new recruits to them while they were in jail and unable to recruit on their own.
At any rate, I do believe I pointed out that I agreed with the President’s actions both in resuming the tribunals for the triable, and keeping the rest in limbo, as paradoxical as that is. (I must say that I’m a bit disappointed that nobody else has addressed the idea of us holding prisoners indefinitely, without trial and without realistic possibility of release.)
Funny, too, when this President does something cons generally support, they still find a way either to condemn him or, at best, condemn him with faint praise.
I do believe that if a videotape surfaced of Obama walking on water, cons would be mocking him for not being able to swim.
Take good care, all , and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
I agree that the scandal at Abu Ghraib didn’t help the image of GITMO, but I do not remember there being any known cases of abuse at GITMO, other than those claimed by Dick Durbin when he compared American soldiers to some of the worst regimes in history.
In fact I remember reading about how GITMO detainees were actually gaining weight in this story and others. Of course this was portrayed as a bad thing because it meant the prisioners weren’t getting enough exercise, ignoring the fact that they were actually afforded more meals than they probably were at home.
It is not unusual during a time of war to keep all prisioners captured on the battlefield locked up until the end of the war. However I do think that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should have been tried and hanged by now.
LikeLike
One of the problems with this war – both with declaring prisoners to be POWs even if captured on the battlefield and with repatriating them after hostilities have ended — is that there’s no recognizeable foe here who can surrender.
Who among us will trust AQ if they “surrender?” If OBL says “WE’ve had enough,” that’s nice, but that wouldn’t be enough to prompt me to release those hardcore prisoners still at GTMO, and that’s the paradoz.
Have a great day and may God bless us all!
TGY
PS – That KSM dude – yeah, what you said!
LikeLike
Yank, re: “The snarky remark about some of the released prisoners “rejoining” terrorist cells. Was it really REjoining?”
That comment was not presented as “snarky” and I’m sorry that you took it that way.
Can you not conceive of the notion that at least SOME of the people who were turned in on the reward program were righteous busts? The fact that ONLY about 17% of the releasees have gone back to terrorist cells is a pretty low percentage. Why is that? Answer: MOST of those prisoners were returned to their home nations… and only a few have been returned to the general population. Most of them are still in prison at home, for one reason or another. And they probably wish they were still at Gitmo.
The fact is that the Red Cross and Democrat politicians dead set upon “getting” something on Gitmo and Bush have been to Gitmo, and saw nothing untoward going on there. It isn’t as if you can have a policy of mistreating prisoners and cover it up when someone comes to inspect. The prisoners who were held by the Vietnamese during that war were walking skeletons when Jane Fonda made her infamous trip to the Hanoi Hilton. They had been cleaned up and dressed in new prison uniforms, but the fact that they had been mistreated was obvious to everyone who saw the pictures… everyone except Hanoi Jane, apparently.
REAL mistreatment can’t be hidden so easily.
LikeLike
I agree this war is unlike any other in history because we are not going after a specific nation with a clear cut ending. As Obama said, there will be no surrender ceremony, it is a tough call but until the fighting is over and our heroes come home I would not release anyone who is likely to return to the battlefield.
Mampajamas, I didn’t find your comment to be snarky and I was going to mention it in my last response but I forgot. Sorry!
LikeLike
He may still be banking on the detainees having access to national security information to bolster their case. Even a military tribunal would have a tough time convicting someone if they knew that national security would be compromised. You’re right Jim, I smell a rat.
LikeLike
Will Libber heads explode or will they deem Obama a tactical genius?
LikeLike
I think the libs are just going to ignore this.
LikeLike