[Parallax]

funny thing how republicans love that prison, when it really stands for BIG government, Its just mind boggling that that thing is still open and functioning

Yes it is, isn't it? Still open and functioning................ under a Democrat president.

[jolepp]

Yes it is, isn't it? Still open and functioning................ under a Democrat president.

Who pledged to close it down during his campaign and would appear to have earnestly tried, but got blocked by Congress. This in late 2010 while it still was under Democrat control. Which doesn' t seem to make much sense. Why / How did that happen?

[Parallax]

I suspect that no one wanted to be perceived as being weak on terror.
I'm not certain though, that it requires congressional approval. I think it could be closed by executive order.
I don't pretend to know what course of action is best here, but it's clearly not a Republican/Democrat issue. It's a PR issue.

[Wheatfield]

Indeed.






As much as I dislike our government overstepping the Constitution, I still have to disagree. The Constitution was definitely a contract limiting the power of the government, but those people who are not US citizens and indeed have never been to the United States (hence holding them in Gitmo) are not a party to that contract.

Are you sure?
BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH
The Supreme Court seems to feel otherwise......

[Wheatfield]

I suspect that no one wanted to be perceived as being weak on terror.
I'm not certain though, that it requires congressional approval. I think it could be closed by executive order.
I don't pretend to know what course of action is best here, but it's clearly not a Republican/Democrat issue. It's a PR issue.

Precisely what do you do with the Guantanamo prisoners? My understanding is that in many, if not most cases, their mother countries don't want them back, no one else seems to want them, and it's not likely that the USA will drop them off in Florida and let them go.
I suspect that you guys should actually turn Guantanamo into the beach resort that some like to think that it is, and house them in sartorial confinement for the rest of their days.

[ElJamoquio]

Are you sure?
BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH
The Supreme Court seems to feel otherwise......

The Supreme Court and I don't always agree. The Supreme Court and past Supreme Court(s) often don't agree. It's interesting to read their (condensed) opinions but in the end I don't take their opinion as gospel.

If the Constitution DOES apply to these persons, then why aren't they and the Supreme Court demanding habeas corpus?

[Parallax]

One of the rallying cries for our independence from England was "No taxation without representation." It seems to me that the logical extension of that premise would be "No control without protection." If the suspected terrorists are in fact terrorists, I have no qualms with them suffering ANY fate within the law; but anyone under the control of our constitutional government should be afforded the protection of that Constitution without regard to where, geographically, that control is being exercised.

[jolepp]

AFAIK, Obama issued the order(s) to transfer the prisoners to mainland US and close Guantanamo (2009), but then Congress added provisions to a 'defence authorization bill' (*) blocking this by denying funding to the same (DEC2010) (Wikipedia entry, an earlier post). The latter seems strange given that Congress still had Democrat majority and that closing Guantanamo was important to Obama('s adminstration); maybe they indeed felt a need to demonstrate a "tough on terror" stance (inspired by the election at hand that then resulted in a Rebublican majority, perhaps?).

(*) = too important to veto, I presume