I have been adamantly opposed to giving Guantanamo detainees access to federal courts, as I feel that there are no true protections for such individuals and that it is setting a dangerous precedent which will certainly threaten this country’s security.
A recent Supreme Court case, Boumediene v. Bush (2008), effectively granted detainees the right to challenge their detentions in federal courts of law. Such a decision is surely unprecedented, especially in light of historical decisions like Ex Parte Quirin (1942), which determined that individuals considered “unlawful combatants” were not protected by the Geneva Conventions.
The closing of Guantanamo Bay by President Barack Obama was yet another effort to redefine the existing standards of dealing with suspected terrorists, individuals who hold no certain loyalty to a nation-state or government, and cannot be classified as a traditional “combatant.” By deciding to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, Obama followed the guidelines established by such legal cases as Boumediene v. Bush (2008), yet ultimately this decision has posed a “string of legal and security issues.”
From The New York Times:
Beyond the prison and the specific legal issues with shutting it down are a series of more philosophical concerns. Broadly speaking, legal experts believe there remains a credible legal basis for the continued detention of terrorism suspects in America’s war against terror. But there is wide disagreement on how the United States should redefine its counterterrorism policies, and ensure the detention, treatment, and prosecution of suspects meets ethical and legal norms. CFR’s Prieto argues in a February 2009 working paper that these changes are needed “to allow the United States to end its war about terror and remove what is currently a damaging and self-imposed obstacle to achieving broader U.S. foreign policy objectives.”
Whether you agree or disagree with the President about the closing of Guantanamo Bay, it must be recognized that addressing the Guantanamo and moreover, detainee rights, will be a very problematic endeavor. There are thousands of legal questions which are to be discussed, not to mention, the intelligence community will be required to participate in the proceedings, which will undoubtedly be “messy.”
Now I may disagree with the President on his decision to close the prison and give these individuals access to federal courts, but I can applaud him for actually addressing the Guantanamo Bay issue itself, for the international community clamors for redress. Whatever the case, this will be a long and arduous experience, and I hope that the security of this country remains a top priority for this administration. For as we shall see, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
- Marc
“I hope that the security of this country remains a top priority for this administration.”
No, it’s part of the subversive agenda we’ve already discussed to undermine the security of America.
Marc, people disagree on this and many issues. Experts exist on all sides.
But one sure way to lower the debate to a level where rational outcome is not a possibility is to type something like this line in order to frame the idea that anyone who advocates closing Guantanamo is “anti-security of America.” Which is, of course, asinine.
Of course security is a top priority for this administration. They just differ in what they believe fosters security than that of the previous administration.
Yeah, I agree. But this should make you happy, Fed:
“Little more than a year after U.S. spy agencies concluded that Iran had halted work on a nuclear weapon, the Obama administration has made it clear that it believes there is no question that Tehran is seeking the bomb.”
From here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-usiran12-2009feb12,0,3478184.story
Enemy combatants do not have rights under our constitution. They claim no government that can parley for their release. All closing Gitmo does is burden the military to move these prisoners from one location to another.
Same problem, different view.
Gitmo is a symbol for the left wing. Closing it makes them feel good. Nothing else.
Jason: Why is it asinine to hope that this nation’s security remains a major objective for the Obama Administration? I always find it humorous how anything genuine that I say is immediately interpreted to be some direct political attack.
Jason, do you ever tire of using the same counter-arguments for every one of my posts? If it isn’t my “Republican agenda” on the stimulus, it must be my “Republican agenda” for opposing the closing of Gitmo, or for hoping that national security remains a priority for the Obama Administration. Sorry, Jason, you give me too much credit here. I am simply expressing my opinion, and a partisan agenda is not my motivation.
Harry is right, closing Guantanamo is more of a symbol to the Left, and isn’t a pragmatic solution to the problem.
Marc, it is asinine to propose, by asking the question you did, that national security might not be a top priority for the Democratic administration.
It’s red-baiting, and it doesn’t foster intelligent discussion. I don’t even know what you’re talking about with the “Republican agenda” rant because I said nothing about that. Only that that statement was asinine. And it still is.
As for the actual content of your post, I only said that there are various ideas of what actually will or will not keep us safe. After what Bush did not achieve with his policies, I can hardly be critical of those who want to try a new approach, and a new approach that includes the rule of law can’t be all that bad.
Just because they disagree with you doesn’t mean they’re harboring terrorists. I know you don’t think that, but I still find the statement “I hope national security is a top priority of this administration” is a ridiculous thing to say, because… DUH!
Also, Harry agrees with you. ‘Nuf said. (I love you Harry)
Jason,
What does closing Gitmo actually accomplish?