Closing Guantanamo
Guantanamo Bay The Guantanamo Bay facility was opened following the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001
US President Barack Obama was unable to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba by 22 January 2010, as he had intended.

Guantanamo has held some 775 inmates who have been accused of links to al-Qaeda or the Taliban. Many have been freed or transferred to foreign governments, and five have been convicted by military tribunals, leaving a reported 170 or so still in custody there.

In mid-December 2009, Mr Obama ordered the preparation of a federal facility in Thomson, Illinois, to receive prisoners from Guantanamo. However, Congress has not provided funding for this.

A month earlier, US Attorney General Eric Holder had said the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and four others would face a civilian trial in New York, but this has since been put in doubt.
Why the delay on closure?

Bipartisan opposition to the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the US has grown. Congress has not authorised funding for transfers and Mr Holder said in April 2010 that Guantanamo could not close without it.
Some prisoners are considered too dangerous to be released, yet the US holds no evidence that can be used in civilian or military trials against them.
How many prisoners face indefinite detention without trial?

A committee convened by Mr Obama determined in January that 48 prisoners were too dangerous to transfer but could not feasibly be prosecuted.

What about the rest?
A sketch from the military tribunal of Omar Khadr (right) at Guantanamo Bay Omar Khadr (right) pleaded guilty to five charges including murder before a Guantanamo Bay tribunal

Of the rest, a large portion have been cleared for release but have nowhere to go. The US fears some would face torture in their home countries but cannot find another country to receive them.

Meanwhile, in January 2010 Mr Obama suspended the release of prisoners from Yemen to that country, citing security concerns.

Five prisoners, including Canadian Omar Khadr, have been convicted in military tribunals held at Guantanamo Bay. Two of those served short sentences and returned home to Australia and Yemen, and two others are serving sentences at Guantanamo Bay.

What about trials in normal civilian courts?

Six prisoners were approved for trial in civilian courts, including the alleged leaders of the 9/11 attacks.

The first trial has now taken place, in New York City. In it, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was convicted of only one count of 285 for his role in the 1998 bombings of US embassies in east Africa. The judge excluded much of the evidence against him because it was held to have been obtained by coercive methods.

The result is being seen as a blow to President Obama's hopes of using the civilian courts for other trials. The likely result is that there will be a mix of trials, military tribunals and continuing detentions.

So when will Guantanamo be closed?

This is unclear. The issue was not widely debated during the mid-term elections and Mr Obama has largely ceased to push for closure in public.

Assumed dangerous by American standards just because their brown and therefore unamerican, hate freedom and must be terrorists.

G.W Bush stupid?

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

How to deal with 'terrorists' is always going to be a subject people have different views on.

What I find interesting is that the U.S. buy this peice of land from Cuba. Their own Justine Department than rules this outside of U.S. legal jurisdiction and within something stupid like the first 11 days 25 'inmates' arrive.

Doesn't sound right to me!

They got many of them from pakis who got paid and gave their word they were terrorists, go figure.

I realise that was said rather innocently but I ought to point out that 'paki' is usually considered an offensive term in the UK. I guess in the same way the 'Jap' is fairly innocent here but offensive/derogatory in say US English.

Guantanamo detention is a crime against the Geneva Convention and thus should never have been started in the first place. If it was an islamic country doing it to Americans then the US would be the first to be ranting about human rights, with the UK right behind them.

They should either prosecute or release immediately. While they are at it perhaps they should throw Dubya and his cronies in there for a few years, just to make sure they understand what it is like.