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.

For me, the logical solution to this is to arrange for everyone held there to undergo a fair trial and in the meantime stay in Guantanamo. This allows for plenty of time to arrange safe receipt of those released into other countries. It's not really the sort of facility you can just close down overnight and some of those people held I'm sure are dangerous or at least assumed dangerous, they wouldn't bring them in for the sake of it after all, so as long as they face fair trial I can see no issue with this other than it being very unfortunate for those found innocent being held there in the first place.

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

I really want to agree but as backwards as we like to think they are they would have at least had to have some grounds on which to pull these people in, you would need to be very stupid to want to create your own sh*tstorm detaining random innocent people.

G.W Bush stupid?

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

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

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!

Who said they are terrorists? They are militants more than terrorists. They was captured fighting the US & Allies army, not
trying to blow up innocent people in a crowded market.

At the end of the day they are prisoners of war and afterwards they should be released like every other prisoner of war have been.
Obviously if there are high ranking members, they should be trialed for war crimes.

Im sure if they was that much of a threat, then they would have been shot/killed/executed or whatever. Its more obvious they was
taken there to see what information they could obtain from them.. which leaved me to believe those that are left in guantamano have talked
and now its unsafe for them to go home.

Quote from: bear on November 22, 2011, 13:18:23 PM
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.

Quote from: Emez on November 22, 2011, 17:53:16 PM

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!

It isn't right its just a convenient legal loophole being abused by a previous US regime that probably helped make the world a less safe place in the immediate short term following their bungled reaction to the 9/11 attacks. Unfortunately Obama seems to have proven that he is completely lacking in any form of moral courage since gaining power after promising to close the facility.... then not closing it.

I can perhaps see why temporarily holding a few high value detainees in this way this might make sense (could just use a warship as IMO there are likely very few for whom it would be worthwhile) but the mass internment of hundreds of people and also the rendition/torture by proxy carried out on a large scale was monumentally stupid and lost the US a lot of credibility.

A lot of these people are at best simply people with a different perspective fighting what they see as a foreign invading army - I don't think dragging them off to cuba and subjecting them to abuse is going to either gain any valuable information or win many hearts and minds. At worst some of these people are completely innocent (including teenagers) who have been stiched up by other Afghans keen to be rewarded/get their hands on the rather large amounts of cash being thrown around by the US.

The Military tribunals are an obvious double standard - IMO the high value insurgents they have should either face a full trial under US law or be released back to Afghanistan as soon as the US pulls out.

edit - should also point out that they didn't buy the land - they rent it - tis still Cuban soil albeit with US jurisdiction over it - The current regime in Cuba has opposed to the presence of the base and has disputed the lease for decades and still refuses to take payments sent by the US for rent.

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.

You are right and I really knew that paki could be offensive but I was to lazy to write pakistani soldiers

Quote from: Dave on November 28, 2011, 20:59:09 PM

Quote from: bear on November 22, 2011, 13:18:23 PM
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.