home

Bi-Partisan Plan to Close Guantanamo Presented

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:36:45 AM EST
Tags: Guantanamo (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A bi-partisan group of dignatories (list here, pdf)has issued a declaration for safely closing Guantanamo. It is backed by the Constitution Project and Human Rights First. The plan supports trying detainees in federal court and opposes indefinite detention. The declaration is available here (pdf).

The largest bipartisan group of prominent Americans to propose a plan for closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility has backed a single scheme for the disposition of cases of current and future detainees.

Three simple proposals:

  • close Guantanamo on schedule;
  • use federal courts, not military commissions, to prosecute accused terrorists; and
  • prohibit forever the practice of indefinite detention without charges.

< "Effective Death Penalty Apeals Bill" Introduced in House | Yes We Can . . . Try >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bi-Partisan Plan to Close Guantanamo Presented | 7 comments (7 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Some Interesting Signatories Here (none / 0) (#1)
    by The Maven on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:15:32 AM EST
    In addition to all the usual suspects (not to seem dismissive of them in any way, but their participation here is not in the least bit surprising) and Bob Barr, who I knew had spoken out a while ago about closing Guantanamo, I have to admit that I didn't expect to see folks like Larry Craig or Grover Norquist on this list, though perhaps I'd missed prior statements of theirs.

    Let's hope that maybe now we can begin to undo this horrid extra-constitutional system that has existed for eight years with really no end in sight.  Nice words from the president won't cut it; definitive actions are required -- both from the White House, which can pretty much act immediately, as well as Congress, which must codify once and for all that we will not go down this disgraceful path again.  (Though as we've seen these past few years, Congress has attempted repeatedly to apply a post hoc sheen of legitimacy to intolerable policies.  So I'm hardly ready to declare victory anytime soon.)

    The government's problem is... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:44:57 AM EST
    all the dirty secrets are harder to keep secrets in federal court...I don't think they can convict anybody in open court, and they're too scared of the potential political and real-life consequences of acquitals to do the right thing.

    The real problem is keeping the chain of evidence (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:37:13 PM EST
    admissible in a combat type environment, plus protecting the sources.

    Parent
    This is a huge NIMBY problem (none / 0) (#3)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:23:52 PM EST
    ironically its often not a direct NIMBY issue (Montana for example has a town that has volunteered to house GITMO detainee's- but its entire congressional delegation both the Democrats and the Republican oppose such a transfer and argue that their constituents do as well)- this is in effect the opposite of Healthcare where the Whitehouse has allowed Congress to take the lead, here the Whitehouse proposed closure months ago but virtually every possible site for transfer has been vehemently opposed by that sites national representation.

    A town does not a Congressional District make (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:38:28 PM EST


    Montana has one congressional district (none / 0) (#6)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:02:57 PM EST
    the town in question is seperated by physical distance from its neighbors and is talking about housing detainee's in a prison, forgive me if I don't see why Hardin shouldn't be allowed to decide for itself whether it can offer a site for the economic survival of its own (I thought you cons were all for self-governance and didn't want big government to dictate to them).

    Parent
    by your reasoning (none / 0) (#7)
    by diogenes on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 03:35:48 AM EST
    What exactly is the jurisdiction of US civilian courts in trying a case of a terrorist caught in a foreign country doing illegal things there.  I guess you're really saying that most of these GITMO people should be extradited to Afghanistan for trial (or wherever they were).  After all, when people kidnapped American hostages in Iran in 1979, we didn't exactly have jurisdiction to snatch up the kidnappers and try them in American civilian courts--or did we?

    Bi-Partisan Plan to Close Guantanamo Presented | 7 comments (7 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment