Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010
 |  Follow Newser on Twitter   Friend Newser on Facebook   Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds   Subscribe to Newser emails Newsletters


7

Senate OKs US Trials for Gitmo Prisoners

Obama expected to sign measure aimed at speeding jail's closure

Share

(AP) – President Obama won a modest victory today in his continuing effort to close the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba and allowing the government to continue to transfer detainees to the US for prosecution. The plan to permit terror suspects to be shipped to U.S. soil to face trial passed the Senate, 79-19; it's already passed the House, and now awaits Obama's signature.

Inmates are seen at Guantanamo Bay US Navy Base, Cuba.
Inmates are seen at Guantanamo Bay US Navy Base, Cuba.   (AP Photo)
Flags wave above a sign posted at the entrance to Camp Justice, the site of the US war crimes tribunal compound, on Guantanamo Bay US Naval Base in Cuba.
Flags wave above a sign posted at the entrance to Camp Justice, the site of the US war crimes tribunal compound, on Guantanamo Bay US Naval Base in Cuba.   (AP Photo)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
7 comments
VIEWING:
 
cochiserocks
Oct 20, 09 8:11 PM CDT
"Prosecuting these individuals in our U.S. courts simply will not work, and there is too much at stake to grant the unprecedented benefit of our legal system's complex procedural safeguards to foreign nationals who were captured outside the United States during a time of war," said Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss. - Translation? 'Under US law, anyone who's been kidnapped and then tortured is probably going to get off on a technicality' - Now before the thumbs down storm let me say - no fucking way I would ever be in favour of some psycho retard who has misread the Koran and turned himself into a one man murder spree being set free, or avoiding punishment - but the point is - once you start down the road of grey area justice - you either go all the way and put a bullet in the back of their heads somewhere quiet - or you go after them legitimately from the get go - you can't do both. That's the real dilemma facing the anti-terrorist agencies - they have to do something and the enemy isn't playing by the same rules. But in the bigger picture - when you break your own rules - for whatever reason - once - then there's a whole slippery slope history shows us is waiting for the unsuspecting soul with 'right' on their side and no rules to play by. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
emptycalm
Oct 20, 09 8:51 PM CDT
A good example of that is the Weather Underground in the 70's. Most of them, even the more well known ones, got off free due to the CIA and FBI breaking so many laws to try to catch them.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
ultramarine13
Oct 20, 09 9:30 PM CDT
I agree with you cochise on the issue of doing one or the other with regard to the law. However, I do believe that playing by the rules will benefit the US. For one thing, it does open the door to dealing with these individuals fairly and transparently. For another, it is more effective than torture; there was a story on NPR about how much more effective a particular interrogator was by not torturing and simply gaining the subject's trust. The results shown on TV (24 comes to mind) simply don't show up in the real world. As to what to do with the current detainees, I'd say we have a lot to gain and not much at all to lose by putting the detainees on trial and risk their freedom based on a technicality. As to Sen. Chambliss' assertion that we are at war, I find that ridiculous; we are fighting insurgents in their home country with no real risk, then or now, of it coming to our backyard. Both "wars" are really invasions. And the "War on Terror" is a media construct meant to scare people into giving up their rights to gain some perceived safety, while the government grows ever more powerful (please note that this was the Bush administration's MO, I have seen no evidence that the Obama administration is continuing that policy.
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
Middleman
Oct 21, 09 4:27 AM CDT
@ultramarine: You had me through the first part, but I can assure you the "war on terror" is not a media construct. Sensationalized: YES, Made up: NO. The Western concept of "live and, let live" is unknown to the Arab/ Persian world. I mean no disrespect when I say that their cultural, social, ethical, and religious beliefs are at least 100 years behind ours, and on a totally different trajectory. For the radical suicide bombing carrying Muslim (not all Muslims), the western worlds simple exsistence is against their beliefs (I reccomend watching, "Why They Hate"). I'm not saying either war is right or wrong, but I am saying that the radical Islamic terrorists out there will never stop trying to kill you and me, simply because of where we were born. Point to make a fact: in Arabic, there is no word for "reconciliation", it simply doesn't exist. The Arab and Persian (from what I've seen) are truly phenomenal cultures, but a phrase I've heard many times, "you cannot know Iraq... because you are not Iraqi", applies across this part of the world. We just don't and can't understand...
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
ultramarine13
Oct 20, 09 8:12 PM CDT
Good. Nice to see democracy finally in action. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.

 

Copyright 2010 Newser, LLC. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. AP contributed to this report.


from our news partners

Please wait, content is loading
Please wait, content is loading

Just For Laughs

Loading...