(Via Hot Air) Took him long enough:

President Obama acknowledged for the first time on Wednesday that his administration would miss a self-imposed deadline to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, by mid-January, admitting the difficulties of following through on one of his first pledges as president.

[snip]

On Guantánamo, Mr. Obama said that he now hoped to shut down the detention facility sometime next year, but he did not set a new deadline.

Translation: Gitmo isn’t closing in 2010, either - which means that it probably isn’t closing, period.  Which is something that I’ve known was going to be happening for months.  But then, I’m not the Fortunate Son.

Moe Lane

PS: Next time?  Run for and serve as Governor of something, Mr. President.  It helps cut down on rookie mistakes like this.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

It wasn’t until I read this AoSHQ post about the delay in the detention report (preliminary details here) that I started counting off the months on my fingers.  Six months from July 21st makes… January 21st, more or less.

The work of a Justice Department-led task force, which had been scheduled to send a report on detention policy to President Obama on Tuesday, will be extended for six months, according to senior administration officials. A second task force examining interrogation policy will get a two-month extension to complete its work, which had also been due Tuesday.

[snip]

The officials said the administration remains committed to closing the prison in Cuba by January 2010…

I fail to see how.  After the fold is the relevant text of the original Executive Order: note that it is dated January 22, 2009.

Read More →

That’d be the one mandated by the President’s 01/22/2009 Executive Order that was supposed to reflect a clean break with the past; it’s supposed to be a review and critique of our detention policy, particular those of illegal combatants.  It and a review of interrogation techniques (mandated by this Executive Order) were scheduled for today, and both are absolutely necessary for the administration to have if they want to close down Gitmo.  Having these out will be a real shot in the arm for progressives who feel that the White House is dragging its feet on this issue…

Obama’s Gitmo Task Force Blows Its Deadline

An Obama administration task force set up to develop a plan for the closure of the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay will miss its first deadline this week—and put off a key report—amid continued divisions over how to resolve one of the president’s thorniest policy dilemmas.

The task force, set up on Obama’s second day in office, was charged with preparing a report to the president by Tuesday, July 21, outlining a long-term detention plan for detainees captured in counterterrorism operations after Sept. 11. But continued debate within the task force over the legal basis for holding detainees who are not charged with any crimes—and where to house them once they are moved from Guantánamo—has forced the task force to postpone its report by a “few months,” a senior administration official told NEWSWEEK.

Or not. Via @allahpundit.

Read More →

You know, it’s not the fact that we’re apparently on the verge of toppling another foreign government that bemuses me, per se; toppling foreign governments is one of those things that the United States of America simply does, as a byproduct of our very existence.  Whether or not that’s an inherently good thing is going to be a matter of some debate - particularly if you’re somebody who’s never lived under one or another of the unpleasant regimes that we’ve absentmindedly obliterated, over the years*. So I’m not particularly startled at the thought that it may be about to happen again.

Still.  Bermuda?

Crockwell tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that Bermudians are very concerned about the potential threat the Uighurs pose to the security and economy of Bermuda, and are outraged by the secretive and unilateral manner in which Bermuda premier Dr. Ewart Brown decided to accept the detainees.

“There’s a great deal of anxiety right now,” says Crockwell. “We have not received any information at all in terms of who these individuals are.”

“We hear reports that they have been associated with al Qaeda … that they were trained in terrorist camps,” as well as reports that the men are innocent. “So we don’t know” how much a security risk the former detainees pose. Crockwell says that the Bermudian people and members of parliament don’t know where the Uighurs are now being housed by the government.

“We think the premier, who made a unilateral decision, has put this country at risk. We believe that when there’s uncertainty we have to err on the side of caution,” Crockwell adds. Crockwell’s United Bermuda Party has already moved a motion of no confidence against Brown to remove him as the leader of parliament. He says that a “member of the backbench has stated not even the cabinet was informed of this decision,” which Crockwell described as a “unilateral autocratic decision made by one man who has created a national crisis for the island of Bermuda.”

Read More →

As Track-A-’Crat notes, the administration is at best spinning its difficulties to get anybody else to take the Uighurs. The President is claiming that there have been no hard commitments, which implies that negotiations for giving some over to Germany are still going on:

Strictly speaking, that may be true. But according to information obtained by SPIEGEL, Germany has long since blocked the idea of accepting Guantanamo detainees — and has done so without having to issue an outright rejection.

In talks at the end of May, German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble presented US Attorney General Eric Holder with a list of criteria to be fulfilled before Germany would take nine Uighur detainees. Schäuble said Washington needed to present a clear case as to why the Uighurs, members of a Muslim minority in north-western China, couldn’t be taken in by the US or other countries. He also said America had to offer proof that they weren’t dangerous, and that they had a personal connection to Germany. He told Holder that Germany was unable to accept people who couldn’t travel to the US on a simple tourist visa.

Read More →

Hardin, Montana - a very small, very poor town with a very new, very empty jail, is willing to take on the responsibility of holding Gitmo detainees:

Hardin borrowed $27 million through bonds to build the Two Rivers Regional Correctional Facility in hopes of creating new employment opportunities. The jail was ready for prisoners two years ago, but has yet to house a single prisoner.

People here say politics in the capital of Helena has kept it empty. But the city council last month voted 5-0 to back a proposal to bring Gitmo detainees — some of the most hardened terrorists in the world — to the facility.

Montanan Senators (both of whom are Democrats) wet themselves in response:

The state’s congressional leaders have lined up against the plan. “Housing potential terrorists in Montana is not good for our state,” Max Baucus, the state’s senior Democratic senator, wrote to [economic development director Greg Smith]. “These people stop at nothing. Their primary goal in life, and death, is to destroy America.”

Adds Sen. Jon Tester, “I just don’t think it’s appropriate, that’s all. I don’t think they know what they’re asking for.”

Read More →

Promoted from the diaries by bs

“How did our prison system become so cruel?” pfft!

Defense Secretary Robert “William” Gates was interviewed on NBC’s “Toady” “Today” show Friday May 22 where he called the Gitmo lockup “probably one of the finest prisons in the world today.”

Got that right.

Personally I’ve been hearing the liberal argument that to “bring the detainees to US soil would pose no problem” as Super Max prisons here have never had an escape.

Really? Has a thought or idea never escaped these detention facilities? Can radical Islamic detainees be seperated from the other dangerous inmates, legally or physically? Or would the radical infection be more likely spread to other inmates as happened recently in New York?

Read More →

Michele Flournoy, President Barack Obama’s newly minted Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, may have unwittingly given a preview of Obama’s big speech on the fate of terrorists currently held at Guantanamo Bay, when she spoke after the Senate overwhelmingly voted to strip funding for implementing the closure from the Administration’s supplemental budget request for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Flournoy essentially said that members of Congress who object to the terrorists being brought into their districts and states will just have to get over it.

[Flournoy] says members of Congress need to remember that closing the stigmatized prison in Cuba will mean hard choices for everyone. [...]

[She] says it’s unrealistic to think that no detainees will come to the U.S., and that the U.S. can’t ask allies to take detainees while refusing to take on the same burden.

Without singling anyone out, Flournoy said lawmakers need to think more “strategically.”

The Pentagon says Guantanamo terrorists are coming to the United States, so that Europe will feel better.  Is this the Obama Administration’s plan?  And will the president say so clearly in his speech today?

Read More →

“The rule is - jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today.”
- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There

Fresh from Senator Webb’s decision to play bellwether - or Judas goat? - on the retreat from Gitmo (see also here) we have this latest word on the Matter of Gitmo:

AP source: Democrats won’t fund Guantanamo closing

By ANDREW TAYLOR – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama’s allies in the Senate will not provide funds to close the Guantanamo Bay prison until the administration comes up with a satisfactory plan for transferring the detainees there, a top Democrat said Tuesday.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo is not dead — only that the funding will have to wait until the administration devises an acceptable plan to handle the closure and transfer the detainees. Obama has promised to close the military prison by January.

[snip]

It appears to be a tactical retreat. Once the administration develops a plan to close the facility, congressional Democrats are likely to revisit the topic, provided they are satisfied there are adequate safeguards.

In light of this news, and in light of Harry Reid’s declaration that the detainees should stay out of this country, I look forward to the White House’s eventual declaration that actually Gitmo’s been sufficiently reformed enough to be used after all. And I look forward even more to all the trained seals who will - through gritted teeth, no doubt - endorse such a wise and prudent move on the part of the President. Then again, what else can they do?

Vote Republican?

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Oh, Webb is saying that he’s merely against the timetable, but that’s just political-speak for ‘I need to start laying down the groundwork for my retreat on this issue.’ By this time next year he’ll be telling everybody how he’s fully satisfied that Obama’s ‘reform’ of Gitmo addresses the issues brought up during the campaign, etc, etc, etc. Amazing how quickly some of these guys catch Washington Establishment Disease, huh?

Read More →

The leadership of the House of Representatives turned down a request from the Obama Administration for funding to begin closing the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The reason the Democrats refused to give the president what he wanted this time was not a lack of votes, as the members of his party in the House could have easily funded his request whether Republicans agreed or not. Appropriations Chairman David Obey said that the administration has not offered a clear plan to wind down operations at Guantanamo and relocate the detainees:

Read More →

(Via Just One Minute) Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia, you know:

U.S. May Revive Guantánamo Military Courts

The Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military commission system for prosecuting Guantánamo detainees, which was a target of critics during the Bush administration, including Mr. Obama himself.

[snip]

When President Obama suspended Guantánamo cases after his inauguration on Jan. 20, many participants said the military commission system appeared dead.

Mind you, other people suggested that the President’s actions back then were possibly just an attempt to give him maneuvering room while he came up with a way to keep the status quo going. Which leads to an interesting scenario: let us say that the President decides to run military tribunals for Gitmo detainees. Let us also say that he (with a little help from Congress*) steamrollers over current opposition to those tribunals. Once those tribunals are done, and the existing detainees are processed… what’s stopping the President from continuing to keep Gitmo operating? After all, did he not just ‘reform’ it? It’d certainly be cheaper to keep an existing facility going than to shut it down and create a new one. Fiscal responsibility is good, right?

And what would any critics plan to do about it, anyway?

Vote Republican?

Moe Lane

PS: Jim Geraghty: “All Barack Obama Statements Come With an Expiration Date. All Of Them.”

*Not to mention his Old and New Media lapdogs, many of whom would reveal themselves in the course of said steamrolling.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

And objectively speaking, the refs should have stopped the fight about halfway through. Not that either I or Brutally Honest would have thanked them for that: this was just too choice for words.

If you’re wondering who won this exchange, either you haven’t watched it yet or you’re not willing to admit the answer. When the room shuts up to listen to one person over another; when that person demonstrates on two separate occasions that she’s infinitely more knowledgeable on the subject than the person she’s ‘debating;’ and when that person brushes off her aide in order to rip a few more strips of flesh… well. Don’t go up against the varsity team if you’re not ready to play.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

What a dumb move, if I may say so myself.

On the Bush GWOT policies, and Cheney’s criticism of Obama’s rush to close GITMO as being hasty, un-thought-out, and naive, Obama had this to say on 60 Minutes Sunday night:

How many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney?

It hasn’t made us safer. What it has been is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment.

Really, Mr. Obama?

First, I’d appreciate your pointing out the attacks we’ve suffered since 9/11, since we’re “no safer” than we were the day 4,000 people were murdered by Islamist suicide killers on American soil.

Second, how many terrorists have been “brought to justice?” Well, I suppose that depends on how you define “justice.” How about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? How about the other terrorist killers whom you and your ilk have agitated to have released from GITMO and other prisons around the world?

Read More →

UPDATE: The ‘money quote’ from SCOTUSBLOG:

The brief was another indication that, at least so far, the new Administration is not moving to make a wide-ranging break with detention policies of the former Bush Administration.

The utopian Left, which saw in the Rorshach that was candidate Barack Obama just what they wanted to see (rather than anything tangible or lasting) suffered yet another reality-based blow yesterday with the new administration’s claim in federal court that Guantanamo Bay detainees — also known as terrorists who would brutally murder every one of their Leftist defenders without breaking a sweat or losing their smiles — “do not have due process rights” afforded to Americans or civilized human beings as a whole.

According to SCOTUSBLOG:

The Obama Administration, taking its first position in a federal court on claims of torture of Guantanamo Bay detainees, urged the D.C. Circuit Court on Thursday to reject a lawsuit by four Britons formerly held there. In addition, the new filing argued that a recent appeals court ruling makes clear that “aliens held at Guantanamo do not have due process rights.”

Moreover, the document called for a sweeping ban on lawsuits against U.S. military officials, claiming constitutional violations by such officials. Allowing such lawsuits “for actions taken with respect to aliens during wartime,” it said, “would enmesh the courts in military, national security, and foreign affairs matters that are the exclusive province of the political branches.”

Read More →

Today, President Obama held a late afternoon meeting with some of the families of victims of the terror attack on the USS Cole as well as families of victims of 9/11. Among those present was CDR Kirk S. Lippold, USN (Ret.) who was the commander of the USS Cole when it was attacked. Shortly after his meeting with the President, I had an opportunity to speak with Commander Lippold. I will post the full interview tomorrow. Today I will post a few revelations from the interview that couldn’t wait.

First, let me say that the families who attended were reportedly far more at ease regarding the fate of the detainees after the meeting than they were going into it. The families did not hold back, and questioned the President for a full fifty minutes. Commander Lippold described it this way: “What the president did was he came in, he articulated the reason for the pause and for closing Gitmo on a one year time line … not that I agree with his decision or thought processes. He sat down with the families and took questions, and answered those questions in a meeting that lasted 50 minutes.”

One of the questions the families were very focused on, and one which many of us at Redstate have been focused on, is what is going to happen to the Gitmo detainees going forward?  I asked Commander Lippold if during this meeting the President was able to convey that he has a plan for dealing with all the detainees, and he said the President doesn’t seem to have an answer for that. He adds that the 1-year timeline for closure of Gitmo was “putting the cart before the horse” given that the administration hasn’t sorted out what to do with them. The President told those in attendance that his legal team is going to be working on crafting a “robust legal procedure” and “opened the door”, for the first time perhaps, that the procedure may in fact remain wholly military in nature. The Commander indicates the President suggested they may  “develop a robust military procedure” for dealing with the detainees, as opposed to coming through the criminal court system. The President was adamant that they would seek justice swiftly either way, but that he is determined to see due process served. More on that tomorrow.

The other big revelation was of particular interest to Commander Lippold in his capacity as a Senior Military Fellow at Military Families United. During the meeting the President assured the families and the commander that, going forward, they would have “a seat at the table,” an “open dialogue” with the President and his staff as they formulate policy in the war on terror and larger national security issues. It is logical to assume that Military Families United would be involved in the mechanics of such an arrangement. Commander Lippold was very excited by this prospect, saying it’s very important, and a goal of Military Families United, that those families who “bear the burden, the sacrifice, and the scars of the war on terror” are afforded the opportunity to be heard, and to lend their insights into the policy-making process.

Before I wrap this up, here’s a great takeaway quote from the Commander:

“The previous administration was very focused on the prosecution of the war on terror and keeping America safe from future attacks. The current administration is very focused on the prosecution of the detainees of the war on terror. The important thing for America is to find the right balance of both those approaches.”

- Caleb Howe

Check back at Redstate.com for more exclusive excerpts from my interview with Commander Kirk Lippold of Military Families United.

Now here’s the best idea I’ve heard all day:

With the President ordering the closing of Guantanamo Bay, the question arises: what to do with the prisoners there?

Of course, there are some on the left that think they need to be released. This, despite ongoing reports of former detainees returning to terrorism.

However, let’s assume that the administration recognizes that the bad guys are bad guys and need to be kept locked up somewhere.

Some states are saying they don’t want them.

 Basil’s solution?

Read More →

I’m not nearly as sanguine about this as Ed was:

EXCLUSIVE: Loophole allows terrorist detentions

President Obama’s executive order closing CIA “black sites” contains a little-noticed exception that allows the spy agency to continue to operate temporary detention facilities abroad.
[snip]

Current and former U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition that they aren’t identified because of the sensitivity of the subject, said such temporary facilities around the world will remain open, giving the administration the opportunity to seize and hold assumed terrorists.

The detentions would be temporary. Suspects either would be brought later to the United States for trial or sent to other countries where they are wanted and can face trial.

…I wasn’t sanguine when I noticed this last week, and I’m not sanguine about it now.

Read More →

What the President’s Executive Order really means:

. . . Contrary to reports, Obama did not shut down Gitmo. Rather, he issued an order saying he will (or, to be precise, he intends to and is willing to commit in advance to) shut down Gitmo in a year’s time. This, to mix a metaphor, is kicking the can as far down the road as he possibly can without being penalized for delay of game. Or, to mix yet another metaphor, Obama is promising to write a popular book in a year’s time and is happy to pocket a sizable advance of good will and commentary now; book to be written later. Until then, however, other actions, like the shuttering of other detention centers, will have an immediate impact.

Read the whole thing for an interesting discussion on nomenclature as well. Interesting that so many people criticized George W. Bush for labeling the struggle against terrorism a “war,” but failed to pipe up when Barack Obama said the same thing in his Inaugural Address. Do they perhaps just think that he doesn’t mean it?