Why Hasn't Obama Closed Guantanamo?

[Friendly]

Just wondering if there is a good answer to this. Imprisoning people for 10 years without ever giving them a trial or any legal representation while keeping them in brightly lit cells 24/7 is obviously a very law-abiding and freedom-loving thing to do that any democratic nation would be proud of. Amurricah, fuck yeah!

[GaijinPunch]

Just wondering if there is a good answer to this. Imprisnoning people for 11 years without ever giving them a trial or any legal representation while keeping them in brightly lit cells 24/7 is obviously a very law-abiding and freedom-loving thing to do. Amurricah, fuck yeah!

There is actually a reason if you Google, but I'm too tired too. It was clearly one of his goals, and, for some reason or other (maybe no place to put the inmates?) it never happened.

Fuck it. This seems normal. It sounds a lot like what Bush got into with Iraq. He simply bit off more than he could chew. Also, not TOO many people bothered by it, relatively. I think it and the Patriot Act should be shoved up W's ass, personally.

[Domino]

Doesn't matter if the left/right is in power the Patriot Act will continue.

[Ed Oscuro]

Obama tried to close it but then

[Friendly]

Do or do not, there is no try.

[R79]

brightly lit cells 24/7

Sounds like the average life of a hardcore gamer Give 'em Xbox!

On topic though, I think the US has just had a lucky escape in keeping Romney out, with his dreadful remarks about the poor over there. Let's hope Obama can now scale back some of America's gung-ho foreign policy, and maybe even give a Brad Manning a pardon and then a peace medal

[KAI]

The Patriot Act, talking about funny rules.

The main reason why they didn't close Guantanamo, is to keep scaring people around the world.

[Mortificator]

Whatever the reason, it's disgusting.

[neorichieb1971]

No countries wanted anything to do with the inmates. Not to mention the island of Cuba can circumvent the laws of America even if that particular part of Cuba is American ran.

The people in Guantanamo are more likely people that know American secrets (were affected, were at the scene, know more than they should know). I doubt any of them have anything to do with what they are accused of.

America has been ruling the world for 110 years now. In that time (especially the last 60 years) there has been a lot of sneaky, secretive stuff going on. One day they will pick on someone who has more might than they gave them credit for. When that day comes heavens forbid what will happen. Because when that country comes along they will have a lot of allies.

[Ed Oscuro]

America has been ruling the world for 110 years now. In that time (especially the last 60 years) there has been a lot of sneaky, secretive stuff going on. [...] The people in Guantanamo are more likely people that know American secrets (were affected, were at the scene, know more than they should know).

lol get that shit outta here. Random Canadian kids and dudes sitting in cold holes didn't know shit. They simply got swept up, for better or worse. You don't go for the wild-eyed conspiracy angle when there are much easier answers staring us in our faces.

Here's what's going on: In the last 40 years or so, some politicians thought it was a good idea to change
- EZ filibustering ("I intend to filibuster")
- redistricting (pushing out relative moderates)
At the same time, the Republican party has gotten more cynical and filled with hardliners. There is nothing to suggest that this won't happen to the Democrats too, so I am very wary of that.

So Acid King wants marijuana legalization, Friendly wants Guantanamo Bay to be closed, and I wouldn't have minded seeing a state constitutional amendment for unionization. None of that happened. Why? Votes. You don't get everything you want. That has been the lesson Republicans needed to learn this time, but it's also a lesson some folks on the polarized leftist fringe need to realize also. I realize these things are all very important to people, even life-changing. But in the system, as it currently stands, you need the votes to get things done - but the people aren't delivering majorities to either party that would allow this to get done smoothly. That is probably not a terrible thing; it just clashes with the dysfunctional political system that punishes moderates. What we need to get things done is to roll out some basic political reforms. It's not clear that Republicans would be on board with any of them, as they didn't even win the Electoral College this time (although they got close). It's not clear Democrats would be enthusiastic about them, either.

The silver lining: Romney continued his calls for bipartisanship even in his concession speech, and Obama is inviting Romney to the White House so they can use some of that as momentum to get things done - like steering us away from the "fiscal cliff." Unfortunately, Romney is already suffering a backlash from some of his own party who always saw him as a weak compromise candidate. The folks on the radical right are living in la-la land, thinking that if they stick to "true conservative principles" that the American people will follow them all the way, which no poll has ever indicated is likely. Unfortunately these people have a lot of influence over the House of Representatives, which is going to make any budgetary deference difficult.

Obama should not have to look for deficit cutting measures right now, but it wasn't realistic to say that he should've insisted on a stimulus program until the job numbers are much improved - even though this would put him right in line with doctrinaire economics, rather than some liberal mirror image of the conservative stalling tactics. In any case, the markets have made up a quick decision that four more years = more quantitative easing.

[evil_ash_xero]

From what I understand, no one wanted the prisoners.

Things are more difficult sometimes, than previously thought.

[Hagane]

Doesn't matter if the left/right is in power the Patriot Act will continue.

There's no significant left in the US.

[trap15]

There's no significant left in the US.

[Stormwatch]

I realized this: what the US calls liberals, the rest of the world calls conservatives, and what the US calls conservatives, the rest of the world calls fascists.

[Hagane]

Pretty much. Democrats in general are, at best, centrists, leaning to the right. It's so funny to hear people up there calling Obama a socialist.

I'm curious, how do people view F.D. Roosevelt in the US? Because if Obama is viewed by many as a socialist/leftist, that dude must be considered the American Lenin or something.

[Ed Oscuro]

FDR's policies probably present the baseline of what's called "leftist" today in the U.S., and the right wing is partly motivated by a reaction to that (publishing lies about FDR's job creation record has been an industry since at least the 1960s), and the relation of Keynesian stimulus policies to FDR's Administration has also meant that the right has consistently rejected economically well-respected policies. On the left, there was a very strong socialist movement from the early 1900s (Justice Kagan wrote a very interesting historical paper on this) which dissolved in disappointment and outrage over the association of some of its members with the Soviet Union, and they failed to reconstitute any meaningful leftist fringe.

More recently, we have the very strong military-industrial association, the disdain for many activist issues which have associated cost, and the general distrust of unions (which, again, cost money). Add to this that America has been, for a long while, been seen as an inviting home for the conservative immigrants over the years, as well as having a strong conservative economics program (i.e. the Chicago School, and Austrian schools) that exports an ideology elsewhere.

Personally, I think it is time to start thinking seriously about policies that don't fit anywhere on the traditional old liberal-conservative spectrum (at least not in the mold of the union vs. bosses argument which hasn't been a real factor in American politics since the 1980s, if not since before Hoffa's disappearance), like "zero growth" policy (or at least ultra-low-growth policy).

[Drum]

dunno where else to put it, but Maddow on Obama's first term:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#49703896
It is pretty happy-clappy, but it's a good summary.

[Ed Oscuro]

I realized this: what the US calls liberals, the rest of the world calls conservatives, and what the US calls conservatives, the rest of the world calls fascists.

Not exactly true - although some people press for it, you won't see a headscarf ban in the U.S. like has been enacted in France.

The U.S. has also been pursuing some stimulus policies at a time where much of Europe is on an austerity program. Somebody tell the Republicans how that's working out for polling numbers, not to mention the European growth numbers...

It does seem to me that the authoritarianism continuum, which tracks liberals to conservatives in the U.S. as you increase a person's preference for authoritarianism, should also track along a classical socialist-fascist continuum (although I don't think fascist is the only end result of that spectrum).

[blackoak]

I think most Americans--and apparently many here--aren't fully aware of the Obama administration's actual record. I sympathize as its hard to find that stuff out depending on what you read. I don't have the energy right now to drudge up articles on every one of Obama's many crimes, but some google searches (take your pick: Guantanamo, warrantless spying, bank bailouts, conservative appointments, drones, health care, etc) targetting wsws.org are a good place to begin learning.

Re: the lack of a genuine left in the US, that's entirely true. "Why" is a historical question worth your time, though.

[Jonathan Ingram]

On the left, there was a very strong socialist movement from the early 1900s (Justice Kagan wrote a very interesting historical paper on this) which dissolved in disappointment and outrage over the association of some of its members with the Soviet Union, and they failed to reconstitute any meaningful leftist fringe.

The flaw with this argument is that the first wave of Red Scare had started even before Comintern was put together.

[Ed Oscuro]

On the left, there was a very strong socialist movement from the early 1900s (Justice Kagan wrote a very interesting historical paper on this) which dissolved in disappointment and outrage over the association of some of its members with the Soviet Union, and they failed to reconstitute any meaningful leftist fringe.

The flaw with this argument is that the first wave of Red Scare had started even before Comintern was put together.

That would merely be another premise which doesn't invalidate the conclusion (drawn directly from the premise that the socialist movement essentially disbanded itself after links with the Bolsheviks - not Comintern necessarily; I'm not exactly sure of the timeline there, but somewhere within the 1930s - 1900 is the rough date Kagan picks for a start to the 20th century Socialist movement, not its end; her paper encompasses the period 1900-1933 in New York City). The movement didn't fall to pieces the moment somebody frowned at it - to find a "flaw" in the argument, you'd need to show that opposition immediately doomed the movement, and that is obviously false. Yes, I know about the Palmer raids and the labor-union battles from the 1890s onward. Those happened during the period of socialist strength in the United States, not during its decline.

Here, have a look at this. The author of this article argues that the co-opting of the leftist movements by FDR's New Dealers should be considered as a possible other reason for the decline of the socialist movement, which I think is a smart objection.

[GaijinPunch]

(take your pick: Guantanamo, warrantless spying, bank bailouts, conservative appointments, drones, health care, etc).

lol

[Ed Oscuro]

Man, where did the Republicans find these people?

Aside from the guy who can always be found hiding under a huge grey mouse, or the woman with the Adam's Apple.

(take your pick: Guantanamo, warrantless spying, bank bailouts, conservative appointments, drones, health care, etc).

lol

lol

[Friendly]

I realized this: what the US calls liberals, the rest of the world calls conservatives, and what the US calls conservatives, the rest of the world calls fascists.

Funny, I realized exactly the same thing when thinking about the Rebublican Party yesterday. Well, not sure about them being fascists, but they are radical fundamentalists, worthy of countries such as Iran. In any other western country people like the would-be vice president would be frowned upon and ridiculed by the public at large, and they'd get less than 5% of the votes*. In the USA those antiquated and inhumane (one could say, batshit crazy) ideas are actually considered to be a valid political stance. This is quite worrisome.

American "libreals" aren't really liberal at all, they are just a different shade of the political right (=slightly less extreme, without religious fundamentalism).

Pretty funny how those hysterical moron-zealots are calling Obama a "communist", thereby demonstrating total lack of understanding of history and politics. It's also crazy how the word liberal has been turned into an insult by the clericals in America, and it makes no sense. Being liberal is good, it means being in favor of liberty, freedom, personal choice. The USA are supposed to be about liberty, not oppression ("Liberty for all").


*For instance, look what I found: Party of Bible-abiding Christians
A German party "against same-sex marriage and legality of abortion. It supports a reference to God in the European Constitution and it strongly supports Israel." Sounds familiar?
This party regularily gets between 0.1 and 0.4% of the popular votes.

[neorichieb1971]

Sounds like US politics is stuck in a rut.

Lets face it who ever gets in power puts the handcuffs on straight away its not as if they have much freedom to move anything from where it is. Americans are the most stubborn people on the planet. They are already convinced they are the best off people in the world so even if there life is pure shit they will vote for the same thing again.

Some of you guys speak that typical (Ed I'm looking at you) leftist rightist stuff. I have no idea what your talking about. Sounds like a language all of its own. I remember being in the states 6 years and listening to that stuff all night. By the time the guy had finished shouting out of the radio I was dizzy. There is no left or right, there is only right and wrong. The measure of freedom or conservative that is needed should be diagnosed amount.

Outside of war time politicians rarely get anything right. Because the people don't let them get it right. You can only make 51% happy at any one time. Fox news shouldn't even exist. It puts so much spin on things that the truth is hidden under 16 layers of laughter.

Obama is the best you've got, so the right man is in the job.

[Ed Oscuro]

Some of you guys speak that typical (Ed I'm looking at you) leftist rightist stuff. I have no idea what your talking about.

That's a fair criticism, although I think you're expecting the left-right talk to do something it's not possible to do, which is describe that level of good and bad, or rightness (in policy choice) and wrongness. Of course there's a lot of disagreement about that. Any kind of "left-right divide" is based on all the specific quirks of a national political scene, and America's is different from Europe's or the UK's.

But one thing stands out - the left-right divide seems to match voters who are more or less comfortable with authoritarianism - spanking your child for example. But yes, the quirks of the scene sees the farthest "right" (of the typical political landscape, excluding say the KKK or other extreme groups) politicians in the U.S. calling for freedom of speech, which could be called classically leftist (at least by the measure of the kings vs. republics crowd from the Enlightenment) and most "right wing" politicians in the U.S. defend that right more strongly than in most "liberal" other countries (since the U.S. has the strongest freedom of speech rights I know of). That's an interesting case of the laws of the land being accepted as dogma by all comers, so people who fit elsewhere on the left-right divide find themselves thinking about other issues most of the time. Of course it's possible to disagree with the Constitution for some reason or other, yet still feel mostly like a moderate about the issues. It's rare though, for whatever reason.

[Friendly]

@Ed
Do you agree with my post?

[Acid King]

So Acid King wants marijuana legalization

You've got me all wrong, Ed. It's LSD, heroin, meth, cocaine THEN marijuana.

[Ed Oscuro]

@Ed
Do you agree with my post?

With the original post? Well, it's complex - I mostly do. There is a strong consensus (which is really hard to defend when you think about it, but it is also kind of hard to escape) that the rights of citizens to a fair trial allow the possibility that murderers go free, even those who hate the system, merely because they are citizens. Meanwhile, a person who is not a citizen is felt not to get as much slack, although people are much more likely to feel they should if it appears as if that defendant is sympathetic, young, or seems to believe in the system.

Unfortunately, most Americans (most people in general really) seem not to care. Like animal rights, the environment, or other peoples' job rights or job security, Obama would have to have some kind of mandate to make it work, but you don't get a (political) mandate to do what is right on behalf of non-voters. You can have a moral mandate though, but the system doesn't immediately reward those who do not. It is less risky for a second-term President to try to go with the moral mandate over the objections of some voters, but on this specific issue, a lot of people are just too antagonistic towards all the Guantanamo detainees to allow the President some backing. He doesn't have the House majority, after all.

The political system rewards voters, and is apathetic (at best) towards non-voters. When there is even a slight amount of issue from the voters, the needs of the non-voters, however great, are not likely to be served. I think the political climate is such that even Abraham Lincoln couldn't make a move on this.

I think you're right in one of the most important respects, which appears to be your main point - the apparent belief of many people, that non-voters don't have certain inalienable rights, seems to be partly caused by hypocrisy, or it would make one's right to justice accidental if the belief was true. It might be the case that many people who are not citizens do not sufficiently believe in the system, but in this case, many of the detainees thought America would be their friend (i.e. the Uighurs), and even those who are hardcore anti-America do not really have any opportunity to beat the system, especially if military tribunals are enough to go on.

I should also note that some of the detainees are also refugees from their homes. There were various reasons: Sometimes the local officials turned over decent people who were in the wrong place for the U.S. bounty (Pakistan, a few times at least); sometimes the refugees' home nations were out for them from the beginning, or the stigma of being called a 'terrorist' would make them a suspect when they came home.

I think the biggest component of Obama failing to close Guantanamo, judging from reporting over the years, is that some American politicians objected to the idea of housing any detainees (or even refugees) here. Essentially the same thing happened to Obama's original intention of having a New York court try some of the accused 9/11 plotters; people got scared and offended of the thought of paying more money to close the story, but also to the notion of potentially giving any terrorists a platform in courts (which shows that regard for the law is rather weak, since civilian courts have been far more successful in convicting terrorists than have military tribunals which have been stuck in endless cycles of controversy, like the Nuremberg Tribunals might have been if we didn't hurry up and execute the Nazis). That would be a problem for housing those convicted by whatever courts they are charged in, but also for those who are released. Unfortunately, when Obama failed to do this, many other nations who originally agreed to take some refugees then rethought why they should take refugees when the U.S. itself didn't want to.

So Acid King wants marijuana legalization

You've got me all wrong, Ed. It's LSD, heroin, meth, cocaine THEN marijuana.

Right, I should've remembered from the name.

Why meth, though? Is that meant to kill people off before they devolve into office worker / hippie stereotypes, the lowest forms of drug users?

[Acid King]

Right, I should've remembered from the name.

Why meth, though? Is that meant to kill people off before they devolve into office worker / hippie stereotypes, the lowest forms of drug users?

Because it's cheap and it's as far away from pot as you can get. God, have you ever had to talk to a marijuana legalization activist for more than five minutes? They deserve to be last. Also, their stories are the worst of the bunch.