Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bill Could Block Gitmo Closure

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:09 AM
Original message
Bill Could Block Gitmo Closure
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/09/17-0


Published on Thursday, September 17, 2009 by Politico.com

Bill Could Block Gitmo Closure
by Josh Gerstein

A bill that could go to the Senate floor as early as next week would make it impossible for President Barack Obama to move any Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S. for any reason, effectively blocking his plan to close the facility by January.

The bar on all such transfers was written into the Senate version of the Defense appropriations bill passed by the Appropriations Committee last week and is stricter than current law, which allows prisoners to be brought to the United States for trial as long as Congress is notified 45 days in advance of any potential risks.

The language, proposed by Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), underscores the impatience many senators from both parties feel over the White House's failure to settle on a site or a legal framework to detain prisoners who would have to leave Guantanamo in order to meet Obama's January deadline.

The Senate panel also omitted any money to close Guanatanamo or build a new facility.

"We have not provided funding for the closure of Guantanamo, because the administration has yet to produce a credible plan," Inouye said.

"The Obama administration can't close Guantanamo without bringing some detainees to the United States, and Congress's actions show that the political price of doing so will be high," said Columbia Law professor Matthew Waxman, who worked on detainee issues at the Defense and State Departments under the Bush Administration. "Meanwhile, in emphatically barring transfers to the U.S., Congress undermines the administration's efforts to get other countries to take them."

..more..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
1. Every day
This country becomes less the home of the brave and more the home of the timid!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Nobody wants them transferred into their own state
Maybe Inouye felt like as a group of islands Hawaii was a likely choice for Gitmo 2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Levin Is Open to Guantnamo North in Michigan
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003...


Levin Is Open to Guantnamo North in Michigan
By Josh Rogin, CQ Staff

Most lawmakers view the prospect of moving prisoners from Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, to their districts as a negative proposition. But at least one Democratic senator is open to the idea as a potential economic boost to his struggling state.

Carl Levin , chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said that construction and staffing at a new maximum-security prison in Michigan could help his cash-starved state.


If the governor and the local officials are open to it, thats something that should be considered, said Levin, making the point that each state should make its own determination.

Former Michigan Gov. John Engler, a Republican, suggested this month that creating a Guantnamo North in the Upper Peninsula could net the state upward of $1 billion per year, according to reports.

Other Senate Democrats have backed away from their initial openness to bringing some Guantnamo prisoners to U.S. soil, and Senate leaders agreed to drop funding that President Obama requested to close the prison from the fiscal 2009 supplemental appropriations bill (S 1054).

But many still argue that holding alleged terrorists in U.S. prisons is not a security problem.
..more..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. It's not up to Carl, and our governor and population are very much against it.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Why?
What is everyone so afraid of?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Michigan doesn't want to be the country's trash heap. Why not lobby to move Gitmo to Alaska?
What are YOU afraid of, hmmm? :silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. that is silly
the max facility is already there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. That's for the people of Michigan to decide. Why not call YOUR representatives, and demand Gitmo be
moved to YOUR hometown? :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. If I lived near a max facility, that would be fine with me.
Nobody would notice any difference.
I am not a victim to irrational fear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Let's explore the option for building, too. There's a construction slump.
"I am not a victim to irrational fear."

Apparently, you're a person who solicits opinions then derides them with otherwise contentless namecalling. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. not sure how to respond...
I consider the fear to be irrational, and don't believe there is any evidence to prove otherwise.

I didn't know I was "namecalling".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Your mental shortcut of equating disagreement with "fear" is what's throwing you off...
"I didn't know I was 'namecalling'."

Blithely dismissing disagreement as "irrational fear" with no supporting argument whatever isn't reasoned discussion. Moreover, there are 50 states and a handful of territories. There is no reason in the world that Michigan should be the only one considered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. do you have a supporting argument?
other than stating Michigan doesn't need anymore "trash" dumped on it?



I don't care if it's in Michigan, I lived in Michigan for years and love the place.
I simply mentioned it because I had read there was interest expressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. The people of Michigan are opposed. No further support is necessary. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #8
19. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. OK, but by that criteria, California, New York, Maryland, Florida, Colorado, should be considered
Why this mania for placing Gitmo in Michigan? :hi:

BTW: alerted for the use of a racial epithet! :hi: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. overly paranoid that is what the US has become.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Perhaps
...perhaps the better question isn't "Where to put them?" but rather:

"Why do we continue to hold them?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. reportedly, many Standish residents are for it
http://www.northernexpress.com/editorial/region.asp?id=...


<snip>

JOBS AT STAKE

The Saginaw media reports that area residents are generally supportive of moving the Gitmo prisoners to Standish, a town of 1,500, where 340 jobs are at stake. A one-industry prison town, Standish is located about 150 miles southeast of Traverse City in Arenac County, where unemployment is currently at 17.3 percent. Water and sewer fees from the prison account for 25 percent of the towns municipal budget.

Standish Max is one of three prisons and five correctional camps that have been targeted for closure in Michigan this year due to budget cuts. The prison got a stay of execution last month when Michigan State officials made a pitch to turn it into a medium-security prison to house up to 1,100 prisoners from California.

Michigans Corrections Department notes that the Level 5 maximum security prison is designed for the most dangerous, violent criminals, with one cell per inmate. Standish Max is surrounded by 16-foot-high double chain link fences topped with razor wire and monitored by electronic detection systems. Five gun towers overlook the prisons interior and a patrol vehicle with armed guards constantly patrols the perimeter.

<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Standish is a city of under 2000 in a state of over 9,000,000.
So the basic dynamics of democracy suggest that their wishes won't be determinate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
4. Ah, HELL no!
:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
14. crap, they continue to screw Obama's agenda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC