Politics | January 11, 2009 | 51 comments

Obama: Closing Gitmo 'a challenge'

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090111/pl_politico/17317

Image
gaiusfurius
Barack Obama suggested he's not likely to actively pursue criminal charges against national security officials who were directly involved in unlawful interrogations or wire-tapping, and said it would be difficult to quickly close down Guantanamo Bay.

On Guantanamo — which he repeatedly promised to shutter during the campaign — Obama, in an interview on Sunday with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week," reiterated his intent to do just that but also sounded a pragmatic note.

"That's a challenge," the president-elect said about the prospect of closing down to the detainee facility within the first 100 days of taking office. "I think it's going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do.

On the question of prosecuting crimes that may have been committed during the Bush presidency in the course of the war on terror, Obama continued the theme of "looking forward as opposed to backwards" he took on the campaign trail and reaffirmed since winning the presidency last November.

While aimed at attracting consensus from a broader electorate, the position is not exactly what many in the liberal base of his party would prefer.

As Stephanopoulos noted, the most asked question on Obama's own transition website relates to investigating the "crimes" of the Bush administration.

Asked if he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate such matters as warrantless wire-tapping and torture, Obama demurred.

"We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth," he said. "And obviously we're going to be looking at past practices, and I don't believe that anybody is above the law.

"On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering."

Pressed, Obama said twice more that he wanted to get "things right in the future, as opposed looking at what we got wrong in the past."

Asked specifically about the idea of a "9/11 Commission with independent subpoena power" to look at torture and warrantless wiretapping during the Bush years, Obama said, "We have not made final decisions, but my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing. That doesn't mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law. But my orientation's going to be to move forward."
  1. groups:
    Politics,   Culture,   WTF
  2. tags:
    Politics,  Culture,  WTF,  Not News,  11 more
  3.     
    |

51 comments // Obama: Closing Gitmo 'a challenge'

  • ninja_tiger
    • 0
      ninja_tiger  

    • No one knows what Obama will do....we will see. It seems naieve to let such high crimes go unpunished. It is dangerous to let this all go away and move forward. It won't go away unless a stand for justice is made. I heard they do not have enough money to take on the Bush Cheney mafia, and that is the sole reason they can't do it. Remember these guys have apile of money and will hire expensive lawyers to defend themselves, and the US Govt is broke.....they are also inept and fumbling, and Congress wants to give the money to bail outs.. not to convicting the greatest criminals that heve ever lived in washington.

    • 3 years ago
  • ninja_tiger
    • 0
      ninja_tiger  

    • No one knows what Obama will do....we will see. It seems naieve to let such high crimes go unpunished. It is dangerous to let this all go away and move forward. It won't go away unless a stand for justice is made. I heard they do not have enough money to take on the Bush Cheney mafia, and that is the sole reason they can't do it. Remember these guys have apile of money and will hire expensive lawyers to defend themselves, and the US Govt is broke.....they are also inept and fumbling, and Congress wants to give the money to bail outs.. not to convicting the greatest criminals that heve ever lived in washington.

    • 3 years ago
  • bashirawebb
  • Kylsport
    • 0
      Kylsport  

    • Hello? A little immature I would say so. We've been praying that he opens his eyes to the real world, it looks like our prayers are beginning to be answered.

    • 3 years ago
  • ejasun
    • 0
      ejasun  
    • Image

    • Puppets anyone?

      then you start the skeptical redderic until you've made up so many doubts you ...

      where is the real Wizard of Oz?

    • 3 years ago
  • rrawtry
  • JuliusBC
    • 0
      JuliusBC  
    • Image
    • rrawtry:

      Rrawtry, If you really are serious about your claims then you need to connect to
      both of these links so that you can at least make an informed decision on your
      position.

      Don't be lazy here and ignore your chance to be enlightened.
      "The truth shall set you free," applies here. So I can only say: be enlightened!

      Let’s not forget that 911 happened on Chimpy’s watch. He and his, received
      intelligence that implied the attack was going to happen. In fact it practically
      spelled it out and
      named Bin Laden as the perpetrator. Check your facts on this one before you
      pat yourself and old Chimpy on the back.

      The only reason we have not been attacked since 911 is because so many are now paying attention to the cause of security and protection. There were warning signs
      given prior to 911. During the 911 commission, Condoleezza Rice recanted the claim made in a memo she received indicating the threat received prior to 911.
      This was two months prior:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282....

      Contrary to many who would like to give Bush credit for our not being attacked since
      is ill founded. I don't think he could hit a bull in the ass with a handful of rice. Again the
      result of no attack has come from the awareness of those who care and watch over
      such things. That is not Bush! Sorry for all of you Bush lovers.
      Peace

    • 3 years ago
  • gaiusfurius
  • JuliusBC
    • 0
      JuliusBC  
    • rrawtry:

      Gaiusfurius, when you said du man I think you misspelled it. Didn't you mean Duh man.

      I am also under the impression you failed to connect to both of the links in my post just above yours. If you had, you would see the errors in your evaluations.

      Not only this but we have breed more terrorists by the atrocities we have committed in Iraq. Don't you think that some of the families that have lost any or most of their loved ones to our occupation have "an axe to grind with us," so to speak?

      Put your self in their shoes and ask yourself this question: Self, what would I do if someone came to my country and killed my children, or my spouse, or my father, or my mother, or my sister, or my brother, or any others that I loved? What would I do? Would I want or seek revenge? Would I go to the extent of sacrificing my own life to get revenge?

      I think I might seek revenge and I think you might as well (after 911 we sought revenge). Why wouldn't an Iraqi feel the same? Is it because they are Iraqi? How naive you would be if this is what you were to think.

    • 3 years ago
  • JuliusBC
    • 0
      JuliusBC  
    • Image

    • The illiterate imbecile that we all have come to know and love as Dubya is not very bright. He currently has less than nine days left in office and this gives him plenty of time to pardon any he feels is in danger of reprisal from the ensuing administration.

      I think it is quite possible that Obama is being a bit aloof and covert here as to allow chimpy to feel at ease, thus not pardoning any under his command leaves these criminals available and vulnerable for prosecution.

      If you haven't noticed yet, Obama is very shrewd with regards to this arena of politics.
      Once again, stay tuned.

    • 3 years ago
  • ejasun
    • 0
      ejasun  
    • Image

    • Neither side intentionally mistreated prisoners???

      Neither side expected the war to last long, so they quickly made arrangements to deal with large numbers of men using minimal amounts of money. Prisoners held by the Union were slightly better off as the Southern states were poorer and had less to work with.

      In the first two years of the war, there were relatively small numbers of prisoners taken by both sides and they were well treated.

      Both sides agreed to a prisoner exchange which operated during the second half of 1862.

      This stopped when the South refused to return black soldiers and the North refused to consider Jefferson Davis as President of the Confederacy.

      From 1863 on, both sides were holding large numbers of prisoners that they didn't have the ability to care for!
      .........................................

      Oversight is a form of extreme deletion, intended for privacy, defamation which are to be expunged from any form of usual access.

      Oversighted edits differ from normal deletion performed by administrators, since once removed, they cannot be seen even administration, nor can they easily be restored
      (Obama Overstanding) What is trust?

    • 3 years ago
  • JuliusBC
    • 0
      JuliusBC  

    • #
      Akamaial, with regards to your: "real" world issues and the complexity of dealing with them," I agree with you here that they need to be dealt with and that they are very complex.

      I am relieved that we finally have a leader that is not only intelligent but has a whole lot of I get it. This will be a change from what we have been experiencing for the last eight years.

      I am extremely confident that Obama will be the best man for the job. Looking forward rather than backward here is of the utmost importance. The reason is that we have so many problems in our country and the world right now that need to be addressed. Once things start to roll in the right direction on these issues I believe the "Big O" will address the war criminal issues.

      The war criminal issues need to be addressed as most of the entire world feels and sees a need for this. Obama is indicating this in his statement: "That doesn't mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law. But my orientation's going to be to move forward."

      Obama will never be found in "la, la, land. Hasn't, won't, and never will be!
      I think the key here is stay tuned!
      JBC

    • 3 years ago
  • Highr0ller
  • JuliusBC
  • chokolat3warmth
  • AveryMoore
    • 0
      AveryMoore  

    • So, according to the right's phalanx of resident wingnuts on Current - Obama is Bush Lite for saying that Gitmo won't shut down immediately.

      Gosh.. Imagine that! Complexity!

      But, no surprise, the wingnuts don't like the guy who beat them at the polls and humiliated their blowhard arrogance. Not that they've lost either characteristic.

      Who would have guessed they'd still be so childish as to hold a perpetual grudge? Lotsa people..

      As Ricky84 points out Obama must adjust policy to the reality of Presidential calculus (and the lack of a Senate majority) Yet this is a huge shock for the losing side? It proves they were right?

      Think again. If you ever do.

      Since Bush Heavy, McCain\Palin Surreal, or any variant of it, was unelectable, and the Dem hierarchy around Obama is institutionally invertebrate, what did YOU expect? Obama works from a consensus - not a braindead ideology of sucking up to corporations.

      Two points to master.

      1/ Obama won - your guy lost. If it doesn't hurt too much - Cope.

      2/ It doesn't matter how hard you try to undermine the Dems: you can't unelect Obama. Tough break. The population never bought your message.

      All the carping you'll do between now and 2012 will simply make you look infantile. Thanks a lot, because associating you with the right works in Obama's favor among adults.

      Be as snide as you like - relative to the American consensus on who should lead the country - you still are the losers, and thus you act exactly as losers always do!

    • 3 years ago
  • Ricky84
    • 0
      Ricky84  

    • Yeah its kind of hard to check the rapid expansion of presidential power by the Bush administration when you support the rapid expansion of presidential power in itself. True Obama doesn’t necessarily like Gitmo but that’s not because Gitmo is against the law. Obama just doesn’t like it because it makes us look bad. Same thing goes for Iraq.

    • 3 years ago
  • Scarabus
    • 0
      Scarabus  

    • Always interesting to see which posts elicit serious reflection and which elicit knee jerk nastiness. Good topic for academic or marketing researchers.

      Couple of problems with staying fixated on what's forward and ignoring what's recently passed. For instance, in this case the past *IS* what's forward. The Bush administration destroyed the balance of power and claimed near dictatorial power for the presidency.

      That means dictatorial powers for Democratic presidents as well as Republicans, guys. Hard to believe that some of those posting hostile snark up above would enjoy that. But no one who believes in democracy, regardless of party or ideology, should be willing to let this go unchallenged.

      BTW, Cole's good. Also worth checking with Stone at Chicago and Turley also at Georgetown. (John Yoo need not apply. He has a conflict of interest since he's one of the guys who ought to on trial.)

    • 3 years ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  

    • I'm not surprised by all of the silly neo-con attitudes on Current; people that say things like "I thought he was the Messiah" or "you're no longer living in la-la land."
      If you are a conservative, I have some news for you: Not everyone who voted for Obama was mislead, uneducated or living in "la-la land'!

      We are aware that the type of change America needs does not just appear all of a sudden with Obama. It needs to be worked for. At this point, there is a TON on Obama's plate. Obama's comments on this post seem totally rational and reasonable.

    • 3 years ago
  • Jackstowne
    • 0
      Jackstowne  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      Actually, they don't if you bothered to pay attention. He knew of the so-called complexities about shutting down Gitmo for quite some time now. He knew about it when he made his promise.

      Lawyers have been working on closing Gitmo for *years* and they have repeatedly laid out plans for how to do so. Simply put: Obama doesn't *want* to shut it down right now.

    • 3 years ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
  • UWAZell
    • 0
      UWAZell  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      Thank you Della. In the grand scheme of things I reckon closing down Gitmo ranks well below fixing the US Economy. Think about it, which of the two is going to fix the toilet tissue dollar and create jobs for people.... I would say the answer is a 'no brainer'.

    • 3 years ago
  • JuliusBC
    • 0
      JuliusBC  
    • Image
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      DeliaTA, you have hit the bullseye on this one.

      That being said, "Revenge is mine thus saith the lord," and if Obama is in fact the Messiah then all will be reckoned with here.

      In a manner of speaking I suppose one could say: the Scribes and the Pharisees did all they could to bring this great nation down but have failed. You see somethings never change.

      Rome wasn't built in a day and neither will the rebuild of America. First things first are in order here and Gitmo isn't number one on the list. Sorry for the rest of you that see it differently!
      JuliusBC

    • 3 years ago
  • JohnA
  • ejasun
    • 0
      ejasun  
    • Image

    • American Prison Camps Are on the Way

      Most corrupt and criminal president in American history is doing such a thing? ... Bush/Cheney are the worst slim****** that ever disgraced Washington. ...

    • 3 years ago
  • petarro
    • 0
      petarro  

    • Of course it is a challenge. One of the things Obama did is to fool everyone into the opposite way from Bush but he CANNOT do this as there is no path but the one of taking care of those that want you dead.

      Where can you put the Gitmo ultra assassins? Jails? Local jails of their own countries to escalate the stupid protests and to look for a way for them to become martyrs?

      Gitmo detainees are not there because they stole a wallet.

    • 3 years ago
  • Argon18
    • 0
      Argon18  
    • petarro:

      Yes it is a challenge, to determine the evidence of what exactly the people that were rounded up and put in there actually did and collect all the evidence of it.

      It is a blanket assumption that only the worst of the worst people are there since it hasn't been proven that everyone that is there is an "ultra assasin" since evidence has be "tainted" by duress

    • 3 years ago
  • JuliusBC
    • 0
      JuliusBC  
    • petarro:

      The national statistic with regards to innocent people in prisons is 1%. The possibility of some of Gitmo's prisoners are innocent as well. We can blanket approach everything here and that would be a crime as well. If you or someone of your family were there and were innocent, your view on this subject would be quite different. Many have been detained and haven't even been charged. Under the current guidelines they can be held there indefinitely. You can be sure this will be addressed on Obama's watch.

    • 3 years ago
  • nobamagirl
    • 0
      nobamagirl  

    • Guess I am going have to change the name on my icon. Good job Mr. Obama. Letting all those terrorists out was a good campaign ploy to get the kook fringe vote, but, it would be a bad idea for the world. U DA MAN!

    • 3 years ago
  • quixotic12
  • Argon18
    • 0
      Argon18  
    • Image

    • Well the problem with ignoring the past is as always that it is doomed to be repeated unless mistakes are corrected and prevented from happening again in the future.

      If Obama is sincere in the statement "And obviously we're going to be looking at past practices, and I don't believe that anybody is above the law." then the consequences are to prosecute the crimes that have been committed to prove that to the world at large the "rule of law" is being repaired and accountability is being brought back into the goverment.

      "looking forward" is all very well but it doesn't do much to fix the underlying problems that will surely rear their ugly head again unless they are addressed.

      Georgetown law professor David Cole argues that the federal system of checks and balances was broken by Bush and cannot be reformed, "unless we are willing to account for what we did wrong in the past."

      While President-elect Obama wants to develop a bipartisan atmosphere on Capitol Hill and, therefore, may be reluctant to investigate Bush improprieties, the subject is too important to be put off. Steps need to be taken to curtail the expansion of executive power by future Presidents.

      Because Congress offered little objection to Bush's abuse of the role of commander-in-chief, it will not be sufficient to have only a congressional inquiry. David Cole recommends, "an independent, bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission to investigate and assess responsibility for the United States' adoption of coercive interrogation policies. If it is to be effective, it must have subpoena power, sufficient funding, security clearances, access to all the relevant evidence, and, most importantly, a charge to assess responsibility."

      Ideally, a torture commission would serve two functions: It would enumerate the sequence of decisions that resulted in the coercive interrogation policies - identify the key decision makers and make clear the involvement of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. (Many of their actions have already come to light.)

      The torture commission should also recommend how to prevent a recurrence of these actions. This is a particularly challenging problem because the most egregious abuses happened during wartime when the decision makers believed the United States was threatened with imminent attack -- Bush's actions followed his donning of the mantle of commander-in-chief after 9/11. Two problems are apparent: the decisions were made in an atmosphere of tight secrecy -- Congress had little involvement -- and they lacked careful consideration -- many of the decisions, such as The Patriot Act, were rushed.

      The Torture Commission should challenge the notion of executive immunity and recommend holding the President, and his cronies, fully responsible for the adoption of coercive interrogation policies. Checks and balances have to be restored. There should be a day of reckoning for the Bush Administration.

    • 3 years ago
  • akamaial
  • gaiusfurius
    • 0
      gaiusfurius  
    • Argon18:

      Does the Georgetown professor tell you how to wipe ur arse? Does he know what an extended middle finger means? GLOBALLY of course. Can he see mine from here? Thank GOD OBAMA listens to people who really know instead of these Academic morons which your side quotes.

    • 3 years ago
  • Argon18
    • 0
      Argon18  
    • Argon18:

      It happens for a reason and unless it is corrected it keeps happening.

      Whining and pleas to ignore it doesn't do anything to fix it. So just blindly moving on won't solve it

      It all depends on the results of the "evaluation" since Obama hasn't said he will not prosecute.

      His statement "That doesn't mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law." will lead to the conclusion that something has to be done to be done about those crimes to "make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing."

    • 3 years ago
  • gaiusfurius
    • 0
      gaiusfurius  
    • Argon18:

      Yawn.......It's you that is missing the point. You, that is out of touch with reality. The world is a bad place, Obama see's this. Your Georgetown professor probably never has mowed a lawn in his life. He has no common sense. And people like him. should shut their mouths about things they know nothing about. And do their job, teach school. In the REAL world they are known as College educated idiots. For real. Theory only go's so far, when crazy Muther Fuppers want to kill you, someones a theory of how things should be. Don't mean sheat.

    • 3 years ago
  • Argon18
    • 0
      Argon18  
    • Argon18:

      It doesn't make the world any better or realistic to ignore crimes. Unless you WANT them to be perpetrated again in the future without any consequences.

      That just invites more abuses of power without any accountablity which goes against all common sense.

      Obama is a constitutional lawyer himself and has a lot more balanced view that has more knowledge about the subject than you have described so I wouldn't shoot your mout off about it when it is obvious that you have a lot less.

      I doubt Obama would agree with the denigration of law professors since Obama served for twelve years as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, teaching constitutional law. He was first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.

    • 3 years ago
  • gaiusfurius
  • Argon18
    • 0
      Argon18  
    • Argon18:

      Tell that to the people that were tortured and see how far you get, just because you are blind to them doesn't make it go away.

      When further abuses of power occur and you are declared an "enemy combatant" going through an airport then you can tell them "you are just voices in my head" but the pain will still feel real enough to you.

      All that has to happen is someone slips something into your bag or takes your cell phone to make a call on it to the wrong person for you to be declared a "terrorist" under the current rules and you have no recourse to try to convince them otherwise since they can use any means at all to drag a confession out of you with what they have found.

    • 3 years ago
  • Katanajon
    • 0
      Katanajon  

    • And the World breaths a collective sigh of relief. Change shemyshaw, Hope shemyshaw, "I had HOPED he would CHANGE" KUDO"S OB.

    • 3 years ago
  • gaiusfurius
  • quixotic12
  • gaiusfurius
  • chipsinabox
    • 0
      chipsinabox  

    • I honestly wish that Bob Barr was the current president-elect. I just don't see the prospect of Obama making as much positive change as he had promised.

    • 3 years ago
  • mik661
    • 0
      mik661  

    • What idiot would have ever thought that all the changes were going be overnight. Why do you think Bush has been refusing to make any painful or major decisions? He and the Republicans want to dump it onto Obama. The more bullshit they leave for him to clean up the longer it will before he can turn his attention to what Bush administration has created.

    • 3 years ago
  • gaiusfurius
  • akamaial
  • clownpuncher
  • yuniversal3
  • quixotic12
    • 0
      quixotic12  
    • yuniversal3:

      He was center-oriented during the election too. A lot of people have strange expectations of Obama. If you actually paid attention to his campaign promises and not just the propaganda from McCain's campaign people wouldn't be so surprised by this.

    • 3 years ago
  • akamaial
    • 0
      akamaial [removed]  

    • I didn't vote for Obama. However, he is our President now, and I wish "us" well during his term in office. Having said that, the "majority voters" that put him in office are soon to be enlightened about the "real" world issues and the complexity of dealing with them.....Damn, tough no longer living in la-la land, huh, Democrats(socialists)?

    • 3 years ago
  • gaiusfurius
  • JuliusBC
    • 0
      JuliusBC  
    • akamaial:

      Akamaial, with regards to your: "real" world issues and the complexity of dealing with them," I agree with you here that they need to be dealt with and that they are very complex.

      I am relieved that we finally have a leader that is not only intelligent but has a whole lot of I get it. This will be a change from what we have been experiencing for the last eight years.

      I am extremely confident that Obama will be the best man for the job. Looking forward rather than backward here is of the utmost importance. The reason is that we have so many problems in our country and the world right now that need to be addressed. Once things start to roll in the right direction on these issues I believe the "Big O" will address the war criminal issues.

      The war criminal issues need to be addressed as most of the entire world feels and sees a need for this. Obama is indicating this in his statement: "That doesn't mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law. But my orientation's going to be to move forward."

      Obama will never be found in "la, la, land. Hasn't, won't, and never will be!
      I think the key here is stay tuned!
      JBC

    • 3 years ago
  • Kylsport
    • 0
      Kylsport  
    • akamaial:

      As if all our past presidents were high school drops. I can see how one might consider open to be intelligent. He spent much years in college studying; too much.

    • 3 years ago
  • gaiusfurius
    • 0
      gaiusfurius  

    • This is truly a wonderful thing to wake up to. I may have been wrong on election day. But I have been right everyday since then. And for all you depressed Liberal's. All's I can say is "Next time clear your statements with me, I tell you if they are grounded in reality or not, No I won't charge you" ROFLMAO.

    • 3 years ago
more from Politics:
from the community

top videos