Obama calls for halt to Gitmo prosecutions.
 

What the title says:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS...tml#cnnSTCText

Any thoughts?

It's an exercise in buying time in order to figure out exactly what to do with the mess that is Guantanamo Bay.

He said he would close it, so no surprise. A legal vacuum, a spot of shame on the American flag. Time to clean it.

On the question of who should take those prisoners who could not be sent back to their countries without needing to fear torture and mistreatement, there are two scenarios.

Either the prisoner in question is innocent and harmless (and we have had quiet some of these now), then nothing speaks against the US taking him in, if he is innocent or harmless, if he wants that. After all, america has a debt to such a person.

If he is considered dangerous, again the US should take him, for I see no reason why it should be acceptable for protesting, opposing european states to take such a person and take the risk, and the US getting rid of the risk and problem for free.

I don't buy this negotiating of what countries take what prisoners. The US started it, so they have to take them, period. Only those persons who are innocent and have the wish not to stay in the country whose hijacked "hospitality" they have enjoyed over the past years, should be given the choice to go to a european country, if they wish that. Problematic cases America has to find a solution for by itself, taking the efforts and risks itself, too, becasue it is responsible for the status quo and has created the mess. I do not accept prisoners with risks being exported from America to Europe. Also, after up to seven years without legal proceedings, such people either are brought to court right now on the basis of valid civil law codes, or released. There was opportunity and time enough to charge and sentence (or release) them.

True that, but this soon? I didn't expect anything from him for the next week or so. At least nothing of such an interest. (for me).

Send them to Germany. First class, of course.

Or, uh, prisons on american soil?

As far as I know, this is a fairly standard thing to do during a transition. ....

Send them to Iraq and let them try them in their courts.

No supprise either that he has also backed off this statement.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...ct_barack.html

Keep them yourself. You messed it up, you clean it, you pay for it. And you bring your legal issues back in order. Why should Germany give you the cheap exit ticket?

Outsource the work to Russia.:up: They are skilled in dealing with these kind of political issues. When these guys get off the plane in Moscow, they'll all be wearing "Vote Kasparov, time for change" t-shirts.

Problem solved in 10 minutes. Just think, they won't even need to go through customs.:up:

Here's what irks me about this little situation - how could people detained for fighting the great satan et al possibly be at risk when they return home? at risk from whom? the people doing the torturing and killing (with a rare exception here and there) are their own mates...:doh:

Consider a prisoner to be a terrorist indeed. Imagine the fairy queen said so. Imagine him to be Saudi. Imagine to hand him over to the Saudis.

Not that I care for him, in this example. Just answering your question. Saudi terrorism and Saudi terrorism - are not the same. Saudis pay for Saudi terrorism only if it is not directed against their own Saudi government, but infidel nations. Else they execute such terrorists. But different to Gitmo, they neither need seven years to find out about a prisoner, nor does it take them so long to bring him to court and get him sentenced.

haha, that works on so many levels! :rotfl:

I didn't see anything in there that said he wouldn't close the facility...:hmm: