As a Democrat (or at least a Democrat to everyone except Putin, who doesn't count you as a member of a party unless you vote for them every single last time blindly on every issue rather than voting based ON the issues) I would say...

Half due to the logistical issues (ie, where do you put those people, there's been some debate about that) and half due to some more right-wing demonstrations that would hold that such an act would be a sign of "weakness" or show Obama as being "soft on terrorism"...

And when you're a first-term President trying to get re-elected, you don't want to appear that way.

(For the record, though, I'd like to see it closed, too...)

@ obiwan:

Surely the answer to "where do you put those people?" is simple:

If you have sufficient evidence of their crimes to put them on trial then PUT THEM ON TRIAL! If you do not have sufficient evidence to put them on trian then LET THEM GO!!!

The President of the USA should be able to demonstrate that he has the courage of his fucking convictions. He promised to close the camp, therefore he should fucking close it.

"I'd like to see it closed, too..." - Glad to hear it mate!

The reason he hasn't closed it is because he doesn't want to. If he felt strongly about it he would have done so years ago. Obama is pragmatic, and the place is useful to him.

"If you have sufficient evidence of their crimes to put them on trial then PUT THEM ON TRIAL! If you do not have sufficient evidence to put them on trian then LET THEM GO!!!"

1. I agree to those, I don't think many--or any--here wouldn't, except

2. I meant more along the lines of "Where do you put those who ARE guilty?" as...well, would YOU be overall pleased if y knew your local prison was getting several high-risk terrorists to hold in their cell that are not only dangerous but sure to attract international attention (and possibly retribution...how many times have we seen terror strikes followed by a demand that prisoners be let go?) And even if you PERSONALLY feel comfortable with that...certainly we can agree a substantial portion of the population likely would NOT...a number and factor multiplied by the fact media coverage and discussion would likely serve as a talking point to spread such fear, ie, one afraid person blogging or Facebooking about it, suddenly their friends are worried, potentially, and so on and so forth, exponentially...and that's just PRIVATE media, that's setting aside the endless days and weeks and months of hearing the mainstream news outlets go on about this...so bottom line, it's going to be hard to locate them anywhere on US soil, and as THAT is where we have the most right and jurisdiction to try someone--hence part of the problem with Guantanamo--therein lies part of the problem...not necessarily innocent vs. guilty but, rather, once those who are guilty are convicted...where do you put them, what community will WANT to have their prison house them? (Another note--even if we assume that many in the community WOULD feel comfortable with high-profile terrorists incarcerated near them...what's that going to do to the property value of their homes? And the overall image of the town as a whole?)

"The President of the USA should be able to demonstrate that he has the courage of his fucking convictions. He promised to close the camp, therefore he should fucking close it."

He should...in a perfect world...

But then, in a perfect world, we also wouldn't need a government, if we were all perfect angels, would we?

The fact is, Obama's a first-term president with a Republican Congress and is seeking re-election.

ANYTHING Obama has wanted so far, basically, he has had to fight the Republicans on...as really, most Republicans in Congress, it seems, prefer to just say "no" to anything JUST to run the clock out on Obama's presidency to get their own people in charge (OK, they also MAY have some ideological issues with some of Obama's policies, so before anyone starts a huge political fight, I'm NOT saying every last Republican is just blithely saying no to say no, some could very well have true and honest reasons for saying no, and might even be reasonable and workable...I'm just saying, this is the overall impression of Congress, and there's a REASON The Republicans have earned the nickname "The Party of No.")

Where was I?

Oh, yes:

So, ANYTHING Obama wants to do, he has to fight a long, LONG battle over.

Trying to create jobs? Battle.
Obamacare? Battle.
Energy reform? Battle.
LGBT rights? BIG Battle.

And he needs to get re-elected still, remember...

What will most likely get him elected with the average American:

If he gets more jobs created or if he closes down Guantanamo and moves dangerous terrorists onto US soil?

The moral answer, sadly, is not always the politically-viable one...especially in an election year and the first term of a presidency.

"The reason he hasn't closed it is because he doesn't want to. If he felt strongly about it he would have done so years ago."

I was going to respond to you separately, Octavious, but I think the above applies to your comment as well...?

@Jamie - Putting them on trial is all fine and dandy, but we have limited resources (judges, prosecutors, defnse attorneys, and jurists) to have that many trials in that timely of a manner. But the government is dragging it's feet and could have some of these trials quicker.

Combine that with separating the legitimate "enemy combatants" (if one of them actually kileld an American or ally, they are an enemy combatant, not just a conspirator) from the criminal conspirators means we need another prisoner of war camp somewhere to put the real POWs.

The US government doesn't want to recognize them as POWs, with all the protections that entails, hence the term unlawful combatant. Ordinarily that would make them criminals and thus entitled to a criminal trial, but the US doesn't care for such things and prefers to just detain suspects indefinitely and maybe put one in front of a military tribunal every couple of years if the media are being particularly bothersome.

@obi - "But then, in a perfect world, we also wouldn't need a government, if we were all perfect angels, would we?"

Do you even know how stupid that sounds? We could all be perfect angels and someone would still have to handle emergency services (houses catch fire through lightening strikes, floods occur through acts of god, etc.), which means taxation of some sort, which means an overhead to collect and distribute those taxes. No, government provides more than police and justice services. If you think Katrina was bad under DEMA, imagine Katrina with *no* government services. Imagine a world with no highways and no infrastructure of any support. Governments provide these things.

@d31 - Exactly right. That's why I said POW/enemy combatant versus unlawful combatant which ids a bullshit term if ever there was one. They need to be separated between criminals who get a speedy trial, those with not enough evidence to prosecute who strictly get sent back to their registered home country, and enemy combatants/POWs who are held and treated according to the Geneva Convention.

The US never ratified Protocol I Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, so none of the detainees can get POW status.

They could only be prosecuted for crimes under US law.

@d31 - The US signed it with the intention of ratifying it, and they signed and ratified the first three GCs, so yes, POW *is* a valid status in the US as it was in the other previous ratified conventions *and* it was signed by the US in the fourth.

Protocol I would, if it had been ratified, have provided Taliban fighters with POW status. Since it was not ratified, the US can only possibly treat them as criminals.

They do not qualify as combatants under the rest of the Conventions.

Protocol I was signed with the intent to ratify. But beyond that, Protocol I requires the guerilla combatants to wear insignia and identify themselves with the central authority. Taliban may apply under that, but AQ most definitely does not wear a uniform identifying them as AQ, so they are in violation of Protocol I to begin with, themselves.

And by signing it, the US is morally obligated to treat them as POWs as there is clear intent to abide by it. And even if they weren't obligated, the US could still *choose* to abide by it and recognize them. We aren't forbidden from abiding by it, just not legally obligated to.

Art. 44 paragraph 3 of Additional Protocol I:


"3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he
carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c)."


Only the open carrying of arms is required. President Reagan, in his letter to the Senate of 29 January 1987:


"Another provision would grant combatant status to irregular forces even if they do not satisfy the traditional requirements to distinguish themselves from the civilian population and otherwise comply with the laws of war. [...] These problems are so fundamental in character that they cannot be remedied through reservations, and I therefore have decided not to submit the Protocol to the Senate in any form, and I would invite an expression of the sense of the Senate that it shares this view. Finally, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have also concluded that a number of the provisions of the Protocol are militarily unacceptable."


I doubt Obama's opinion is any different.

what obiwan and jamie said in their first responses... this reflects my opinion.

I say let the Marines solve the problem. I'm sure they could secure Gitmo and keep any threat of retaliation from happening on US soil.

"I say let the Marines solve the problem. I'm sure they could secure Gitmo and keep any threat of retaliation from happening on US soil."

Pro-life, indeed.

Jamie, you need some place to house detainees while they await trial. He cannot find a single state anywhere who is willing to house the detainees while they await trial. Congress has repeatedly put riders in bills that prohibits any transfer of detainees from Guantanamo.

Leftists need to stop blaming Obama for not being a god.

Puttin, I never said I was pro-life, I'm anti abortion.

" I never said I was pro-life, I'm anti abortion."

At least you admit it.

Why would a man ever be anti-abortion? What arrogance is that for a man to tell a woman (possibly one ha has never met) she has to keep and rear a child just because she got pregnant, it's absolutely mindless. Does someone explain the reason why people oppose abortion, I just fail to understand the argument on financial, emotional, moral or ethical grounds !!!

We already have two live threads about abortion. Can we please not start a third?

Good to know on a Diplomacy forum you have specific threads on Abortion ....... thank the Lord God Allah himself !!

@Nigee - Nobody said she had to keep and rear it. Only Putin would rather see a woman abort a child than carry it to term and give it up for adoption. But then he likes killing babies as late in the process as he can get away with. He gets his jollies off murder.

"Do you even know how stupid that sounds?"

Tell it to James Madison, Draug:

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

So...yeah...

I'm going to with the framer of the Constitution over your word on the matter--sorry.

I have an adopted child, the process only took 3 years. The birth mother is a butane addict and has now had 11 kids, she's in her 30's and could have 3 or 4 more yet, she obviously can't keep them because she is incapable. The father has about 15 children. It costs the state hundreds of thousands of pounds to care for these children, a very small fraction of what it would cost to abort the child and/or sterilize the woman.

@obi - Madison made this statement in the days before industrialization when there was no mass communication, the fastest a man could go was his horses speed, and roads were made of dirt and only saw wheels from horsedrawn carriages. I tend to think he was probably lacking in the insight into what the government would become and what all it would be responsible for.

@Nigee - I'd rather pay the tax bill to supplement the care for the children than see them killed. And over on *this* side of the Atlantic, adoptive parents don't get the money from the state. Once the chilkd is adopted, it is the new parents responsibilitiy to see to its needs.