/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Obama orders halt to Guantánamo Bay tribunals



Ali.
01-21-2009, 04:34 PM
:sl:

---

The US president, Barack Obama, has ordered a suspension of the controversial Guantánamo Bay military tribunals, in one of his first actions after being sworn in yesterday.

Within hours of taking office Obama's administration filed a motion to halt the war crimes trials for 120 days, until his new administration completes a review of the much-criticised system for trying suspected terrorists.

The move, which will suspend cases against 21 men, was made at the direction of Obama and Robert Gates, George Bush's defence secretary, who has kept his job in the new administration.

The first military judge to consider the motion, Army Colonel Patrick Parrish, granted the request to suspend the trial of Omar Khadr, a Canadian who is accused of killing an American soldier with a grenade in Afghanistan in 2002. Later another military judge will consider suspending the case of five men charged with plotting the September 11 attacks.

The halt to the tribunals was sought "in the interests of justice", the official request to the judges said.

Moazzam Begg, the former British detainee at Guantánamo Bay, urged Obama to go further. "There is no clear statement about this being stopped and the whole process being recognised as illegal," he said.

"For myself and other former detainees, until we see something tangible happening we are going to reserve judgment. That is because we have been here before – Bush has stated he wanted Guantánamo closed."

Human rights groups who were at Guantánamo Bay to observe this week's session of the tribunals welcomed the move.

"It's a great first step but it is only a first step," said Gabor Rona, the international director of Human Rights First. "It will permit the newly inaugurated president and his administration to undertake a thorough review of both the pending cases and the military commissions process generally.

"The suspension of military commissions so soon after President Obama took office is an indication of the sense of urgency he feels about reversing the destructive course that the previous administration was taking in fighting terrorism."

Jamil Dakwar, director of the human rights programme at the American Civil Liberties Union, said it was a positive step but noted: "The president's order leaves open the option of this discredited system remaining in existence."

Clive Stafford Smith, a human rights lawyer who has represented Guantánamo suspects, said: "It's great isn't it? There is no doubt it will stop the practices at Guantánamo. After all, Obama is now the commander-in-chief."

Speaking on BBC Radio 4, Stafford Smith said: "It's going to take some work but what he [Obama] is looking at, I think, here is a very clear-cut distinction between this administration and the last."

Relatives of victims of the September 11 attacks, who were also at the base to observe the hearings, have said they oppose any further delay in the trials of the men charged in the case.

The requested suspension came on the day a military judge adjourned the war crimes court just before Obama was sworn in by noting that the future of the commissions was in doubt.

Obama has pledged to close the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, which holds 245 men, and had been expected to suspend the widely criticised tribunals.

The president's nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, has said the military commissions lack sufficient legal protections for defendants and that they could be tried in the US.

---

Source

I'll quote Gabor Rona: "It's a great first step but it is only a first step." Let's see what else Obama can offer.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
~Taalibah~
01-21-2009, 08:19 PM
Hmm, lets see what happens....
Reply

Qingu
01-22-2009, 03:29 AM
Tomorrow he is apparently going to order his generals to begin pulling American troops out of Iraq.
Reply

Strzelecki
01-22-2009, 06:10 AM
Good thing. Consdiering most of them were put away without evidence!
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
nocturnal
01-22-2009, 05:55 PM
Sorry to be going off topic here, but before he officially assumed office, he chose not to comment much on the Gaza issue saying there could only be one president at a time. Now that his accession to the presidency is complete, why is he not officially condemning israel for it's actions and urging them to lift the embargo?
Reply

Keltoi
01-22-2009, 06:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by nocturnal
Sorry to be going off topic here, but before he officially assumed office, he chose not to comment much on the Gaza issue saying there could only be one president at a time. Now that his accession to the presidency is complete, why is he not officially condemning israel for it's actions and urging them to lift the embargo?
Perhaps because that would not do much to start off good relations between the Israeli government and the new Obama administration.
Reply

Leyla73
01-22-2009, 07:02 PM
Obama also said that he's going to take the troups out of Irak, but send a lot more into Afganistan ...
Reply

nocturnal
01-22-2009, 07:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Perhaps because that would not do much to start off good relations between the Israeli government and the new Obama administration.
He doesn't have to do much anyway. Ties between his administration and israel inherently are quite robust. Look at his senior aides, Clinton, a key pro-israeli hawk, so is Biden, im pretty sure i don't need to say much on Rahm Emmanuel.

Point is, in order to maintain cordial dipomatic ties, he shouldn't divest himself of the responsibility to speak out against genocide. Especially when all these fanciful utopian ideals were a key collective theme during his candidacy.
Reply

Ansariyah
01-22-2009, 08:05 PM
It's about time, closing that hellhole down is way overdue. I've seen this bro being interviewed today. He was locked up there for 7 years, the tortures he described were beyond anything we could ever imagine. It was heart-wrenching to listen n watch it.

Closing gitmo itself down isn't just enough, all those sadistic animals who were in charge there who abused the inmates need to be brought to justice.
Reply

Qingu
01-22-2009, 08:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by nocturnal
Sorry to be going off topic here, but before he officially assumed office, he chose not to comment much on the Gaza issue saying there could only be one president at a time. Now that his accession to the presidency is complete, why is he not officially condemning israel for it's actions and urging them to lift the embargo?
What do you want him to say exactly?

"Israel is bad!"

Nocturnal: what good would this do? From a purely practical perspective, how would Obama "condemning" Israel actually help the Palestinians?

America has a lot of influence with Israel. We can use that influence for good, to help Palestinians and establish peace in the region. Or we can just throw it away so that Muslims feel good about hearing a meaningless condemnation. Which one do you want?
Reply

aamirsaab
01-22-2009, 08:11 PM
:sl:
Great start. Love to see what he will do next.
Reply

aadil77
01-22-2009, 08:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Qingu
What do you want him to say exactly?

"Israel is bad!"

Nocturnal: what good would this do? From a purely practical perspective, how would Obama "condemning" Israel actually help the Palestinians?

America has a lot of influence with Israel. We can use that influence for good, to help Palestinians and establish peace in the region. Or we can just throw it away so that Muslims feel good about hearing a meaningless condemnation. Which one do you want?
Well actually America has alot of influence on everywhere, Obama condeming israel will also allow other countries the opportunity to condemn israel as well
Reply

Qingu
01-22-2009, 08:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
Well actually America has alot of influence on everywhere, Obama condeming israel will also allow other countries the opportunity to condemn israel as well
Doesn't everyone already condemn Israel, including the U.N.?

Incidentally, Israel ignores all of these other countries.

Again, I fail to see any practical upshot—for the Palestinians—for Obama condemning Israel. On the other hand, if Obama actually works with Israel on their side, using our influence to temper them, then maybe we can accomplish something and help prevent more massacres.

In any case, I hope you guys temper your expectations for Obama over Israel. This is a 60-year long disaster. He's not going to solve it in a day.
Reply

nocturnal
01-22-2009, 08:30 PM
The US by condemning Israel will send out a decisive message that it has broken with the past, that it has broken with this enshrined US foreign policy of expending every possible resource to protect israel, and it would send out the message that the nature of american foreign policy with regards to the Muslim world is not perpetual, that has not happened.

The nucleus of this so called "terror", is american unconditional support for israel which has engenderd anger and facilitated the growth of radicalism in the middle east.

A condemnation of israel from the president of the US, would reverberate all over the world and it would uplift even the most ingrained cynics. It would have made all the difference in the world. And the last point, given the amount of people that have been massacred by the mass murderers in israel, it was morally incumbent upon him to condemn israel and to use the word "condemn".
Reply

Qingu
01-22-2009, 10:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by nocturnal
The US by condemning Israel will send out a decisive message that it has broken with the past, that it has broken with this enshrined US foreign policy of expending every possible resource to protect israel, and it would send out the message that the nature of american foreign policy with regards to the Muslim world is not perpetual, that has not happened.

The nucleus of this so called "terror", is american unconditional support for israel which has engenderd anger and facilitated the growth of radicalism in the middle east.

A condemnation of israel from the president of the US, would reverberate all over the world and it would uplift even the most ingrained cynics. It would have made all the difference in the world. And the last point, given the amount of people that have been massacred by the mass murderers in israel, it was morally incumbent upon him to condemn israel and to use the word "condemn".
If I understand you, the advantage is simply good PR for Muslims.

Is that worth trading a powerful position to influence Israel's agenda? I don't think so. I could care less about PR, and so should you. So, I imagine, do Palestinians getting their houses and children blown up.

Now, I would also like to see Obama condemn Israel's actions in Gaza. And I agree that it would send a strong message. But sending a strong message is worthless unless it is accompanied by action that will actually help people. With Israel, Obama must play smart politics if he is going to have any positive affect on Israel's actions, and that takes time and patience.

Edit: to put it another way, what would you do if Obama simply "condemned" the way detainees are treated in Guantanamo Bay, but did nothing to close the base or change the policies there? You would rightly dismiss it as a meaningless PR move. The same applies to the Israel-Gaza conflict. Obama could condemn Israel—but unless that condemnation is accompanied by action, then it's just meaningless PR.

If broadly condemning Israel now will make it harder to put political pressure on Israel's government in the future and achieve some actual change of policy on their part, it is better for Obama to wait.
Reply

Keltoi
01-22-2009, 10:54 PM
I watched Obama's speech at the State Department today, and he made it very clear that he will not condemn Israel or its right to defend itself from threats. I haven't seen any sign that Obama will wander too far from the stance the Bush administration took on the Middle East conflict. Every president comes into office with the intent of finding a viable peace process, and so has Obama.
Reply

Qingu
01-22-2009, 11:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
I watched Obama's speech at the State Department today, and he made it very clear that he will not condemn Israel or its right to defend itself from threats. I haven't seen any sign that Obama will wander too far from the stance the Bush administration took on the Middle East conflict. Every president comes into office with the intent of finding a viable peace process, and so has Obama.
I do hope he tries a different tack than "Israel can do no wrong." And I am actually confident that he will.

Hopefully my confidence is not misplaced—because Israel "defending itself from threats" is different than Israel "killing 1,000 civilians with the explicit purpose of scaring them into not wanting to attack again." It's not only immoral, it's stupid, and it has probably erased any gains the peace process has made.
Reply

maron
01-22-2009, 11:49 PM
Good news.. but we need to wait to to see what he will do next.
Reply

Keltoi
01-23-2009, 02:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Qingu
I do hope he tries a different tack than "Israel can do no wrong." And I am actually confident that he will.

Hopefully my confidence is not misplaced—because Israel "defending itself from threats" is different than Israel "killing 1,000 civilians with the explicit purpose of scaring them into not wanting to attack again." It's not only immoral, it's stupid, and it has probably erased any gains the peace process has made.
I'm not sure what "gains" existed from any peace process from Israel's perspective. 1,000 rockets fired into Israeli territory is hardly a confidence builder.

That being said, I hope the stance Obama takes is one of international monitoring of the tunnels between Egypt and Gaza and a more international effort in keeping the two sides at arms length. Peace in Ireland was finally achieved after only 800 years, so hopefully something will change the tide in this conflict.
Reply

north_malaysian
01-23-2009, 03:05 AM
I hope Obama would "ask" our leader to close Kemunting ISA detention camp (which is our version of Guantanamo)...
Reply

nocturnal
01-23-2009, 06:43 AM
I certainly don't think condemning israel will mitigate the suffering of the Palestinias on it's own, so yes it must be accompanied by action. But the reason i am focusing on a condemnation is because historically the US had accorded this murderous entity such deference, that a condemnation has always been defined as concerned. So, for example, an american president's condemnation of israel's actions in Gaza would be, "i am concerned about the situation in Gaza". That is the level of absurdity we are dealing with here.

So obviously, from such a historical viewpoint,i wouldn't expect even a pontificating, apparently angelic Obama to terminate weapons supplies to the zionists. But the least, the very least he could have done was condemned stridently, and purposefully these savage acts against an innocent population. If ever i had even a residual doubt in my mind tha obama would turn out to be just another craven zionist-sympathiser, it's now been firmly cast away.

So called sustained patient diplomacy does not work with barbarians.
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-23-2009, 06:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by nocturnal
If ever i had even a residual doubt in my mind tha obama would turn out to be just another craven zionist-sympathiser, it's now been firmly cast away.
Two days in office and you expect him to have fixed everything. Believe it or not, he is has other things to do besides try to mediate a problem that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians seem to have any genuine interest in resolving unless they can each get entirely their own way. And of course they can't both win and the other lose. Most likely, if there is to be any sort of lasting peace, it is going to require both sides admitting to wrong doing and neither side seeking retribution. Thus far such thoughts are just pipe dreams. Given that, what can Obama, or any other government really say?

So called sustained patient diplomacy does not work with barbarians.
And neither do the tactics the two sides are currently employing. This is one time I agree with Shakespearan diplomacy: "A pox on both their houses."
Reply

nocturnal
01-23-2009, 06:59 AM
The US cannot and will not shift it's israel policy unless unrelenting mass pressure is brought to bear on the government and it's vast network of bureaus, especially the state department.

Simply by instigating the public to condemn israel's atrocities, that will not be enough, because we've seen that before countless times, it happened with Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc. It's only when the public are sensitized about what militarily and politically underwriting israel costs the US in terms of it's monetary effects and the acute and expanded threat to it's national security and citizens.
Reply

nocturnal
01-23-2009, 07:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Two days in office and you expect him to have fixed everything. Believe it or not, he is has other things to do besides try to mediate a problem that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians seem to have any genuine interest in resolving unless they can each get entirely their own way. And of course they can't both win and the other lose. Most likely, if there is to be any sort of lasting peace, it is going to require both sides admitting to wrong doing and neither side seeking retribution. Thus far such thoughts are just pipe dreams. Given that, what can Obama, or any other government really say?

And neither do the tactics the two sides are currently employing. This is one time I agree with Shakespearan diplomacy: "A pox on both their houses."
This is absolute nonsense. He does not need to be in office for 2 years to implement a new diplomatic strategy to resolving the crisis. He is the president and commander-in-chief of the US and it's armed forces. All it takes is for him to make a sound analysis and judgment of the siutation and step up to roundly condemn israel, and if he really does respect international law, to cease immedieatly, the sales of weapons to this militarist, suppressive, and genocidal regime.

Israel is engaging in a systematic policy of ethnic cleansing being sponsored by the US. Obama doesn't need 2 terms to discern that for himself.
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-23-2009, 07:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by nocturnal
This is absolute nonsense. He does not need to be in office for 2 years to implement a new diplomatic strategy to resolving the crisis. He is the president and commander-in-chief of the US and it's armed forces. All it takes is for him to make a sound analysis and judgment of the siutation and step up to roundly condemn israel, and if he really does respect international law, to cease immedieatly, the sales of weapons to this militarist, suppressive, and genocidal regime.

Israel is engaging in a systematic policy of ethnic cleansing being sponsored by the US. Obama doesn't need 2 terms to discern that for himself.
2 days, 2 years, 2 terms, 2 centuries. Unless both sides are ready to move on and give up their juvenile "he started it" excuses, there is no purpose for Obama or anyone else to waste time on people who obviously don't understand the meaning of either shalom or salaam, or who simply don't truly want peace as much as they want power and reprisal.

Also, I don't believe that the US "sponsors" Israeli agression any more than it sponsored the acts of Iraq against Iran. But I do agree that the USA should quite being a weapons dealer, and not just to Israel, but the rest of the world as well.
Reply

crayon
01-23-2009, 09:34 AM
Obama Calls for Plan on Withdrawing US Troops from Iraq

U.S. President Barack Obama has told military leaders to draw up any additional plans necessary for a responsible U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Mr. Obama called for the measure during a meeting with his national security team on Wednesday.

The new president has vowed to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months.
He also supports a plan to nearly double the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan, where violence has increased in recent months.


In a statement, Mr. Obama called Wednesday's meeting productive. He said he planned to consult military leaders in the coming days to review the situation in Afghanistan, in order to develop a comprehensive strategy for the entire region.

Separately on Wednesday in Iraq, a Sunni politician escaped unharmed after an attack on his convoy just north of Baghdad. The bombing killed four students.

Ziyad al-Ani heads Baghdad's Islamic University and belongs to the Iraqi Islamic Party, a large Sunni Arab faction in parliament.

The attack came ahead of Iraq's provincial elections on January 31. Two politicians have already been murdered, and Iraqi security officials fear more violence in the days leading up to the vote.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-22-voa15.cfm
Reply

crayon
01-23-2009, 09:35 AM
double post.
Reply

Qingu
01-23-2009, 03:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by nocturnal
This is absolute nonsense. He does not need to be in office for 2 years to implement a new diplomatic strategy to resolving the crisis. He is the president and commander-in-chief of the US and it's armed forces. All it takes is for him to make a sound analysis and judgment of the siutation and step up to roundly condemn israel, and if he really does respect international law, to cease immedieatly, the sales of weapons to this militarist, suppressive, and genocidal regime.
Nocturnal, I think you are dramatically underestimating how long it takes to come up with an effective diplomatic strategy that will help the Palestinians.

You have acknowledged that merely condemning Israel will not result in any help for Palestinians. Now it seems like you want Obama to just wave a magic wand and force Israel to stop acting like barbarians.

That is impossible. Again, even if we condemned Israel and cut off funding, they still have plenty of weapons and armor; they do not need our aid or approval to massacre Palestinians anymore than they need the U.N.'s.

Israel is engaging in a systematic policy of ethnic cleansing being sponsored by the US. Obama doesn't need 2 terms to discern that for himself.
First of all, "ethnic cleansing" is too harsh. If Israel was engaged in ethnic cleansing, a lot more than 1,000 people would be dead. I am not defending Israel's actions, I'm simply saying you're mischaracterizing them.

Secondly, you have absolutely no idea what Obama has "discerned" about Israel's actions. It is wildly unfair to just assume he is an evil Zionist conspirator simply on the basis of two days in office (in which he has done plenty of other stuff). Grace Seeker is absolutely right—if America is going to help find a diplomatic solution to this crisis, it is going to take a lot longer than two days, and you are going to have to be patient and lower your expectations. Be realistic.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 172
    Last Post: 01-15-2014, 06:13 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-30-2006, 12:46 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-07-2006, 02:53 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-28-2005, 03:44 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-19-2005, 03:58 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!