Anti-Cheney Forces Inside Bush Administration Have ‘Lost The Intensity’ To Close Gitmo
Anti-Cheney Forces Inside Bush Administration Have ‘Lost The Intensity’ To Close Gitmo
In June 2006, President Bush claimed, “I’d like to close Guantanamo.” Two months ago, Condoleezza Rice said, “The President has said, and I fully agree, we would like nothing better than to close Guantanamo.” Those words are proving to be nothing more than lip service.
In September, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress that his push to close Guantanamo was running into “obstacles” from administration lawyers. The Financial Times reports today that the prospects of closing Gitmo have since dimmed considerably:
But three months on, the lawyers have made little headway. In addition to facing complex legal issues involved in closing the prison and transferring detainees to the US, they are running into opposition from other parts of the administration, including Dick Cheney, the vice-president. […]
One former senior official said the push to close Guantanamo had lost the intensity needed to have a realistic chance of closing the prison during the Bush administration.
The New York Times reported in March that when Gates first arrived on the job, he “repeatedly argued that the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had become so tainted abroad that legal proceedings at Guantánamo would be viewed as illegitimate” and told President Bush “that it should be shut down as quickly as possible.” The Times reported:
Mr. Gates’s arguments were rejected after Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and some other government lawyers expressed strong objections to moving detainees to the United States, a stance that was backed by the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, administration officials said.
Though Gonzales has since departed, Cheney has found a new ally in Attorney General Michael Muksasey, who said during his confirmation hearing, “I can’t simply say we have to close Guantanamo.”
In June, there was a meeting scheduled at the White House to discuss closing Guantanamo Bay. When word of that meeting leaked out to the press, Cheney allies seized the opportunity to cancel the meeting.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
57 Responses to “Anti-Cheney Forces Inside Bush Administration Have ‘Lost The Intensity’ To Close Gitmo”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
And the Puppet Master pulls the strings once again….
December 13th, 2007 at 10:12 amActually, what Brusch really meant was, “I’d like to close Gitmo, so no one really has any idea what we’re doing there… heheheheh…”
December 13th, 2007 at 10:13 amSo, for those who think that Ahmadinejad’s “desire” to produce nuclear weapons equates to “having” nuclear weapons, here’s a classic example of the difference between wanting something and getting something. “liking nothing better than to close Guantanimo”, for this administration, will never equate to actually “closing” Guantanimo.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:16 amThis picture clearly shows Schrinking Dick “keeping an eye” on what Loonny Dubia is saying, just to make sure he is repeating it right…
All bushit!
December 13th, 2007 at 10:19 amAddington.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:20 amA week ago, Dick Morris was claiming Hill’reh would still win, but he seems to be re-crunching the numbers due to Oprah’s influence:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ articles/ 2007/ 12/ the_oprah_factor_a_big_boost_f.html
I think Chuck Norris was a huge hit for Huckabee, so “popular” celebrity endorsements do work. I fear Chuck Heston is about to be pressed into uniform for one candidate or another.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:20 amthink Chuck Norris was a huge hit for Huckabee, so “popular†celebrity endorsements do work. I fear Chuck Heston is about to be pressed into uniform for one candidate or another.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 13, 2007 @ 10:20 am
Chuck Norris was a big hit ON Huchsterbee, Jason Hitler. No serious American gives a rat’s ass what a fool like Norris says, not to mention the liar Huckabee.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:26 amJason: “I fear Chuck Heston is about to be pressed into uniform for one candidate or another.”
- - See? Jason IS a comedian, albeit the Greg Gutfield type.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:27 amThis also begs the question of why the United States has been operating a naval base all these years on the property of a sovereign nation. In the eyes of the U.S., might apparently makes right.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:28 amNo one could ever expect Bush thugs to fix anything after their endless disasters of mass destruction.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:29 amI think Chuck Norris was a huge hit for Huckabee, so “popular†celebrity endorsements do work. I fear Chuck Heston is about to be pressed into uniform for one candidate or another.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 13, 2007 @ 10:20 am
Chuck Norris? Bwahahaha! Sure, Jason. He’s right up there with Oprah when it comes to influence.
Man, I am so glad I finished my coffee before I read that. I really don’t need to replace the keyboard and monitor.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:30 amWhat does 6 & 7 have to do with Gitmo?
Something ON TOPIC: Why have a US prison outside the US unless that prison worked outside the US law? Is there any other reason to have a US-run prison outside the US?
December 13th, 2007 at 10:30 amJason M. Hendler
I don’t think it was Oprah.
It is this: The only thing Hillary really has going for her is that conservatives don’t like her.
It takes more then that to make a president.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:30 amSince EU couldn’t get European voters to ratify the EU constitution, the EU has now created a new constitution to be ratified by the countries’ parliaments:
http://edition.cnn.com/ 2007/ WORLD/ europe/ 12/ 13/ eu.treaty/
The citizens of these countries are being railroaded into a bad arrangement, which greatly infringes on their respective sovreignties. Such a thing would never fly in the US, where even amendments to the federal constitution requires ratification by popular vote in a super-majority of states.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:31 am#12: “Is there any other reason to have a US-run prison outside the US?”
- - So we can incarcerate the black man in EVERY country?
December 13th, 2007 at 10:33 amHendler isn’t even trying anymore. Go away “Jason”.
From RawStory.
http://wikileaks.org/ wiki/ Wikileaks_busts_Gitmo_propaganda_team/ ?
December 13th, 2007 at 10:33 amWhy have a US prison outside the US unless that prison worked outside the US law? Is there any other reason to have a US-run prison outside the US?
Comment by Bob — December 13, 2007 @ 10:30 am
One word: No.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:36 amThat’s hardly “lip service.â€
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 13, 2007 @ 10:34 am
“Lip service”… the one thing yer good at…
If they’ve moved a quater of them out, wouldn’t that mean 3/4 of them are still being held, indefinitely, w/ no rights, no chance to talk to a lawyer, even challenge the charges or evidence on them? 75% of something is still a big percentage, twit.
Don’t you EVER have a meaningful point to make?
December 13th, 2007 at 10:40 amThat’s hardly “lip service.â€
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 13, 2007 @ 10:34 am
CHL, you’ve never expained the lack of convictions of all these “terrorists” imprisoned illegaly in Communist Cuba. You obviously are an enemy of the state, and should go for your own 6-year vacation to Gitmo.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:40 amComment by cold_hard_left — December 13, 2007 @ 10:34 am
###
You beat me to it. Most of Gitmo’s original detainees have been released. Gitmo will be closed, it’s just a matter of time. As CHL pointed out, over 400 have already been released. Some countries place them in prison upon returning, but most do not. Considering that 86% of the detainees at Gitmo were captured by Pakistan, I say we give them back. There is no reason for the American taxpayer to pay for Pakistan’s prison system.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:43 amFrom Julian Sanchez:
Traditionally, courts have used territory as a bright line to determine the status of prisoners: If you were picked up on American soil, you had habeas rights; if not, not. This made a certain amount of sense in traditional war; it makes much less in an ill-defined “War on Terror” that, to hear the administration tell it, makes the whole of the planet a battlefield. Here, hewing to a strict territorial rule has the perverse consequence that the Algerian Six would enjoy more rights, on the government’s theory, if they had illegally infiltrated the United States like the Nazi saboteurs whose fate was considered in Ex parte Quirin (1941). The government’s circular logic here seems better suited to a Monty Python sketch than a court of law: Throw the old lady in the pond, and if she floats, she’s a witch! She might drown, you say? Why are you so worried about what happens to witches?
December 13th, 2007 at 10:49 amMath isn’t exactly your strong point, is it? Let’s try it again. 3/4 of them are no longer there. Only 1/4 remain. Get it?
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 13, 2007 @ 10:45 am
###
And of that 1/4, more than 80% of them were handed over by Pakistan. I say we send them back to Pakistan. Why should the American taxpayer pay for Pakistan’s prisons?
December 13th, 2007 at 10:49 amThe ones who remain are probably the ones they actually have some evidence on. But as Gitmo defense lawyers have stated, a lot of the info is of dubious value, because of the manner in which it was collected and analyzed. In many cases, they have intel on different people, but because the people all have similar names, the US hangs it all on one suspect.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:52 amIn the eyes of the U.S., might apparently makes right.
Comment by Erroll — December 13, 2007 @ 10:28 am
Not in Castro’s eyes though, eh?
December 13th, 2007 at 10:57 amAnother slow day here at TP: Gitmo isn’t going to be closed anytime soon so just accept that particular dream is dead.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:58 amThe USN operates out of Gitmo based on numerous treaties that pre-date Castro’s seizure of power and establishment of a totatlitarian dictatorship
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base
The prison and its efficacy is a seperate issue.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:01 amHmmm. Probably Cheney threatened to …disappear… anyone who even remotely thought that closing Gitmo was a good idea.
Mmmmmm…manflesh. It’s what’s for dinner.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:04 amThey cant close Guantanamo on Bushes watch
They cant withdraw from Iraq on Bushes watch
He will do what every unpopular president ever does and thats pass unpopular laws for the next bunch of criminals
Thats what Blair did - pass unpopular laws for the next goverment so they dont have to
December 13th, 2007 at 11:05 amNever, in my lifetime, did I ever think we would be having a debate about something like GITMO. GITMO is the most un-american thing I can imagine.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:11 amIt never should have been thought about, let alone built.
Bush and Cheney are a disgrace to the nation and have set us back generations in the eyes of the world.
Hmmm. Probably Cheney threatened to …disappear… anyone who even remotely thought that closing Gitmo was a good idea.
I cannot help but agree with you. When in doubt, just whisper about Cheney sending the black-ops guys out to ‘convince’ the opponents to shut up.
The default position for those with diminished critical-thinking skills.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:15 amGuantanamo Bay:
December 13th, 2007 at 11:17 amCome for the beaches…stay for the waterbaording.
http://tshirtinsurgency.com/node/12
Cheney and allies cancel freedom and justice for any and all.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:21 amCheney/Bush don’t want to close Guantanamo? They want to keep it for themselves?
May be that’s the place they want to go when all their crimes are investigated and exposed. And prosecuted!
They will be ashamed staying in the continental US after such an humiliation… You know, they are “very sensitive guys”….
December 13th, 2007 at 11:39 amKeltoi at #’s 25 & 27
By going to your link, it helped to prove why the U.S. does not belong, as with Iraq, in a country that is not part of the United States. As Wikipedia states, “The Cuban government considers the U.S. presence in Guantanamo Bay to be an illegal occupation of the area” believing “that the Cuban-American Treaty, which established the lease in 1903, now violates article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.”
The article goes on to give the viewpoint of the United States which, of course, tries to rationalize the United States being in a country which is totally against the wishes of that sovereign nation. The situation in Guantanamo Bay is quite similar to Iraq in that the United States is occupying both countries, again, against the desires of the citizens of each of those countries. Despite what you seem to believe, the United States has no right, legally or morally, in placing its military on foreign soil. Again, because the United States has the largest military and the most nuclear weapons of any country in the world does not mean it should then exert its control to further its own imperial interests around the world.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:43 amComparing Iraq and Cuba are apples and oranges. Their only relevant similarity is that both were under the rule of a totalitarian dictatorship; Cuba still is, Iraq no longer.
Of COURSE Castro is going to posit “ the U.S. presence in Guantanamo Bay to be an illegal occupation of the area†believing “that the Cuban-American Treaty, which established the lease in 1903, now violates article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.â€
The opinions of Fidel Castro on international law are not real credible. He took power by force and oppresses his people every day. If he had the power to kick us out he would, but he doesn’t. Not every exercise of American power is automatically bad, just like every exercise isn’t automatically good.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:58 amAnother OIF veteran is making a run for congress! If he wins, he will be the second OIF veteran in congress (Rep. Patrick Murphy was the first) and he will be the first OIF vet in the Senate!
December 13th, 2007 at 12:01 pmhttp://vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=246#1630
“The opinions of Fidel Castro on international law are not real credible.”
Comment by Keltoi — December 13, 2007 @ 11:58 am
And those of George Bush are?
December 13th, 2007 at 12:05 pmPunishing Critics, Silencing Opponents should be their motto not just a title on a webpage.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:05 pm#36-Keltoi
“The opinions of Fidel Castro on international law are not real credible.” Surely that statement is designed to be read as irony, is it not? How many treaties has the U.S. broken over the last fifty years by illegally invading other countries and exacerbating conflicts in other lands such as Vietnam? When the U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq, it violated the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, The Nuremberg Principles, and the U.S. Constitution. I submit that it is hardly a coincidence that the United States chooses not to belong to the International Criminal Court, where their transgressions could be brought to light at the Hague. Perhaps the trials at Nuremberg proved that war crimes and trials can take place as long as the victors do not have to account for their actions. Nuremberg may also serve as a warning to those American soldiers currently serving in Iraq, as the judges at Nuremberg proved by hanging German officers and soldiers that trying to hide behind the excuse that “I was only following orders” was never going to used as a justification to commit war crimes, which is certainly what is happening today in Iraq.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:19 pmWhen the U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq, it violated the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, The Nuremberg Principles, and the U.S. Constitution.
Comment by Erroll — December 13, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
That is your opinion. Also, this thread is about Gitmo, not Iraq. How does Castro’s seizure of power and subsequent abuse of Cuba’s people stack up against the treaties mentioned above?
December 13th, 2007 at 12:38 pmAnd those of George Bush are?
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — December 13, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
Moreso than a dictator who has been in power since Eisnehower was President, yes. Castro recognizes no law save the Law of the Jungle.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:41 pmMoreso than a dictator who has been in power since Eisnehower was President, yes. Castro recognizes no law save the Law of the Jungle.
Comment by Keltoi — December 13, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
##
How many countries has Cuba invaded since Castro took over?
December 13th, 2007 at 12:44 pmCastro recognizes no law save the Law of the Jungle.
Comment by Keltoi — December 13, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
And Bush recognizes no law save the Law of Bush.
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier… just so long as I’m the dictator.”
December 13th, 2007 at 12:47 pmDuring his first trip to Washington as President-Elect, Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier… just so long as I’m the dictator.â€
During his first trip to Washington as President-Elect, Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — December 13, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Key word “IF”.
Bush will be gone soon, and El Presidente will be on his 10th American President. Comparing the two is silly.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:51 pmHow many countries has Cuba invaded since Castro took over?
Comment by Chris L — December 13, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
Exactly as many as the prescence of the USN at Gitmo has allowed him to - zero.
With a population of 11 million and a Command Economy, their ability does not match their desire. Still, they were involved in training Communist Guerillas in numerous Latin American countries since Castro as well as Africa. Then there is the whole Missile Crisis thing.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:56 pm#41-Keltoi
“That is your opinion”. Again you are incorrect. It not simply my opinion that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal. It is also the quite credible opinions of such people as Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Professor in Global Studies, Univ. of Calif.-Santa Barbara and expert on international relations, law of war and global institutions; Benjamin G. Davis, Associate Professor of Law at the Univ. of Toledo and expert on law war and former Articles Editor of the Harvard International Law Journal; Francis Boyle, professor of international law at Univ. of Illinois College of Law, Harvard Ph. D in political science and scholar in international law and human rights; Marjorie Cohn, President of the National Lawyers Guild and Associate Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law as well as writers and historians such as Howard Zinn, Anthony Arnove and Michael Parenti, et al.
How do the numerous violations that the U.S. has committed post WWII stack up against the internal policies of the Cuban government? The United States has no business, just like it has no business being in Iraq, having a naval base in Cuba against the wishes of the Cuban people and the Cuban government. You again seem to be arguing that the U.S. can do no wrong and that the idea of American Exceptionalism shall always prevail. Thankfully, there are people such as the ones that I cited above who have persuasively proven that fallacy to be incorrect.
December 13th, 2007 at 1:06 pmKey word “IFâ€.
Bush will be gone soon, and El Presidente will be on his 10th American President. Comparing the two is silly.
Comment by Keltoi — December 13, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
No, the key words are “just so long as I’m the dictator.” And Castro will be gone soon, too, to whatever his just reward will be. When will Bush receive his just reward in THIS life?
I’m not comparing everything about Castro to everything about Bush, just saying that there are similarities between the two that should not be ignored. If you’ll notice, I was responding to two particular points that you made about Castro, not his entire regime nor Bush’s.
December 13th, 2007 at 1:11 pm>>How do the numerous violations that the U.S. has committed post WWII stack up against the internal policies of the Cuban government?
Hm. Well, by staring down Castro’s masters in the Kremlin we freed Eastern Europe from Soviet domination. But what is a measely 200 million or so people freed from totalitarian dictatorship.
>>The United States has no business, just like it has no business being in Iraq, having a naval base in Cuba against the wishes of the Cuban people and the Cuban government.
My God, if you held a free election in Cuba who do you think they would vote out - Guantanamo or Castro’s hideous dictatorship? “Cuba People” my foot.
You again seem to be arguing that the U.S. can do no wrong and that the idea of American Exceptionalism shall always prevail. Thankfully, there are people such as the ones that I cited above who have persuasively proven that fallacy to be incorrect.
Comment by Erroll — December 13, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
Thank you for including “seem”. Obviously no nation is perfect or always right. As far as your list goes, it would be easy to find a dozen PhDs or international lawyers who disagree. But again, this is not an Iraq thread
December 13th, 2007 at 1:59 pmActually, Killtoy, comparing Cuba with Iraq is comparing apples with apples. Cuba was invaded by the U.S. after the public was whipped into war frenzy by yellow journalism based on a lie: that the U.S.S. Maine was sunk by a Spanish mine; there was no proof at the time, and later investigations proved that the Maine was sunk when its boiler exploded. The parallels to Iraq are clear.
December 13th, 2007 at 2:29 pmThe U.S. claimed to have invaded Cuba to liberate to oppressed from the Spanish government, yet somehow the oppressed ended up under rule of a U.S.-funded and supplied dictator; again, the U.S. backed Saddam’s takeover and rule against his own people until he became inconvenient; now the U.S. is trying to install another U.S.-friendly regime; in the meantime, the U.S. has backed death squads against Iraqi civilians.
Castro took power by force backed by, or not opposed by, most Cubans. In many cases the previous regime’s supporters were forced into exile, imprisoned, or killed. The U.S. has tried many times since to remove Castro by invasion, attack or murder, but has failed.
The U.S. government took power by force backed by, or not opposed by, most American colonials; In many cases the previous regime’s supporters were forced into exile, imprisoned, or killed. Great Britain tried several times after that to regain its colonies by force, but failed.
Castro is a relatively benign dictator; he has imprisoned, tortured and murdered opponents, and has never invaded another country. Castro has also achieved nearly 100% literacy, universal healthcare, and great improvements in living conditions for many Cubans. He maintains censorship and controls the population by force, if necessary.
George W. Bush is a relatively benign dictator-in-training. He has imprisoned, tortured, and murdered opponents, and his illegal invasions of other countries have caused the deaths of at least 600,000 people. Bush has also caused deterioration to the U.S. education and health care systems. Almost 50 million Americans, about 1 in 8, has no health insurance. Bush maintains censorship via friendly corporations and wants to control the populace by force, if necessary.
I probably don’t need to go on.
#50-Keltoi
You bizarrely assert that the Cuban missile crisis somehow “freed Eastern Europe from Soviet domination.” The Cuban missile crisis occurred in 1962; eastern Europe broke away from the Soviet Union circa 1990. What in the world does one thing have to do with the other? That makes about as much sense in claiming that the U.S. has a right to have a military base in Cuba, despite the protestations of the Cuban government. Despite what so many superpatriotic conservatives may wish to believe, Ronald Reagan was not the major reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union. That happened because of the economic collapse that had been going on in the Soviet Union for many decades and which was exacerbated by their defense budget, which should serve as a warning to the United States.
Now try to actually think this through. How would you feel if Cuba somehow took over Miami, Fl. or if Chinese troops decided to capture and maintain residence and establish a military base in San Francisco? Those troops would be wrong in doing so just as the United States is wrong in having a military base in Cuba and occupying Iraq against the wishes of the Iraqi people. Despite your protestations, they all have the same theme: illegal and immoral occupation of another country by American troops. Again, you can wave the flag and cry patriotism for as long as you wish but that will do nothing to disguise the immorality of what the U.S. has done around the world.
December 13th, 2007 at 2:36 pmComment by NoOneYouKnow — December 13, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Thanks for the info - maybe you should change your monicker to “TheMoreYouKnow” ;)
December 13th, 2007 at 2:42 pm#51-NoOneYouKnow
Very well said. A voice of reason next to the illogical and superpatriotic ramblings put forth by Keltoi.
December 13th, 2007 at 2:42 pmYou bizarrely assert that the Cuban missile crisis somehow “freed Eastern Europe from Soviet domination.â€
Comment by Erroll — December 13, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
That would indeed be a bizarre statement if I had said that. Clearly, the two events are unrelated, we got our wires crossed.
December 13th, 2007 at 3:14 pmI probably don’t need to go on.
Comment by NoOneYouKnow — December 13, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Please, do not, there is nothing more tedious than American liberals talking about how great Castro is and how much better life is in Cuba than the US. It certainly explains why Cubans risk life and limb to flee the Police State they are born in to get to the US.
December 13th, 2007 at 3:17 pmActually Errol, my one reference to the Missile Crisis was in a totally different post than the one about freeing Eastern Europe from the Soviets. How you conflated the two is beyond me.
December 13th, 2007 at 3:18 pm#57-Keltoi
I was referring to your reply to me at comment # 50, where I compared U.S foreign policy with the Cuban government and you then somehow conflated Cuba with the Soviet Union and their relationship with eastern Europe, when you asserted that “… by staring down Castro’s masters in the Kremlin we freed Eastern Europe from Soviet domination.” Your words, not mine. I still do not understand what an island in the Caribbean has to do with the former Soviet bloc. Unless, that is, you are attempting to channel the ghost of former Senator Joseph McCarthy, by trying to claim that there is not only a terrorist under each bed in America but now apparently that terrorist is sharing that bed with America’s favorite boogeyman, a communist. More fear and hysteria coming from the superpatriots of this country.
December 13th, 2007 at 3:51 pmPlease, do not, there is nothing more tedious than American liberals talking about how great Castro is and how much better life is in Cuba than the US.
Comment by Keltoi — December 13, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
Yes there is. American conservatives who still think the sun shined right out of Reagan’s ass. (Many of them mysteriously believe that Bush is a great president.) Those people are far, far more tedious.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:00 pm