Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Obama did shut down Guantanamo to new detainees. Congress wouldn't let him close the facility. He spent the remainder of his term releasing prisoners, trying prisoners, and/or transferring them to other facilities, all pursuant to the UCMJ.

Unlike some presidents, Obama tried to follow the rule of law. He achieved 90% what he promised on Guantanamo. Are you really quivering over the last 10%?




> Are you really quivering over the last 10%?

Yes because it is still open. You don't lock a prisoner without trial only 10% he is either locked up for decades and tortured or he isn't.


The prisoners still locked up are stateless terrorists who are not protected by the Geneva Convention or the Constitution. They have no rights under any law, and the only reason that they were accorded due process is because we are better than they are and prove it by not simply filleting them.

The ones left in Guantanamo were given trials and found guilty of war crimes, including the rape and torture of their own former countrymen. Rotting in a prison with free healthcare, food, and religious materials is better than they deserve.


If they had their trials and found guilty they should be either imprisoned in a federal prison or sent back to the country they come from. How are they "stateless"? There were not born in the middle of the ocean. From what I remember it was a mix of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Yemen.


Congress passed a law barring the transfer of those prisoners to stateside facilities from Guantanamo, and their home countries refused to accept them (nor were they legally obligated to do so). Under traditional international law, the US would have been within its rights to execute these individuals rather than simply jailing them in relatively plush accommodations.

You really should do some basic research before you try to argue out of your rear on this.


> (nor were they legally obligated to do so).

Legally obligated by what? Aren't people deported back to their country of origin all the time. They don't want to take them fine, deny their citizens visas and entry then, until they do.

> Congress passed a law barring the transfer of those prisoners to stateside facilities from Guantanamo,

Ok fair point, you're right about that. Why make strong promises then?

> US would have been within its rights to execute these individuals

That's a bit disturbing. At that level what rights are we talking about. US had been droning people including American citizens, so sure they could have taken them back and shot them. So we should be glad they didn't. Great, I guess?


Legally obligated by what? Aren't people deported back to their country of origin all the time.

By treaty.

Why make strong promises then? Because when he made those promises he had a Democratic Congress and a reasonable expectation of fully fulfilling his promise, which he still managed to almost fulfill despite the most hostile Congress in history.

At that level what rights are we talking about. US had been droning people including American citizens, so sure they could have taken them back and shot them.

We're not talking about civilians or soldiers. We're talking about people who deliberately and avowedly took up arms against the U.S., renounced their citizenship (U.S. and non-U.S. alike), and raped, tortured, and murdered civilians and soldiers without any attempt to follow the various treaties established for wartime conduct.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: