There are a hundred and sixty-six prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. Military officials told reporters earlier this week that thirty-one—almost one in five—were engaged in a hunger strike. By Friday, the number was thirty-seven, or closer to one in four. Eighty-six—more than one in two—have been cleared for release, meaning that the government doesn’t think that it has a case against them or even that they pose a threat, but it is keeping them locked up anyway, and has no imminent plans to let them go. Only six of the prisoners—just about one in twenty-eight—are facing trial. That means that there are six times as many prisoners on hunger strikes as there are those who have actual charges lodged against them.Read the entire piece. The prisoners on hunger strike are being force-fed through nasal tubes. That such a prison as Guantánamo exists at all is a shameful blight on the reputation of the United States. President Obama must do everything in his power to close the prison by executive order or whatever means possible and not continue to depend on Congress. The prisoners who have been cleared and have no hope for release fall into despair and want to die, and who can blame them? At the press conference yesterday, Obama said, "It's not sustainable - I mean, the notion that we're going to continue to keep over 100 individuals in a no-man's land in perpetuity," Exactly. So do something, Mr President.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
CLOSE QUANTANAMO
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Agreed. Unfortunately, CONGRESS (i.e., Republicans therein, of course) is the roadblock.
ReplyDeleteIs there really no way, JCF? Executive order? Restriction waiver? Some way to get around the restraints of Congress?
DeleteThere is an actual law against doing anything to shut it down. It was not passed due to some fear that George Bush would try to do it. It was passed, obviously, necessarily, with the support of some persons registered with the Democratic Caucus.
DeleteArguably, Obama should go ahead and do it with his presidential powers, not accepting an unconstitutional restriction by a power-hungry legislature, saying "So sue me." He'd probably be impeached, but the odds are against getting enough Senate votes from nominal Democrats to remove him from office. A dangerous precedent? I don't know; maybe "Your party has impeached three Presidents on frivolous partisan grounds and is now 0 for 3 in making it stick" would be a worse omen for Republicans than for the Republic.
Porlock, it appears that the Obama administration is trying to find a way. Certain Republicans in the House lust for an opportunity to impeach Obama, and it could well happen if the president used his powers to close the place down. You are correct that 60 votes in the Senate to convict would be hard to come by. We shall see.
DeletePetition at change.org.
ReplyDeleteI've signed.
Will you?
Yes, I will, James.
DeleteHere's the link to the petition for others who wish to sign.