Gabor's post from this morning, which is styled as a response to Ben's thoughtful analysis of what it will take to close Guantánamo (while ignoring some of the other responses), concludes that the only meaningful way to "close" Guantánamo is for President Obama "to either release all detainees or try them in our time-tested federal courts," at least largely because moving the detainees into the United States wouldn
Latest in Transfers, Releases & Resettlements
The Senate Armed Services Committee is currently holding a hearing entitled "Guantanamo Detention Facility and the Future of US Detention Policy. Brian P. McKeon, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, and Rear Admiral Ross A. Myers are set to testify.
You can watch the hearing live here at the SASC website.
Ben asks “What Would it Take to Close Guantanamo?” and he provides a thoughtful response weighted toward the political landscape. But there’s another not-so-merely-philosophical question that underlies his question: what does it mean to “close Guantanamo?”
For purposes of rapprochement with Cuba it may have to mean U.S. out of Guantanamo altogether.
Both Steve Vladeck and Raha Wala have penned responses to my post of last week complaining of the quality of the "Close Guantanamo" debate. I will react very briefly to each.
I am, I confess, not sure how to respond to Steve's post, since it seems to be responding to something I did not write.
Ben bemoans the state our nation’s current debate over Guantanamo as “terrible,” observing that “the arguments about Guantanamo are nearly all wrong, disingenuous, irrelevant, or just plain dumb.” It’s true that Guantanamo—like most political issues—sometimes takes on a special kind of inside-the-beltway rhetorical flavor that can really annoy the wonks, who would much rather focus on the underlying policy debate.
So what is the underlying policy debate all about? Perhaps it’s
From this ABC/Associated Press piece:
In another challenge to President Barack Obama's efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, a ban on transferring detainees to Yemen has been effectively pushed back into place because of security concerns in the volatile Middle Eastern nation, administration officials say.
While Obama approved sending detainees back to Yemen nearly two years ago, his administration has yet to use that authority.
The five detainees are Yemeni; four went to Oman, and one to Estonia, apparently.
As promised, here it is.
The rather unfortunate-seeming proposal provides, in full:
114TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S.__
To extend and enhance prohibitions and limitations with respect to the transfer or release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Ms. AYOTTE (for herself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. BURR, and Mr.
The proposal, put forth today by Senator Kelly Ayotte and others, comes as no real surprise.
Yesterday at Lawfare, Bryan Cunningham sought to breathe new life into the “military versus law enforcement” debate over terrorism, along the way deeming the horrific assaults in Paris to be “consequences” of France’s police-centric strategy. He thus finds fault with the current counterterrorism regime generally, and invites others to join in a broader discussion about how to improve things.