Gitmo Review Task Force: 50 Detainees to Be Held Indefinitely
EmailABC News' Jason Ryan reports:
Administration officials tell ABC News that the Guantanamo Detainee Review Task Force has determined that about 50 Guantanamo detainees should be held indefinitely for prolonged detention and that 35 detainees should be prosecuted under military or civilian trials. The indefinite detention of the 50 detainees was first reported by the Washington Post.
The task force has determined that there are too many difficulties in prosecuting their cases but determined that the men are too dangerous to be released. Many in this category allegedly spent time at al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan prior to the 9/11 attacks or were linked to the Taliban and continued to fight with the groups during the U.S. offensive in 2001.
The 35 include five Guantanamo detainees who are to be tried for their involvement in the 9/11 attacks and six cases of individuals who are to be tried in military commissions. The task force has also recommended that 110 detainees be transferred to other countries. After the transfers last night of two Algerian detainees, there are currently 196 detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay.
Today marks the deadline of President Obama’s pledge to close the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay, a deadline that will not be met.
– Jason Ryan
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Without a trial? Habeas suspended? At GITMO? Military Commission? Oh My, Why?
Posted by: mograndpa | January 22, 2010, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm
Indefinite detention.
Who is president Obama or Bushlite?
Vindication for Bush/Cheney.
Posted by: mick | January 22, 2010, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm
Another missed deadline.
If Obama hadn’t been so full of himself, with all of the grandstanding about closing Gitmo–he wouldn’t look so foolish today.
Posted by: ollie | January 22, 2010, 12:10 pm 12:10 pm
Gitmo still open, detainees kept without a trial.
That’s bound to be a recruitment tool for terrorist. Right Obama?
Posted by: millie | January 22, 2010, 12:12 pm 12:12 pm
It all sounds vaguely familiar.
OH! I remember now. That was George W. Bush’s policy.
Dang, that man gets smarter every day.
Another “rock solid promise” BROKEN by the fraud in the White House.
Posted by: Dell | January 22, 2010, 12:21 pm 12:21 pm
It’s easy to campaign. It’s a lot harder to govern. That’s why everyone wondered where Obama’s executive experience was.
Change we can believe in baby!
Posted by: Aaron | January 22, 2010, 12:26 pm 12:26 pm
Change you can believe in!
Obama better toss the ACLU and the progressives another bone.
And do it fast.
Posted by: kyle | January 22, 2010, 12:27 pm 12:27 pm
But Obama got the Nobel PC Prize for NOT being George Bush.
Bush and Cheney are probably laughing their butts off today.
I am.
Posted by: kandy | January 22, 2010, 12:29 pm 12:29 pm
Tough week for The One…
The walls are coming down all around him…
Posted by: tjp612 | January 22, 2010, 12:31 pm 12:31 pm
Obama is in a real bind about GITMO.
He can’t bribe other countries to take detainees because he’s a populist now.
And he has no money anyway.
The majority of Americans want GITMO left open, and that’s the populist thing to do.
His base wants it closed. And his base has the money to get him reelected.
Obama needs to ask himself–What would Scott Brown do?
Posted by: larry | January 22, 2010, 12:36 pm 12:36 pm
I’m not surprised that the Department of Justice reached the same conclusion as the Bush administration on how to deal with unlawful combatants in a time of war. I’m just surprised that they publicly admitted it….Why close Gitmo? It is still the best operational venue for terrorist detention. If we’re agreed that we need to hold them, let’s hold them in the place we designed for it.
Posted by: HobokenJohn | January 22, 2010, 12:42 pm 12:42 pm
Why close Gitmo? It is still the best operational venue for terrorist detention.
HobokenJohn | Jan 22, 2010 12:42:53 PM
A prison camp a few hundred yards from the borders of a hostile power in a major hurricane region with no land based reinforcement routes. The best operational venue? You’re nuts. The ONLY reason Gitmo exists is because the Executive branch was trying an end-run around the Supreme court. It is an expensive and unnecessary boondoggle.
The detainees should be held in a super max prison, just like all other dangerous criminals, and held with the consent of Congress and/or the Supreme court, as our Constitutional framework of checks and balances requires (and allows – the Constitution isn’t an inflexible computer program).
Posted by: jhw539 | January 22, 2010, 12:47 pm 12:47 pm
Why close Gitmo?
Posted by: HobokenJohn |
Simple. It’s a political liability for POTUS.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | January 22, 2010, 12:51 pm 12:51 pm
Attack the banks yesterday-softening the blow for the left.
GITMO Task Force review today.
And no surprise that Obama dumped this news on a Friday.
Changing the way Washington does business. Too funny.
Posted by: phillip | January 22, 2010, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm
50 Detainees to Be Held Indefinitely
I thought the libs where against holding prisoners indefinitely.
Bush Policy Hold Gitmo Prisoners Indefinitely = Bad; Obama Policy Hold Gitmo Prisoners Indefinitely = Good.
Always the double standard
Posted by: 'Un-American' | January 22, 2010, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm
A prison camp a few hundred yards from the borders of a hostile power in a major hurricane region with no land based reinforcement routes.
Posted by: jhw539
And the mosquitoes can be fierce.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | January 22, 2010, 1:02 pm 1:02 pm
Bush Policy Hold Gitmo Prisoners Indefinitely = Bad; Obama Policy Hold Gitmo Prisoners Indefinitely = Good.
Always the double standard
Posted by: ‘Un-American’
Bush policy = bad
Co-opted Bush policy = enlightened
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | January 22, 2010, 1:04 pm 1:04 pm
I am glad these Gitmo prisoners are not going to be released, where previous experience has told us they return to a life of terrorism, and have been implicated in attacks overseas.
It’s ironic that whereas Bush/Cheney were roundly criticized by the liberal press for protecting the country, Obama gets the seal of approval for doing the same thing – ironic, but not surprising. It is for this reason that I, as a pragmatic, moderate conservative, voted for Obama in 2008. Policy matters more than party label, and if Obama is the path of least resistance to implementing the same policies, and makes diplomacy easier for us, then let Obama be the face of the US!! Obama has vindicated major Bush/Cheney policies, not just in the war on terror, but at Copenhagen as well. But he is eloquent, and intelligent, and THAT, is the difference!
Posted by: Robert | January 22, 2010, 1:40 pm 1:40 pm
“A prison camp a few hundred yards from the borders of a hostile power in a major hurricane region with no land based reinforcement routes.”
Wow, a progressive willing to say Cuba is hostile. Don’t see that every day.
I didn’t know you couldn’t have a prison in a hurricane zone. I guess Florida ships all its convicts to Utah. The “land based reinforcement routes” is a nice bit of pretend military talk. What’s your concern there, champ – are the Cubans going to start a war with the United States in order to free al Qaeda, or are the terrorists going to launch an amphibious assault? (During a hurricane? While our airborne based reinforcements discover there are snakes on their plane!)
Posted by: bgates | January 22, 2010, 1:56 pm 1:56 pm
===While our airborne based reinforcements discover there are snakes on their plane!===
Snort.
Posted by: Axey | January 22, 2010, 2:09 pm 2:09 pm
Why doesn’t Obama just move them to Bagram? He isn’t closing that prison anytime soon.
Posted by: Axey | January 22, 2010, 2:11 pm 2:11 pm
Holding innocent people indefinitely is illegal, unconstitutional, and unforgivable. And yes, they are innocent, unless the government can prove otherwise…or have we all forgotten that?
I just hope everyone realizes what kind of country we’re becoming.
Posted by: michael | January 22, 2010, 2:41 pm 2:41 pm
A prison camp a few hundred yards from the borders of a hostile power in a major hurricane region with no land based reinforcement routes. The best operational venue? You’re nuts. The ONLY reason Gitmo exists is because the Executive branch was trying an end-run around the Supreme court. It is an expensive and unnecessary boondoggle.
The detainees should be held in a super max prison, just like all other dangerous criminals, and held with the consent of Congress and/or the Supreme court, as our Constitutional framework of checks and balances requires (and allows – the Constitution isn’t an inflexible computer program).
Posted by: jhw539 | Jan 22, 2010 12:47:35 PM
your entire post is cr@p…Gitmo exists under the consent of both Congress and the Supreme Court…Gitmo is the perfect place to hold non American enemy combatants…you are ignorant to these facts because you continue to get you news exclusively from the DailyKos and MSNBC
Posted by: HobokenJohn | January 22, 2010, 3:14 pm 3:14 pm
Holding innocent people indefinitely is illegal, unconstitutional, and unforgivable. And yes, they are innocent, unless the government can prove otherwise…or have we all forgotten that?
I just hope everyone realizes what kind of country we’re becoming.
Posted by: michael | Jan 22, 2010 2:41:50
Trust me if these people were innocent Obama and Holder would have already sent them home and then blamed Bush for having to do so. That tells me if are going to hold them indefinitely then they must truly be bad dudes. I guess this is not what you voted for. Sorry.
Posted by: 'Un-American' | January 22, 2010, 3:30 pm 3:30 pm
I really tried to like Obama, but then he came off so disrespectful to Bush and republicans in general. You knew you just had to sit and wait it out until the dude was “schooled”.
Posted by: TM | January 22, 2010, 3:48 pm 3:48 pm
“What would Scott Brown do?”
Do everything he can to pretend he is not a Republican?
Posted by: Ryan C | January 22, 2010, 5:20 pm 5:20 pm
A prison camp a few hundred yards from the borders of a hostile power in a major hurricane region with no land based reinforcement routes. The best operational venue? You’re nuts. The ONLY reason Gitmo exists is because the Executive branch was trying an end-run around the Supreme court. It is an expensive and unnecessary boondoggle.
Posted by: jhw539 | Jan 22, 2010 12:47:35 PM
Hahahaha. Watch out for that menacing Cuban counter-attack against Gitmo. Uh, dude, we’ve had that base down there for quite some time. I think our guys can handle the Cubans.
Posted by: Aaron | January 22, 2010, 6:05 pm 6:05 pm
“What would Scott Brown do?”
Do everything he can to pretend he is not a Republican?
_____________________________________
Exactly. The Republicans can’t run on their record.
Posted by: tierra | January 22, 2010, 6:42 pm 6:42 pm
The U.S. is engaging in war crimes — WAR CRIMES — and crimes against humanity!!! The U.S. is doing EXACTLY what it condemns dictator regimes for doing. Therefore, the U.S. is no morally better than they are. All Americans should hang their heads in shame and guilt at what their so-called “leaders” have brought them to — a fascist military regime.
Posted by: dotmafia | January 23, 2010, 1:01 am 1:01 am
Keep it open and keep them locked up
the bleeding hearts in these posts have no idea of how to either prosecute a war or keep us safe.
These are the same people that want to create a dialogue with the people that repeatedly say they want to kill us.
Give’em a beating when they have had enough they will decide that it is time to talk
Posted by: Robert L Cerra | January 23, 2010, 4:04 am 4:04 am
Closing Gitmo ostensibly to take away a recruiting tool for terrorists is ridiculous on it’s face. Who really believes that al Queda has or will stop recruiting because of that?
Posted by: Sigmonde | January 23, 2010, 7:24 am 7:24 am
“What would Scott Brown do?”
Do everything he can to pretend he is not a Republican?
_____________________________________
Exactly. The Republicans can’t run on their record.
Posted by: tierra | Jan 22, 2010 6:42:59 PM
What a joke as if Dems have a record to run on based on thier performance since 2006 when they took over.
Posted by: 'Un-American' | January 23, 2010, 11:09 am 11:09 am
Posted by: ‘Un-American’ | Jan 23, 2010 11:09:01 AM
Haven’t seen any Republicans running on THEIR record – because it’s so pathetic. You really pretend a couple of votes in Congress destroyed the American economy after the Republicans held the Presidency, the Senate and the House for 5 years straight? Nonsense.
Posted by: tierra | January 23, 2010, 2:34 pm 2:34 pm
But he [Obama] is eloquent, and intelligent, and THAT, is the difference!
How is it that we have concluded that Obama is intelligent. He speaks with a telepromter. When the prompter is not available, he is halting and unconfident.
He refuses to release any of his college records. Why is that exactly? What other presidential candidate refused to release his college transcripts?
He was president of Harvard Law Review, but never published a law review article for peer review.
When John Kerry ran, we heard the same thing. His supporters were extolling Kerry’s superior intelligence. Later, however, we discover that he scored lower on military intelligence tests than Bush. So please, unless Obumbler is willing to back up his superior IQ with school records, let’s not “jump to conclusions.”
Posted by: AmericanHeretic | January 23, 2010, 2:46 pm 2:46 pm
No additional terrorist attacks on U.S. soil after 9/11; historically low rates of unemployment during the majority of Bush’s two terms; low rates of inflation during this high level of employment; not using taxpayers’ money to fund the folly of embryonic stem cell research; bringing down Saddam Hussein. Yeah, you’re right: The Republicans don’t have much of a record to run on.
Posted by: s | January 25, 2010, 12:05 pm 12:05 pm
How could some of them be considered “too dangerous” to release if there is no evidence available to convict them of anything?
The only way I can see is that, after being incarcerated indefinitely, some of them began making threats of some kind. However, threats are just words, and are not of themselves dangerous.
What is going on here?
Posted by: John Williams | January 25, 2010, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm
I think the supreme court is about to make a ruling on what can be done with POWs. Noregiea is stlll in jail though his sentence was up in 2007. They are about to rule whether he can be sent to France or must be returned to Panama, though he is facing charges in both countries.
Posted by: Funky-President | January 25, 2010, 3:57 pm 3:57 pm