Obama says US prisons tough enough for detainees
Photo 
President Barack Obama delivers an address on national security, terrorism, and the closing of Guantanamo Bay prison, Thursday at the National Archives in Washington.
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama said Thursday some of the terror suspects held at Guantanamo would be brought to prisons in the United States despite fierce opposition in Congress. He promised to work with lawmakers to develop a system for imprisoning detainees who can't be tried and can't be turned loose.
"There are no neat or easy answers here," Obama said in a speech in which he pledged anew to "clean up the mess at Guantanamo" that he said the nation had inherited from the Bush administration.
Obama conceded that some of the detainees would end up in U.S. prisons and insisted those facilities were tough enough to house even the most dangerous inmates.
Obama decried arguments used against his plans.
"We will be ill-served by the fear-mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue," he declared.
Speaking at the National Archives, Obama said he wouldn't do anything to endanger the American people.
Moments after he concluded his speech, former Vice President Dick Cheney delivered his own address across town defending the decisions of the Bush administration in dealing with terrorism. Expressing no remorse for the actions the Bush White House had ordered, Cheney said under the same circumstances he would make the same decisions "without hesitation."
Obama noted that roughly 500 detainees already have been released by the Bush administration. There are 240 at Guantanamo now.
He said opening and continuing the military prison "set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world."
Obama spoke in front of a copy of the Constitution, to members of the Judge Advocate General's Corps, diplomatic, policy and development officials and representatives of civil liberties groups.
"I can tell you that the wrong answer is to pretend like this problem will go away if we maintain an unsustainable status quo," Obama said. "As president, I refuse to allow this problem to fester. Our security interests won't permit it. Our courts won't allow it. And neither should our conscience."
Obama said his administration was in the process of studying each of the remaining Guantanamo detainees "to determine the appropriate policies for dealing with them."
"Nobody has ever escaped from one of our 'supermax' prisons which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists," Obama said.
Obama disclosed that administration lawyers had approved 50 detainees at Guantanamo for transfer to other countries.
Even so, it was not clear how many countries were prepared to take them.
Obama used the speech as an effort to try to retake the initiative on the matter. He spoke a day after the Senate, at the behest of majority Democrats, followed the lead of the House and voted decisively to deny his request for $80 million to close the prison. Lawmakers said they would block the funds until he gave a more detailed accounting of what would happen to the detainees.
He sought to do that in his speech, but stopped short of offering a clear answer on the key question of what to do with detainees who won't be tried for war crimes but are likely to be held indefinitely.
He described this group as those "who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people."
"I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face," Obama said.
He said that the his administration would "exhaust every avenue that we have" to prosecute detainees but there would still be some left "who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes" yet remain a threat.
Among these, he said, are prisoners who have expressed allegiance to Osama bin Laden "or otherwise made it clear they want to kill Americans."
"So going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime" to handle such detainees "so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution."
Obama criticized what he said was an effort to politicize the issue.
"I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult. These issues are fodder for 30-second commercials and direct mail pieces that are designed to frighten. I get it. But if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes," he said.
Obama said he had no intention of looking back and "relitigating the policies" of the Bush administration.
But at the same time, he strongly criticized former President George W. Bush's actions. "Our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions," he said.
"In other words, we went off course."
The president again rejected the idea of an independent commission that would investigate the whole range of national security issues under the Bush administration.
"I recognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past. When it comes to the actions of the last eight years, some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, most clearly at the ballot box in November," Obama said.
"I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an independent commission," he said. But he insisted that "our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability."
He also defended his decision to try to block the court-ordered release of detainee abuse photos. "Release would inflame anti-American opinion" and threaten American soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama said. His decision against releasing the photos has been criticized by human-rights groups.
Obama had first suggested he would allow the photos to be released, but changed his mind after listening to advice from the military and intelligence advisers.
On another recent controversy, he defended his decision to release CIA interrogation memos, saying there was "no overriding reason to protect them." He said the interrogation methods, which included waterboarding, were already known — and that he had banned them.
Cheney praised Obama for two "wise" decisions — his handling of the war in Afghanistan and his decision to try to block the court-ordered release of detainee-abuse photos. "He deserves our support" for such actions, Cheney said.
But, the former vice president said, the current administration's actions on Guantanamo and other steps in the war against terrorism "should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history."
Cheney has become the most outspoken high-ranking Bush official in criticizing the Obama team, suggesting steps the new president has taken have made the country less safe.
May 25, 2009 at 3:37 p.m.
May 24, 2009 at 4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
I agree with you wholeheartedly, andre. I guess it's hard to tell when communicating on this page what someone's mindset is...sorry about that.
+
Darwin, I understand what you're saying. I do think it's important to acknowledge the tough issue at play here...my dad is a Vietnam vet, and he truly believes that had the media stayed out of Vietnam, that war would have been won. Obviously, we will never know if there is any truth to that statement. I do think that it is important for us to be informed on what our military is doing on our behalf, but at the same time I recognize the pressure put on our politicians when American's are subjected to media coverage (particularly television) from a war zone. Too often the graphic horror leads people to react without knowing the whole story. This is a tricky area...a catch 22, I guess.
May 24, 2009 at 2:56 p.m.
May 24, 2009 at 11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Andre: I agree. It was a political loss. The point I was trying to make, is that regardless of how mighty one's military strength may be, it takes much more to be successful...and believe me, I have ready up the Vietnam War...if I miscommunicated in my last post, I apologize. I do agree with what you're saying and am well aware of the impact the media and politicians had on our military efforts in S.E. Asia. Perhaps, you could tone down your animosity a little bit?
+
Digriz: I agree wholeheartedly with your post, and think you make some excellent points regarding the lack of patience in our politicians, and the fact that these countries know that we will not, or can not stay forever...I do wonder if our entire political system is what yields these impatient political leaders...they do have to answer on some level to their constituents, who often times don't understand the entire situation...just what they want.
May 23, 2009 at 6:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yes, andre did you learn to blame the media in the military? We may have won every battle but we lost the war because no military, however, powerful can hold a country without the cooperation of the local population. We were supporting a Christian leader in a Buddhist country that was suppose to have an election to decide on reunification. However, we changed our minds. Robert McNamara, a war criminal, said they knew they couldn't win it. Stop living in your neo-con fantasy would of blame the media and come back to reality. It will save lots of lives.
May 22, 2009 at 4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
brwe: I agree, we do have a mighty military...one that I'm proud of. I couldn't imagine being on the "other side," I think a lot of American's take the fact that we have so much power for granted. That being said, I think you need to concentrate on the limits of military might. While it doesn't hurt to have the biggest gun, it doesn't automatically dictate success, either. Check out Vietnam. Our military might was by far superior to those of our enemy, but it didn't lead to success. The fact that morality is often linked to the use of our might is something that needs to be recognized. Dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a decision made in haste, and one that took a lot of moral considerations. Look at our success in the Revolutionary War, it didn't depend on military might, i.e. military technology...
Just something to think about.
+
Whoanellie never fails to amaze me. What a complete moron. While you seem unable to write anything that doesn't slam Obama (or should we call him "Barry?"), this time you've really taken the cake...while I question the move to close gitmo, and I definitely don't agree with the economic policy under this administration, I know enough to keep my mouth shut and my eyes and ears open. You seem to hear only what you want to hear to slam Obama...for example, your quote regarding his speech..you only heard: blah, blah, blah, blame bush...Do you think you're helping yourself or this thread with your idiotic comments? I beg you to please read up on the issues, come at us with real facts (i.e., Barry) and then come on back.
May 22, 2009 at 3:29 p.m.
May 22, 2009 at 3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yes, I agree with grininear2ear stop wasting tax dollars on dirt bags and let them go already.
May 22, 2009 at 2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
If I could pay to ship them half way home I would, they will have to swim the rest of the way. Stop wasting tax dollars on these dirt bags.
May 22, 2009 at 1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Montana ain't no bunch a pansies unlike Kansas. And to be honest I am a little concerned about Wisconsin. We can handle Jeffrey "I eat my victims" Dahmer but not some alleged terrorists. Cluck cluck cluck.
May 22, 2009 at 12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
The Two Rivers Detention Facility in Hardin, Montana wants to take any GITMO prisoners, because it's empty. Many residents have actually said they would rather have convicted terrorists in the prison than sex offenders.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/...
May 22, 2009 at 12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bush had been talking about closing GITMO since 2006, along with Rice, and Defense Secretary Gates(see stars and stripes, military.com. heraldsun.com.au, Rice interview with BBC on12/12/07, many others)and moving detainees to Ft. Leavenworth, but when the administration lost a court case in June of 2008 they knew that they would have to give the detainees more rights under the law if they were here. Almost 800 detainees have been held there, soon to be down to about 170. They are only planning on trying about two dozen of them. It will be interesting to see how many convictions they finally get out of 800 possible detainees. On 4/4/03, a Report Of The Pentagon Working Group stated, "the more agressive the interrogation technique used, the greater the likelihood that it will affect adversely the admissibility of acquired statements or confessions in prosecutions against the person interrogated, including in military commissions(to a lesser extent than in other courts). They knew six years ago their treatment of prisoners could bite them in the butt!
May 22, 2009 at 12:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
You are an idiot.
The Presidents birth name is Barack Hussein Obama II (the second, or Jr.). He was named after his father, Barack Obama, Sr. The President used the name Barry during his youth, and started using his birth name again during college.
May 22, 2009 at 12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
future: It is not his REAL name it is a name he changed his real name to. I beleive it was because of his muslim beliefs that made him want to change it. I'm not saying people with different names are not american. I'm saying he is showing his unamericanism by changing it to a muslim name. That should give you a clue as to where he's coming from! Have you ever read the Quaran? They don't like us and they want us dead, end of their discussion! I think he could be a sleeper with other muslims pushing his buttons, but then what do I know. I guess we wait a few years and see if we are calling each other comrade or if we are even here. Our freedoms are being taken away daily with all you liberals with your eyes like deer in headlights just saying go ahead he's our savior!
May 22, 2009 at 11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
whoanellie, are you saying that someone with a funny name is not "all-american"? Immigrants have had to shorten and change their names in this country for the past two centuries due to people like you. I think it's great that Obama was able to use his real name and get elected to office. It shows we're learning to judge people on merit and not names/nationality.
May 22, 2009 at 10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
All I heard in the speech yesterday was blah, blah blah, it's Bush's fault, Blah blah blah, the previous administration.... Peple don't you get it? Our dictator Obama is going to close gitmo even with no cooperation of the house or senate!!! We are not free anymore, wise up and open your eyes! In 3 years he will be making all the decisions for us and then we won't even be able to talk here in this forum! I agree that he should keep them at the white house and then see how dangerous they aren't! I get the Barry thing-that was his name before he changed it to Brack Hussein Obama! Yeah he's all american!!!
May 22, 2009 at 9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
I agree that it's ridiculous to call this a "war on terrorism". I've always hated it when politicians abuse the word war...war on drugs, war on crime, war on poverty etc. Call a spade a spade. This isn't a war anymore. I swear some people are in love with the idea of war.
May 22, 2009 at 8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Talk isn't tough because its talk. Cluck cluck cluck. Evidently the military personnel at Levanworth aren't tough.
May 22, 2009 at 3:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
We already have terrorists in our prisons. What kind of chicken Republicans do we have in this country? They talked all tough at the beginning of the war on terror and now they don't have the guts to take responsibility for the end results. That sounds about right. Cluck, cluck, cluck.
To the Playgrounders. What year are you living in? Grow up.
May 22, 2009 at 12:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Isn't there a problem if Gitmo prisoners are held in the US? It's called "Habeas Corpus" a person can't be held without due legal cause. There isn't cause, in a legal sense, for the detention of most of the prisoners now at Gitmo. Don't see how this would work.
May 22, 2009 at 12:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
i was under the impression McVeigh was incarcerated in the federal prison in Terra Haute, Indiana and was executed there. i doubt the citizens of that city would want the terrorists there. that would be asking for a possible terrorist attack in the city to break them out. it will happen somewhere if they are moved here, because it's easier to get in the u.s. than a high security facility as gitmo is.
May 21, 2009 at 4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
booch11, in his remarks Obama specifically says "federal, supermax prisons". If you know of any federal supermax prisons run by the State of Wisconsin, you may want to notify the Department of Corrections.
.
And we already have dangerous, convicted terrorists in places like ADX Florence -- have for years. This includes the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing as well as Ted Kaczynski and the late, unlamented Timothy McVeigh.
May 21, 2009 at 2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
good point skiddz. i was scared of the bully to. that same bully, like all big bullys lived with his mom and dad til he was 32. ended up biting off more than he could chew, got in a bar fight and needed stitches in several places to stop the bleeding, unfortunately not before he fatally punched an innocent victim in the head and got sent to prison for life. that skinny kid ended up going to medical school and becoming a dr. he just performed a heart transplant on someones grandmother. that bully is better on the playground...only. this is not a playground. ill take the skinny kid in the real world...
May 21, 2009 at 2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Joeflint and janesvillean,
Some, stressing some, D house and senate members said no to detainees stateside.
They must not have received this memo from barry O.
Thoughts?
May 21, 2009 at 1:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Our military might is based on one thing, money. If we didn't have the money to afford the technology or pay the mercenaries, we would have no might (unless someone thinks we're genetically superior). Per Panty Skiddz's comment about skinny weak kids, my experience has been that those who can defend themselves typically don't support unilateral aggression, and Bush being compared to the big kid on the playground is laughable. Besides it was McCain who compared the UFC and MMA to human cockfighting. So the Republicans are willing cower behind their military, but fight they do not. Plus it's laughable that these cowards are afraid to have the terrorists in our prisons. I see this as an opportunity to legally kick their butts.
May 21, 2009 at 1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Zoom they are just starting to realize what a mistake they made by letting hussein in office, now they are trying to make up for it, by blocking :)
May 21, 2009 at 1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
BRWE I could not agree more. When you were a kid on the school grounds who did you give themost respect to and stay away from and not try to piss off? I bet it wasn'the skinny weak kid, that always thought he knew more then you (hussein obama). I bet it was the big kid that had the muscle to kick your butt (bush), or atleast the balls to try it!
May 21, 2009 at 1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Kleej, was there a comment in there reLated to the article?
Anyway, if Obama can dictate, why are the Democrats blocking the closing of GITMO, and some are even drafting state legislation to block prisoners from their state? Shouldn't they be walking in lockstep with Obama?
May 21, 2009 at 1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
To those American's currently living in reality, there is the realization that military might is nothing but an illusion. 150,000 American soldiers cannot control 20 million Iraqi's without their cooperation and their consent. Those who say otherwise live in an "echo chamber" that the military apparatus itself sees as a problem.
May 21, 2009 at 12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
"the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world." To those Americans with their eyes open (i.e. non-liberals), & most assuredly the rest of the world, our strongest currency is the strongest military in the world! Our "moral authority" will always depend on others' perceptions. Our military might, at least for now, is unquestioned. No matter how much the bleeding hearts hate it, we receive exponentially more "honest-to-goodness" respect (grudging respect is still respect) because of our might than we'll ever get from whatever the politics of the day decides is our "moral authority".
May 21, 2009 at 12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hey, if President Obama says it, that's just the way it is. There is no debating or anything of the sort. He'll "dictate" as he see's fit. America, how does it feel knowing that on our watch, we've allowed this country to be sold out? Is it pleasant knowing that there's a great chance that your kids and their kids will be slaves one day to a "grand pooba"?? Just makes me gleam with pride.
May 21, 2009 at 12:21 p.m.
May 21, 2009 at 11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
They might be tough enough but I haven't heard of any of the prisons that want any of these idiots. Leave "Gitomo" open. and why would it cost all those millions of dollars to close it anyways? heck I'll close it for half of that cost......
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.