More

Obama Official: Closing Gitmo Won't Be Easy

First Posted: 02/22/09 05:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 02:00 PM ET

Obama

At a briefing with a senior White House official on the topic of closing of Guantanamo Bay, one gets the sense that the process will be far more complicated than even the Obama administration previously imaged.

In his efforts to close down the controversial detention facility within a year, the new president is turning to a group of advisers -- comprised of the top members of the intelligence and foreign policy portions of his cabinet -- to offer recommendations about the best step forward. Detainees will be separated into three distinct categories: those who can be easily transferred out of the country or repatriated, those who can be tried, and those who are non-transferable and cannot be tried in American courts.

This last category is where Obama's task becomes difficult. How does one determine if a detainee fits into this group, and where does one store said detainee? Moreover, would the president be amenable to the idea of indefinite detention for these prisoners?

"The president is open to, and has invited the recommendations of his panel," said the official. "So the panel has no restrictions on its ability to make recommendations to the president. If the panel comes up with those recommendations the president will consider them."

But this is just one artery in the process. The Obama team is also imposing restrictions on itself in regards to where detainees will be transferred and how they will be treated. A terrorist suspect, for instance, will not be sent to a country that is accused of condoning torture. That is in direct opposition to the Bush-era practice of extraordinary rendition -- when suspects were sent to certain countries for the very purpose of using harsh interrogations.

"There is not going to be rendition to any country that engages in torture and we are only going to render individuals to governments that we are satisfied are going to take every step to [receive] solid assurances that these individuals will not be mistreated or tortured," said the official.

As for the detainees still in American custody, the Obama team is preparing to take steps that limit the techniques used on them. Under one of the Executive Orders issued on Thursday, the president declared as law that interrogators must operate by the guidelines of the army field manual when handling suspects. But Obama asked that his panel to figure out whether there could be new guidelines that, while not outside the field manual, would provide the intelligence community with a new framework for handling detainees.

"That doesn't mean reintroducing techniques that are inconsistent with the army field manual," said the official. "The army field manual will be what governs in terms of interrogation techniques.... This is not an exception. There is no exception. And in fact the panel may conclude that the way the army field manual functions now is perfectly okay. There may be merit to the argument that some of the standards and guidance associated with the army field manual are not applicable. We are not talking about different techniques. We are talking about guidance."

All of this, of course, will take an incredible amount of very delicate work. The new administration knows full well the political weight of dealing with such a hot-button national security issue. But they seem ready to argue their case on this front as well.

"I think [the president] is satisfied that across the board," said the official, "the administration of the army field manual will not compromise our national security and by issuing these executive orders we are strengthening our country and we are stronger going forward in our battle against the terrorists."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

 
 
  • Comments
  • 61
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
08:37 PM on 01/22/2009
Lost in the conversation is the incredible burden you're placing on the 22 year old Eleven Bravo (that's a Combat Infantryman for the vast majority of you who've never served). In making that split second decision as to whether you "dispatch" someone or "capture" them on the battlefield, you've now got to weigh the consequences of your decision relative to the "rules of evidence" that some lawyer is going to brow-beat you with as you sit on the witness stand in that terrorist's trial.

As one who lived through Tet, my own personal experience is that if you're not inside my perimeter, and you happen to be on the business end of my M-16, all bets are off. Don't matter who you are and why you're there. There IS NO TIME to establish "intent".

If you geniuses want to turn this into a litigant's dream, re-instate the draft, but limit it exclusively to lawyers. Put only lawyers in armed combat with the enemy on the front lines. Let's see how they handle the "fog of war" once the bullets start flying. I'm sure the terrorists firing back will be more than glad to accomodate them.
09:41 PM on 01/22/2009
But this article is not about battlefield action. What you are talking about, at least in our present situation, would fall under a status-of-forces agreement, would it not?
11:40 PM on 01/22/2009
Most of those "detainees" are at Gitmo because they weren't shot on sight. They're very, very lucky indeed to be alive. I'm really not interested in wasting time on trials to hear their sob stories.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
StillAmused
Some mayo on that troll, please...
02:09 AM on 01/23/2009
With respect, what's lost in your analysis is the fact that these detainees aren't being held for engaging in combat but, rather, on the specious claim that they're "terrorists" and a threat to America... overlooking the fact that WE invaded THEIR turf for no supportable reason, and not a one of them represents a threat to the continental United States.

... only to the loyal U.S. military targets thoughtfully sent there, all expenses paid, by the war criminal who just evacuated the White House.

It's important to separate the small group of criminals who carried off the atrocity of September 11 from the insurgents WE inspired by putting our boots on the ground where they didn't belong in the first place.
06:50 PM on 01/22/2009
Nobody said it will be "easy", but it is the "right thing" to do; right things usually do take longer than shortcuts....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
scjk67
Proud Progressive
06:47 PM on 01/22/2009
an excellent article to read why GITMO needs to be shut down!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-worthington/chaos-and-lies-why-obama_b_159905.html
06:12 PM on 01/22/2009
this headline is utterly ridiculous. NO ONE believes closing GITMO would be easy. President Obama addressed this throughout his campaign. Doing nothing and not accepting responsibility for our actions is not an option.
05:59 PM on 01/22/2009
Super Glue?
05:44 PM on 01/22/2009
Closing Gitmo Harder Than Obama Team Thought It Would Be

I don't know who on the Obama team thought that cleaning up GITMO would be easy or not hard? They would have to have their heads buried in the sand, read nothing from Addington, and Yoo, and the JAGS. There won't be any place, or policy where GW and his team haven't left a deep enduring stain on the nation.
05:39 PM on 01/22/2009
Gitmo was not a prison camp years ago so what's the hold up?
05:32 PM on 01/22/2009
No sh.... uh, foolin' Sherlock
05:13 PM on 01/22/2009
Obama, they like balmy weather, close gitmo and send them to the heart of San Francisco.
05:22 PM on 01/22/2009
What an idiot. As a former San Franciscan, trust me, that's the last place you'd go for balmy weather. But your ridiculous, sour grapes sentiment is intact.
06:05 PM on 01/22/2009
Not dummy, I've never been to San Fran I'm used to seeing sunny pics there. Let me be specific. Send these former detainees to the CASTRO district they'll fit right in. Isn't that where you're from?
06:06 PM on 01/22/2009
No , I've never been to San Fran I'm used to seeing sunny pics there. Let me be specific. Send these former detainees to the C A S T R O district they'll fit right in. Isn't that where you're from?
05:46 PM on 01/22/2009
Why not back to Bush's friends in Saudi Arabia?
06:03 PM on 01/22/2009
Barack needs to make new friends, maybe he should send them to Dubai.
05:02 PM on 01/22/2009
I'm very doubtful that Obama will be able to close Guantanamo within the year that he's promised. Being a candidate and being a President are two different things. I'm just glad that he seems to be a rational, introspective person who will do the right thing for our nation.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
KQuarksSuperKollider
05:26 PM on 01/22/2009
I'll take that bet.
04:46 PM on 01/22/2009
Nice poker play Mr. President.
photo
TheBaffler
a long the riverrun
05:44 AM on 01/23/2009
Is it fine poker playing to bluff on every single hand?
04:43 PM on 01/22/2009
Closing Gitmo Harder Than Obama Team Thought It Would Be

Oh, really? Who would have thought...

I have the perfect solution, however, Send them to Vermont, Patrick Release 'EM Leaky Leahy's state, and give them jobs at the Ben and Jerry''s Ice Cream Manufacturing Plant. That should keep them out of mischief...
04:56 PM on 01/22/2009
Yup Yup. Definitely Dickie Boy and his pet goat Georgie weren't thinking this through now were they?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MathIsTruth
05:09 PM on 01/22/2009
Perhaps Crawford, Texas would be an even better choice?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter007
04:31 PM on 01/22/2009
If a cop catches a criminal and messes up on the arrest, the criminal goes free.
If the military messed up when they " captured " these alleged terrorists, than they have to go free.
Thats our system of laws. If you don't like the laws, change them. Maybe a dictator would be more to your fancy.
Its only hard to close down Gitmo if you believe that a person is guilty until proven innocent.
04:47 PM on 01/22/2009
No, you have it wrong. The military didn't "mess up." The military is not charged with crime scene investigation. These are not criminals, and it's not a crime scene. They are prisoners of war and it's war.

It has NEVER been a principle of warfare that one had to collect evidence and prove the bad guys were shooting at you! How ridiculous can one get here? As ridiculous as your position.

Combatants out of uniform are traditionally considered SPIES and ACTING CONTRARY TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS and it would be proper to summarily execute them--shot them dead--and not take them prisoner and give them Korans and Islamic food and better living conditions than they are used to.

I propose that the proper military response to the left-wing plans is to stop taking prisoners. Just shoot them on the spot where they are found.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
4akinderworld
05:35 PM on 01/22/2009
You are a scary, dangerous person. And you have a very simplistic mind.
05:41 PM on 01/22/2009
Yeah right. What do you call all the soldiers taking humiliating pictures of the prisoners; putting dogs on them; extension cords, you name it?

Where did these people go before Gitmo became a prison camp?
04:50 PM on 01/22/2009
Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention: When one is on the battlefield, being shot at or in danger of being shot at, the last thing one should be doing is stopping to get testimony of witnesses, to collect cartridge casings, to make drawings or photographs of the scene, etc.

Please, get real. Leave Fantasyland and make a visit to Reality.
05:14 PM on 01/22/2009
headhunters were payed by the head to deliver whoever into custody.

Don't think these guys were manning machine gun nests and were arrested, it's not like that at all
photo
AZterritory
AZ: best taxidermatologists ever-ask Jan
04:23 PM on 01/22/2009
Unlike the "They'll meet us with flowers and cheers in Ira q" and "Mission Accomplished" simplistic mentality of the past administration, #44 and his staff know that something this complex would never be easy. The good/bad, black/white, with us or against us approach that put us in this situation in the first place has no place in working out solutions for this mess. When watching President Obama and his staff finesse this inherited time bomb, let's not forget the party and politicos who caused it in the first place.
04:09 PM on 01/22/2009
Also, who is the official source? Please don't vaguely source your material.