Democrats won't fund Guantanamo closing

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Democrats won't fund Guantanamo closing for now

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's allies in the Senate will not provide funds to close the Guantanamo Bay prison until the administration comes up with a satisfactory plan for transferring the detainees there, a top Democrat said Tuesday.

Sen. ####### Durbin of Illinois said Obama's plan to close Guantanamo is not dead—only that the funding will have to wait until the administration devises an acceptable plan to handle the closure and transfer the detainees. Obama has promised to close the military prison by January.

"The administration has not come up with a plan at this point," said Durbin, who is the whip, or No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. He added that Democrats are likely to address the issue on later legislation. "I think Guantanamo should be closed and we have to wait for the president's direction on what happens to the detainees."

With debate looming on Obama's spending request to cover military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, says Democrats will deny the Pentagon and Justice Department $80 million to relocate Guantanamo's 240 detainees.

The administration has yet to develop a plan for what to do with the detainees, and Obama's promise to close the facility is facing strong GOP opposition.

It appears to be a tactical retreat. Once the administration develops a plan to close the facility, congressional Democrats are likely to revisit the topic, provided they are satisfied there are adequate safeguards.

Explaining the reversal, Durbin said: "The feeling was at this point we were defending the unknown. We were being asked to defend a plan that hasn't been announced. And the administration said, 'Understood. Give us time to put together that plan and we'll come to you in the next appropriations bill.'"

The developments on Capitol Hill came as the Pentagon said it still expects the prison at Guantanamo Bay to be closed by January 2010 as Obama has ordered.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters on Tuesday that he sees nothing to indicate the January 2010 deadline will be delayed.

Republicans are poised with an amendment by James Inhofe of Oklahoma that would block any of the Guantanamo detainees from coming to U.S. soil to stand trial or serve their sentences. A detainee was released to France last week, leaving 240 at Guantanamo.

"Shuttering this facility now could only serve one end: and that is to make Americans less safe than Guantanamo has," said GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

House Democrats also dropped funding to close Guantanamo when producing their version of the war funding bill, which easily passed last week.

The Guantanamo controversy has roiled Washington, with most Republicans adamantly opposed to closing the prison, which mostly holds enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan. Republicans say abuses at the facility are a thing of the past.

The Senate's massive war spending measure otherwise sticks closely to Obama's request. The House version effectively exceeds Obama's request by almost $12 billion, adding $2.2 billion for foreign aid and eight C-17 cargo planes despite Defense Secretary Robert Gates' desire to cease purchases of the aircraft as part of his effort to overhaul Pentagon procurement.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1

Edited May 19, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[My Name Is Nobody 3]

Can anyone wrap their head around this and explain whats going on?

I guess its all pandering to certain groups?

Close a prison facility with no plans of what to do with the occupants.

[AlHayatZween 2]

$80 million to relocate Guantanamo's 240 detainees.

$80 million clams??

#######, where are they relocating them to? a beach resort in Tahiti?

[Ban Hammer 14,299]

$80 million to relocate Guantanamo's 240 detainees.

$80 million clams??

#######, where are they relocating them to? a beach resort in Tahiti?

i say send them to france.

[AlHayatZween 2]

$80 million to relocate Guantanamo's 240 detainees.

$80 million clams??

#######, where are they relocating them to? a beach resort in Tahiti?

i say send them to france.

i second that, for sure...

here's my question(s): Is it cheaper to close the prison or keep it running?

And who's paying for it in either case?

[Peikko 1,575]

Why France? Really that's so lame, the French have a wonderful language and the Eiffel tower.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I would imagine the "you break it, you bought it" principle applies here.

The US took these people into custody and held them indefinitely via legally dubious means. If there is no evidence available to file specific criminal charges against them, then our justice system requires that they be released and repatriated to their home countries, or; if the repatriation will result in torture or execution by the authorities in that country then they should be granted asylum here or in a country that's willing to accept them.

The US should take responsibility for the things it does and not try to palm it off on other countries.

Edited May 20, 2009 by Private Pike

[AlHayatZween 2]

Agreed.... seems like no one wants to take them though. i think Britain offered to take in...1.

239 to go.

Edited May 20, 2009 by AlHayatZween

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well, if we can't send them home, then we could at least put them somewhere where they could do the least damage, say Barrow, Alaska. I can't believe not one of the countries complaining about the detention will host the detanees. This is their opportunity to put up, or shut up.

Perhap we could leave them outside the fence at Guatanamo with a "FREE" sign and see if somebody picks them up.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well, if we can't send them home, then we could at least put them somewhere where they could do the least damage, say Barrow, Alaska. I can't believe not one of the countries complaining about the detention will host the detanees. This is their opportunity to put up, or shut up.

Perhap we could leave them outside the fence at Guatanamo with a "FREE" sign and see if somebody picks them up.

Not really. Noone else is obligated to take responsibility for what the US did.

I think drowning kittens in a sack is pretty appalling, it doesn't mean I'm about to give them all a home.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well, if we can't send them home, then we could at least put them somewhere where they could do the least damage, say Barrow, Alaska. I can't believe not one of the countries complaining about the detention will host the detanees. This is their opportunity to put up, or shut up.

Perhap we could leave them outside the fence at Guatanamo with a "FREE" sign and see if somebody picks them up.

Not really. Noone else is obligated to take responsibility for what the US did.

I think drowning kittens in a sack is pretty appalling, it doesn't mean I'm about to give them all a home.

Death by drowning for the detainees? That sounds pretty harsh.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can't believe not one of the countries complaining about the detention will host the detanees. This is their opportunity to put up, or shut up.

There are a number of countries that have been and still are considering taking some of the detainees to support the closure of the facility and help right a wrong the US did all on it's own. However, with the US now saying that it won't take any detainees at all will have those countries re-consider their positions as well. There's just no good argument to be made for why other countries should be the one's - the only one's as the Congress suggests - to pay the price for the US' lone decision to bring these guys to Gitmo in the first place.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

$80 million to relocate Guantanamo's 240 detainees.

$80 million clams??

#######, where are they relocating them to? a beach resort in Tahiti?

i say send them to france.

Send them to California. After all, they are all innocent victims.

[Peikko 1,575]

Hehehe, why California? Don't you like Arnie?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I can't believe not one of the countries complaining about the detention will host the detanees. This is their opportunity to put up, or shut up.

There are a number of countries that have been and still are considering taking some of the detainees to support the closure of the facility and help right a wrong the US did all on it's own. However, with the US now saying that it won't take any detainees at all will have those countries re-consider their positions as well. There's just no good argument to be made for why other countries should be the one's - the only one's as the Congress suggests - to pay the price for the US' lone decision to bring these guys to Gitmo in the first place.

Indeed. As I said - "you break it, you bought it".

The US has to own its failures and stop trying to palm them off on the international community (who have been cleaning up our ####### for years).

$80 million to relocate Guantanamo's 240 detainees.

$80 million clams??

#######, where are they relocating them to? a beach resort in Tahiti?

i say send them to france.

Send them to California. After all, they are all innocent victims.

They are according to the principles of justice we supposedly ascribe to.

"There's no smoke without fire" has never been reason enough to lock someone away for an indeterminate period without charge.

Indeed whenever you say this stuff - you get further and further away from the "civilized principles" you lay claim to.

Edited May 20, 2009 by Private Pike