Guantanamo: Not Closing Yet
May 22, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under General, International, Politics
President Obama faces a major setback in his plans and promises of change, as the Senate has disallowed all funding for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay military prison. This marks the first real opposition to Obama’s agenda by Majority Democrats, who are largely responsible for blocking the funds for closing the prison.
Here is some of what has occurred lately in the Senate over this issue:
Democrats had been hammered by Republicans, many of whom don’t want Guantanamo shuttered at all, over the possibility that detainees could be sent to live in the United States — in prisons or otherwise.
… It’s unclear what Democrats would be okay with approving in a closure plan. The party has been a state of disarray over the issue recently.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., nearly had it both ways on Tuesday.
He first said, emphatically, that Democrats “will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States,” and then said Democrats also don’t want detainees to be transferred to U.S. prisons.
The suggestion was that the United States should not taken [sic] any prisoners under any circumstances, raising questions about where the Democratic leadership wants detainees to go should the closure plan be executed.
But Reid’s spokesman walked back his statement, saying the leader went too far and would actually be open to putting them in American prisons, if the administration puts forward a plan to do so.
The discord between Reid’s own words was emblematic of the clash among Democrats on Capitol Hill.
Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va, said on a Sunday talk show that he opposes the release into the United States of 17 Chinese Uighurs who were captured in Afghanistan after Sept. 11, 2001. The prisoners, de-listed as enemy combatants by a federal court that deemed them not a danger to the U.S., are eligible for release.
The administration is considering releasing them in Northern Virginia, something Webb vehemently opposes. Webb’s language left the door open to an even broader opposition to any Gitmo detainees being released in the United States.
Sens. Jon Tester and Max Baucus, both Montana Democrats, have said emphatically that no detainees will be brought to their state. The same goes for Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.
FBI Director Robert Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday that he’s concerned some detainees could support terrorism if sent to the United States, either through financial support to terror networks, radicalization of others or taking part in attacks.
Still, Inouye left the door open to bringing the prisoners to the U.S. eventually, refusing to rule out any opportunity to incarcerate detainees on U.S. soil.
Reid’s No. 2, Dick Durbin of Illinois, told FOX News that while Democrats were very concerned about taking a vote defending moving prisoners to the United States, he is not opposed to it, adding that American prison facilities can hold these prisoners safely.
Durbin took on Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor Wednesday, saying that while it’s true no prisoner has ever escaped from the Guantanamo, “it’s also true that no terrorists have ever escaped from U.S. supermax prisons.”
The outcry in the U.S. over the issue of closing the prison and where to house the prisoners has also caused some problems with foreign relations, and presented no solutions to the Obama administration:
Both Democrats and Republicans have been retreating from an uproar in their districts over the possibility that terror suspects would be housed in local prisons.
That’s a fairly empty sales pitch for administration officials who are trying to persuade European and Muslim allies to take some of the detainees.
And they got no help Wednesday when FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress that bringing Guantanamo detainees to the United States could pose a number of risks, even if they were kept in maximum-security prisons.
Gibbs and Attorney General Eric Holder both quickly responded that Obama would never do anything to endanger Americans.
Obama has named senior diplomat Daniel Fried as special envoy on the issue. So far he’s had little success in garnering commitments abroad and his task only grows more onerous with the votes in Congress to deny money to close the prison.
While France has accepted one prisoner, fulfilling a promise made when Obama attended a NATO summit in April, other European allies have refused or given nonspecific commitments.
It seems that though Obama may be passionate about closing this prison, he has very little support from people in this country or others in how to practically make that happen. The people and leaders are justifiably concerned about the safety of their countries and/or states with the possibility that some of the most dangerous terrorists (and now possibly with more cause to hate the U.S. than ever) would be released or transferred to places where they could pose a greater threat than they ever had before.
Will Obama Stand With Israel or Trust Iran?
May 17, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under General, International
President Obama’s upcoming meeting with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could speak volumes about the Obama administration’s new foreign policies, especially how much the United States will continue to be an ally of Israel. According to an editorial in the Christian Science Monitor, Obama has mostly threatened his friends and made “friends” with his enemies during the early period of his time in office:
The Obama doctrine in foreign policy is to squeeze friends into changing their ways and to disarm American adversaries with charm. It is a long way from the Bush theme of squeezing enemies and largely ignoring friends. But then, President Bush basically wanted one certain result – no follow-up attack on the US by Al Qaeda. Over seven years, he was successful, although at a cost in lives, civil liberties, and America’s reputation…
As Obama writes this book – call it “How to Influence Friends and Win Over Enemies” – he must remember that such methods are merely tactical. It’s unclear whether they will bring results… As a professed pragmatist, one more eager to fix America’s problems first without the distractions of foreign problems, Obama at some point may need to confront adversaries more and friends less.
President Obama sent a message to Netanyahu in preparation for his visit to the President along the lines of this new “policy”:
[Obama demanded] that Israel not surprise the U.S. with an Israeli military operation against Iran. The message was conveyed by a senior American official who met in Israel with Netanyahu, ministers and other senior officials. Obama did not wait for his White House meeting with Netanyahu, scheduled for next Monday, to deliver his message, but rather sent it ahead of time with his envoy.
Iran’s development of nuclear weaponry poses a huge threat to Israel, as its president has an unswerving hatred for Israel. Israel’s countermessage as reported in the New York Times is this:
The Israeli government, officials said, has assured the United States that it will not take military action against Iran without first consulting Washington. But it has also signaled that it will give the United States only a year or so to show that its good-will approach is getting results.
Israel is a loyal U.S. ally, with a strongly democratic government. It is surrounded by mostly Islamic-based governments in turmoil, full of terrorist groups vieing for power who want nothing less than to see the total end of Israel as a country. Treaties mean almost nothing to militant terrorist groups, as you can read here in an account of Pakistan’s dealings and its internal problems with a Taliban group bent on full government takeover. Who will Obama trust to meet his demands? Is he communicating strength or weakness to those who are full of hatred toward Israel and the U.S.?
International Arms Control Treaty Faces Opposition From American Gun Owners
April 25, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under Civil Rights, General, International, Politics
During President Obama’s recent visit to Mexico, he announced his intention to revive efforts to pass an international arms control treaty which failed to pass the senate during Clinton’s Presidency. According to ABC News,
The treaty makes the unauthorized manufacture and exporting of firearms illegal and calls for nations in this hemisphere to establish a process for information-sharing among different countries’ law enforcement divisions to stop the smuggling of arms, to adopt strict licensing requirements, and to make firearms easier to trace.
The ratification of this treaty is quite politically charged, as many American Citizens oppose it on the grounds that it will be used to restrict their second amendment right to bear arms. According to an article published by the Gun Owners of America, many are concerned that the interpretation of the language in the treaty could eventually be used to impose severe limitations on those who legally own weapons in the United States. Here are a few of their concerns about ways the broad language could be interpreted by opponents of gun-ownership:
1. “Illicit manufacturing” of firearms is defined as “assembly of firearms [or] ammunition… without a license….” Hence, reloading ammunition… putting together a lawful firearm from a kit… [or] [m]odifying a firearm in any way would surely be “illicit manufacturing….”
2. “[A]ny other weapon” is a “firearm,” according to the treaty — and the term “weapon” is nowhere defined…
* Banning gun clubs. Article IV [states] that the criminalized acts should include “association or conspiracy” in connection with said offenses — which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.
* Extraditing US gun dealers. Article V requires each party to “adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention” under a variety of circumstances… And we know that we have an extradition obligation under Article XIX of the proposed treaty. So…Mexico could try to use the treaty to demand to extradition of American gun dealers…
* Microstamping. Article VI requires “appropriate markings” on firearms. And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be used to… impose specifications which are not technologically possible or which are possible only at a prohibitively expensive cost.
* Gun registration. Article XI requires the maintenance of any records… that the government determines to be necessary to trace firearms. This provision would almost certainly repeal portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a national registry or database.
Most of the guns owned by the large Mexican drug cartels have been smuggled in by the United States, according to Mexican Authorities. But, this statement has also been refuted. According to an ATF Spokesman interviewed by Fox News, “a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.” This conclusion was also reached by FactCheck.org.
Undoubtedly something must be done to stop this from continuing. However, we must also be careful how much power we give the government, to avoid compromising the constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States. This is a delicate political issue that the Obama administration and Congress should approach with caution, and weigh the voices of both sides carefully, always remembering that they are here to serve the best interests of people of the United States who have put them into power.
Closing Guantanamo Bay
April 24, 2009 by Guest Writer
Filed under General, International
Congress is back from its Easter recess and this week it debates President Obama’s request for $84.3 billion to fund America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Buried in the 99 page bill submitted on April 9 was a brief section asking that $80 million to go toward closing Guantanamo Bay Prison.
What exactly is going to happen to these 240 or more men if Guantanamo is closed? Obama’s bill includes a request for funds for foreign countries that accept prisoners. Previous efforts to get other countries to take in these detainees have been unsuccessful, however. It’s understandable that security fears have prevented other countries from complying with Obama’s desire to have Guantanamo detainees rehabilitate on their soil. Americans don’t want them here either.
One of those dangerous men at Guantanamo is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He is believed to be a mastermind of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Does anyone believe he can be rehabilitated?
Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, is chief among those asking the important questions like this concerning American’s safety if Guantanamo is closed. Yesterday, in a New York Times article, McConnell is quoted as saying, “The administration says Guantanamo will close, will be closed by next January. What they haven’t told us is what they plan to do with these killers once it closes. Well, Americans want some assurances that closing Guantanamo won’t make them less safe and, frankly, that’s a very important and understandable request.”
One of those dangerous men at Guantanamo is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He is believed to be a mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Once again, Obama has not thought things through.
Obama’s Foreign Policy
April 21, 2009 by Guest Writer
Filed under General, International
Earlier this week President Obama attended the Summit of the Americas. He listened as Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega bashed our country and even called us terrorists. Obama responded to Ortega’s tirade against the United States’ effort to free Cuba from Castro’s oppressive dictatorship with a very weak, don’t blame me “for things that happened when I was three months old” response. This is shocking given that hundreds of American and Cuban soldiers died for this noble effort after John F. Kennedy called them to do so. This insults the memories of those soldiers, Kennedy and most importantly, American values.
What is President Obama’s foreign policy? It’s still developing, but his track record so far does not inspire confidence. It seems like it’s more about appeasement than promoting American interests. As Obama spoke about the dangers of nuclear proliferation, North Korea’s Kim Jong II launched a long range missile. North Korea is one of the most frightening regimes and is known as tyrannical and oppressive. According to CNN, Obama responded “Now is the time for a strong international response.” Nothing has happened, however.
Now is the time for strength, conviction and action. Our very safety depends upon it. Obama seems to be lacking all three when it comes to foreign policy.
