Obama Preparing Order To Close Guantanamo

President-Elect Expected To Order Shut Down Of U.S. Military Prison In First Week On The Job

(CBS/AP)  President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to issue an executive order his first week in office — and perhaps his first day — to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, according to two presidential transition team advisers.

It's unlikely the detention facility at the Navy base in Cuba will be closed anytime soon. In an interview last weekend, Mr. Obama said it would be "a challenge" to close it even within the first 100 days of his administration.

But the order, which one adviser said could be issued as early as Jan. 20, would start the process of deciding what to do with the estimated 250 al Qaeda and Taliban suspects and potential witnesses who are being held there. Most have not been charged with a crime.

The Guantanamo directive would be one of a series of executive orders Mr. Obama is planning to issue shortly after he takes office next Tuesday, according to the two advisers. Also expected is an executive order about certain interrogation methods, but details were not immediately available Monday.

The advisers spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the orders that have not yet been finalized.

Obama transition team spokeswoman Brooke Anderson declined comment Monday.

The two advisers said the executive order will direct the new administration to look at each of the cases of the Guantanamo detainees to see whether they can be released or if they should still be held — and if so, where.

Many of the Guantanamo detainees are cleared for release, and others could be sent back to their native countries and held there. But many nations have resisted Bush administration efforts to repatriate the prisoners back home. Both Obama advisers said it's hoped that nations that had initially resisted taking detainees will be more willing to do so after dealing with the new administration.

What remains the thorniest issue for Mr. Obama, the advisers said, is what to do with the rest of the prisoners — including at least 15 so-called "high value detainees" considered among the most dangerous there.

Detainees held on U.S. soil would have certain legal rights that they were not entitled to while imprisoned in Cuba. It's also not clear if they would face trial through the current military tribunal system, or in federal civilian courts, or though a to-be-developed legal system that would mark a hybrid of the two.

Where to imprison the detainees also is a problem.

Mr. Obama promised during the presidential campaign to shut Guantanamo, endearing him to constitutional law experts, civil libertarians and other critics who called the Bush administration detentions a violation of international law.

But he acknowledged in an interview Sunday that the process of closing the prison would be harder and longer than initially thought.

"That's a challenge," Obama said on ABC's "This Week." "I think it's going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do.

"But I don't want to be ambiguous about this," he said. "We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our constitution."

President George W. Bush established military tribunals to prosecute detainees at Guantanamo. He also supports closing the prison, but strongly opposes bringing prisoners to the United States.

Earlier this month on Face The Nation, Vice President Dick Cheney said he was against closing Guantanamo and that he would, if asked, advise Obama to maintain the Bush administration's controversial interrogation policies and keep Guantanamo open.

"I would hope that for the sake of the nation, that this administration and future administrations will continue those policies," said Cheney, who also said he hoped Obama would not succumb to his "campaign rhetoric" of saying that an Obama administration would not torture.

Lawmakers have moved to block transfer of the detainees to at least two potential and frequently discussed military facilities: an Army prison at Fr. Leavenworth, Kan., and a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. A Marine Corps prison at Camp Pendleton in Southern California also is under consideration, a Pentagon official said.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., said Monday that "it's hard to show why terror suspects should be housed in Kansas."

"If the holding facility at Guantanamo Bay is closed, a new facility should be built, designed specifically to handle detainees," Brownback said in a statement.

A Pentagon team also has been looking at how to shut Guantanamo and move its detainees but spokesman Bryan Whitman did not immediately know Monday whether it was completed.

The executive order marks only a first step at what is likely to be a long legal process. Still, American Civil Liberties Union legislative director Caroline Fredrickson called "extremely meaningful" even if the Guantanamo prison can't be closed immediately.

"It's clear that there is a process of time that will be necessary to close it properly, to make sure that human rights and respected and security is protected," Fredrickson said. "But the fact that it's set in motion is extremely good news."

[mrzerato]

here will he put these terrorist that wish to destroy the USA?

Posted by fcs25

Lets put them in prison or give them the death penalty, after a trial. If the prosecutors can not prove that they are dangerous terrorists, then what in the hell are we doing keeping them. Do we keep people locked up because we suspect they are terrorists?

[brianbwb-2009]

"I guess Obama and the libs feel that if Osam is captured on a foriegn battle field he should be transported to the U.S. and gioven all the rights and representations afforde to criminals with US citizenship, the other option would be to move and release him to authorities of his native country. Anyone see any problems with that theory? LOL!" Posted by notblue

None at all, it is in fact the law of the land, as well as international land. If convicted, the proper sanctions are proscribed by law, if found innocent, then he must be sent to the land of his citizenship.

You do understand what law is, don''t you?

[brianbwb-2009]

"President Bush and Vice President Cheney have said that interrogations never involved torture. "The United States does not torture. It''s against our laws, and it''s against our values," Bush asserted on Sept. 6, 2006...and in a interview last week with the Weekly Standard, Cheney said, "And I think on the left wing of the Democratic Party, there are some people who believe that we really tortured."

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that''s why I did not refer the case" for prosecution."

"The harsh techniques used against Qahtani, she said, were approved by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "A lot of this happened on his watch," she said. Last month, a Senate Armed Services Committee report concluded that "Rumsfeld''s authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there."

[talaan77]

The problem is that their are many innocent people at Gitmo, get your heads out of the sand

[fredcs25]

Where will he put these terrorist that wish to destroy the USA?

[thgdriver1]

Nobama should build a new facility next door to the white house. He is so intent on coddling these detainees from Gitmo he would only have to walk next door to hold their hans.

[notblue]

!

[notblue]

I guess Obama and the libs feel that if Osam is captured on a foriegn battle field he should be transported to the U.S. and gioven all the rights and representations afforde to criminals with US citizenship, the other option would be to move and release him to authorities of his native country. Anyone see any problems with that theory? LOL!

[brannigon]

Yeah, thats real smart supehero! Close Gitmo so they can go home and tell everything that they''ve learned. Are we supposed to be at war, or is this a paint ball game? America''s gone stupid!!!

[brianbwb-2009]

gotta go, hearings are back on.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by Joe-NY

So here are your so-called "terrorists", Bush Sr. picks a psychotic moron named Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whose hobby was pouring acid on women, and trains and finances him to fight the Russians after which he would take over Afghanistan from Zia Ul-Haq, in hopes that Unocal and the CIA (Bush Sr.) would get their pipeline.

At the same time they are also arming, training, and funding a Pashtun group called the Taliban, figuring the Russians and Ul-Haq couldn''t fight all these forces.

Hekmatyar then goes Frankenstein on his people, who promptly switched to the Taliban, and those who were not Pashtun were expelled from the Taliban, only to be collected by a Wahabi from Saudi Arabia named Usama Bin Laden, also trained, armed, and funded by the CIA.

In short these people are not terrorists, they are tribes being set against one another by the CIA, through via Bin Laden''s (now probably dead) Al Qaeda (translation; database).

The true terrorists in this are the CIA, and the Bushes.

[brianbwb-2009]

Hey Joe-ny

Still with us?

[brianbwb-2009]

"No wonder you''''re out of touch with the U.S." Posted by GOPHwy71

Try something relevant, like how you might disprove my posts.

[brianbwb-2009]

Hey Joe,

"During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar received millions of dollars from the CIA through the ISI. Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin received some of the strongest support from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and worked with thousands of foreign mujahideen who came to Afghanistan. According to the ISI, their decision to allocate the highest percentage of covert aid to Hekmatyar was based on his record as an effective anti-Soviet military commander in Afghanistan.

Later,

"The Rabbani/Hekmatyar regime lasted only a few months before the Taliban took control of Kabul (With the aid of Unocal and the CIA, don''t forget)in September 1996. Many of the HIG local commanders joined the Taliban "both out of ideological sympathy and for reason of tribal solidarity." Those that did not were expelled by the Taliban. In Pakistan Hezb-e-Islami training camps "were taken over by the Taliban and handed over" to Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) groups such as the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP).

History son, public record.

[gophwy71]

Bali and Singapore?

No wonder you''re out of touch with the U.S.

[brianbwb-2009]

"New administration: promise first, figure it out later." Posted by govwatch

Better to stall on the road to heaven than to run top speed into hell. At least the right things were promised, and if they figure out half of them, we are still far better off than we would have been under "Stay the course" McSame.

[govwatch-2009]

New administration: promise first, figure it out later.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by Joe-NY

Here is your boy Hamid, at work;

"Unocal seems to have had a deeper role. Intelligence "whistleblower" Julie Sirrs claimed that anti-Taliban leader Ahmad Shah Massoud told her he had "proof that Unocal had provided money that helped the Taliban take Kabul [in 1996]". And French journalist Richard Labeviere said, referring to the later 1990s, "The CIA and Unocal''s security forces ... provided military weapons and instructors to several Taleban militia[s] ..."

The Taleban and Unocal were in negotiations in Texas to discuss arrangements for the gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan in 1997..."

Public record, son.

[brianbwb-2009]

"I feel sorry for you, that you have so utterly brainwashed by the Liberal Left into believing the nonsense you wrote....I would suggest seeking professional help to reverse the brainwashing and get a lawyer to address the abuse the Liberal Left has perpetrated against you, scre.wing up your brain like that....sorry I asked, I thought I would get an intelligent discussion, not" Posted by Joe-NY

Your comment does not contain one single reference to disprove anything I have said. You may not like it, but simply calling it brainwashing, while unable to refute it does little to advance your view.

[brianbwb-2009]

"Do you mean the Uzbekneftegaz (Uzbekistan)and Enron pipeline through Afghanistan? I don''''t think Bush has anything to do with it ?" Posted by Joe-NY

Who do you think put former Unocal (now bought out by guess who''s daddy, in partnership with Chevron) coffee runner, and ex CIA stooge for Bush SR., Hamid Karzai in office?

Also it doesn''t escape notice that he signed the deal immediately with Chevron and the Carlyle Group to give up land that he did not own, to build it.