Latest Breaking News

Freddie Stubbs

(29,853 posts) Wed Jul 17, 2013, 03:46 PM Jul 2013

Obama administration appeals ban on groin searches at Guantánamo

Source: The Miami Herald

The Obama administration Wednesday appealed a federal judge’s order to the Pentagon to stop having guards search the genitals of Guantánamo detainees before and after meetings with their lawyers.

The appeal said the searches were justified because the military has this year found “dangerous materials and other contraband” in cells at the prison.

None of these materials were used in attacks on guards, and there’s no evidence that attorneys provided captives with contraband, the appealed added.

But, “that no attacks with these weapons have occurred at Guantánamo or that the source of these weapons has yet to be traced to attorney meetings does not alter this conclusion. Prison officials are entitled to take preemptive measures to ensure the security of their facilities.”

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/17/3504824/obama-administration-appeals-ban.html

19 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama administration appeals ban on groin searches at Guantánamo (Original Post) Freddie Stubbs Jul 2013 OP

Shameful. It is obviously used only to humiliate and demoralize. morningfog Jul 2013 #1

I know the GOP in Congress has blocked the President's attempts to close Guantánamo BlueEye Jul 2013 #2

Just knock this shit off, man. Ya just doesn't seem to quit. I voted for you because you stood in Ed Suspicious Jul 2013 #3

+1000 truth2power Jul 2013 #4

Did President Obama ever mention groin searches as something he was opposed to? Freddie Stubbs Jul 2013 #18

I'm positive I was. Ed Suspicious Jul 2013 #19

The ban was originally imposed because the prisoners were refusing to meet bullwinkle428 Jul 2013 #5

One report said that the searches were originally imposed ... Igel Jul 2013 #8

Frankly . . . markpkessinger Jul 2013 #17

They are unable to control physical contact between the two? LiberalFighter Jul 2013 #6

You have GOT to be kidding. Laelth Jul 2013 #7

Appeal for continuing religious humiliation. Sounds like Bush/Cheney to me. KoKo Jul 2013 #9

It's official - the various U.S. Atty's run this country - and I'll bet they are all Bush appointees Hestia Jul 2013 #10

Nooooo...It's Obama Administration calling to overturn a US Judge on This! KoKo Jul 2013 #13

Let them go. n/t DeSwiss Jul 2013 #11

LET THEM GO! KoKo Jul 2013 #12

Why don't we just ship the decommissioned nude-o-tron airport scanners down there? n/t eggplant Jul 2013 #14

Why can't they short-circuit the whole argument by installing a couple of those total- Nay Jul 2013 #15

Never mind that majority of the prisoners are INNOCENT people. Never mind that even prisoners idwiyo Jul 2013 #16

morningfog

(18,115 posts)

1. Shameful. It is obviously used only to humiliate and demoralize.

Reply to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Wed Jul 17, 2013, 03:59 PM

Jul 2013

BlueEye

(449 posts)

2. I know the GOP in Congress has blocked the President's attempts to close Guantánamo

Reply to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Wed Jul 17, 2013, 04:00 PM

Jul 2013

so I respect that he did make an effort. And yet, if his Administration is really sincere about shutting the place, wouldn't it make sense to promote more progressive policies there until it can actually be shut? The attitude right now is "Well we tried to close it but Congress wouldn't let us, so we'll just continue to run it like a Gulag until we get our way."

Ed Suspicious

(8,879 posts)

3. Just knock this shit off, man. Ya just doesn't seem to quit. I voted for you because you stood in

Reply to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Wed Jul 17, 2013, 04:05 PM

Jul 2013

opposition to the rights abuses that republicans celebrate. It's time to put your money where your mouth is, Mr. President.

truth2power

(8,219 posts)

4. +1000

Reply to Ed Suspicious (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 17, 2013, 04:07 PM

Jul 2013

Freddie Stubbs

(29,853 posts)

18. Did President Obama ever mention groin searches as something he was opposed to?

Reply to Ed Suspicious (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:36 AM

Jul 2013

If not, is it possible that you were projecting your own beliefs onto him?

Ed Suspicious

(8,879 posts)

19. I'm positive I was.

Reply to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #18)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 09:55 AM

Jul 2013

bullwinkle428

(20,630 posts)

5. The ban was originally imposed because the prisoners were refusing to meet

Reply to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Wed Jul 17, 2013, 04:08 PM

Jul 2013

with lawyers, simply because they didn't want to have to go through the groin search. It really is all about humiliation. I guess one could always talk to Brad Manning if you don't believe my own opinions.

Igel

(35,359 posts)

8. One report said that the searches were originally imposed ...

Reply to bullwinkle428 (Reply #5)

Wed Jul 17, 2013, 04:42 PM

Jul 2013

Because somehow one of the detaines smuggled in something through one of the searches that was used for suicide.

Haven't seen confirmation, but the suspicion was that it was smuggled "among" one of the inmate's privates.

Don't know what to do in response.

markpkessinger

(8,401 posts)

17. Frankly . . .

Reply to Igel (Reply #8)

Wed Jul 17, 2013, 07:45 PM

Jul 2013

What fucking right do we have to prevent these men from committing suicide if they wish to do so? I mean, we have held them -- many of them innocent -- for years, almost entirely incommunicado from their loved ones and all lacking proper access to legal counsel, with no remote hope of a fair trial in the military's kangaroo courts -- we have taken away everything from these men. Is it even moral to try to force someone to remain alive against his will under such conditions?

LiberalFighter

(51,094 posts)

6. They are unable to control physical contact between the two?

Reply to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Wed Jul 17, 2013, 04:12 PM

Jul 2013

Really?

Laelth

(32,017 posts)

7. You have GOT to be kidding.

Reply to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Wed Jul 17, 2013, 04:28 PM

Jul 2013

Mr. Holder has never seen an executive power that he will not defend.

In my name ...

-Laelth

KoKo

(84,711 posts)

9. Appeal for continuing religious humiliation. Sounds like Bush/Cheney to me.

Reply to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Wed Jul 17, 2013, 04:57 PM

Jul 2013

There's no excuse for this. It's how they think and they aren't going to change.

Hestia

(3,818 posts)

10. It's official - the various U.S. Atty's run this country - and I'll bet they are all Bush appointees

Reply to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Wed Jul 17, 2013, 05:45 PM

Jul 2013

Makes no matter what any higher up says, the U.S. atty's do whatever the hell they want to.

First thing the next Democratic president needs to do is fire the entire bunch. If they are C.S., make them clean toilets and empty trash cans. Make each and everyone of them reapply, er beg, for their jobs back.