Talk:Guantanamo Bay detention camp

New section or article for Trump plans for housing migrants under detention?

Given the recent announcement by Trump to create a new migrant facility, I figured that probably deserves its own section or own article. Bringing the issue here for how best people think the issue should be handled. Remember (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Since I didn't here any response, I assume people are not opposed. I am going to start drafting the article in user space under User:Remember/Guantanamo Bay migrant detention. Feel free to come there and help out the new draft article. Remember (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Created the article here - Guantanamo Migrant Operations Center since according to sources there was already a name. Remember (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1

Footnote one is broken. Can someone fix it? Remember (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Schazjmd (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!!! Remember (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Were Obama's efforts to close the detention camp stymied by Republicans or both parties?

This is a subject I am not very well versed in, so I submit this question with the utmost humility. Here are two quotes:

"However, his attempts were largely stymied by Republican opposition in Congress."

"On 20 May 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90–6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp."

If the amendment was passed 90-6, was it really Republicans in Congress blocking the closure, or was it just elected officials in the US as a whole? In the Senate in this case, but if the Senate vote was 90-6 then I imagine the Congressional vote wouldn't have been too different.

I realize that Wikipedia is beholden to the sources available, even if the commentary of those sources is contradictory or inaccurate. Even so, if it's true that the reuters article cited is inaccurate, other sources might be more accurate, and people could find them and use them.

Of course, there's a debate to be had about the meaning of the word "largely". Benevolent Prawn (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]