What Excuse Remains for Obama’s Failure to Close GITMO?

[Siete]

he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States


what part of Commander in Chief confuses you?

No part. So why, as Commander-in-Chief, has he not released the rest of the prisoners?

What a weird question. Why would he release ANY of them ?

because he said he would and the right continues to remind everyone he did.

if he did they'd be squealing about that too ...

 

[FA_Q2]

What will be done with the prisoners at GITMO? The US refused as did other nations..We are stuck with a Bush era problem...

As they've been convicted of no crimes, I'd suggest letting them go wherever they want. They should probably be given some sort of reparations for pain and suffering as well.

"Crimes" has nothing to do with it. The Gitmo prisoners are prisoners of war. Not only should they not be let go, in the case of the big bad 5, who are responsible for killing innocent civilians including women and children, they should be executed, as were the Nazis after the Nuremberg trials in 1945.
As for Gitmo, it should probably be expanded, and more Gitmos built, to house the many more enemy combatants who are sure to be captured in coming months and years. Either that, or just dust the dirtbags, as they tried to do to our soldiers.

Well, there is your key point. AFTER their trials, something that the Obama and Bush regimes have not bothered to actually do. That is a rather important step in the process....

 

[Katzndogz]

obama should release them all so we can get on with impeachment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What Excuse Remains for Obama’s Failure to Close GITMO?

It’s not an ‘excuse,’ it’s a fact, most detainees have no countries that will accept them, including their home countries.

Consequently, it’s not a ‘failure’ on Obama’s part, it’s one of the many failures that resulted from the illegal and failed wars prosecuted by GWB.

Iraq/Afghanistan are Mr. Bush’s wars, his failures alone, and they will forever be his failures, including the collateral damage caused by those wars, such as Guantanamo.

The only humane, legal, and appropriate course of action now is to place the detainees in Federal prison in the United States, try them in a timely manner, and incarcerate those found guilty.

As for those not found guilty, continue to try to locate countries willing to accept them.

 

[FA_Q2]

What Excuse Remains for Obama’s Failure to Close GITMO?

It’s not an ‘excuse,’ it’s a fact, most detainees have no countries that will accept them, including their home countries.

Consequently, it’s not a ‘failure’ on Obama’s part, it’s one of the many failures that resulted from the illegal and failed wars prosecuted by GWB.

Iraq/Afghanistan are Mr. Bush’s wars, his failures alone, and they will forever be his failures, including the collateral damage caused by those wars, such as Guantanamo.

The only humane, legal, and appropriate course of action now is to place the detainees in Federal prison in the United States, try them in a timely manner, and incarcerate those found guilty.

As for those not found guilty, continue to try to locate countries willing to accept them.

Kennedy already provided link that proves your first assertion false.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Future bargaining chips?

Well that brings us back to him lying.

I would contend that it was not legal in the first place for the original prisoner transfer.

I understand that the constitution gives the President purview over the military and that this falls under that. I do not contend that is not the case. However, the constitution does not tell the government that it is not able to set up additional checks and balances when the legislative and executive branch see it as necessary. In this case, that is exactly what was accomplished.

This is also different than the next step of transferring powers of one governmental branch to another (as I don’t agree with such law and believe, as I think you do, is unconstitutional). This is actually accepted as constitutional anyway considering that is exactly what the FDA, FAA, EPA et al actually does. In this case, none of the powers of the presidential branch have been transferred at all. It simply limits the use of those powers. Really it does not even do that considering that it is a ‘notification’ and really only allows the congress to step in if can muster a veto proof and wants to exercise that.

The president signed a law that requires prisoner transfers/releases to be sent to the congress 30 days before the transfer takes place. What gives the president the ability to ignore law because it is not convenient? If the law is not constitutional then he can challenge that. Of course, challenging or ignoring it are both highly hypocritical considering that he signed it into law in the first place? I am not quite sure when it became acceptable for a president to sign a law that he believes is a violation of the constitution.

out of time to expound on this any further. I will be back later.

Indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay is already unconstitutional, so I don't see it as being illegal for the President to stop an unconstitutional activity. The Executive branch has equal right to decide the constitutionality of an issue, and as such could release the prisoners in Guantanamo as their detention was illegal in the first place.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States


what part of Commander in Chief confuses you?

No part. So why, as Commander-in-Chief, has he not released the rest of the prisoners?

my opinion ..

apparently he wants bipartisan support to avoid the flack involved with him making the decision alone which will never happen..

IMO we should wash our hands of anything mid east related and get the hell out of there. The entire idea of "war on terror" has run its course along with the war on drugs etc and proves to be futile at best.

So then he lied.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What will be done with the prisoners at GITMO? The US refused as did other nations..We are stuck with a Bush era problem...

As they've been convicted of no crimes, I'd suggest letting them go wherever they want. They should probably be given some sort of reparations for pain and suffering as well.

"Crimes" has nothing to do with it. The Gitmo prisoners are prisoners of war. Not only should they not be let go, in the case of the big bad 5, who are responsible for killing innocent civilians including women and children, they should be executed, as were the Nazis after the Nuremberg trials in 1945.
As for Gitmo, it should probably be expanded, and more Gitmos built, to house the many more enemy combatants who are sure to be captured in coming months and years. Either that, or just dust the dirtbags, as they tried to do to our soldiers.

You would need to provide proof that these people are guilty of anything, and since the U.S. government hasn't bothered to do so I'm guessing you can't.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So Republicans want Guantanamo closed?

As has repeatedly been pointed out in this thread, not a single Republican has advocated closing Gitmo.

Why should they ? It would be a stupid thing to do.

Well that's a convincing argument.

 

[AntiParty]

The excuse-making on behalf of President Obama has always found its most extreme form when it came time to explain why he failed to fulfill his oft-stated 2008 election promise to close Guantanamo. As I’ve documented many times, even the promise itself was misleading, as it became quickly apparent that Obama — even in the absence of congressional obstruction — did not intend to “close GITMO” at all but rather to re-locate it, maintaining its defining injustice of indefinite detention.

But the events of the last three days have obliterated the last remaining excuse. In order to secure the release of American POW Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the Obama administration agreed to release from Guantanamo five detainees allegedly affiliated with the Taliban. But as even stalwart Obama defenders such as Jeffery Toobin admit, Obama “clearly broke the law” by releasing those detainees without providing Congress the 30-day notice required by the 2014 defense authorization statute (law professor Jonathan Turley similarly observed that Obama’s lawbreaking here was clear and virtually undebatable).

The sole excuse now offered by Democratic loyalists for this failure has been that Congress prevented him from closing the camp. But here, the Obama White House appears to be arguing that Congress lacks the authority to constrain the President’s power to release detainees when he wants. What other excuse is there for his clear violation of a law that requires 30-day notice to Congress before any detainees are released?

But once you take the position that Obama can override — i.e., ignore — Congressional restrictions on his power to release Guantanamo detainees, then what possible excuse is left for his failure to close the camp?

What Excuse Remains for Obama’s Failure to Close GITMO?

So why should Obama not be held accountable for his lie about closing Guantanamo Bay Prison?

On title alone I'll respond.

GITMO has many prisoners that are innocent. Does America take a big fat "whoops" on that topic?

It's the same reason why he didn't just end the Afghanistan war. Does he show up and say, "Sorry guys, America did a bad thing here. It was the last guy and we won't do it again"

Or do you just take money from the corporation that paid for the unnecessary war to begin with, smooth over the edges as slowly as possible trying to make it look like it was necessary?

I know there is a stand against "Bush's fault" but at some point you need to just accept that some things were Bush's fault and stop projecting blame.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The excuse-making on behalf of President Obama has always found its most extreme form when it came time to explain why he failed to fulfill his oft-stated 2008 election promise to close Guantanamo. As I’ve documented many times, even the promise itself was misleading, as it became quickly apparent that Obama — even in the absence of congressional obstruction — did not intend to “close GITMO” at all but rather to re-locate it, maintaining its defining injustice of indefinite detention.

But the events of the last three days have obliterated the last remaining excuse. In order to secure the release of American POW Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the Obama administration agreed to release from Guantanamo five detainees allegedly affiliated with the Taliban. But as even stalwart Obama defenders such as Jeffery Toobin admit, Obama “clearly broke the law” by releasing those detainees without providing Congress the 30-day notice required by the 2014 defense authorization statute (law professor Jonathan Turley similarly observed that Obama’s lawbreaking here was clear and virtually undebatable).

The sole excuse now offered by Democratic loyalists for this failure has been that Congress prevented him from closing the camp. But here, the Obama White House appears to be arguing that Congress lacks the authority to constrain the President’s power to release detainees when he wants. What other excuse is there for his clear violation of a law that requires 30-day notice to Congress before any detainees are released?

But once you take the position that Obama can override — i.e., ignore — Congressional restrictions on his power to release Guantanamo detainees, then what possible excuse is left for his failure to close the camp?

What Excuse Remains for Obama’s Failure to Close GITMO?

So why should Obama not be held accountable for his lie about closing Guantanamo Bay Prison?

On title alone I'll respond.

GITMO has many prisoners that are innocent. Does America take a big fat "whoops" on that topic?

It's the same reason why he didn't just end the Afghanistan war. Does he show up and say, "Sorry guys, America did a bad thing here. It was the last guy and we won't do it again"

Or do you just take money from the corporation that paid for the unnecessary war to begin with, smooth over the edges as slowly as possible trying to make it look like it was necessary?

I know there is a stand against "Bush's fault" but at some point you need to just accept that some things were Bush's fault and stop projecting blame.

Or maybe we could try to hold both Bush and Obama to the same standard, and say that they're both guilty on this issue? The idea that Obama should get a pass because Bush started it makes absolutely zero sense. Obama campaigned on closing Guantanamo and he just proved that he can release prisoners unilaterally, so what has he been waiting for? The idea that he can't do it because he has to justify Bush's actions is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard.

 

[Paperman299]

I'm a little tired, so forgive me if my logic/memory is flawed. Obama promised to close Guantanamo, but does that translate to promising to just release those prisoners? As I understood it, the fate of the prisoners upon Guantanamo's closing was to be treated to fair trials, not instant freedom.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm a little tired, so forgive me if my logic/memory is flawed. Obama promised to close Guantanamo, but does that translate to promising to just release those prisoners? As I understood it, the fate of the prisoners upon Guantanamo's closing was to be treated to fair trials, not instant freedom.

trials that he is perfectly empowered to provide.

Trials that he is NOT providing. The failure is still the same. Either try them or release them - the failure is still on his head.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well that brings us back to him lying.

I would contend that it was not legal in the first place for the original prisoner transfer.

I understand that the constitution gives the President purview over the military and that this falls under that. I do not contend that is not the case. However, the constitution does not tell the government that it is not able to set up additional checks and balances when the legislative and executive branch see it as necessary. In this case, that is exactly what was accomplished.

This is also different than the next step of transferring powers of one governmental branch to another (as I don’t agree with such law and believe, as I think you do, is unconstitutional). This is actually accepted as constitutional anyway considering that is exactly what the FDA, FAA, EPA et al actually does. In this case, none of the powers of the presidential branch have been transferred at all. It simply limits the use of those powers. Really it does not even do that considering that it is a ‘notification’ and really only allows the congress to step in if can muster a veto proof and wants to exercise that.

The president signed a law that requires prisoner transfers/releases to be sent to the congress 30 days before the transfer takes place. What gives the president the ability to ignore law because it is not convenient? If the law is not constitutional then he can challenge that. Of course, challenging or ignoring it are both highly hypocritical considering that he signed it into law in the first place? I am not quite sure when it became acceptable for a president to sign a law that he believes is a violation of the constitution.

out of time to expound on this any further. I will be back later.

Indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay is already unconstitutional, so I don't see it as being illegal for the President to stop an unconstitutional activity.

IF that is his contention then I think he might have some solid ground. HOWEVER, that has never been his contention at all. Further, indefinite detention might be unconstitutional - I think that is worthy of another thread because I don't think you can apply the constitution unilaterally to non-citizens - but there is really nothing stating that such is the case. These prisoners are captured as part of the war against Iraq and Afghanistan. many of these are in direct relation to the Taliban or Afghanistan government. It is SOP to detain enemy POW's until the cessation of the conflict - in this case the Afghanistan war. In that light, the closing of GITMO is not a necessary until the end of the war.

The 'war on terror' is NOT a war. It is a campaign slogan.

The Executive branch has equal right to decide the constitutionality of an issue, and as such could release the prisoners in Guantanamo as their detention was illegal in the first place.

I disagree entirely. The executive branch does not get to decide the constitutionality of things in real time and on a whim. That is exactly what you are advocating. The time that the executive branch decided the constitutionality was at the signing of the bill. After that, I believe that they are bound to the law. Otherwise law is utterly meaningless.

Under that guise, Obama could decide that any law whatsoever was 'unconstitutional' and simply cease to prosecute it. What is the point of the legislative branch at that point? Any law they passed could be ignored in total or in part as the president sees fit. It also makes compromise impossible. The president could simply sign a compromise into law and then ignore it, only enforcing the parts that he agreed with.

Really, what point is law then? When law is selectively enforced there really is no law.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm a little tired, so forgive me if my logic/memory is flawed. Obama promised to close Guantanamo, but does that translate to promising to just release those prisoners? As I understood it, the fate of the prisoners upon Guantanamo's closing was to be treated to fair trials, not instant freedom.

His position changed, I believe, as he moved from primary to general election. It became moving the prisoners from Gitmo to a facility in the U.S., but essentially changing nothing. That is the plan that Congress ultimately shot down.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I would contend that it was not legal in the first place for the original prisoner transfer.

I understand that the constitution gives the President purview over the military and that this falls under that. I do not contend that is not the case. However, the constitution does not tell the government that it is not able to set up additional checks and balances when the legislative and executive branch see it as necessary. In this case, that is exactly what was accomplished.

This is also different than the next step of transferring powers of one governmental branch to another (as I don’t agree with such law and believe, as I think you do, is unconstitutional). This is actually accepted as constitutional anyway considering that is exactly what the FDA, FAA, EPA et al actually does. In this case, none of the powers of the presidential branch have been transferred at all. It simply limits the use of those powers. Really it does not even do that considering that it is a ‘notification’ and really only allows the congress to step in if can muster a veto proof and wants to exercise that.

The president signed a law that requires prisoner transfers/releases to be sent to the congress 30 days before the transfer takes place. What gives the president the ability to ignore law because it is not convenient? If the law is not constitutional then he can challenge that. Of course, challenging or ignoring it are both highly hypocritical considering that he signed it into law in the first place? I am not quite sure when it became acceptable for a president to sign a law that he believes is a violation of the constitution.

out of time to expound on this any further. I will be back later.

Indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay is already unconstitutional, so I don't see it as being illegal for the President to stop an unconstitutional activity.

IF that is his contention then I think he might have some solid ground. HOWEVER, that has never been his contention at all. Further, indefinite detention might be unconstitutional - I think that is worthy of another thread because I don't think you can apply the constitution unilaterally to non-citizens - but there is really nothing stating that such is the case. These prisoners are captured as part of the war against Iraq and Afghanistan. many of these are in direct relation to the Taliban or Afghanistan government. It is SOP to detain enemy POW's until the cessation of the conflict - in this case the Afghanistan war. In that light, the closing of GITMO is not a necessary until the end of the war.

The 'war on terror' is NOT a war. It is a campaign slogan.

The Executive branch has equal right to decide the constitutionality of an issue, and as such could release the prisoners in Guantanamo as their detention was illegal in the first place.

I disagree entirely. The executive branch does not get to decide the constitutionality of things in real time and on a whim. That is exactly what you are advocating. The time that the executive branch decided the constitutionality was at the signing of the bill. After that, I believe that they are bound to the law. Otherwise law is utterly meaningless.

Under that guise, Obama could decide that any law whatsoever was 'unconstitutional' and simply cease to prosecute it. What is the point of the legislative branch at that point? Any law they passed could be ignored in total or in part as the president sees fit. It also makes compromise impossible. The president could simply sign a compromise into law and then ignore it, only enforcing the parts that he agreed with.

Really, what point is law then? When law is selectively enforced there really is no law.

Saying that Gitmo and indefinite detention are unconstitutional is not applying the Constitution to non-citizens, it's applying the Constitution to the federal government. The Constitution gives no power to the federal government to indefinitely detain anybody, including non-citizens. As for these prisoners having to do with the Taliban, that would be the position of the government, and I'm not inclined to believe a word they say without real evidence.

You misunderstood what I'm saying, but I think that was my fault since I said it poorly. I'm not saying the President can just ignore any law they want. You're right that the President decides whether something is unconstitutional when they sign a bill, but Guantanamo is an executive creation to begin with. Congress obviously went along to fund it, but Guantanamo is still under the purview of the Executive as it pertains to the fighting of a war. As such, Obama could declare, correctly, that Guantanamo is unconstitutional and close it unilaterally.