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

[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?

Two different issues. Congress blocked funding to close it and forbid the transfer of the super villains to this country. The negotiations for this deal are/were well known in Congress. Congress leaks (from both ends no doubt). Kudos to the President for finding his balls and basically telling Congress they will not have the chance to **** the deal up with their usually BS.

Anyone who believes everything any candidate tells them while trying to get elected is a fool.

I agree with your last point, which is essentially the point. The fact that partisan loyalists will never or rarely criticize the candidate they voted for while in office for whatever reason, even though they're doing things that they disagree with, is the problem.

As for the first part, they're not two different issues. Obama just showed that he can release prisoners unilaterally. So why not do it? The reason is that he doesn't want to go near this issue so he's willing to let Congress stop him when it's more convenient for him.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[ClosedCaption]

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?

Two different issues. Congress blocked funding to close it and forbid the transfer of the super villains to this country. The negotiations for this deal are/were well known in Congress. Congress leaks (from both ends no doubt). Kudos to the President for finding his balls and basically telling Congress they will not have the chance to **** the deal up with their usually BS.

Anyone who believes everything any candidate tells them while trying to get elected is a fool.

I agree with your last point, which is essentially the point. The fact that partisan loyalists will never or rarely criticize the candidate they voted for while in office for whatever reason, even though they're doing things that they disagree with, is the problem.

As for the first part, they're not two different issues. Obama just showed that he can release prisoners unilaterally. So why not do it? The reason is that he doesn't want to go near this issue so he's willing to let Congress stop him when it's more convenient for him.

Because they have to go somewhere and congress denied him. Now you WANT him to go against Congress more often?

 

[Vigilante]

Two different issues. Congress blocked funding to close it and forbid the transfer of the super villains to this country. The negotiations for this deal are/were well known in Congress. Congress leaks (from both ends no doubt). Kudos to the President for finding his balls and basically telling Congress they will not have the chance to **** the deal up with their usually BS.

Anyone who believes everything any candidate tells them while trying to get elected is a fool.

I agree with your last point, which is essentially the point. The fact that partisan loyalists will never or rarely criticize the candidate they voted for while in office for whatever reason, even though they're doing things that they disagree with, is the problem.

As for the first part, they're not two different issues. Obama just showed that he can release prisoners unilaterally. So why not do it? The reason is that he doesn't want to go near this issue so he's willing to let Congress stop him when it's more convenient for him.

Because they have to go somewhere and congress denied him. Now you WANT him to go against Congress more often?

But Obuma and Holder won't let the military take them to trial!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Two different issues. Congress blocked funding to close it and forbid the transfer of the super villains to this country. The negotiations for this deal are/were well known in Congress. Congress leaks (from both ends no doubt). Kudos to the President for finding his balls and basically telling Congress they will not have the chance to **** the deal up with their usually BS.

Anyone who believes everything any candidate tells them while trying to get elected is a fool.

I agree with your last point, which is essentially the point. The fact that partisan loyalists will never or rarely criticize the candidate they voted for while in office for whatever reason, even though they're doing things that they disagree with, is the problem.

As for the first part, they're not two different issues. Obama just showed that he can release prisoners unilaterally. So why not do it? The reason is that he doesn't want to go near this issue so he's willing to let Congress stop him when it's more convenient for him.

Because they have to go somewhere and congress denied him. Now you WANT him to go against Congress more often?

Congress has the power to stop them from coming to the U.S., debatably, but not anywhere in the world. Frankly, if I were them, the U.S. is the last place I'd want to be, but that's beside the point. Obama has shown with this prisoner swap episode that he can free them and let them go anywhere else, at the very least, however.

And yes, frankly I don't care about the President going against the Congress, or the Congress going against the President in and of itself. When one of them is engaging in unconstitutional activities, indefinite detention, torture, etc..., then I have no problem with the other one putting a stop to it. Obama said he would close it, and so he should because he apparently has the power to do so. So no more hiding behind excuses for political reasons.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What's the difference, and why is Congress required for one but not the other? Yes, the right is going to blame Obama for whatever he does regardless, so it would be better if he would just do the right thing.

It's been answered sufficiently and correctly.

The right thing is that he has no where to put the prisoners without Congress exploding, "not in my district".

However, it may be time to open the FEMA camps, and we can put the gitmo gits and Vigilante and Shootspeeders and Lonestar and the rest there for starters.

Let the prisoners sort themselves out.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What's the difference, and why is Congress required for one but not the other? Yes, the right is going to blame Obama for whatever he does regardless, so it would be better if he would just do the right thing.

It's been answered sufficiently and correctly.

The right thing is that he has no where to put the prisoners without Congress exploding, "not in my district".

However, it may be time to open the FEMA camps, and we can put the gitmo gits and Vigilante and Shootspeeders and Lonestar and the rest there for starters.

Let the prisoners sort themselves out.

It hasn't been answered at all, actually.

They don't have to come to the U.S.

 

[J.E.D]

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

Lie? Congress blocking its closure doesn't make Obama a liar

For the third time.

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?

How can Congress stop him when he just showed that he can unilaterally release prisoners whenever he wants?

He approved of the release of prisoners in exchange for a captive American soldier. He didn't just release prisoners out of the blue. To suggest that he's now going to start releasing prisoners without any valid reason as a way of getting around Congress's refusal to close Gitmo is pure speculation and rather ridiculous.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Lie? Congress blocking its closure doesn't make Obama a liar

For the third time.

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?

How can Congress stop him when he just showed that he can unilaterally release prisoners whenever he wants?

He approved of the release of prisoners in exchange for a captive American soldier. He didn't just release prisoners out of the blue. To suggest that he's now going to start releasing prisoners without any valid reason as a way of getting around Congress's refusal to close Gitmo is pure speculation and rather ridiculous.

That's not what I'm suggesting that he's going to do. I'm suggesting that he should, not that he's going to. There's no difference, however. If he can release prisoners for an exchange then he can simply release them period. Nobody can explain why there's a difference between the two legally or otherwise, so it's safe to assume that it doesn't exist.

 

[KNB]

Have any of you Republicans read the responses against Obama for trading five bearded wastes of life for one bearded waste of life? Why don't you start a discussion titled "What do we do with the dozens of Muj freedom fighters in Guantanamo when Obama closes it?" Remember how Obama's a power-hungry ***** Marxist dictator for negotiating with terrorists?

Let's find out what Republicans' will have to say about Obama releasing over a hundred terrorist freedom fighters. What is the Republican plan for dealing with those terrorist freedom fighter POWs? Shoot them? Why didn't Bush do that and then close Guantanamo? Do Republicans have any ideas other than "I hate Obama!"?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Have any of you Republicans read the responses against Obama for trading five bearded wastes of life for one bearded waste of life? Why don't you start a discussion titled "What do we do with the dozens of Muj freedom fighters in Guantanamo when Obama closes it?" Remember how Obama's a power-hungry ***** Marxist dictator for negotiating with terrorists?

Let's find out what Republicans' will have to say about Obama releasing over a hundred terrorist freedom fighters. What is the Republican plan for dealing with those terrorist freedom fighter POWs? Shoot them? Why didn't Bush do that and then close Guantanamo? Do Republicans have any ideas other than "I hate Obama!"?

What Republicans are you talking to? No Republican has supported what I've been saying here. I'd suggest looking in a mirror before casting any stones here.

 

[KNB]

**** stones. How long did Bush have to close Guantanamo? Who ******* opened Guantanamo in the first place? It became a prison in 2002? Who was President then?

**** you, Republicans. You don't want Obama to close Guantanamo. You just want another excuse to ***** like little whiny bitches about Obama.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

**** stones. How long did Bush have to close Guantanamo? Who ******* opened Guantanamo in the first place? It became a prison in 2002? Who was President then?

**** you, Republicans. You don't want Obama to close Guantanamo. You just want another excuse to ***** like little whiny bitches about Obama.

Again, what Republicans? I'm not a Republican, and there are no Republicans in this thread supporting my position. You're the one being partisan here.

 

[KNB]

Am I talking specifically to you? No. There are at least ten different threads in this ridiculous forum about this prisoner trade deal, and in every single one of them, the Republican members here are complaining about Obama's hypocrisy, lies, supporting terrorism, hating America, wanting more Americans to die, blah blah ******* blah. It's mind-numbing.

Why don't you ask yourselves why the so-called Land of the Free is operating a prison in another country where the prisoners have no rights at all?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Am I talking specifically to you? No. There are at least ten different threads in this ridiculous forum about this prisoner trade deal, and in every single one of them, the Republican members here are complaining about Obama's hypocrisy, lies, supporting terrorism, hating America, wanting more Americans to die, blah blah ******* blah. It's mind-numbing.

Why don't you ask yourselves why the so-called Land of the Free is operating a prison in another country where the prisoners have no rights at all?

Well you're in this thread talking about it, accusing "you Republicans" of being this or that when I'm really the only one in here taking a position against Obama, so I would say that you are indeed talking to me. If you have an issue with what somebody is saying it would be wise to discuss it with them, rather than going into a random thread and attacking somebody else for their position without even bothering to understand that person's position.

Maybe instead of assuming everybody who takes issue with Obama is a Republican who just wants Obama to look bad, and I'm not saying that those people don't exist, you could take people on an individual basis based on what they're actually saying.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Have any of you Republicans read the responses against Obama for trading five bearded wastes of life for one bearded waste of life? Why don't you start a discussion titled "What do we do with the dozens of Muj freedom fighters in Guantanamo when Obama closes it?" Remember how Obama's a power-hungry ***** Marxist dictator for negotiating with terrorists?

Let's find out what Republicans' will have to say about Obama releasing over a hundred terrorist freedom fighters. What is the Republican plan for dealing with those terrorist freedom fighter POWs? Shoot them? Why didn't Bush do that and then close Guantanamo? Do Republicans have any ideas other than "I hate Obama!"?

Repubs are asking why Obama hasnt unilaterally released them while claiming he's some sort of Ultra Liberal (doesnt make sense)

Where should he release them? Doesnt matter
How should he? Unilaterally
Why should he release them unilaterally when Repubs are crying about Obama acting Unilaterally? ....
Congress wont give funds to move prisoners how should Obama do it? Dont matter

Go back to question 1.

Its like they want things to happen that they dont support just because and how, when, why doesnt matter. They say it therefore it should happen *shrug*

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Have any of you Republicans read the responses against Obama for trading five bearded wastes of life for one bearded waste of life? Why don't you start a discussion titled "What do we do with the dozens of Muj freedom fighters in Guantanamo when Obama closes it?" Remember how Obama's a power-hungry ***** Marxist dictator for negotiating with terrorists?

Let's find out what Republicans' will have to say about Obama releasing over a hundred terrorist freedom fighters. What is the Republican plan for dealing with those terrorist freedom fighter POWs? Shoot them? Why didn't Bush do that and then close Guantanamo? Do Republicans have any ideas other than "I hate Obama!"?

Repubs are asking why Obama hasnt unilaterally released them while claiming he's some sort of Ultra Liberal (doesnt make sense)

Where should he release them? Doesnt matter
How should he? Unilaterally
Why should he release them unilaterally when Repubs are crying about Obama acting Unilaterally? ....
Congress wont give funds to move prisoners how should Obama do it? Dont matter

Go back to question 1.

Its like they want things to happen that they dont support just because and how, when, why doesnt matter. They say it therefore it should happen *shrug*

I'll ask you the same question I asked KNB: What Republicans are you talking about? Are they in this thread? If not, why is any of this nonsense relevant?

 

[FA_Q2]

Have any of you Republicans read the responses against Obama for trading five bearded wastes of life for one bearded waste of life? Why don't you start a discussion titled "What do we do with the dozens of Muj freedom fighters in Guantanamo when Obama closes it?" Remember how Obama's a power-hungry ***** Marxist dictator for negotiating with terrorists?

Let's find out what Republicans' will have to say about Obama releasing over a hundred terrorist freedom fighters. What is the Republican plan for dealing with those terrorist freedom fighter POWs? Shoot them? Why didn't Bush do that and then close Guantanamo? Do Republicans have any ideas other than "I hate Obama!"?

Repubs are asking why Obama hasnt unilaterally released them while claiming he's some sort of Ultra Liberal (doesnt make sense)

Where should he release them? Doesnt matter
How should he? Unilaterally
Why should he release them unilaterally when Repubs are crying about Obama acting Unilaterally? ....
Congress wont give funds to move prisoners how should Obama do it? Dont matter

Go back to question 1.

Its like they want things to happen that they dont support just because and how, when, why doesnt matter. They say it therefore it should happen *shrug*

I'll ask you the same question I asked KNB: What Republicans are you talking about? Are they in this thread? If not, why is any of this nonsense relevant?

Relevant? All they have is hyper partisanship. If you ask them to think they don't have anything to fall back on so you get more regurgitated Republican hate.

 

[FA_Q2]

Are you implying that Glenn Greenwald is a Republican, or that I am? Neither I nor Greenwald have any issue with the trade made by Obama, merely the hypocrisy in claiming that he can't act on Gitmo without Congressional approval and then going ahead and unilaterally making this move.

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.

Where THEY want is utterly irrelevant. The key is where they are accepted as it is generally frowned upon simply dumping prisoners off in nations that have not authorized you to do so.

Who is willing to take them?

 

[FA_Q2]

That's just partisan nonsense.

Why?
I think you are incorrect here. This might be exactly what he is doing – testing the waters to see what the reactions are of the public and congress when he unilaterally does as you suggest.

How is that a partisan opinion? That has nothing to do with whether or not anyone thinks that is the correct decision to make. This does give him the opportunity to gauge the response when others are released.

It wouldn't make sense for Obama to "lose" on the issue of Guantanamo if he was going to do it anyways. He would've just done it in the first place.

?

That does not make sense in the context of my statements.
I said that this might very well be a test phase to see what the response is. If the politics of this is to grate a price, he might not close it. If there was little to no response then he might have closed it unilaterally himself. That is not a partisan statement as you claimed it is - just a possibility for this move.