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

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So republicans ***** about releasing 5 detainees and ***** about not releasing more through closing Gitmo


Better?

I don't think we were at 7 yet.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's funny how criticizing Obama automatically makes you a Republican or a "spinoff," whatever that is. I suppose Glenn Greenwald must also be a Republican for daring to suggest that Obama lied?

LOL I knew I was right

You got me, partner.

Oh, wait, no, you didn't. Fortunately I don't need to prove that I'm not a Republican, but if you want to go ahead and prove that I am feel free to try.

The hyper partisan can only see things in black and white, us and them, republican or democrat. Don't blame him for his mental disorder....

 

[FA_Q2]

Congress won't let BHO close Gitmo.

End of story. Fail OP. Let's move on.

Then how did he just release 5 prisoners without Congress even knowing, let alone approving? Or are you saying that Obama purposefully broke the law?

A prisoner exchange is not a closure of a prison.

No, Kevin, this has been explained to you and so you don't get "just once more."

I highly doubt that Kevin or any of the close gitmo crowd would be to upset if gitmo stayed open without a single prisoner in it.

Exchanging or releasing all the prisoners gitmo as the president has declared he is able to do with this last move would certainly 'close' the prison weather or not congress agrees.

You were stating that he has the full power and ability to do so in another thread and now.... Not surprised though.

 

[Sallow]

1 deserter for "5 government officials"? That's what you and your ilk are calling terrorists these days, government officials?

You truly are a blooming idiot, Blanch.

When were they charged with Terrorism?

Got a link?

Thanks in advance.

When were they "government officials"?

Stay tuned

Government officials are terrorists, now? Well, maybe. Remember Gaddafi? Remember the tears you shed when he died?

And no link.

 

[Sallow]

Congress won't let BHO close Gitmo.

End of story. Fail OP. Let's move on.

Then how did he just release 5 prisoners without Congress even knowing, let alone approving? Or are you saying that Obama purposefully broke the law?

It's called a prisoner swap.

As commander in chief?

Obama has jurisdiction over that.

NOT congress.

 

[Interpol]

The 5 Taliban guys who have been returned is great news. We need to get the other 144 detainees out as well.

Remember what happened to a good deal of the 500+ that the Bush administration released over their two terms? Obama killed quite a few of them with his drones.

This is great news because now they can be killed on the battlefield instead of American taxpayer money being wasted every single day of we detain them or to put them through our judicial system with the little evidence the Bush administration actually had on them.

The Taliban are more interested in getting Afghanistan back under their thumb than they are of killing Americans. But now that we're allies with the current Afghanistan gov't, we'll help kill these guys and it has the side benefit of us being able to close Gitmo.

This is good news, no matter how the right tries to spin it. Remember, if Obama had let the guy stay over there, the right would be crying about how Obama "lets our soldiers die!".

Doesn't matter what they say anymore. They're the Chicken Little party who will say and do the opposite of whatever a Democratic President does. Just look at McCain and all the other douchebags who've reversed their support for a trade they were for just weeks ago.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

If he was going to test the waters he simply would have done it back before he "lost" on the issue to Congress was my point.

I don't think I understand what you mean by 'lost' to congress?

If you are talking about when he signed the NDAA and created this new requirement then that makes some sense. I would agree that he really never had any intention of closing GITMO, he has had plenty of time to do so. That does not mean that he might be ready to do so now (or at least was getting ready to before the media shitstorm)


He is a politician first and foremost. The only time he is going to close GITMO is when he thinks there is something to be gained from doing so.

 

[Siete]

Congress won't let BHO close Gitmo.

End of story. Fail OP. Let's move on.

Then how did he just release 5 prisoners without Congress even knowing, let alone approving? Or are you saying that Obama purposefully broke the law?

It's called a prisoner swap.

As commander in chief?

Obama has jurisdiction over that.

NOT congress.

something about being the CIC escapes some people.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Congress won't let BHO close Gitmo.

End of story. Fail OP. Let's move on.

Then how did he just release 5 prisoners without Congress even knowing, let alone approving? Or are you saying that Obama purposefully broke the law?

It's called a prisoner swap.

As commander in chief?

Obama has jurisdiction over that.

NOT congress.

Cite the law which creates a distinction for releasing prisoners between prisoner swaps and any other reason.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

?

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.

If he was going to test the waters he simply would have done it back before he "lost" on the issue to Congress was my point.

I don't think I understand what you mean by 'lost' to congress?

If you are talking about when he signed the NDAA and created this new requirement then that makes some sense. I would agree that he really never had any intention of closing GITMO, he has had plenty of time to do so. That does not mean that he might be ready to do so now (or at least was getting ready to before the media shitstorm)


He is a politician first and foremost. The only time he is going to close GITMO is when he thinks there is something to be gained from doing so.

When I say he "lost" to Congress, I'm referring to the fact that so many Obama loyalists are spouting about how Congress stopped him. If Congress stopped him then he "lost" on that issue, but the fact is that he allowed himself to lose because he obviously believes he has the power to release these prisoners unilaterally. He just wanted to be able to blame Congress for stopping him while simultaneously not having to release any prisoners.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Then how did he just release 5 prisoners without Congress even knowing, let alone approving? Or are you saying that Obama purposefully broke the law?

It's called a prisoner swap.

As commander in chief?

Obama has jurisdiction over that.

NOT congress.

something about being the CIC escapes some people.

What people? How about he use those Commander-in-Chief powers and release the rest of the prisoners like he promised?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then how did he just release 5 prisoners without Congress even knowing, let alone approving? Or are you saying that Obama purposefully broke the law?

It's called a prisoner swap.

As commander in chief?

Obama has jurisdiction over that.

NOT congress.

Cite the law which creates a distinction for releasing prisoners between prisoner swaps and any other reason.

The question has no standing to the facts. Let's move on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gitmo will close when Congress authorizes it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's called a prisoner swap.

As commander in chief?

Obama has jurisdiction over that.

NOT congress.

Cite the law which creates a distinction for releasing prisoners between prisoner swaps and any other reason.

The question has no standing to the facts. Let's move on.

What? If there's no law creating such a distinction I'm forced to conclude that somebody just made it up.

 

[Siete]

It's called a prisoner swap.

As commander in chief?

Obama has jurisdiction over that.

NOT congress.

something about being the CIC escapes some people.

What people? How about he use those Commander-in-Chief powers and release the rest of the prisoners like he promised?

you want the POTUS to release all the prisoners in GITMO, yet you rail because he released 5 ?

lets move on +100

 

[FA_Q2]

something about being the CIC escapes some people.

What people? How about he use those Commander-in-Chief powers and release the rest of the prisoners like he promised?

you want the POTUS to release all the prisoners in GITMO, yet you rail because he released 5 ?

lets move on +100

Please cite where he 'railed' about releasing 5.


You know, the board here has an alarming propensity to assign arguments to people that they never made at all. Partisanship at its finest.

 

[Siete]

What people? How about he use those Commander-in-Chief powers and release the rest of the prisoners like he promised?

you want the POTUS to release all the prisoners in GITMO, yet you rail because he released 5 ?

lets move on +100

Please cite where he 'railed' about releasing 5.


You know, the board here has an alarming propensity to assign arguments to people that they never made at all. Partisanship at its finest.

no,


he's been on the board off and on all day. I have no intention reading through his posts.

lets just ask him.


yo Kevin do you approve of Obama releasing the detainees from GITMO ?

my bad, you've already said you have no problem with the prisoner trade.

keeping up with the rants against the trade is difficult at best ... apologies.

 

[ClosedCaption]

It's funny how criticizing Obama automatically makes you a Republican or a "spinoff," whatever that is. I suppose Glenn Greenwald must also be a Republican for daring to suggest that Obama lied?

LOL I knew I was right

You got me, partner.

Oh, wait, no, you didn't. Fortunately I don't need to prove that I'm not a Republican, but if you want to go ahead and prove that I am feel free to try.

Sorry bud I didnt ask you for proof buddy. I asked you to self identify. See the difference?

But you wont, and thats how I know I'm correct

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

something about being the CIC escapes some people.

What people? How about he use those Commander-in-Chief powers and release the rest of the prisoners like he promised?

you want the POTUS to release all the prisoners in GITMO, yet you rail because he released 5 ?

lets move on +100

You want to go ahead and provide a link to me "railing" or complaining at all because he released these five prisoners?