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

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

In other words, you just made up nonsense so that you have a reason to dismiss me rather than having to address my actual points.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

In other words, you just made up nonsense so that you have a reason to dismiss me rather than having to address my actual points.

No, its the same as when someone suspects someone else of being gay and they respond saying they wont ID themselves. 100% of the time they are what they are accused of being because someone who is not will deny. Thats human nature and basic human psychology.

And you're not fooling anyone.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

In other words, you just made up nonsense so that you have a reason to dismiss me rather than having to address my actual points.

No, its the same as when someone suspects someone else of being gay and they respond saying they wont ID themselves. 100% of the time they are what they are accused of being because someone who is not will deny. Thats human nature and basic human psychology.

And you're not fooling anyone.

Well it's a good thing we have Sigmund Fraud here to elucidate us on these matters.

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

What have the Taliban (or any group) offered in exchange for them? How many of the remaining prisoners have ever had any type of negotiations for swap?

 

[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?

What have the Taliban (or any group) offered in exchange for them? How many of the remaining prisoners have ever had any type of negotiations for swap?

When did justice become dependent on some third-party offering something in exchange? These people have been detained without trial for years, and there's no telling whether they actually were militants or not.

Furthermore, when did Obama campaign on closing Guantanamo based on what he could get from the Taliban in return?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Republicans have repeatedly blocked legislation to close Gitmo. Unless you believe the president has the executive power to unilaterally close Gitmo,

then that's his 'excuse'.

 

[ClosedCaption]

In other words, you just made up nonsense so that you have a reason to dismiss me rather than having to address my actual points.

No, its the same as when someone suspects someone else of being gay and they respond saying they wont ID themselves. 100% of the time they are what they are accused of being because someone who is not will deny. Thats human nature and basic human psychology.

And you're not fooling anyone.

Well it's a good thing we have Sigmund Fraud here to elucidate us on these matters.

Its best that you didnt attempt to deny my correctness.

Thanks

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Republicans have repeatedly blocked legislation to close Gitmo. Unless you believe the president has the executive power to unilaterally close Gitmo,

then that's his 'excuse'.

He just proved he can unilaterally release prisoners. So there's no excuse.

 

[Siete]

The Republicans have repeatedly blocked legislation to close Gitmo. Unless you believe the president has the executive power to unilaterally close Gitmo,

then that's his 'excuse'.

He just proved he can unilaterally release prisoners. So there's no excuse.

why do you keep bringing it up ? closing a prison camp is different than trading prisoners in case you haven't noticed .. when Afghanistan is over GITMO will be closed, good, bad or otherwise. Since you're ok with that, relax ... if you're not you've made your point, Obama campaigned he would close GITMO and hasn't yet ... news flash ... everyone already knew that

 

[BlindBoo]

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

What have the Taliban (or any group) offered in exchange for them? How many of the remaining prisoners have ever had any type of negotiations for swap?

When did justice become dependent on some third-party offering something in exchange? These people have been detained without trial for years, and there's no telling whether they actually were militants or not.

Furthermore, when did Obama campaign on closing Guantanamo based on what he could get from the Taliban in return?

Now you're asking about justice? Isn't that moving the goal posts a bit? Releasing those prisoners wasn't about justice, it was about a prisoner swap and getting one of our own back.

Don't get me wrong I want them all brought to justice, I think we have a responsibility and the capability to bring them here and do that. President Obama's first order of business was to sign an EO to do just that. Congress blocked him with a veto proof majority. I suppose the President could negotiate some kind of swap for the rest of them but no one has any cards on the table for that.

In 2008 there was bipartisan support in Congress for closing Gitmo. Somehow that all changed early in 2009 for some reason.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Republicans have repeatedly blocked legislation to close Gitmo. Unless you believe the president has the executive power to unilaterally close Gitmo,

then that's his 'excuse'.

He just proved he can unilaterally release prisoners. So there's no excuse.

So you're rejecting the USMB conservative consensus that he acted illegally?

So you're rejecting Lindsey Graham's recent implication that such would be an impeachable offense?

So you're ignoring the fact that none of the five released had ever been charged with any crime?

 

[BlindBoo]

The Republicans have repeatedly blocked legislation to close Gitmo. Unless you believe the president has the executive power to unilaterally close Gitmo,

then that's his 'excuse'.

Democrats too.........the first vote in the Senate was like 90-6 or something like that.

He did have the power to close it with an EO. Congress has specifically legislated against that EO from being carried out.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Republicans have repeatedly blocked legislation to close Gitmo. Unless you believe the president has the executive power to unilaterally close Gitmo,

then that's his 'excuse'.

He just proved he can unilaterally release prisoners. So there's no excuse.

why do you keep bringing it up ? closing a prison camp is different than trading prisoners in case you haven't noticed .. when Afghanistan is over GITMO will be closed, good, bad or otherwise. Since you're ok with that, relax ... if you're not you've made your point, Obama campaigned he would close GITMO and hasn't yet ... news flash ... everyone already knew that

I keep bringing it up because nobody has actually bothered to try and prove that trading prisoners is legally different from simply releasing them. Plenty of you have made that point, but not one of you has backed it up by citing any law. It's almost as if you've simply made it up.

 

[Bush92]

No excuse needed. Put em in the main yard and let Marines in guard towers open up them with M-60's. Problem solved.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What have the Taliban (or any group) offered in exchange for them? How many of the remaining prisoners have ever had any type of negotiations for swap?

When did justice become dependent on some third-party offering something in exchange? These people have been detained without trial for years, and there's no telling whether they actually were militants or not.

Furthermore, when did Obama campaign on closing Guantanamo based on what he could get from the Taliban in return?

Now you're asking about justice? Isn't that moving the goal posts a bit? Releasing those prisoners wasn't about justice, it was about a prisoner swap and getting one of our own back.

Don't get me wrong I want them all brought to justice, I think we have a responsibility and the capability to bring them here and do that. President Obama's first order of business was to sign an EO to do just that. Congress blocked him with a veto proof majority. I suppose the President could negotiate some kind of swap for the rest of them but no one has any cards on the table for that.

In 2008 there was bipartisan support in Congress for closing Gitmo. Somehow that all changed early in 2009 for some reason.

No, that's not moving the goalposts, because that was the basis for Obama's wanting to close Gitmo in the first place. It was an assault against human decency and American justice to indefinitely detain people we can't even be sure are guilty of any crime.

Again, if he can unilaterally release these five prisoners on the basis of a prisoner exchange then there is no legal justification that he can't unilaterally release all of the prisoners period.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Republicans have repeatedly blocked legislation to close Gitmo. Unless you believe the president has the executive power to unilaterally close Gitmo,

then that's his 'excuse'.

He just proved he can unilaterally release prisoners. So there's no excuse.

So you're rejecting the USMB conservative consensus that he acted illegally?

So you're rejecting Lindsey Graham's recent implication that such would be an impeachable offense?

So you're ignoring the fact that none of the five released had ever been charged with any crime?

Your first two questions are completely irrelevant to anything. I'm not responsible for what conservatives on this board or Lindsey Graham say, even if I was a conservative myself. As for not having been charged with a crime, how many people still in Gitmo haven't been charged with a crime? Time for Obama to release them as well.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No excuse needed. Put em in the main yard and let Marines in guard towers open up them with M-60's. Problem solved.

Great. Let's murder people that haven't been charged with any crimes. Good thinking.

 

[BlindBoo]

When did justice become dependent on some third-party offering something in exchange? These people have been detained without trial for years, and there's no telling whether they actually were militants or not.

Furthermore, when did Obama campaign on closing Guantanamo based on what he could get from the Taliban in return?

Now you're asking about justice? Isn't that moving the goal posts a bit? Releasing those prisoners wasn't about justice, it was about a prisoner swap and getting one of our own back.

Don't get me wrong I want them all brought to justice, I think we have a responsibility and the capability to bring them here and do that. President Obama's first order of business was to sign an EO to do just that. Congress blocked him with a veto proof majority. I suppose the President could negotiate some kind of swap for the rest of them but no one has any cards on the table for that.

In 2008 there was bipartisan support in Congress for closing Gitmo. Somehow that all changed early in 2009 for some reason.

No, that's not moving the goalposts, because that was the basis for Obama's wanting to close Gitmo in the first place. It was an assault against human decency and American justice to indefinitely detain people we can't even be sure are guilty of any crime.

Again, if he can unilaterally release these five prisoners on the basis of a prisoner exchange then there is no legal justification that he can't unilaterally release all of the prisoners period.

It is moving them. Your OP had nothing about justice for these people. It was all about an assumption that the President can override — i.e., ignore — Congressional restrictions on his power to release all Guantanamo detainees. The President doesn't believe he can. Only in a specific circumstance does feel he can ignore that 30 day notification clause.

Wait, if he released some of them on the basis of something (in this case an Executive Power in the Constitution) he should then be able to release the rest based on nothing? That makes no sense.

If Congress removed those restrictions I believe the President would move to close the place down.

 

[BlindBoo]

No excuse needed. Put em in the main yard and let Marines in guard towers open up them with M-60's. Problem solved.

"Sieg heil!

Sieg heil!

Sieg heil!"

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Now you're asking about justice? Isn't that moving the goal posts a bit? Releasing those prisoners wasn't about justice, it was about a prisoner swap and getting one of our own back.

Don't get me wrong I want them all brought to justice, I think we have a responsibility and the capability to bring them here and do that. President Obama's first order of business was to sign an EO to do just that. Congress blocked him with a veto proof majority. I suppose the President could negotiate some kind of swap for the rest of them but no one has any cards on the table for that.

In 2008 there was bipartisan support in Congress for closing Gitmo. Somehow that all changed early in 2009 for some reason.

No, that's not moving the goalposts, because that was the basis for Obama's wanting to close Gitmo in the first place. It was an assault against human decency and American justice to indefinitely detain people we can't even be sure are guilty of any crime.

Again, if he can unilaterally release these five prisoners on the basis of a prisoner exchange then there is no legal justification that he can't unilaterally release all of the prisoners period.

It is moving them. Your OP had nothing about justice for these people. It was all about an assumption that the President can override — i.e., ignore — Congressional restrictions on his power to release all Guantanamo detainees. The President doesn't believe he can. Only in a specific circumstance does feel he can ignore that 30 day notification clause.

Wait, if he released some of them on the basis of something (in this case an Executive Power in the Constitution) he should then be able to release the rest based on nothing? That makes no sense.

If Congress removed those restrictions I believe the President would move to close the place down.

My basis for wanting Guantanamo Bay Prison closed is getting justice for these people. It's not moving the goalposts because it's not particularly relevant. Obama campaigned on closing Guantanamo, and just proved that he can unilaterally release prisoners without Congress. So why not do it? The simple answer is that it would be bad politics for him to do so, so he won't. Where justice comes in is that Obama is putting politics ahead of justice, which is pathetic.

You say he believes he can only release them in certain circumstances, but what is that based on? There's no law creating such a distinction so where does that come from? Either he broke the law, as Republicans contend, or he's been lying about not being able to release Guantanamo prisoners without Congress. Those are the only two options unless you can cite a law creating the distinction you say exists.