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

[Siete]

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.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1.


I've posted that more than a few times too.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1.


I've posted that more than a few times too.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artic...3B_Opinions_of_cabinet_secretaries.3B_Pardons

Ok, so where does that say that simply releasing prisoners is legally different from releasing them in a prisoner swap?

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Let me try one more time. The reason Gitmo remains open is that Congress is still blocking the implementation of the EO Obama signed to closed it. The power he asserted in the prisoner swap is different than the power he tried to assert in the EO closing the place. He simply cannot extend that same power to the entire prisoner camp.

 

[Siete]

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.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1.


I've posted that more than a few times too.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artic...3B_Opinions_of_cabinet_secretaries.3B_Pardons

Ok, so where does that say that simply releasing prisoners is legally different from releasing them in a prisoner swap?

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?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Let me try one more time. The reason Gitmo remains open is that Congress is still blocking the implementation of the EO Obama signed to closed it. The power he asserted in the prisoner swap is different than the power he tried to assert in the EO closing the place. He simply cannot extend that same power to the entire prisoner camp.

Why? Where is that written?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1.


I've posted that more than a few times too.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artic...3B_Opinions_of_cabinet_secretaries.3B_Pardons

Ok, so where does that say that simply releasing prisoners is legally different from releasing them in a prisoner swap?

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?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Let me try one more time. The reason Gitmo remains open is that Congress is still blocking the implementation of the EO Obama signed to closed it. The power he asserted in the prisoner swap is different than the power he tried to assert in the EO closing the place. He simply cannot extend that same power to the entire prisoner camp.

because you say so?

Kevin has REPEATEDLY asked for some actual law that backs up that claim. no one at all has bothered to provide it.

Obama OBVIOUSLY thinks he has the power to release prisoners as he already did so. Now, when it provides a tidy excuse for his actions, you suddenly say that he does not have that power.

Either you and the rest of the left are using partisan blinders to state that he has the power in one case and not the other or there is some sort of law backing such a stance up. If you cannot find that law that really only leaves one option....


Consistency, it IS important.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WASHINGTON — The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to cut from a war spending bill the $80 million requested by President Obama to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and to bar the transfer of detainees to the United States and its territories.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Isn't the Senate run by Democrats?

 

[FA_Q2]

WASHINGTON — The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to cut from a war spending bill the $80 million requested by President Obama to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and to bar the transfer of detainees to the United States and its territories.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Isn't the Senate run by Democrats?

The opposition to closing GITMO is completely bi-partisan. That is a fact that the left really does not want to discuss BUT that is utterly irrelevant to the point of the thread. Obama said he would close GIMO, proved that he can empty the place even if he cant 'close' it and yet is not doing so.

Why?

Political games.

 

[KNB]

So Republicans want Guantanamo closed?

 

[FA_Q2]

So Republicans want Guantanamo closed?

who said that?

care to point out anyone claiming that?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So Republicans want Guantanamo closed?

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


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Truthseeker420]

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?

Future bargaining chips?

 

[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?

Future bargaining chips?

Well that brings us back to him lying.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

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.

 

[Siete]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artic...3B_Opinions_of_cabinet_secretaries.3B_Pardons

Ok, so where does that say that simply releasing prisoners is legally different from releasing them in a prisoner swap?

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.

 

[protectionist]

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.

"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.

 

[protectionist]

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.

I can assure you that the Islamic lunatics who see no end to this war, don't think it has
"run its course". THEY determine when war will have run its course. When there are no more 9-11s, Boston Bombings, Fort Hood massacres, LAX shootings, Beltway Snipers, Underwear Bombers, Shoe Bombers, Times Square Bombers, or plans for the "American Hiroshima", or terrorists holding training camps to make bombs, of 100+ nuclear warheads in Pakistan fingertips away from al Qaeda lunatics, maybe THEN the war on terror will have run its course. And when may that be ? Perhaps 100s of years from now (Islamic jihad has been here for 1400 years).

The Muslim crazies are the only ones who can decide when we can wash our hands of anything mid east related. Incidentally, the war on terror is not an "idea". It is a way of preventing the ANNIHILATION OF AMERICA, which we are now well on our way to.

 

[protectionist]

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.

 

[protectionist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artic...3B_Opinions_of_cabinet_secretaries.3B_Pardons

Ok, so where does that say that simply releasing prisoners is legally different from releasing them in a prisoner swap?

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 ?