But Obama is consistent I will give him that. He wanted terrorists to be held here in the US from Gitmo. He was also aware that terrorists could be part of the many Syrian refugees that he wanted to bring in. And he is certainly aware that terrorists could have crossed over the very open border from Mexico.
No question he is very consistent!
And the problem with that plan isâŠwhat precisely? My impression is the Gitmo prisoners are humans, not X-Men. Is it the case that they simply cannot be contained by any prison in the US?
Also, from the link you offered in support of your assertion that Obama has not really tried to close Gitmo:
"The reason the President has not yet proposed a plan for closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, and the reason he said so little about it in his self-consciously upbeat address, is that he lacks a plausible path to doing so.
Closing Guantanamo would require the President to find a home for the approximately 100 detainees still there. Even if the President can transfer the less dangerous detainees to other countries under somewhat lenient congressional rules, he faces an absolute ban on bringing the other fifty or so more dangerous ones to the United States. Congress could in theory lift the ban and appropriate the money needed to retrofit a high-security prison in the United States. The chances of this happening before the President leaves office are zero, no matter what the President proposes.
The Presidentâs other option is to defy the transfer ban, as his former attorneys advised. But their argument is weak. âThereâs very little to be said forâ the argument, according to Marty Lederman, Obamaâs former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, the Office that will advise the President on the legality of any such move. Lederman notes that a constitutional override argument âwould present the same dangers, and threaten to establish the same troubling precedents, as when President Bush claimed the constitutional authority to disregard lawsâ related to national security â an authority, of course, that President Obama once vehemently disclaimed." [emphasis mine]
In other words, the link you provided seems to support my argumentâthat Congress has proven to be the insurmountable obstacle in closing Gitmo.
Sure their human. But why move them? What is the reason?
Well, thatâs not exactly true. What I got from the article is that even though Obama could use executive power to do this he has not done so. And as we both know he is no stranger to using executive power as many Presidents in the past have as well.
Did he really want to close it?
Frankly, Iâm glad he didnât close it.
HeyâŠyou just helped me find a second thing that Obama did right in 8 years. He killed Osama Bin Laden and he kept Gitmo open.
Thanks man.
No.
But donât get on your hypocritical High-Horse and say that you are going to âDrain the Swampâ of people likeâŠGoldman Sachs Executives.
With that saidâŠwe can hope that these Executives have found Jesus and will do the right thing for everyday working people, and not just Wall Street and their cronies.
Weâll see.
I understand your point. But, he did say that he was going to pull the best people from the private sector.
And I donât think Trump will ever climb down from his high horse so donât get your hopes up.
From the article:
âThe Presidentâs other option is to defy the transfer ban, as his former attorneys advised. But their argument is weak. âThereâs very little to be said forâ the argument, according to Marty Lederman, Obamaâs former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, the Office that will advise the President on the legality of any such move.â
In other words, it doesnât appear he has the legal authority to do so.
Because itâs the right thing to do, on multiple fronts.
Gitmo is a symbol of overreach by the US government, and as such serves as a potent recruiting tool for organization like AQ and ISIS. Further, the way we are treating the individuals held there runs counter to both basic human rights and American values. The practice of indefinite imprisonment of individuals who have not been convicted of a crime makes a mockery of any claims we have to the moral high ground regarding human rights violations in other countries.
YeahâŠit might be weak but letâs face it he has used the executive pen to defy all sorts of things.
Nonsense. These are not âCriminalsâ. Now you sound like Obama himself. Not wanting to admit that we are at war with Muslim terrorists. These are prisoners of warâŠnot mere criminals.
Besides Obama should be used to being reversed by the Supreme Court. It seems in the past when he wanted to do something he did it and worried about the consequences later.
Obama reversed 13 times by the Supreme Court? YIKES?
I guess maybe Obama thinks less of these stalwarts who are held at Gitmo than you do.
So, âanything this side of what ISIS doesâ is your benchmark regarding what is acceptable behavior vis a vis human rights?
They are either criminals, or POWs. If you want to declare them prisoners of war, go for it, and treat them as such. But donât leave them in this habeus-corpus-free zone of âenemy combatant.â
And I guess this was meant to be some sort of gratuitous cheap shot.
You said that not me
.[quote]
They are either criminals, or POWs. If you want to declare them prisoners of war, go for it, and treat them as such. But donât leave them in this habeus-corpus-free zone of 'enemy combatant.
[/quote]
You said they were criminals not me. They are POWâs and there is not one thing wrong with leaving them at Gitmo. You have an as yet unexplained distaste for this place. And I think it is a perfect place for people who chop peoples heads off and drown them in cages. We could put them at the Hilton but I think this is better donât you?
Not as much as an accurate statement. Obama has been reversed 13 times by the Supreme Court. Why hasnât he used his executive power to free these radical Islamic terrorists as he has freed others? You and I do not know the answer to that question do we my friend? Hence the comment that he might just think less of themâŠand he should. Good for him!
In 2002, both Houses of congress were elected to have Republican majorities. The previous Congress had a very close Senate that switched control several times due to defections, etc.
Checking back as far as President Taft in 1910 there has only been a total of two times that a sitting President has actually picked up seats in both the House and Senate.
Franklin Roosevelt did it in 1934 +9 +9
George W. Bush did it in 2002 +8 +2
So as I said above it is a bold prediction that Trump might do it in two years. Itâs quite rare isnât it?
They most assuredly are NOT POWs. May I respectfully suggest you educate yourself on this score.
I addressed that in detail above.
He has denied saying things he said hours later, never mind months.
1: Trump will tell China that if they donât get North Korea in line he will recognize Taiwan.
2: Trump and Paul Ryan will argue about whether to use the carrot or the stick on corporations to keep jobs in America.
3: Trump and Democrats will work together over the infrastructure spending bill.
4: Trump is going to go into shock because never in his life have so many people paid so close attention to everything he says and does. He will never have had so many people telling him ânoâ that he canât just fire and be rid of them.
Ha ha then what are they?
Ha ha?
They are classified as âenemy combatants.â
Itâs funny because the Obama administration has a serious problem with using the proper words to identify our enemies. In fact, to this day I have never heard Obama say we are at war with âIslamic Terroristsâ yet we are. Essentially what we have at Gitmo are POWâs. And they do have rights but to my knowledge one of their rights is not to be transferred to a jail in the US.
PS Whatever they are they do not have a right to be transferred to a prison in the US.
They can stay right where Obama is leaving them.
Everyone is happy