Obama Says He Should Have Closed Guantanamo On His First Day

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

The Associated Press
03/18/2015 8:03 PM

CLEVELAND--President Barack Obama says if he could start his presidency over, he would have closed the Guantanamo Bay prison his first day.

Instead, the president ordered the detention center for terrorism suspects closed within a year. He says the politics around closure grew increasingly tough and "people got scared by the rhetoric."

He said Wednesday that "the path of least resistance was just to leave it open." He's been able to cut the population down to 122 detainees, but Congress has blocked closure.

Lawmakers have banned the Obama administration from bringing detainees to the United States for imprisonment or trial.


Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article15310265.html

[OnyxCollie]

1. Oh, well.

It got him some votes, and that's all that matters.

[Monk06]

2. The US will close Guantanamo Bay when Ted Cruz is the president..........of Cuba.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

3. He must have ODS.

Magic wand! Dictator! Civics, you dummies!

Oh, I would so love to trip down DU's memory lane from early in his Admin re: this very subject, but bed beckons...

[pa28]

5. Yes, I seem to recall DU legal experts assuring us closing Gitomo would be impossible.

Because many important and complex reasons.

[jeff47]

49. Fucking directionality of time.

Without that, he could have gone back and closed Gitmo before the law banning closure passed.

[JonLP24]

4. What about Bagram?

[former9thward]

82. How can our main Air Force base in Afghanistan be closed

when we are planning to leave more troops there on an indefinite basis?

[JonLP24]

115. I'm talking about the prison

I don't care if they want to use it for an Air Force base but a lot of what you can say is bad about Guantanamo Bay, you can say about Bagram. Maybe its not on Cuba territory or if there is a dispute with the US using a military base/prison in Cuba but indefinite detention, torture, & there was a black site if I'm not mistaken.

I haven't looked at it much in the last 2 years though I see the US officially moved the prison into the Afghanistan's governments hands, I'm just quickly skimming but it appears the US is still holding people, how much control does Afghanistan have meaning US puppets or what is going on between the scenes.

Overall, I oppose holding people indefinitely without charges or trial, we can't try a lot of them because of how far Bush & co took them outside the realm the law that you can't bring them back in. However, there's some people that need to be released yesterday.

[awoke_in_2003]

6. Uh, yeah. nt

[NobodyHere]

7. I don't get it

Weren't the same obstacles still present on day one as they were the rest of the first year?

[Unvanguard]

14. I don't think so. There was political backlash and it was reflected legislatively. n/t

[jeff47]

48. No. The law blocking closing Gitmo passed later.

If Obama had acted before that law passed, he could have closed it.

[NobodyHere]

81. Interesting

I always thought it was a funding thing that congress wouldn't pass.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

83. The aforementioned legal experts (see post #5)...

offered that up as a reason. Civics, you dummies! Chill the fuck out, he's got this! Ah, good times.

I forget what prompted Rahm's "the left's ideas are fucking retarded." Was this it?

[jeff47]

106. Fucking time only running in one direction.

Clearly Obama should just wind back the clock and change what happened in the past.

[jeff47]

105. No, it's a funding thing that Congress explicitly blocked.

Congress passed a law forbidding the US from spending any money to close Gitmo. So unless Obama is prepared to abandon the prisoners in place so that they can starve to death, Obama can't close it.

That passed months into his first term. Before that bill passed, he could have closed Gitmo without Congressional approval.

[HoosierCowboy]

8. Just named the #1 Problem with Your Administration and the Dems in General

Consensus Drift. A direct order to the Chiefs of Staff to close GITMO could have been completed in a week. Haul all the GITMO people to the ICC and let them sort it out. You forgot that the ultimate consensus was your election in the first place, and you did not need to go around and ask permission.
Quit trying to "reach out" .

Ditto with immigration

...and Mr. President, if you really want to know why your approval ratings are low its because half of it comes from the Republicans, and the other half comes from democrats that think you are milquetoast.

[Scuba]

40. + Eighty Gazillion

[sendero]

46. Exactly..

... Obama has figured out after 5-6 years what many of us realized 3 months into his term - that the Repukes are not going to play ball EVEN when it's their own game.

Milquetoast indeed. A "people-pleaser" type of personality is never going to make a great leader.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

84. Yep. I'm in NC and in awe of the NC GOP...

and what it has done since it seized power. Those fuckers DO NOT mess around. If only Obama and the Dems acted the same way... but for good, not evil.

[Cha]

9. Regardless of the cheap shots that pop up from the usual.. I'm so glad the Pres has been working

close Gitmo.

Nerdy Wonka @NerdyWonka
Follow
President Obama says even though the bipartisan sentiment for closing Gitmo was defeated by ginned up fear, he's still kept chipping away.
10:08 AM - 18 Mar 2015 22 Retweets 6 favorites

http://theobamadiary.com/2015/03/18/president-speaks-on-the-importance-of-middle-class-economics/

[flamingdem]

24. Exactly Cha, he's working towards closure

and he is understandably frustrated!

What's that other popular post tonight? "Never trust a Republican". It's on them!

[Cha]

27. Oh good, it's

you, flamingdem!

[candelista]

52. Yes, he's been fixing to get ready to get started to prepare for closing Gitmo for a long time.

[Cha]

65. your post shows you know nothing about it.

[candelista]

67. Thank you.

I know I'm on the right track when you insult me.

[steve2470]

64. +1 nt

[Epoe]

10. It's more than a prison

It's more than a prison its also a military base with all branches of the military at it.

Why would we close a very strategic military base?

[arcane1]

13. Because we have hundreds of others.

[Hekate]

15. No one besides Castro has ever suggested we close the base. "Guantanamo" is shorthand for the prison

... that was established by Bush/Cheney as a torture site for prisoners of war in the war they started.

The prison is what needs to be closed. Unfortunately for Republicans, they seem to think it would be an admission of wrongdoing on their part -- either that or they are pants-wettingly afraid of the Bogyman.

[merrily]

29. Republicans? Ha! The Senate vote was 90-6 and Dems were in the majority.

Tell the truth and shame the devil, as they say.

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.

The vote, which complicates Mr. Obama’s efforts to shutter the prison by his deadline of Jan. 22, 2010, was 90 to 6


.....

The abrupt decision by Senate Democratic leaders to strip out the money for closing the Guantánamo detention center amounted to a strong rebuke of the Obama White House, which lawmakers in both parties have criticized for not providing a more detailed plan for what will be done with the 240 detainees currently held in the prison.

Senate Democrats had initially hoped to preserve the financing for closing the prison. House Democrats, however, had already stripped the money from their version of the military spending bill, saying they could not authorize funds without first reviewing Mr. Obama’s plans for the prisoners.

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

[Daniel537]

43. Actually plenty of people have suggested the base should be closed.

Former diplomats, retired military, anyone who is opposed to imperialism in general etc.... A quick Google search will find you plenty of articles. Its the only base in the world that we impose against the will of the host government. It was obtained through old-fashioned gunboat tenancy, and should rightfully be returned to the Cubans.

[cstanleytech]

18. Are you really that naive? Most of us dont care if the base itself remains we just dont want it

to be used as an eternal prison/torture facility.

[Scootaloo]

28. Ah yes. Beware the Basselope Gap!

[F4lconF16]

80. OH NO WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE

NOT A BASSELOPE GAP!

[samsingh]

11. he specifically called us out when liberals asked him why that commitment was not kept.

[Hekate]

12. I think I see another Executive Order coming down the pike....

Screw the GOP. They do not operate in good faith.

[jeff47]

50. Can't.

The only way he can close Gitmo by executive order is to abandon the prisoners there. Congress explicitly blocked funding for doing anything else, and anything else is going to cost money.

This differs from the EO on immigration, for example, because the law says the Executive branch can prosecute and deport. "Can" is not "must".

[blkmusclmachine]

16. Coulda, shoulda, woulda, DIDN'T!

Lying liars lie

[boomer55]

77. Pretty much sums up my view of him. :(

[wundermaus]

17. The road to hell is paved with good intentions

He sure was good at marketing himself, though...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/jun/29/barack-obama-cannes-lions

[jalan48]

19. Considering the fact that he'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize-yes it would have been a good idea

[Doctor_J]

20. path of least resistance Obama

A new nickname. What a wasted opportunity

[SoapBox]

21. Well, no shit Prez. O!

Sheesh...we could have told you.

Oh, we did but you didn't do it.

[Thor_MN]

22. Would have been easier to wait until after the war crimes trials of W and the Dick....

but those should have started at the inauguration.

[Kelvin Mace]

23. Yeah, that would have been the moral

And ethical thing to do.

[phleshdef]

25. Obama's biggest mistake was coming into office thinking he could reason with these people.

And it wasn't just Republicans. We had Joe Lieberman's ass to worry about and a handful of blue dog Dem Senators that could, would and did serve as roadblocks to getting any major progress through the Senate, even with 59 seats (remember, we only had 60 seats for a few months because of the Al Franken recount thing). We could count on Arlen Specter for some votes and he eventually switched to the Democratic party, but that didn't last long.

Then again, I would love to have all those same people, Lieberman and all... still in office today as compared to what we have. If we could've held onto what we had prior to the 2010 election, I have a strong feeling that a LOT would have been accomplished. You can negotiate with a blue dog Democrat or a Joe Lieberman. You can't negotiate with a Republican, at least not anymore.

[merrily]

30. That entire riff is so played out.

How about this: everyone knew Kennedy was dying. And, whenever it looked as though his vote was needed, he hauled himself into the Senate, even if he had to fly down from Hyannis. They could not have lined up several votes for the days he showed up?

And while Martha Coakley was a lousy candidate, she was the only one of four Democrats who got a boost during the primary (from Bubba) and then they left her without a shred of help in the general. No money, no advisors, no nuttin. Her very first run at national office, a very important election, and she got zero help.She ran out of money after the primary and spent the first few weeks of the general campaign trying to raise money.

Meanwhile, the Koch brothers were backing Scott Brown, Romney gave Brown his campaign people and every Republican who had run for President--Romney-Guiliani, McCain, et al came here to campaign for him.

Obama did not even come to campaign for Coakley until the Sunday night before the Tuesday election--and he made that decision at the last minute. Until then, he just kept saying he had no plans to come here to campaign for her. The only national Democrat who campaigned for Coakley was Vicki Kennedy, who had been mad at Coakley for opening a headquarters before Ted died. But, when Vicki saw her husband's seat going down the tubes, she got herself here. It was too little, too late though. And that was the only national election going on in the entire country at that time, so there was zero excuse.

Funny, how Democrats always need something like 75 Senators to get anything done, but, funny, it doesn't work the same way for Republicans. Since the Democrats are never going to have enough liberal Senators to stop the lame excuse making, all you do is make a very good argument for the futility of worrying about electing Democrats.

As far as Lieberman, they took one chair away from because he campaigned for McCain and therefore against Obama. They took nothing away from him for ALLEGEDLY taking the public option from all Americans.

Much more llikely: That was bargained away by the White House, just like drug reimportation was, while they were meeting with big PHRMA, big medical care and the health insurers, well before the Finance Committee ever got its claws on the bill, let alone Lieberman.

Please stop repeating those weak sauce talking points that just won't wash with anyone serious and look at the facts.

[merrily]

33. Thank you.

[phleshdef]

34. Wow, I don't even know how to respond to that.

Its like, the point I was making was worlds away from whatever conversation you are trying to have with that excessive bit of pontification that you just posted.

[merrily]

36. No pontificating on my part. You were trying to make the usual lame excuses. They don't wash.

And I directly addressed the points you raised about blue dogs, Lieberman, not having sixty Senators for a long period, etc. with facts. Stating facts is not pontificating. No clue why you cannot see the direct connection between what you posted and my response.

How Obama actually came into office: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html

[crim son]

56. +1000 n/t

[phleshdef]

79. You addressed nothing. Facts are not excuses.

[joshcryer]

38. Teddy's last vote was March 26, 2009.

ACA passed December 23, 2009.

[merrily]

86. So?

[joshcryer]

88. I guess they could've "rolled him out..."

...in a coffin?

[merrily]

89. Why? They did not need his vote to pass ACA, as you yourself showed in your Reply 38.

In its final form, including changes penned by hand by Obama himself, ACA passed by reconciliation.

You also have not explained what in my post the date of his death contradicts or even bears upon.

BTW, his date of death was August 2009, not March 2009. As (I think) my prior post stated, he did show up when it looked as though his vote might make a difference. But again, his date of death has nothing to do with my post. The fact that everyone knew it was coming from well before Obama was elected was, however, relevant to my post.

[joshcryer]

90. Reconciliation didn't pass until March 23, 2010.

You were throwing out this idea of having Ted rolled down there when he was out of commission the whole damn while. The legislation wasn't even penned when Ted last voted (and was too sick to be "rolled down there&quot .

I suppose they could've put him on life support and kept his rotting corpse alive for a few more months and then used an electrode to cause his finger to hit vote on the vote button?

Al Franken being seated didn't even matter to that, because Ted was simply too sick.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/

Read that page again and again and again, it seems you are completely deluded on this, to the point it's not even worth discussing this with you. I was merely pointing out timelines.

[merrily]

91. Yes, passed in2010 and by reconciliation. Again, what part of my post do you claim

that contradicts? Or the date of Kennedy's last vote contradicts?

You were throwing out this idea of having Ted rolled down there when he was out of commission the whole damn while.

No, my reply 30 said no such thing. Read it again.

And put your personal insults away. They're boring and ineffectual, as usual.

[joshcryer]

92. "he hauled himself into the Senate"

How about this: everyone knew Kennedy was dying. And, whenever it looked as though his vote was needed, he hauled himself into the Senate, even if he had to fly down from Hyannis. They could not have lined up several votes for the days he showed up?

Christ. No, they could not have "lined up several votes for the days he showed up" because they didn't have the majority until after he was too sick to show up!

Fuck. Look at the timeline.

Personal insults? You're the one saying that Kennedy "hauled himself into the Senate," and asking why "could not have lined up several votes for the days he showed up."

The timeline shows that he was incapacitated or a corpse in that time period.

[merrily]

93. Saying Kennedy hauled himself into the Senate is a personal insult now? wtf?

It's neither a personal insult nor an excuse for one. He did haul himself into the Senate whenever it appeared his vote might be needed. And he did near the end of August, 2009. But, very obviously, his vote was not needed to pass the final version of ACA

[joshcryer]

94. Yes, expecting an incapacitated man...

...or a corpse to have "votes lined up for them" is an insult. It's highly disrespectful.

There was no "failure" to get Ted Kennedy's dying vote. Ted Kennedy wasn't hauled down there out of respect for his personal life. The idea that you think they could "line up" the votes for him just shows how out of touch this reasoning is.

[merrily]

95. UNTRUE, but, even if it were, you are not Ted Kennedy. So, how does it personally insult YOU if I

make an accurate statement about what the man did--to his great credit.

BTW, I never "expected" anything of Senator Kennedy after he got sick. I never called him back to Washington for those votes, either. All I did was observe accurately that he did get there when his vote was really needed and that his impending death was no surprise to anyone. Both of those statements are factual and accurate. And his hauling himself to DC when his vote was needed had less than nothing to do with my expectations that he do so, which exist only in your imagination.

Sorry, no matter how to try to slice it, nothing justifies or excuses your proclivity for personal insults.

[joshcryer]

96. You expected them to "line up the votes."

[merrily]

97. Please stop making up stuff to try to justify your personal insults.

I said they could have. I did not say I expected them to.

And that justifies insulting me personally how? The trips there, which I had nothing to do with, were the tough part, not saying aye.

Pleases stop grasping at straws in a futile attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

[joshcryer]

98. "lined up several votes"

Your words.

No, they could not have. He was incapacitated or dead when the vote came to the floor. It takes months and months to draft over ten thousand pages of legislation and rules. It came to the floor as early as it possibly could have come to the floor (if it was finished sooner then it would've come to the floor as soon as September when we finally got over the filibuster).

[merrily]

99. Again, nothing about my expectations. Also, irrelevant since his vote was not needed to pass ACA.

However, my statement that they could have lined up several votes was not confined to ACA. My reply 30 was a response to Reply 25, which was much more general than only ACA

And, of course, nothing you said justifies your personal insults anyway.

Now, lest you insult me personally again for continuing to respond to you, one response per one post of yours, I'll stop this particular exchange here.

You should have stopped it six posts ago with an apology for personal insults, but you'll no doubt make another attempt to justify the unjustifiable. So, yet again, I give you the last word, for all the good it'll do.

[joshcryer]

100. You don't get it.

Teddy was out of commission the entire time we had the majority. July 7. 2009 was the first time in Obama's administration the Democrats had the filibuster proof majority.

Teddy has no relevance to any discussion regarding a vote that Obama wanted that didn't have bipartisan support (like closing gitmo).

That's how odious your claims are here, that you want Teddy to be hauled out to do some vote when we didn't even have the votes to begin with. That's why my initial response to you were the timelines in question. Teddy has nothing to do with anything. You're using his dying body as a talking point of no relevance.

[jeff47]

51. The sex trafficking bill currently being filibustered says "Hi".

Funny, how Democrats always need something like 75 Senators to get anything done, but, funny, it doesn't work the same way for Republicans. Since the Democrats are never going to have enough liberal Senators to stop the lame excuse making, all you do is make a very good argument for the futility of worrying about electing Democrats.

The sex trafficking bill currently being filibustered over abortion restrictions says "Hi".

As far as Lieberman, they took one chair away from because he campaigned for McCain and therefore against Obama. They took nothing away from him for ALLEGEDLY taking the public option from all Americans.

Ben Nelson says "Hi". He also opposed the public option. Lieberman is used as a concrete example because he was the 60th vote. You still need the 59th vote, Ben Nelson. And so on down the list of right-wing "Democrats".

[merrily]

85. Good thing Democrats finally read that bill, isn't it?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jon-stewart-sex-trafficking-bill-gop

As far as Nelson, you apparently did not understand my comment about Lieberaman.

I don't care who did or did not oppose the public option or pretended to oppose it after the bill got to the Senate. D.C. kabuki don't impress me much. I believe that a ban on drug reimportation was baked into that cake long before the Senate considered it and I believe the same was true of the public option.

http://upstart.bizjournals.com/news/wire/2009/12/11/democratic-leaders-quash-canadian-drug-import-bill-favored-by-aarp.html?page=all

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/06/emails_reveal_obama_adminstrat.html

I do recall President "Make me do it" Obama attending town meetings in the summer of 2009, scolding us for continuing to bring up the public option because it was "only a sliver."

ETA: Also, the final bill passed by reconciliation.

[jeff47]

104. Not quite.

I believe that a ban on drug reimportation was baked into that cake long before the Senate considered it and I believe the same was true of the public option.

So in your mind Senators can only talk to each other when the bill is actually up for debate?

The Public Option was not in the cards because Reid can count to 60, and knew that a public option could not get there. So instead the ACA got us the second-best way to get it: Move the battle for a public option to the states.

If you want one, go get to work on your statehouse.

ETA: Also, the final bill passed by reconciliation.

Nope. There's actually two ACA bills, because not everything in the ACA can pass via reconciliation.

The first bill has most of the ACA. The second bill modifies the first bill with some tweaks that could be passed through reconciliation. It would be difficult to legally justify passing a public option via reconciliation rules. And it would have to pass again every 10 years.

[merrily]

101. PS As you know, there's a huge difference between passing a bill and blocking a bill.

How many days were there sixty conservative Republican Senators under Reagan, Bush the Elder or Dimson? How many days were there sixty liberal Democratic Senators under Clinton?

As I said in response to reply 25, the argument that sixty Democratic Presidents, plus more to outvote Blue Dogs, Third Wayers, etc., are necessary before a Democratic President can get anything done is not only lame. It also takes away incentive to work to get Democrats elected to the Senate. The way things are going, it's going to be a long time before we see even 60 again, let alone 70 or so. So, if Democrats can't figur.e out a way to get things done with the House, the Oval office and a "mere" Senate majority, why worry?



ETA: Also a huge difference between a cloture vote which requires 60 and vote on the bill itself, which requires only 50 and the Vice President.

[Doctor_J]

74. Yeah, I am pretty sure the president was intent from day one on enacting a "moderate republican"

or Reaganesque agenda. at this he's been thundering success.

[merrily]

102. I remember Day One. Shortly before Day One:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html


By August, 2009, the public option was "just a sliver" that liberals had some nerve to keep bringing up to President "Make Me Do It" Obama.

The first budget he sent to Capitol Hill included cuts to fuel subsidies for the poor.

(How many times has SNAP been cut? I've lost count.)


Before the ACA was passed in its final form, we got the Cat Food Commission. When that went nowhere, we heard from Conyers that Obama had put Medicare and Social Security on the table. Then, there was the Grand Bargain Super Committee on Deficit Reduction and the sequester, both White House proposals.

And then two things happened, mercifully: Occupy Wall Street and reelection season.

But, sure why not pretend no President can possibly do anything without 70 or so Senators? Cause, heaven knows, no President who got elected with a strong majority can possibly be expected to get members of his own party to go along with his platform, even so far as just a cloture vote, regardless of how they vote on the merits.



Please see also Reply 101.

[still_one]

37. There were a whole bunch of blue dogs is right. Both Nelsons, Lieberman, Bayh, Landrieu, Lincoln,

and others. He could not have negotiated with those blue dogs. You do remember that Lieberman supported mccain. When bayh stepped down he said something to the effect that the "left" was ruining the Democratic party.

No, there was no negotiating with the blue dogs at the time

[merrily]

87. Please see Replies 85, 101 and 102.

Last edited Fri Mar 20, 2015, 05:55 AM - Edit history (1)

[CountAllVotes]

26. Are they still tube feeding the inmates??

Did this torturous act ever end? I think not!

CLOSE GUANTANAMO BAY NOW!!!

[merrily]

31. Can't blame that on Bush. Bagram either. Continuation of extraordinary rendition, either.

[anotojefiremnesuka]

39. There are many things that you should have done on the first days in office Mr President

but you did not, save the excuses.

Would a, Could a, Should a just add it to the legacy of disappointment.

[bulloney]

41. It's like that proposal Obama recently threw out on a free two-year college education.

It makes for good talk, but he knew and everyone knows that idea doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell to pass, given the political makeup in Congress and our nation's priorities on warmongering. But it makes good talk to appease the liberal base.

There were a lot of things this administration could have accomplished early due to the makeup of Congress. Today, it's veered so far to the right, Obama could say the sun rose in the east this morning, and Congress would oppose the statement. And the RW'ers would have their fascist media backing them up.

Talk is cheap because the supply is always greater than the demand.

[jeff47]

53. Without the talk, you don't win elections.

The entire point of a proposal like free community college is to draw a distinction between Republicans and Democrats. No, it won't pass this Congress. But it gives a reason for people to actually vote for Democrats.

The party has to actually show voters what they believe in for those voters to turn out. Only talking about proposals that can pass is why we lose - it means we're only talking about the right-most policies in the Democratic party.

[Android3.14]

42. Effin' duh!

Ya think?

[Javaman]

44. shoulda woulda coulda. nt

[yurbud]

45. there's a lot of stuff he could have done at the start that would have given him more momentum for

the rest of his presidency and permanently buried the GOP.

Unfortunately, the corporate wing of the Democratic Party agrees with Republicans on most foreign and economic policy and a some other key issues like public education privatization.

[Orsino]

47. ;tldr He's still not closing Guantanamo or releasing its prisoners.

Thanks for the "update," Mr. President, and your tacit commitment to indefinite incarceration of innocents.

Now watch this drive.

[jeff47]

54. Feel free to explain how he can do it spending $0.

And no, that's not a net figure. He has to do it without spending any money, including salaries of the people who would implement it. And no, they can not legally volunteer to do it for no pay.

Congress tied his hands. This story is saying he should have acted before they did, but 2009 Obama thought he faced rational opponents.

[Orsino]

59. Release the prisoners. n/t

[jeff47]

60. And they starve to death.

What a wonderful solution.

[Orsino]

62. Oh, we can keep feeding them.

That's less than the least we should do with them.

Congress won't let them be tried, and doesn't want them released? Pardon the prisoners, and admit that they were wrongly incarcerated. They'll be offered adylum somewhere, or could eventually return home to their families/fellow terrorists.

It would be inconvenient, politically, and a gift to the wingnut haters, but it's a way to begin paying long-overdue debts.

[jeff47]

63. Then they aren't released.

So instead of being locked in a prison due to bars on the door, they are....locked in a prison in order to not die of starvation. What a wonderful change.

They'll be offered adylum somewhere, or could eventually return home to their families/fellow terrorists.

They have to leave Gitmo somehow, and that isn't possible without spending money. You're going to have to use a US-maintained airfield or port, which means you're spending money.

[Orsino]

70. We're already feeding them. We can keep it up for as long as needed.

We can even lobby our Congress to send them home.

They are our respinsibility at leadt until then.

[jeff47]

71. Which means they're still in prison.

Declaring them "released" only makes you feel good. They're still in prison, due to their pesky need to eat and drink regularly.

[Orsino]

72. Precisely. They remain our responsibility until they can live free.

Guantanamo was that fucked-up an idea. Not being shackled or labeled as terrorists would only be a start.

Not starting, of course, is yet another crime against them, one we recommit every day.

[jeff47]

73. And you blame that crime on the person who isn't committing it. (nt)

[Orsino]

75. Oh, there's plenty of blame to go around, including nearly all of us.

But I've outlined things the president could do, if he dared.

[jeff47]

76. And I've pointed out that those will not do what you claim.

And he look, we're back to where we were many replies ago.

[Orsino]

103. I don't require that the president summon a Patronus.

Pardon prisoners, release them, feed those with nowhere to go. Decriminalize them. Appeal to international aid organizations, or to the UN, if he somehow can't muster the pocket change to ship them home.

But as you say, he can't make it as though the the Guantanamo abductions never happened. That's not a reason to do nothing about it. Implicit in all my suggestions is an admission of the criminal nature of the nation's conduct--and that's probably why the president isn't getting started.

[jeff47]

107. International and UN still won't get the job done.

Those groups would have to use US facilities, which cost US money.

If you want to change the situation, blaming Obama is as effective as blaming a rock. You need to be yelling at your Congresspeople instead of yelling at the branch that can not fix it.

[Orsino]

108. Well, if you don't want to change the situation...

...pretending that Congress has to do it all would be a way to justify it.

[jeff47]

110. Pretending is what you are doing.

Last edited Fri Mar 20, 2015, 02:37 PM - Edit history (1)

So far, you've advocated nothing that would actually release the people in Gitmo. Instead, you apparently think it's a massive change to not call them prisoners.

To actually close Gitmo, Congress has to change the law. Anything else leaves them imprisoned. Yet you are complaining about Obama and keep desperately trying to defend Congress.

[Orsino]

111. I wouldn't care at all whether Gitmo were closed...

...if those anonymous, extralegal incarcerations ended.

That can start with a stroke of the president's pen. The prisoners don't have to remain unpardoned a minute longer than he wants.

You have correctly stated that putting things to right wouldn't be easy, but that's true of most crimes against humanity. We would find, however, that at least some of the prisoners would be quickly accepted by other nations. These are things that can work, and not only can they be done without Congress, they could force Congress to deal with more elements of the crisis that do depend on the Legislative Branch.

Those who don't want us to begin are complicit, to varying degrees. Lobbying Congress is another process that must eventually meet with success, if enough of us desire it.

[jeff47]

112. :facepalm:

We would find, however, that at least some of the prisoners would be quickly accepted by other nations. These are things that can work, and not only can they be done without Congress, they could force Congress to deal with more elements of the crisis that do depend on the Legislative Branch.

For anyone to leave Gitmo, they have to use US facilities. Using those facilities costs money. Congress has forbidden spending money. It doesn't matter if another country would accept the prisoners when you can not get them out of the prison.

"Congradulations! Venezuela will take you. Oh no, you still have to sit here. But isn't it great that they'll take you?!"

We have to beat up on Congress because they are the ones in the way. "Stroke of a pen" bullshit is a way for you to protect the people actually causing the harm.

[Orsino]

113. Nope. You are stuck on closing Gitmo, and on the price of airline tickets.

These are only pieces of the puzzle. The prisoners, though--the victims--remain hidden at the president's pleasure. He made a great attempt at the Gitmo closure in a way that should have worked, and that failure belongs only to Congress, but not pardoning the prisoners is something he mainly owns.

He fears taking that step for the same reason he stopped trying to close Gitmo: the Kenyan-socialist-dictator screams of the corporate hacks. I give him credit for bringing up the subject again, even in his usual mild way, but the lack of justice here ought to have us all cheeting him on to grater efforts. If he doesn't dare issue pardons, that's partly our fault.

America likes its oubliette, for the most part.

[LynnTTT]

55. I agree, but

[iyou've got almost two more years to do it. Do it under EA? Yes, it would cause ranting and raving from the majority in Congress.. So what? Get the Dems on board, close it, show the savings, get the prisoners into maximum security, try them in federal court.
The right is going to rant anyway. But send a stern notice to Dems to "stick by the President". The public supports closing Guantanamo.

[riobravo]

57. No Shat, Sherlock!

No Shat, Sherlock!

[tularetom]

58. That's just one of a long list of things he should have done that day but didn't

I don't think he fully realized how much power he had plus he naively believed he could work with people who hated him mostly because of the color of his skin.

[hughee99]

61. Ridiculous. Sorry, I'm not buying this at all.

The politics around the closure was tough from day one, that's why he gave them a year to close it in the first place. If he wants to close it, let the remaining 122 detainees go free and congress won't be able to stop him.

[randome]

66. Some are likely innocent but the majority probably are hardened terrorists.

So set them free where? Texas, maybe? How about Kansas?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[hughee99]

69. About 75 of the ones remaining have already been declared "free to go" if only

we can find a country willing to take them in. The remaining prisoners haven't even had anything resembling a trial yet. After 7 or so years of complaining about how Bush was holding them indefinitely, we've now had 6 years of Obama doing the same. We've had more than a decade to prove some of them were hardened terrorists and if we haven't done it by now, I don't think it's going to happen in the next decade either. Please note, many prisoners did get some sort of trial. Those that were found guilty could be transferred to other prisons and those that were found not-guilty were free to be released to almost any country willing to take them. Congress didn't block either of those things.

I would say if we had to let these prisoners go, we should let them go in the communities where the largest percentage of people are demanding we close Guantanamo. They are more likely to integrate into those communities than those where the populace thinks they should still be held in a cage for more than a decade with no trial.

[UpInArms]

68. ya think?

[Flying Squirrel]

78. Ah, memories... November 6, 2008......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7812208

[Calista241]

109. He had the House and 60 votes in the Senate.

Can't blame anyone but himself.

[Reter]

114. What's Clinton's stand on this?

Has she stated an opinion on if she would close it?

[Sunlei]

116. yes, should have closed gitmo first week in office. Thank God he worked on ACA immediately!

Obama was to trusting of republicans and they took full advantage.

Even people in his admin. like Salazar snookered the new president. Those federal good old boys do not want their federal agency changed from the Corp. gravy train of the bush empire. Even today those agencies haven't changed much except the record keeping is improved.

I remember republicans wanted to wait a year to talk about Obamacare, have more discussions.

If President Obama had delayed the ACA, we would not have insurance today.