Why hasn't Barack Obama closed the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay?

[MinervaX]

He promised to do so during the 2008 campaign for President. Instead he has chosen to embrace the most draconian of the Bush Administrations policies. He's embraced a lot of Bush's horrible policies and even defended the former President.

[spanone]

1. he tried to. republicans blocked it

[frazzled]

7. Republicans and Congressional Democrats

Just to be clear

[BlueCaliDem]

9. May 2009 the Senate voted 90-6

to block funds ($80 mil) to close Gitmo. Veto proof.

Besides, polls showed at the time the majority of Americans were against closing it, too, because then all them turrists would have to come to U.S. courts to be tried. Oh, the horror!

[frazzled]

11. House vote was 282-131 to prohibit closure, with Democrats split.

Just for the record. So it didn't matter what the Senate did.

[BlueCaliDem]

15. True.

Which only makes it specious, at best, when any Democrat, Liberal, or Progressive lays the blame solely on the President that Gitmo hadn't been closed. Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives are intelligent enough to know the details and thus incapable of joining with the anti-Obama crowd who all blame him for "not keeping another promise" regarding Gitmo.

As I've contended from the beginning, the moment this vote went down in Congress, congressional Democrats were mostly not on President Obama's side. They had to learn to "like" him, and that only happened when they were pushed to.

[Capitalocracy]

47. You can't sign a bill blocking funds and say you're in favor of closing it

I don't care if it's "veto-proof", if you veto it and force a vote, 1. you put your opposition on the record, 2. you force them to actually make that vote to override the veto, which is a harder vote for the Dems in the majority than it is just to pass the bill, so it might have actually put a stop to it.

Or maybe he could've done something else, like pocket veto the bill and allocate the funds before they could override the veto and block the funds. The bottom line is he wanted to earn the political capital that came with signing the order to close Gitmo on day one of his administration, but he didn't want to spend the political capital to actually get it done.

[BlueCaliDem]

58. Could'a, would'a, should'a

but the reality is, it comes down to this:

If a veto-proof bill, that is, the vast majority of Congress is for or against something and they pass their will over to you to sign into law as they watch, the president, who is dependent on Congress to get anything done in terms of domestic policy, won't forge any allies in Congress if he pocket-vetoes their will because they'll return the favor and do their own version of pocket-vetoing on you and then you'll become a lame-duck president, just like the GOP was hoping for.

Remember, Obama is a constitutional professor, and remember, in the beginning he wasn't exactly liked or accepted by members of his own party. But he understands the gov't "of, by, and for the people", and that government is Congress, and without Congress, he'd get nothing through. Also, and we shouldn't forget this, all polls showed the majority of Americans were against closing Gitmo and bringing detainees into the U.S. for prosecution. You and I appear to be in the minority on that.

But you and I part ways in this: in a perfect world where there aren't any egos involved and there is a Congress of congressmen/women who actually care about this country, your opinion on how it could've gone is technically right. But you don't take into account the political realities this president had to face, and mega-egos polluting Congress.

It's about forging allies in Congress so your other policies have a chance to get through, and no one doubts Obama has done a helluva lot. That's why historians are already labeling him the most progressive president since LBJ. His strategy worked. Perfect? No. But he never promised perfect. He promised hope and he promised change, and he delivered on both, hence his astronomical approval numbers in the latest CNN poll.

[gratuitous]

83. Winner, winner, chicken dinner

We can only speculate on whether a so-called veto proof majority would have materialized in Congress if the White House had shown leadership on the issue, instead of signaling very clearly that anyone in Congress who voted to close Guantanamo was going to be left out in the cold by the administration, which would most decidedly NOT have their backs.

Bottom line: Candidate Obama made a promise President Obama couldn't or wouldn't keep. And the United States moves a few steps closer to Soviet Union-style gulags, which we used to deplore.

[TheWraith]

105. Once again, creating an imaginary scenario in order to blame Obama.

Why not just say that if Obama had vetoed it, space aliens would have landed and backed him up? The reality is that Congress has repeatedly and consistently moved in lock-step on matters relating to detainees, and there is ZERO evidence for the theory that there's a big chunk of them ready to stand up for the Right Thing (TM) if only Obama had been a little more like Superhero Jesus.

[gratuitous]

109. So very imaginary

I mean, President Obama, leading by example, and backing up the Democrats in Congress in standing up for Democratic principles? What was I thinking? His hands were, like, totally tied! If he hadn't done what he did, the Republicans would have said mean things about him, and wouldn't have cooperated with the White House on things that really mattered, not like some picayune constitutional thingamabob. It's not like he swore an oath or anything, and how many votes is he going to get from terrorists?

It's never the right time to do the right thing. Didn't Dr. King say something like that?

[TheWraith]

104. You can't pocket veto something in the middle of a congressional session.

The "pocket veto" means that the President fails to sign something before Congress recesses. Not signing it the rest of the time simply means it becomes law without his signature. You're desperately looking for a way to blame Obama for something that he had no control over.

[FarLeftFist]

71. Yes, a 90-6 VETO-PROOF BLOCK. Not only that....

It prohibited all detainee transfers to the U.S. or elsewhere (a result of Americans’ “not-in-my-backyard” protests). Knowing the facts, it’s completely irrational to hold the President (and not the Senate) responsible for keeping GITMO open.

[BlueCaliDem]

80. I totally agree. I thought everyone on the left side of politics

understood this. I'm surprised I see too many comments here of people who seem to stick to GOP talking points instead.

[AtomicKitten]

92. They do understand but choose instead to regurgitate GOP talking points.

It's low-hanging fruit and they can't resist the cheap shot.

[morningfog]

119. Plenty of blame for all.

The Democratic Party failed on this one. They could have stood united. They could have challenged that "not-in-my-backyard" frame. I don't remember any protests being that well attended.

The Democratic Party should have been there, including Obama. A veto and then a support of the President. Maybe a veto would have changed the debate and the frame. Maybe a threat of a veto earlier would have gotten some Democrats in line.

[FarLeftFist]

122. Not with a 90-6 VETO PROOF Vote. Not happening. Time to lay the blame where it should be.

The Senate. Yes, both sides, but that's how our country works.

[morningfog]

123. Both sides, I agree. Including the president who signed it.

The 90-6 vote was for the bill. We will never know what the vote to overturn a veto would have been.

[eridani]

2. Because Congress is a bunch of wusses who are terrified

--of being called "soft on defense."

[BlueCaliDem]

16. They were afraid for their jobs - which most lost i Nov. 2010 anyway

and let's not forget how many BlueDog Dems were still in Congress at that time.

All polls showed the majority of American people were against closing Gitmo and bringing those detainees within U.S. borders in order to be tried in our courts.

[eridani]

127. IOW, it's our neighbors we need to change here, not Obama n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. Congress?

Congresss prohibited funds to transfer prisoners from Gitmo in the 2009-2010 Defense Authorization by an overwhelming margin. Obama has continued to publicly support its closure.

[Pirate Smile]

4. Anyone who pays attention knows Congress is why.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/07/v-print/2578082/why-obama-hasnt-closed-guantanamo.html

I had picked out paragraphs, etc. but DU ate it and I don't have time to do it again.

The link explains how Congress - even when Dems controlled it - blocked Pres. Obama from closing it.

[SunsetDreams]

6. hey thanks for the link

I hadn't seen that one

[BlueCaliDem]

13. Excellent link, Pirate Smile!

Thank you so much, and this DU3er thanks you from the bottom of my heart you posted that link again. I would've otherwise never seen it.

[AtomicKitten]

90. Thanks for the link confirming Congress blocked Pres O from closing Guantanamo.

Amen and amen.

[Pirate Smile]

124. The part that really annoys me is how so many Dems in Congress

were all about closing Gitmo until there was a POTUS who actually wanted to do it and then everyone went NIMBY on it. Also regarding trying in court ANYWHERE in the US - NYC was like - Whaaattt? We can't handle that! Really? Really, it would be too much? We cant' do it?

So pathetic.

[AtomicKitten]

128. You're right.

Congressional Dems folded like lawn chairs on Guantanamo leaving Pres O's cheese in the wind.

[libodem]

5. My fear is

That we permanently damaged some of those detainees and we would be ashamed for the world to see how badly.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

29. I've wondered about that as well

It's probably why they've been working hard to tie President Obama's hands on federal trials for these individuals as well. Because of how GWB and his (mis-)administration responded after 9/11 and how they chose to handle these individuals, they have probably completely messed up the possibility of any kind of fair trial or clear legal process for adjudicating them and Obama, DOJ, and Congress is probably just going to have to muddle through somehow. The problem is that the Republicans don't want to have anything remotely resembling a sane and rational discussion about...........well.......anything.

[sad sally]

110. Like Mohammed el Gorani, who was 14 when Americans threw him in Guantamo?

First, a remarkable piece in the London Review of Books, detailing the personal testimony of a child -- a child -- sold into years of captivity and torture at the hands of the proud, always-to-be-honored defenders of American values. It's the story of Mohammed el Gorani, a Saudi-born teenager from Chad, whose black skin made him a special target for his captors in the gulag hellholes of Kandahar and Guantanamo.
---
They took me to a prison, and they started questioning me about al-Qaida and the Talibans. I had never heard those words. ‘What are you talking about?’ I said. ‘Listen, Americans are going to interrogate you. Just say you’re from al-Qaida, you went with al-Qaida in Afghanistan, and they’ll send you home with some money.’ ... One Pakistani officer was a good guy. He said: ‘The Pakistani government just want to sell you to the Americans.’ ... The Pakistanis took away our chains and gave us handcuffs ‘made in the USA’. I told the other detainees: ‘Look, we’re going to the US!’ I thought the Americans would understand that the Pakistanis had cheated them, and send me back to Saudi.

... When they took off our masks, we were at an airport, with big helicopters. Americans shouted: ‘You’re under arrest, UNDER CUSTODY OF THE US ARMY! DON’T TALK, DON’T MOVE OR WE’LL SHOOT YOU!’ An interpreter was translating into Arabic. Then they started beating us – I couldn’t see with what but something hard. People were bleeding and crying. We had almost passed out when they put us in a helicopter.

We landed at another airstrip. It was night. Americans shouted: ‘Terrorists, criminals, we’re going to kill you!’ Two soldiers took me by my arms and started running. My legs were dragging on the ground. They were laughing, telling me: ‘Fucking nigger!’ I didn’t know what that meant, I learned it later. ... There was an Egyptian (I recognised his Arabic) wearing a US uniform. He started by asking me: ‘When was the last time you saw Osama bin Laden?’ ‘Who?’ He took me by my shirt collar and they beat me again. ...
---
Mohammed el Gorani spent almost eight years in Guantanamo. His captors knew very early on that he was an innocent child, not a terrorist. The one piece of "evidence" they showed him was a paper "proving" he had been involved with al Qaeda in London -- in 1993, when he had been a six-year-old boy cleaning car windshields in Saudi Arabia. But what did that matter? His captors were "machines": they were just following orders, just doing their jobs -- just like every factotum of every brutal system in history.

http://www.chris-floyd.com/?du

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. Two options here

1) You are simply trying to stir up shit on this board
2) You really are this ignorant

Either way, pretty bad initial impression.

[BlueCaliDem]

10. Based on my experience

with that one, I would go with option 1 first. And then option 2. They aren't mutually exclusive in this case.

Thanks for pointing it out, alcibiades_mystery.

[SunsetDreams]

14. This song just popped into my head

for some reason.

Great song!

[BlueCaliDem]

18. Nice song!

And very fitting.

[one_voice]

19. I'm going with...

option 1.

[Tarheel_Dem]

28. Hard choices, but I'm gonna pick #1. The issue has been discussed to death.

[Number23]

116. Same questions could be asked of the three special souls that rec'd this too

[MineralMan]

12. Congress blocked him.

Same old story. The President can't do much without Congress.

[no_hypocrisy]

17. Jim Demint singlehandedly stopped Obama from closing Guantanamo.

http://prospect.org/article/endless-guantaacutenamo

[phleshdef]

20. How many times does this need to be explained?

Congress prevented it. If you can't accept that as answer, I suggest a civics class.

[treestar]

23. Amen!

And a promise of any candidate is at most a promise to use the power of the office run for to get something. No one in this country has all the power!

[phleshdef]

87. Its just so silly. Its like me promising to buy my wife a new car, but then I get laid off....

...from my job and can't follow through with it, then she divorces me in retaliation for "breaking my promise".

A mundane analogy I know, but it really IS that stupid.

[lamp_shade]

21. See Post #8, Option 1.

[zorahopkins]

22. Couldn't He Just Sign an Executive Order?

There is one thing I really do not understand about all of this.

I get it that Congress has blocked President Obama's attempts to close Gitmo.

But can't the President simply get around Congress by issuing an Executive Order??

Couldn't President Obama simply issue an Executive Order that says something like, "Effective immediately, all prisoners currently held at Guantanamo Base, Cuba, will not longer be held in that facility"?

Why couldn't he just do that?

Wouldn't that put an end to the shame of America having prisoners at Guantanamo??

[SunsetDreams]

24. Where will he get the funds?

[zorahopkins]

26. Another Executive Order

Couldn't he simply issue another Executive Order? Or perhaps amend the first Executive Order to say something like this:

"I hereby direct the Secretary of Defense to re-allocate such funds as may be necessary to carry out the orderly evacuation of all prisoners from the base at Guantanamo, Cuba. Such re-allocation may come from funds currently allocated to the building of bombs, military aircraft including predator drones, or any other weapon system, as determined by the Secretary of Defense."

Why couldn't he just do that??

[SunsetDreams]

40. Sure he could I guess if you want the Executive to have that much power

I guess a President who didn't like Abortion could also use an Executive order to overturn Roe vs. Wade and then one to close down Abortion Clinics.

Need funding? He could issue another Executive Order re-allocating funds from Medicare. Hey it's related, I guess.

[polmaven]

50. The president does not have the power

to issue executive orders for budget issues. He cannot spend that money without the approval of Congress.

[Major Hogwash]

96. Eggs-actly!

He can't just start shifting money from one department to the next.

Geez, he ain't stoopid.

LoL

[treestar]

25. Executive Orders are not a method for conferring all power on one branch of the government

In the United States, an executive order is an order or directive issued by the head of of the executive branch at some level of government. The term executive order is most commonly applied to orders issued by the President, who is the head of the executive branch of the federal government. Executive orders may also be issued at the state level by a state's governor or at the local level by the city's mayor.

U.S. Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789, usually to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law,[1] since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution. However, these perceived justifications cited by Presidents when authoring Executive Orders have come under criticism for exceeding Executive authority; at various times throughout U.S. history, challenges to the legal validity or justification for an order have resulted in legal proceedings.

In other countries, similar edicts may be known as decrees, or orders in council.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

[zorahopkins]

27. I Get That

But isn't this really a case of "We Can't Wait"??

The President is Commander in Chief, and as such he is the Commander of the Base at Guantanamo. So, by issuing an Executive Order, he would be, I think, simply exercising his current power as Executive in Chief?

I don't think Bush went to Congress to get approval to set up the Guantanamo Camp. I think he simply issued and Executive Order.

So why can't President Obama simply close it down by Executive Order?

This shameful episode MUST end.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

30. He did issue an EO to have it closed

Congress blocked the funding necessary to do it. I don't think that the President can appropriate funding on his/her own. I think that Bush was able to establish it by EO by virtue of the fact that Gitmo is a military base and was able to utilize funds already appropriated for the military to operate it. It's pretty crazy how it all works. I mean, we keep people whom are just as dangerous (or maybe even more depending on what the remaining Gitmo detainees are actually accused of) secure in Supermax prisons and we have other terror suspects languishing in federal prisons so there's no evidence that placing the Gitmo detainees in various Supermax prisons would put the mainland at any greater risk of threat from AQ or its sympathizers (particularly since the public is not necessarily going to know where exactly these detainees will be housed AFAIK). I just think that right-wing knows that people still are easily frightened about terrorism and that they can use it for political purposes against President Obama.

[zorahopkins]

36. He Cannot Appropriate Money, BUT

You're right -- the President cannot appropriate money.

But I think that the President, as Head of the Executive Branch, can re-allocate money to meet the needs of the American people.

If money is the issue, then I certainly think he could issue an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Defense to re-allocate money. The Executive Order could say that money currently allocated to build bombs and predator drones and other things that kill people will instead be used to free the captives at Guantanamo.

President Obama has said that We Can't Wait. I think Guantanamo is a case where WE REALLY CANNOT WAIT.

The President needs to exert his authority (or at least try) to close Guantanamo now. Each day that passes with Guantanamo still open for business is another day of injustice and shame.

The President should at least do everything he can to get the money he needs. If Congress is a problem, then find a way around Congress.

Justice demands no less.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

41. It sounds like he and Holder are still trying to find a workaround

I'm sure that it's much more complicated than you or I think that it might be but I believe that it will eventually happen. The Bush (mis-)Administration mucked and muddied everything up good post-9/11 in regards to how we approach detainment and prosecution of terror suspects and I suspect that unraveling it will take a good long while.

[zorahopkins]

43. How Long Do We Wait For Justice?

And just how long do we wait until Justice is done?

How long do we wait until the prisoners America is holding -- without trial or even charges -- at the horrible place are set free from Guantanamo?

It's been almost three years.

Do we wait one more month for Justice to be done?

Is six months enough time for President Obama to do the right thing?

Or do we just keep waiting and waiting and waiting.

Justice not done is Injustice done.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. You talk about 'justice'

which implies you agree with Obama that some trials are needed. Obama could just say "they're all free"; but there are people there who there is good reason to believe were involved in real terrorism, and Obama does not want to let them go without a trial. It would certainly be electoral suicide if he just said to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed "you're free to go".

The current Congress has done less than any since WW2. They are masters at blocking anything, and have, as their primary purpose, the blocking of anything Obama wants to do. "Find a way round Congress" sounds nice, but that was, for instance, what Reagan did when he illegally transferred money to the Contras from arms sales to Iran.

[zorahopkins]

46. Do The Right Thing

Trials ARE needed.

But not one has been done.

Are you suggesting that electoral politics should trump the need for Justice?

I expect Presidents to do the right thing. You know, Justice.

The prisoners are still being held -- without any trials -- at Guantanamo.

No Justice.

No Peace.

The President has the tools to correct this intolerable injustice. He should use them

It's the Right Thing to do.

[TheKentuckian]

39. He needed special appropriation for the new Gitmo North facility

He did not need any special appropriations to relocate the prisoners to existing Federal facilities or to schedule court proceedings.

Bush did just that on hundreds of occasions, Congress does contol the purse strings but they don't appropriate individual transfers or dictate the holding place of the thousands in Federal custody.

You are running with a half truth and pretending it is the whole story, when the timeline of the often whined about law do not bear out.

Hell, Obama could have transferred the whole lot and still signed the appropriations bill by sitting on it for a few days which would have negated the offending sections which specifically pointed to folks held at Gitmo when the law went into effect. He chose not to go at it that way either.

If he intended to shut down the gulag by empting it, nothing in the law could have stopped him. He had a free had to start trials, relocate, or even flat out release these people just like Bush had until he signed that appropriations bill and pretending otherwise is lying.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

45. If he says he wants to close Gitmo and has the power to do it (but hasn't)

then is he lying about wanting to close it then and that the EO he signed when he was first elected was just bogus?

[TheKentuckian]

49. He doesn't have the power now, except on a Constitutional basis that he is hard pressed

to argue since he signed the very bill that now ties his hands into law.

I think he really wanted to be able to say he closed it without really doing it and lots of Democrats seem to agree with that because they hang on Congress refusing to fund Gitmo North as the reason Gitmo is still open, when folks that actually cared about it being closed aren't going to lose the scent because of relocating the facility and slapping a new name on a building.

The point was never the location of the gulag, how that got conflated with closing the facility and placing those who we could on trial and releasing those we had no case against, I don't know other than a willfull effort to conflate the two in hindsight.

I don't think he claims the power now, in fact he just remains silent. He did have the power and elected not to use it, instead he sought a politically safe middle ground and got left standing alone. He signed away such power save a constitutional crisis level battle, asserting executive authority and flipping off Congress.

Of course he might also choose to cede to Congress entirely and bog the institution up for years and years by insisting on an appropriations bill for every transfer, release, and court proceeding in an effort to make a mockery of their overreach here.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

51. It was part of a defense spending bill I believe

would've been pretty hard to veto it and Congress would've overrode him at any rate. He did issue a signing statement, so it's clear that he disagrees with the measure.

[TheKentuckian]

57. He didn't have veto it or even allow the issue to come to a vote before it was too late to have

impact.

His signing statement is worthless. He doesn't disagree because he signed the law and he has utterly failed to creatively enforce what he signed.

If he wanted Gitmo empty, he could have done so before signing the bill into law. He chose to go the Gitmo North route (which was not an answer anyway) and lost and in the process codefied indefinte detention.

At the last, he should have vetoed the bill and let Congress to fully own their overreach but he should not have had to if he had the will to excersise his authority.

[BlueCaliDem]

62. Some on this thread are asserting

that very hypothesis. Or should I say, fairytale?

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. Question? Were you this passionate in 2010, when we were getting our asses handed to us by the TP?

Do you remember how pissed we all were that the former president seemed to be governing by signing statements? He could sign a bill into law, but by use of signing statements didn't really have to abide by said law. Remember that? It's just another way around Congress. Why place the entire burden of closing this facility on one branch of government?

And if he "closes it down", WTF do we put the most dangerous ones? If you're really this passionate, why are you letting Congress off the hook? Why not make Congress do it's job?

[treestar]

37. Because, doncha know, the EO is the magic wand!

[zorahopkins]

42. It's About Justice

Why am I letting Congress off the hook?

Because I am concerned about Justice.

I was pissed that Bush used signing statements, etc. But the reason I was pissed was that Bush, when he issued his signing statements, was going against the best interests of the American people, and more importantly, he was going against what Justice demands.

We elect Presidents to see that Justice is done. Bush did everything he could to see that INJustice was done. When Congress did not let him carry out injustice, Bush just issued signing statements and executive orders.

I expect good and decent Presidents to use their powers in the pursuit of Justice -- even if Congress tries to thwart Justice.

Saying "Congress won't let me" is, to my way of thinking, a cop-out, especially if you have tools at your disposal to accomplish what Justice demands.

And Justice certainly demands that the prisoners America holds be set free from that horrible place.

President Obama seems to have forgotten all about them.

He has the tools. He should use them. And dare Congress to try to stop him.

[Tarheel_Dem]

81. "He has the tools". You haven't yet convinced me, or is this about "symbolism"?

And you were asked before, where does the money come from? And your solution seems to be another "EO". I mean, WTF? You see posts here all the time, where some self-appointed constitutional "scholar" has declared that the president has overreached, and it's the kind of post that gets a thousand recs. So, I'm assuming you wouldn't see this as an overreach?

How far do we go down the road of a unitary executive, and would you be willing for any future president to use these tactics each time he/she disagreed with Congress or the USSC, you know, the other two branches of government? I just want the president's critics to be consistent. They're now calling for this president to do the very things they once eschewed.

Make me understand where you draw the line, or do you want that line completely erased? The Constitution is obviously an inconvenience when it comes to certain issues, and where "activism" is concerned. Your assertions seem naive to say the least.

[DonCoquixote]

120. Kindly NAME these tools

tools that congress did not or could not blunt. List and explain them.

[TheKentuckian]

52. I don't see how it is Congress' job to dictate prisoner assignments, to determinine who to prosecute

and who not to, and in this case it was the Executive branch who created this gulag under military control.

What about this the job of Congress? This is an executive branch situation and Congress greatly oversteped their power when they placed restrictions on allowing trials and transfers and are completely off base in dictating the affairs of a military facility.

We place the "dangerous ones" on trial, is what we do. If we don't have enough evidence then they must be released that is our system of law and absent such action we have foresaken our system of law.

About 230 years of seperation of powers places this one on the executive.

[stevenleser]

63. Simple. Congress has the power of the purse. Exactly as the founding fathers intended.

It's congress' defacto tertiary check on the President. If you dont have money to operate your administration, or various arms thereof, you are dead in the water.

[TheKentuckian]

70. Show me the history of appropriations for individual transfers and facility assignments.

Please also include the individual appropriations for prosecutions and trials.

I'd also be interested in the history of appropriations/the refusal to grant them for those accused of a specific crime.

Hell, I'd be interested in the votes to appropriate funds to make the military facility at Gitmo a gulag under Bush.

By you flawed logic Congress has the authority to prohibit trial to anyone in Federal custody and that is patently counter-constitutional.
Are you saying that Congress can defund the Executive or Judicial branches at will and that was the intent of the founders?

[stevenleser]

73. LOL, you really think I am going to do that research to make you happy when the constitutional basis

for my argument is obvious?

[TheKentuckian]

84. No, I want you to examine your interpretation in any broad real world application

and maybe see that you have a vision of a forest that makes trees all but impossible, which when followed out lands you in a place where there can be no forests either.

I also call attention to precedence and seperation of powers that your view of the Constitution literally precludes.

In fact, a view of the Constitution that is limited even where it is express by the willingness of Congress to appropriate enforcement.

You are arguing that you only get a trial if Congress is willing to pay for it, despite the implied appropriation because trials are dictated as a right and obligation. You are giving Congress the authority to use the purse to subvert the very law that authorizes its existence.

You know good and well that Congress does not have the authority to dictate prosecutions or the lack thereoff or to order the executive to hold anyone without trial. Just as you know that transfers are not individually appropriated as you know Congress does not write laws for the disposition of assignment of each prisoner.

You espouse a view that makes the executive and judicial branches not co-equal but very subserviant and largely decorative. Further, you present your interpretation as a settled matter that it is foolish to dare question but a view you know to be without much in the way of real world precedence.

You are re-imagining how our government works in a custom fit for this situation. I am fairly certain there are ways such power could be abused that would change this silly ass tune quick.
To take the position that Congress can refuse to fund trials and so the government just has to hold people in Federal custody is fucking absurd. Further, that they can also say they are only going to fund military custody and trials (if any) is way over the top and damn shortsighted because the exact same logic can and must be applied to anything under the authority of the other branches.

[treestar]

35. Apparently more complex than that

President Barack Obama has stated that he intends to close down the detention camp and is planning on bringing detainees to the United States to stand trial by the end of his first term in office. On January 22, 2009, three executive orders were issued by President Obama, although only one of these orders explicitly deals with policy directed at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, most noticeably, the camp's closure within one year. All three could possibly impact the detention center, as well as how any detainee future or present will be held by the United States. While mandating the closure of the detention facility, the naval base as a whole was not subject to the order and will remain operational indefinitely. This plan was thwarted for the time being on May 20, 2009, when the United States Senate voted to keep the prison at Guantanamo Bay open for the foreseeable future and forbid the transfer of any detainees to facilities in the United States. Senator Daniel Inouye, a Democrat from Hawaii and chairman of the appropriations committee, said he initially had favored keeping Guantanamo open until Obama produced a "coherent plan for closing the prison."[29] As of September 26, 2009, policy is currently being drafted with an aim toward compromise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base

So there have been three EOs already. It's like the court system, people get frustrated that things can't be done immediately, as in private businesses, upon order of the Executive. But that's the nature of government - certain people have to have their say.

[woo me with science]

67. He has no serious plans to close it.

He extended the Patriot Act and just signed NDAA, for god's sake.

[JackRiddler]

102. Does he have the ability to order a military unit to move?

Of course. And that would include the prisoners that unit is holding.

[surfdog]

31. Because Congress blocked it

Why the fuck are people still asking this question ?

[TheKentuckian]

32. For six months it was because Obama wanted to thread the political needle

and move Gitmo to US soil proper rather than using the exact same authority as Bush to put the prisoners on trial or release them.
He could have transferred these folks at anytime, there was no restriction but he didn't want to take that level of political risk with the howling going on and he also wanted to hold some of them peremently without trial and he wanted some military tribunerals so to make it work he had to close Gitmo in name only but to do so required a special appropriation for a Supermax facility at which point he got caught up and Congress denied the money and for good measure placed unconstitutional restrictions on executive authority as well as set up a regeime of permenent detention without trial, which also is unconstitutional.

Now, the President saw this bill working its way through and rather than relocate the prisoners to existing facilities and schedule trials he waited for the process to work its self out and then stupidly signed his own unconstitutional handcuffs into law.

Before May 21, 2009 (or there abouts), Obama could have closed the gulag without a word from Congress. He elected not to for exclusively political not logistical or legal reasons.

The real answer is he chose not to. The finger pointing at Congress for not funding Gitmo North is entirely a smokescreen to distract from the fact that Obama wanted to thread the needle and was especially sensitive to potential blowback in swing states like Indiana where the prisoners would be most logically transferred. Illinois was selected for Gitmo North because it was seen as politically safe to do so.

Before Obama signed the bill in the May following is election there was nothing whatsoever to stop him from relocating prisoners or scheduling proceedings, the entire deal went off the tracks by trying to secure the funding for the new facility.

[Capitalocracy]

48. Thanks for giving it straight.

Great summary of the actual events as they happened. Much more nuanced than "Congress did it, what can you do?"

[JackRiddler]

74. Exactly. Obama could have closed it overnight, any time, for four months.

The prisoners could have been transferred to a base in the US. The Uighurs and others who are KNOWN TO BE INNOCENT of charges could have been released directly - and offered asylum, in the case of the Uighurs, perhaps the most outrageous injustice of all. The Justice Department could have been directed to prepare criminal cases against the rest.

The excuses made here boil down to the idea that catering to the uninformed prejudices of certain voters (who will vote Republican regardless) should trump the most fundamental human rights.

[one_voice]

34. Why post this and not stick around? n/t

[woo me with science]

54. Snarky, content-free response. nt

[stevenleser]

65. Since that is in fact what the OP is, its a perfect response. nt

[one_voice]

72. ....

[flamingdem]

38. I heard that Fidel and Boehner decided to turn it into a golf resort

Well it's true they both like golf. I wouldn't be surprised if that's how Gitmo ends up since Cuba is developing a series of golf resorts currently.

[MilesColtrane]

53. Haven't been paying attention much, have you?

[woo me with science]

55. Snarky, content-free response. nt

[MilesColtrane]

59. The content you and the OP are seeking is available all over the internet.

[woo me with science]

69. Yes, like extending the Patriot Act and signing NDAA.

That tells us a lot, certainly.

[grantcart]

108. A newbie who is going to help elighten us.

Expect a thread on Ron Paul's great foriegn policy in 3. . .2 . . 1

[piratefish08]

56. there's a lot of shit there to be packed up, and he hasn't had much free time........

he's got a few friends with pick-up trucks and they're going to try and get it cleared out this weekend.


okay?

[T S Justly]

60. No reason why he can't, because he can. His supreme military authority and the discretionary ...

Funds at his disposal could make it start happening today. But, he won't because he doesn't want to.
Saying he wants to in public is designed to get ill-informed progressives and liberals to support him, sorry
to say.

[SunsetDreams]

64. "Saying he wants to in public is designed to get ill-informed progressives and liberals to support"

"Saying he wants to in public is designed to get ill-informed progressives and liberals to support him"

As opposed to your statement which is designed to get ill-informed progressives and liberals to NOT support him?
"Funds at his disposal could make it start happening today. But, he won't because he doesn't want to."

[JackRiddler]

77. Strict binary thinking causes you to assume motives.

Obama could shut down this prison, as he said he would, but has not.

Therefore: There must be a reason.

Pointing this out is simple truth. It does not mean you are trying to undermine support for Obama.

The world doesn't revolve around how blindly one wishes to support Obama.

Furthermore, this is not the Obama 2012 campaign poster:

[SunsetDreams]

79. Exactly my point lol

Binary thinking causes one to assume that Obama could close down Gitmo if he wanted to, the reason why he doesn't do it, is because he doesn't really want to. Thanks for making my point.

[JackRiddler]

89. Not comparable.

Fact: For at least four months, Obama could have shut down Guantanamo without need of Congress.

Fact: Even right now, the commander in chief can order personnel and prisoners to move from Guantanamo to a domestic US military base. Shut down or not, that prison would be empty. He can also order the Justice Department to start preparing criminal cases against Guantanamo prisoners, even if the military also continues doing so.

These are not assumptions.

Therefore there must be reasons he didn't and doesn't do it.

To point out these facts (and the logical conclusion) is not an attack on Obama. It is to point out facts.

[Major Hogwash]

93. Yabut, Jack . . .

Where's he going to house those prisoners?

[JackRiddler]

101. Are you saying the president can't order the moving of a military

facility within the existing lands owned by the military?

What's missing here is the will to force a confrontation over this issue, not the ability.

The promise apparently should have been this: "I will shut down Guantanamo, as long as there is no opposition to the idea." Courageous!

[Major Hogwash]

103. No, what's missing here is the money to pay for the move.

And that's it, that's all there is to it.

[JackRiddler]

106. Bullshit.

[Major Hogwash]

118. Great reply, Jack.

See post #50.

[SunsetDreams]

94. "Therefore there must be reasons he didn't and doesn't do it."

Exactly congress...saying Obama is not doing it because he doesn't want to is binary thinking and a false assumption when you look at the FACTS.

It is a Campaign Promise Broken, but you are so right there are reasons behind it. Reasons that are grounded in fact, and have been discussed at length. They are not "because Obama doesn't want to do it".


Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/

A lot of back story on this issue grounded in true fact.

[DonCoquixote]

121. kindly name the tool he has

to shut it down despite the efforts of congress?

[dionysus]

117. .

[Welibs]

61. Republicans are blocking him! HE HAS NOT CHOSEN TO EMBRACE

BUSH'S POLICIES.

Obama ended the GOP/Iraq war, got Osama bin Laden & other al Qaida members AND he got Ghaddafi! He stabilized the economy, saved the auto industry and millions of jobs, and he did with 242 Republicans hanging around his neck along with the Blue Dogs and the spineless Dems.

OBAMA IS A ONE MAN SHOW!

[gateley]

66. DUers answered your question. I'm surprised you didn't know that. Or did you? nt

[hughee99]

68. He has yet to figure out how to keep a Guantanamo-style prison

while closing the actual prison itself. The financing is a red herring, he could get the money (or reallocate from other funds) if there were a plan in place to do this.

The big problem is, they don't want to put these prisoners into the general prison population (especially since some of them haven't even been charged), they don't want to have a prison like this actually ON US soil, where people can see it every day and protesters can stand outside, and they don't want to just let the prisoners go.

[Sheepshank]

75. So people like you can find something to post about for the next 11 months to help out Mittens.

Have you decided if Mittens will close it down since Republicans have already blocked that option?

[JackRiddler]

78. "You're either with us or against us."

The "logic" you employ here is identical to those who defended Bush by calling his critics "Saddam lovers" or "terrorist lovers" or "America haters."

[Sheepshank]

125. Nope not at all. just pointing out the idiocy

of complaining and offering no tangible or viable solutions. And the other option on the table is,...... what?

To complain about something that wasn't within Obama's power to acheive, implies it is within the power AND desire of someone else. And who else in the current field of candidtates would acheive what the OP wants? My response was completely viable...Is Romeny that alternative? Is Romney the solution to the complaint? If not Romney, then realistically who?

Your logic is no better than that of the OP...and acheives nothing.

[librechik]

76. Congress won't give him the money to do it. End of story.

and that includes when the Democrats were "in charge" for 5 minutes.

[Cali_Democrat]

82. If Congess won't close Gitmo I say the Prez should just free them

Justice delayed (for over a decade) is justice denied. Not to mention they've been tortured. Just put them on the next plane out of Cuba.

[TheKentuckian]

86. He signed similar restrictions on his branch there too.

I think he is down to just doing it in violation of the unconstitutional sections asserting executive authority and the big ass pile of precedence, inviting Impeachment or ordering all the military personnel out and to leave it all unlocked which would be more politically dangerous than just transferring, setting trials, and releasing people in the first place that was seen a too risky when the Gitmo North road was taken.

[joeybee12]

85. Because it would be hard to do...

He'd rather be a card table.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

88. I give him a lot of shit. But on this, as far as I can tell. He was stabbed in the back by the other

half of the Military Industrial Fear Party.

[Major Hogwash]

97. Good picture!

I need to steal that one for later.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

98. If that's not a serial killer photo. I don't know what is........ I kid I kid. nt

[ingac70]

91. He signed the exectutive order to do so TODAY.

During a signing ceremony at the White House, Obama reaffirmed his inauguration pledge that the United States does not have "to continue with a false choice between our safety and our ideals."

The president said he was issuing the order to close the facility in order to "restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism."

A second executive order formally bans torture by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terrorism interrogations. That essentially ends the Bush administration's CIA program of enhanced interrogation methods.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/guantanamo.order/index.html

[Tx4obama]

111. That article is from January 2009. * 2009 * n/t

[Rex]

95. Because Congress won't allow him to.

[just1voice]

99. Because having torture camps is in line with conservative objectives

It's also why torturers and torture conspirators will never be held accountable, such as Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Powell. There's nothing wrong with torture and torture camps in corrupt countries, torture is used as a threat to other countries who threaten the U.S. world power scenario perceived in conservative's tiny little minds.

Gitmo would be closed tomorrow and it's creators would be tried for treason if an actual progressive was the head of the U.S. armed forces.

[SunsetDreams]

100. Not true

"Gitmo would be closed tomorrow and it's creators would be tried for treason if an actual progressive was the head of the U.S. armed forces."

Congress will not allow it, and will not authorize the funds necessary to close it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/

[SunsetDreams]

115. It does address it, if you will read it

I'm sorry the facts don't support your claim.

[arely staircase]

107. congress nt

[Tx4obama]

112. Read all the updates regardng GITMO on the link below from the bottom up...

Here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/
Start from the bottom of the page and work your way upwards.

p.s. and also be sure you know what constitutes a 'broken promise on that website

" ... An important point about Obameter ratings: A Promise Broken rating does not necessarily constitute failure or mean that Obama failed to be an advocate for his promises. He could exert tremendous effort to fulfill any given promise but it could still die because of opposition in Congress. ...

http://www.politifact.com/about/

[JoePhilly]

114. Paid trolls do better than this.

[elana i am]

126. 2 reasons

congress put the kibosh on it and even when he was making headway, locations in the US and in other nations were refusing to take the prisoners.