I think the law says the DoD can’t use money to transfer detainees from Gitmo into the US. I’m not sure the route taken matters.
However, the laws says the Dep’t of Defense can’t use money to transfer into US, it does not mention the DoJ, for instance. Get them to do it. That would be my pointless legal loophole.
Why don’t you actually read the law before commenting on how easy it is to find loopholes in it? It’s difficult to have a debate when there is such a substantial gap in understanding of what the law says.
You’re right - besides, the specifics don’t really matter.
My point is, I’m confident President Obama could find a way around Congress obstructionism (or a way to strongarm them into doing what he wants) if he had both the will to do right by the detainees ; and the balls to initiate some political wrangling that might end up costing him and his party much, all in the name of justice for people the average American voter doesn’t give much of a shit about.
I don’t think either’s the case, and it’s quite shameful.
As much as I disagree with you on this, at least you are disproving the OP’s thesis. 
On the larger issue of Guantanamo, I agree. It needs to be closed. It’s a shameful relic of an imperialistic, torturing United States. That’s wrong.
I am strongly inclined to believe that the people who remain there are dangerous and have violated US laws in plotting treacherous violence against Americans. They should answer for their crimes.
However, the law is remarkably clear. There are no loopholes that I can possibly imagine. There’s no way Obama can find a legal way to disregard a law that is so unambiguous.
What is also clear is that there is a very strong sentiment in Congress, held by both Republicans and quite a few Democrats, that there aren’t going to be any civilian trials for those bad guys. Just saying things like, “Oh, Obama could do it if he just twisted a few arms” is like saying that I could run a four-minute mile if I just put a little effort into it. That just isn’t realistic in the slightest.
Sadly, I don’t think I do - I’m not an American citizen, and even in my country I’m not on the left by virtue of not being politically active at all. So I emphatically don’t count 
I agree completely. Guantanamo is one of the reasons that I am so deeply disappointed in Obama. No longer to the point of voting for someone in the clown car, but there is no good reason not to keep these enemies of the US on American soil.
The OP isn’t about Obama and what he did & did not do.
It’s about the hypocrisy of the American left. The OP has given them the opportunity to defend their protests during the Bush years and explain their, overall, lack of it, during Obamas term. So far I’m not convinced anyone has done this.
Alright guys, we are going to let you out. You have twenty minutes to cross over into Cuba. If you can make it, you’re free. If not…well, you can see how correct you religious beliefs are.
Please explain your definition of “overall lack” given the posts on the subject in this thread and the others that I linked to earlier.
Go back and re-read my post about confirmation bias, and how your OP is suffering from it.
Link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link… I think that’s enough to show that people have been protesting Obama’s inability to close Guantanamo.
Well, first of all, it’s impossible to measure the amount anger “the left” has about this issue, but I think the OP is flat out wrong in claiming there is none. That has already been proven.
Secondly, some of us are trying to explain exactly why many of us (on the left or otherwise) cut Obama slack on this issue. His hands are tied as long as Congress wants them to be. You can hand wave that away, but it doesn’t make any of it invalid.
How convenient that the President gets cut some slack when he’s a Democrat. Democrats, who by the way, controlled congress for the first half of his administration.
Please, wake up and smell the facts: Senate votes 90-6 in May 2009 to block the closure of Guantanamo. House votes 282-131 in May 2010 to stop transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the US.
Your partisan outrage that Obama didn’t close the prison when Dems were in charge of Congress missing the whole flippin’ fact that DEMOCRATS STOPPED OBAMA FROM CLOSING THE PRISON.
Well, no good reason except the laws that Congress passed with vast, veto-proof majorities preventing exactly that from happening.
I didn’t say “if he just twisted a few arms”, nor did I imply it would have been easyfor him to do it. It would certainly have been a long, hard, drawn out battle had he been committed to fight it, and it would have cost him a ton of political capital, not to mention probably his re-election.
It would also have been the right thing to do.
As some forgettable git once said, there are things that ought to be done not because they’re easy, but because they’re hard, because some goals serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because some challenges we are willing to accept, unwilling to postpone, and intend to win.
And don’t you try and tell me untangling a legal boondoggle founded on concentrated bogosity would have been harder or more expensive than sending three dudes on the Moon in a can wrapped in tinfoil 
pkbites, are you gonna address the distinctions people have drawn for you, or just steamroll on about how it’s all partisan? 'Cause if you just want to witness, then speak it brother. If you want to debate, it would help to, you know, present arguments.
No, he gets cut some slack because he’s not a dictator, and Congress blocked any effort to shut the facility down.
Do we have to go back and say that they are not “held without trial” simply because there is no trial to be had; they are not criminals. They are either POW or unlawful combatants, neither of which is a crime. Some can also be criminals.
The relevant parts of the Geneva convention stipulate that POWs and Unlawful combatants can held for the duration of the conflict (this is SOP for any war) and that unlawful combatants have fewer rights than POWs.
The problem is the open-endedness of the “War on Terror”.
However the idea that Obama didn’t know about this stuff, Geneva 203 level, is ridiculous unless “his heart was in the rigth place” actually helps the guys in Guantanamo.
So, other than the fact that it’s illegal for him to remove them and he couldn’t actually override Congress’ decision, why are we not all angry at Obama?