Obama extends Gitmo

[Marley23]

@Chief_Pedant

This particular action by Mr Obama is remarkable in light of his campaign promises.

This does highlight the question in your OP: where have you been the last couple of years? He’s been in office for about 26 months now.

One cannot fault a predecessor for this.

Yes, one can: his predecessor created a situation that Obama couldn’t resolve on his own.

However my contempt in this instance is not so much for Mr Obama as it is for the naivety of the voters who actually thought due process in American courts is the right alternative for Gitmo.

I disagree. But now I’m wondering why you’re criticizing his supporters when you appear to support what he’s doing.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Is anyone other than John Mace actually reading the article before posting?

“The new executive order doesn’t change the legal authority for detention at all,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies. “It simply provides additional reviews for individuals who have been found by the habeas courts to be lawfully detained under the laws of war.”

The executive order is simply a restatement on paper of what we’ve been doing all along without bothering to write it down. Oh, and…

…recent legislation now makes it extremely difficult to transfer any detainee out of Guantanamo Bay even if he is believed to be no threat, and it is unclear how the administration will confront that congressional barrier.

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
I guess I thought there’d be a little more outrage from the pansy side of the fence.
[/QUOTE]

I guess the real question is why the people on the douchebag side of the fence are feigning outrage at the lack of outrage on the pansy side.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Chief_Pedant

The Pedant is relatively apolitical, actually.

I suspect that you actually believe this, which makes me a little sad for you.

[John_Mace]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I guess the real question is why the people on the douchebag side of the fence are feigning outrage at the lack of outrage on the pansy side.

I believe the proper terminology is: “assholes” and “pussies”.

[Tom_Scud]

@John_Mace

I believe the proper terminology is: “assholes” and “pussies”.

The “pussies” are the ones who think the super-powered ultra-Terrorists will be able to spirit themselves out of supermax prisons and DESTROY AMERICA, right?

[MsWhatsit]

Well, I am outraged and continue to be outraged that Gitmo is still open and will apparently remain so for the foreseeable future. If you guys could just page me any time I need to express my outrage for the benefit of an outrage denier, that would be super, thanks.

[Gyrate]

@Chief_Pedant

However my contempt in this instance is not so much for Mr Obama as it is for the naivety of the voters who actually thought due process in American courts is the right alternative for Gitmo. It reflects a remarkable innocence about terrorism, and a fundamental non-comprehension that on occasion bad people need to be shot where you find them instead of bringing them due process.

You do know that the vast majority of Gitmo detainees were not captured on the battlefield but rather were handed over by political allies and locals looking to cash in on our “money for Al Qaeda, no questions asked” policy, right? The reason that we’ve let so many go without charge already is because there was no reason for them to be there in the first place. You are basically advocating a “shoot 'em all and let Allah sort them out” system of justice.

[Tom_Tildrum]

Here’s Greenwald on yesterday’s order. He contends that despite Congress’ actions restricting the transfer of Gitmo prisoners, Obama should be faulted for (a) having requested preventive detention powers from Congress before any other Congressional action had taken place, and (b) never having articulated any actual plan to close Gitmo (Greenwald views the one proposed plan to move the prisoners to continued detention in a supermax prison in Illinois as essentially a continuation of Gitmo rather than a closure).

[Jack_Batty]

I propose that from now on, any President who does something that people who voted for him don’t like, he be immediately impeached and the White House burnt to the ground.

Think of all the construction jobs we’d create … if we had to rebuild the White House every other week.

[marshmallow]

@Orr_G

Obama’s actions (or lack thereof) often leave me feeling disappointed, depressed, disenfranchised. I won’t make the mistake of letting that keep me from the polls in the future, however. The price we pay is too great.

What’s the Matter with Kansas? indeed.

[CoolHandCox]

From article:

President Obama signed an executive order Monday that will create a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who continue to pose a significant threat to national security. The administration also said it will start new military commission trials for detainees there.

Two things that can be separated from Gitmo. (1) The executive use of [pre-charge] indefinite detention. (2) Military Commissions. Both of these infer the detainees are being held under the Law of Armed Conflict/Law of War. While Obama has made things better, it’s essentially the same paradigm as it was under Bush.

So, if they leave Cuba for Kansas, but those two things don’t change…it’s not really any different. This just confirms the war modality, and not a move toward criminal.

[Captain_Amazing]

@CoolHandCox

Two things that can be separated from Gitmo. (1) The executive use of [pre-charge] indefinite detention. (2) Military Commissions. Both of these infer the detainees are being held under the Law of Armed Conflict/Law of War. While Obama has made things better, it’s essentially the same paradigm as it was under Bush.

Congress has said they’re not allowed to be tried in civilian courts, though, so again, what do you want him to do? And, in fact, the same statement that said that the President is going to start up military commissions again, also said that the President is going to try to get the law banning them from being tried in civilian courts repealed:

In recent months, some in Congress have sought to undermine this process. In December, Congress enacted restrictions on the prosecution of Guantanamo detainees in Federal courts. The Administration opposes these restrictions as a dangerous and unprecedented challenge to Executive authority to select the most effective means available to bring terrorists to justice and safeguard our security. The Executive Branch possesses the information and expertise necessary to make the best judgment about where a particular prosecution should proceed, and Congress’s intrusion upon this function is inconsistent with the long-standing and appropriate allocation of authority between the Executive and Legislative branches. . . .

Military commissions should proceed in cases where it has been determined appropriate to do so. Because there are situations, however, in which our federal courts are a more appropriate forum for trying particular individuals, we will seek repeal of the restrictions imposed by Congress, so that we can move forward in the forum that is, in our judgment, most in line with our national security interests and the interests of justice.

Again, what do you want the President to do?

[gonzomax]

Obama should honor his promises. He said he would close Gitmo and he has not.

[Raygun99]

How do you suggest he would accomplish that?

[CoolHandCox]

@Captain_Amazing

Congress has said they’re not allowed to be tried in civilian courts, though, so again, what do you want him to do? And, in fact, the same statement that said that the President is going to start up military commissions again, also said that the President is going to try to get the law banning them from being tried in civilian courts repealed:

Veto the legislation. Release the detainees. Bush released 500 detainees. I understand the remaining ones are more “difficult,” but it’s an option money and diplomacy can solve.

And honestly, I don’t mind them being tried in the military courts. However, there are some that will not be tried, but just detained and left for the next President.

Again, what do you want the President to do [re: Congress enacted restrictions on the prosecution of Guantanamo detainees in Federal courts]?

Veto it. Or he’s just talk. (It was packaged in legislation that makes veto unlikely, but it’s always an option for the President if the matter is serious enough).

[Captain_Amazing]

What do you want him to do going forward, given that it wasn’t vetoed? A number of detainees already have been released, but releasing most of the rest isn’t a very realistic option, given who they are.

[Dumbguy]

@Chief_Pedant

However my contempt in this instance is not so much for Mr Obama as it is for the naivety of the voters who actually thought due process in American courts is the right alternative for Gitmo. It reflects a remarkable innocence about terrorism, and a fundamental non-comprehension that on occasion bad people need to be shot where you find them instead of bringing them due process.

Never really understood this POV. Our court system handles people like Dahmer, a guy who cut up the corpses of his victims and fucked and ate the pieces, then put the leftovers in the freezer so he had something to fuck and eat later when the fresh bits ran out. In the pantheon of evil douchebag assholes, these guys don’t really seem to be in the major leagues even for recent history, considering the last century brought us the Nazis, Khmer Rouge, and Nickelback.

Or to put it in the appropriate parlance, if you’re really that afraid of a bunch of dipshit dirt farmers on the ragged fringe of the world, I think you’re a pansy.

[CoolHandCox]

@Captain_Amazing

What do you want him to do going forward, given that it wasn’t vetoed? A number of detainees already have been released, but releasing most of the rest isn’t a very realistic option, given who they are.

There were over 10 pieces of “Gitmo” legislation last year; all were signed into law by the President. The one we are talking about was the most stringent (the defense appropriation bill). Just quickly, most of the legislation deal not with what the Executive can or cannot do, but with how he can use the money appropriated to him (ie, here’s the money, but you can’t use it to bring detainees into the US). In effect the same thing, but slightly nuanced.

However, it does appear to be limited to the Department of Defense ["None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this [defense authorization bill] for fiscal year 2011 may be used to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within the United States, its territories, or possessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who (1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and (2) is or was held on or after January 20, 2009, at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department of Defense"]. The detainees are under military control, the DoD cannot use the money to bring the detainees into the US. So, one alternative, get the DoJ to use their less restricted appropriated money to do it. Congress will argue they meant the Executive in its entirety, of course.

Or, next year, since you won’t veto, issue a Bush-like signing statement that says the detainees are under the control of the military and telling me what I can and can’t do with the money you’re giving me is an unconstitutional infringement on my Executive powers. You give me the military money, or you don’t. And then just use the money to bring them into the US for trial.

[flickster]

@Captain_Amazing

The plan to transfer them to prisons in the US or try them in the US courts was blocked by Congress, so what’s the president supposed to do with the people there?

Note - that was a Congress overwhelmingly controlled by the Democrat Party

[Der_Trihs]

@flickster

Note - that was a Congress overwhelmingly controlled by the Democrat Party

And?