…damned if he don’t. Damned to be compared to Bush, that is.
According to the New York Times, the White House is currently trying to figure out how to overcome a new restriction imposed by Congress that basically prevents the transfer of any detainee at Guantanamo to the United States, whether for trial or further detention.
One option under consideration is to issue a signing statement that asserts that this provision is unconstitutional, and infringes on the President’s powers as commander in chief.
So, it seems, no matter what Obama does, he is going to be condemned for being just like Bush. Either he acquiesces to the restriction legislated by Congress, and Guantanamo stays in business, and no trials for accused terrorists. Or, he trashes the Constitution by claiming that the Commander in Chief role allows him to ignore the law.
Release, or threaten to release everyone there with a ticket to any location of their choice? We have no right to keep anyone there forever. Or if that can’t be done, turn the place into a mini-resort with the “prisoners” wallowing in luxury, with the explanation that if he can’t try them and can’t release them he at least won’t mistreat them. And when the Republicans complain say that he’s perfectly willing to put them on trial and stick them in a proper prison, as soon as they let him. And if the prisoners escape and the Republicans complain about “dangerous terrorists” being loose, simply point out that thanks to the Republicans we have no actually proof that they are any such thing.
Just to add clarification on this point on what Congress put in the bill: it prohibits the use of any funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the United States (or its possessions); and it prohibits the release of detainees to another country unless the country meets a fairly stringent set of requirements:
So it seems that under this law, the President could not simply choose to release prisoners to another country.
If necessary, simply do it anyway and dare them to enforce it. Or grab a few Republican leaders and put them in Gitmo - after all, there’s more evidence for them supporting terrorism as there is for many of our victims - and point out that the law now forbids him from letting them out.
Escalation through raising the stakes isn’t the way to address it. By doing so, there’s no way it won’t get twisted around to look like he’s weak on terrorism. Imagine, he claims he’ll do that, congress caves, he appears to use threats to go against the law. If congress calls his bluff, and it is a bluff, it furthers the idea that democrats are spineless. Worst, if they call his blfuf, and it’s not a bluff, not only does he have the problem of violating the law like in the first scenario, but it will absolutely be twisted to look like he’s pro-terrorist because he let all these accused terrorists go without a trial.
He’s in a catch-22, and he needs to raise public awareness of it and get the people to either decide it’s not a big deal or pressure congress into changing the law so it can get addressed. Either way, I suspect he’ll probably end up just having to bite the bullet on this one and take the hit for a broken campaign promise rather than the the other two options. Besides, as much as I don’t like the idea of holding people indefinitely without trials, the people really won’t give a damn if the economy is addressed.
The people won’t “give a damn” anyway, your typical American is a murderous sadistic thug. That’s how this situation arose in the first place. Most Americans don’t care if people are being held without trial for no reason, or if they are being tortured; quite a few get off on the idea. They just don’t want it to come out in public and make America look like the collection of barbarians that it is.
I see. So rather than risk being accused of emulating Bush, you suggest that Obama actually act like Nixon: if the President does it, it is legal.
Another data point: the bill that these restrictions are contained in (the annual defense policy bill) passed the House of Representatives and the Senate by unanimous consent, with no recorded vote. It is a safe bet that a vote for the overall bill would have been near-unanimous. I would think that with Republicans gunning for Obama on all fronts, there would be adequate grounds for impeachment, and the possibility of conviction couldn’t be ruled out.
It does not seem very smart for the President to simply ignore the law, given the possible consequences.
(ETA: I should clarify that the bill has been passed by Congress, but it is at the White House awaiting signature.)
So…why do you want Obama to get impeached and possibly thrown into jail, Der Trihs? You seem to be saying that, since the ‘typical American is a murderous sadistic thug’, that Obama should go against the will of the majority of the people, and face the consequences of what will be an empty gesture (since he won’t be able to actually release them, or make the prison a resort)…instead, all it will really mean is the end of Obama’s presidency and his political career, and possibly even worse.
Why do you hate Obama so much and want to destroy him? Just curious.
No, closer to MLK Jr; willing to ignore unjust laws and dare those enforcing them to do so. Nixon did things for his own profit, hid what he was doing and did everything he could do avoid paying the price; that’s not the same as taking a moral stand.
Because he’s just another right wing thug, and very little different from Bush except for being much smarter. I am indifferent to his personal welfare just as he is indifferent to mine.
Ah, well, that makes sense (in a twisted Der Trihs sort of way). It makes no difference to you whether you have Obama or another Bush in office, since they are all the same. I have to admit that, from my perspective, both parties look pretty similar too. That said, I see a universe of difference between Bush and Obama.
But if you think he should destroy his career for a gesture and put the Republicans back in the drivers seat then I suppose it’s your right to have such an opinion.
I wonder how it will be seen in the light of history? Will it be yet another “shameful” moment in American history like when we detained Japanese Americans?
Wow, such vitriol. And I really have no idea where you’re getting that from either. I think it’s far more likely that most Americans aren’t happy about it, but when faced with a number of other issues that affect them directly, it’s a lot harder for them to get upset about it. If someone is jobless, in debt, or otherwise affected by the economy in a negative way directly, it’s not really reasonable to expect them to be worried about civil rights violations of a relatively small number of people, when their own wellfare, and the wellfare of millions of others are affected by a larger issue.
Yes, it’s a relatively simple thing to fix, just give the people trials and whatever, but because it’s lower on the priorities of so many people, it’s also easy to block with that law. So his options are still, either suck up the failed campaign promise and let it slide for now and address the larger issues for now, or raise awareness on how it is something that’s easy to fix and he’s being blocked. Unless he does something to raise awareness about it, it just plain won’t get addressed before the larger scale problems.
Obama has already stated there won’t be trials for some terrorists at Guantanamo: Some Guantanamo Prisoners Must Stay Put (“It was 19 months ago that Obama acknowledged some of the military prison’s toughest cases might have to be held indefinitely without trial because they cannot be prosecuted successfully but still pose a threat to U.S. security.”). Moving them somewhere else, doesn’t change that. So, he’s already “like Bush” whether this passes or not.
Further, He’s trying prisoners in military court. He doesn’t have to do that. He’s accepted detainees can be held indefinitely as long as they are unprivileged enemy belligerents. He doesn’t have to do that. These make him like Bush, much more than holding them in Guantanamo.
Try them in federal court. If they are no longer a threat, move them to an acceptable country that your Secretary of Defense certifies. Try them in military court in Guantanamo.
Do not hold them without trial, whether civilian or military.
Surely legislation making it more difficult to close Guantanamo is good for President Obama.
His naive but sincere promise during his campaign to close Gitmo probably has hurt him among the Der Trihs crowd, who were unable to separate out sincere naïveté from actual reality. What better way out than to be able to say, “Well, I tried, but those dadburn Congressmen would not let me do it?”
In a perfect political world, he’d even be able to posture publicly against the Gitmo legislation while personally hoping it passes as part of a larger bill that he has no choice but to sign. And maybe get Der Trihs and his buddies a gracious way out of their embarrassment over taking positions as naive as Mr Obama’s campaign position.
The president could at least present to some of the prisoners a list of countries that match the requirements listed in post 3, and ask them which of these countries they want to try to be released to.
Who said I ever believed Obama about anything? Like the rest of the Democrats he’s a weak coward and almost as right wing as the Republicans. And I’ve been calling him things like that since his inauguration if not earlier.
And what makes you think the “Der Trihs crowd” is going to believe him for a moment? I think you have no understanding just how deep the contempt for him has become among much of the left. No one is going to care at this point what he says or what excuses he uses. He’s supporting Bush style polices because he agrees with them, not because the big bad Republicans are making him.
