Skip to main content

View Diary: It Takes 130 Detainees Hunger Striking For Us to Notice Gitmo is Still Open (81 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Congress blocked the closing (7+ / 0-)

    I know it's like water off a duck's back to bring up this point, but I feel compelled to do so nevertheless.

    •  thanks for reminding us of Obama's excuse (7+ / 0-)

      and the Democrats excuse

      we can also thank the Republicans that the Grand Bargain has not already come to pass because they were too crazy to

      - kill off the dems by showing that they really didn't support the New Deal any longer

      •  What? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GoGoGoEverton, Quicklund

        Forget it...  don't care...

        The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

        by lcj98 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:18:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Obama's excuse? Is it a fact or isn't it (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG, Aquarius40, Quicklund

        that the President signed an executive order to close down GITMO upon entering the White House and six months into his  administration, Democrats and Republicans voted to prevent the president from moving any Guantanamo detainee into the U.S. or to other countries?

        Obama's excuse? So I understand, Congress has been blocking this President since he entered office, but it is really a secret Obama plot to derive an excuse not to get things done?

        I wonder how many who have been criticizing the President on GITMO have written their congress critters about their effort to prevent the closing of GITMO? Where are the protests at these congress critters' offices? Where is the march on Washington to protests these individuals? Guess what...crickets, crickets, crickets.... No, it is far easier to criticize Obama for not also being part of the legislative branch of government than it is to protests the actual legislators. The motto: "Let's go after Obama, because going after Congress is too hard."

        •  Ned, you are not paying attention (9+ / 0-)

          try teh Google and see the protests against Gitmo. Many have been protesting since the day it opened.
          And yes it is very easy to criticize Obama for not closing Gitmo as he promised.
          Did you miss the part of the diary that he closed the office that was supposed to be working on it?

          Gitmo is a Concentration Camp. Not a Detention Center. Torture happens at Concentration Camps. Torture happens at Gitmo. How much further will US values fall? Where is YOUR outrage at what the United States does in OUR names?

          by snoopydawg on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:28:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  snoopydawg, I see the protest on GITMO and the (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dream It Real, lcj98

            effort to date hasn't moved Congress one bit. Has there been challenges to the districts of these individuals? It has mainly been an attack on the President.  

            On January 22, 2009 Barack Obama signed an executive order to close GITMO within one year. He said at the time:

            This is me following through on not just a commitment I made during the campaign, but I think an understanding that dates back to our founding fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it’s easy, but also when it’s hard.
            What happened:

            In May 2009, Progressives such as Chuck Schumer, Byron Dorgan, and Russ Feingold all joined Republicans and voted to deny Obama the funding he required to shut down GITMO. Only six Democrats sided with the President: Durbin, Harkin, Reed, Levin, Leahy, and Whitehouse. The rest of them caved to fear tactics and voted with the Republicans.

            The President didn't stop there. In December of 2009, he signed a presidential memo ordering Attorney General Holder and Defense Sec. Gates to acquire the state prison in Thompson, IL as a replacement for GITMO.

            What happened? In May 2010 the Democratically controlled House Armed Services Committee decided to go against the President and voted unanimously to prohibit the opening of any GITMO replacement facility in the United States. Yup. Effectively sabotaging the effort to close down GITMO.

            Now these protests that you mentioned, a few hundred at the 10th anniversary of the opening of the facility and dozens of people gathered at various places around the world. That I guess, is fine, but what is happening against these individuals who voted with Republicans to stop the President? Why aren't they being targeted directly to encourage their votes?

            What I see are people over the internet attacking the President. Heck, up until Feingold left office many had been cheering him as one of the few unadulterated "pure" Progressives in this country. Well where was his vote on 2009?

            But the vilification of Obama on this issue continues, forgive me if I view this as just the typical Obama generated outrage.

          •  wasn't one of the first of Obama's team to resign (0+ / 0-)

            the guy that was responsible for Obama issuing the order to close it on January 22, 2009?

            President Obama signs the order requiring that the Guantanamo Bay facility be closed within a year.

            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."

            and
            Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, an outspoken critic of the Bush administration, praised the action, calling it "a first key step in restoring America's image and credibility in the world."

            "The Bush administration never understood what the Guantanamo detention facility symbolized to the rest of the world," Murtha said in a written statement. "They saw it as simply a prison. ... The problem with Guantanamo was never about its bricks and mortar. The problem with Guantanamo is that its very existence stains and defies the moral fiber of our great nation."

            "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

            by allenjo on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:39:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The buck stops here....... (8+ / 0-)

          What president said that?

          Early on Obama wanted to close this nations symbol of shame, and wasn't that great to hear?

          But it seems this president was not able to get even Dems on board with him. How sad was that?

          Let's just not ever criticize this president for any failings, because we all know it is always the fault of congress, right?

          Maybe we should give Obama credit for wanting to close Gitmo, cause it sure seems like that is what he wants, while not actually doing anything, but talk.

          What is really hard here on dkos- is being able to criticize the president for any actions or inactions, without someone jumping in to say it is not his fault and he is never to be held accountable.

          If the president really wanted to close Gitmo he would have had to work with congress, so why didn't he do that?

          He is very quick to say he can bring democratics to vote to cut social security, because he is a democratic president, as he says.

          Too sad that he didn't feel the same about closing Gitmo.

          "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

          by allenjo on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:41:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So let me get this straight (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Quicklund

            You are saying Obama is to blame for not closing GITMO because Obama wanted to close it and he couldn't convince Democrats to close it??? So yes, Democrats who should have been on board with closing GITMO because that is what Democrats should be for, are not to blame because Obama did not convince them to support an issue they should be supporting in the first place???  Thank you for that wonderful line of reasoning!

            Hey, let’s just stipulate that “bad” is Obama’s fault and call it a day.

            •  reply to Ned (4+ / 0-)

              A president that promises to deliver democrats votes to cut social security benefits could also with the same determination deliver votes to close Gitmo.

              If he was so determined........

              "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

              by allenjo on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:01:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  he can bring Democrats to the table he says...... (5+ / 0-)

                “The president has said this to the Republicans: ‘You want to do entitlement reform? I do, too. I can produce entitlement reform and bring Democrats to the table, because I am a Democratic president. And so I’m ready to sit down with you and work out an approach,’ ” Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, a Democratic leader, said at a recent forum hosted by The Wall Street Journal.

                "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

                by allenjo on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:03:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Ahh, still refusing to blame Congress. It doesn't (0+ / 0-)

                matter that the President campaigned on closing GITMO.
                It doesn't matter that the President signed proclamations to close GITMO.

                It's Obama's fault, because:

                A president that promises to deliver democrats votes to cut social security benefits could also with the same determination deliver votes to close Gitmo.
                I won't even begin to explain that even if your supposition is correct, since you are speaking about an even that has not yet occured, not all political issues and controversies are the same.

                No, I won't try and challenge that last bit of reasoning, I'll just let it sit there and breath.

                •  worst congress in history - satisfied? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  aliasalias, PhilJD

                  the record filibusters in the Senate have done incredible damage

                  the budget efforts in the house are laughable

                  yes, the Republicans are to blame for a lot of the grid lock

                  but the larger issue is that both parties are playing a game of deception from the real issues

                  war

                  whistle blowers

                  economy

                  jobs

                  banksters

                  etc.

                  and Obama has gone along with far too many republican initiatives

                  those are the ones that support the 1%

                  for example, the attack on social security

                •   "event* has not yet occured." (0+ / 0-)
            •  You can't have it both ways. If Congress (5+ / 0-)

              is solely to blame for the failure to close Gitmo and the President bears no responsibility at all...

              then Congress deserves all of the credit for legislation you like such as the ACA... and Mr. Obama merits no praise for it at all.

              Somehow it never works that way for the President's ardent supporters. All the blame for everything bad goes to Congress, all the praise for anything good goes to the President.

              So much for this reality-based community.

              When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

              by PhilJD on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:02:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  to the President's ardent supporters (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PhilJD, Don midwest, aliasalias

                What would you hold the president, as in the buck stops here, accountable for? Is every bad action coming out of DC only the fault of congress?

                Is there anything that the president would bear any responsibility that many of us think is bad policy?

                I do not understand the logic that we applaud what he does that is good, but those of you here that are the most ardent supporters, want the rest of us to ignore what is bad.

                From your standpoint it is be applause for all the good, and yet never to speak a word against the bad? To never hold the president accountable?

                Why? Why should we ignore the bad? If we do, how can we change it?

                "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

                by allenjo on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:13:30 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Well, I think the record is clear that when most (0+ / 0-)

                were ready to give up on the Affordable Care Act, it was the President who took the ball and got it passed.

                Still in terms of your suggestion that the President can't be credited with victories and not be blamed for failures:

                It should be clear that not all issues are apples to apples or yummy cupcakes to yummy cupcakes. As I pointed out to above, very few political issues are the same. They each have their own dynamics as well as controversies.

                But if you want to say Obama didn't get the ACA through because he hasn't gotten GITMO through, I suggest you look at the record of the passing of the Affordable Care Act.

          •  Or the Public Option for that matter. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PhilJD, aliasalias, allenjo, Nada Lemming

            And what exactly prevented him from investigating Bush/Cheney torture policies and lies that got us into Iraq?
              Not Congress.

            "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

            by elwior on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:01:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  he didn't want to close it just move it north (5+ / 0-)

            'GITMO of the north' was what the ACLU called the idea.

            without the ants the rainforest dies

            by aliasalias on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:44:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly. That's why progressives like Feingold (5+ / 0-)

              and Sanders declined to support the President's plan to close it... because they understood that the only thing worse than Gitmo would be the indefinite detention without charges of "terror" suspects on American soil.

              Somehow, Mr. Obama's ardent supporters have morphed that principled stand into "see, even these liberal icons opposed the President."

              Poor guy; the most powerful individual in the history of humanity and his hands are tied.

              When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

              by PhilJD on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:53:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I see, super Progressive Feingold didn't support (0+ / 0-)

                the closing of GITMO because he feared there would be other prisons that could replace GITMO in the future. Hmmm...that's like saying "I refuse to put out the fire because there will be more fires."  I wonder why Durbin, Harkin, Reed, Levin, Leahy, and Whitehouse stood with the President.

                Last time I heard guys like Tom Harkin, Patrick Leahy and Sheldon Whitehouse are staunch Progressives, but I'll use Feingold's supposed excuse the next time I fail to do something widely considered as the right thing to do.

                •  Not just some sort of generic "other prisons." (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  aliasalias, BradyB

                  The concern of Feingold, Sanders and others was that Gitmo would be replaced by prisons on American soil, where American law did not apply.

                  Anyone who believes that the Bill of Rights retains some value in 21st Century America should be concerned about that.

                  I encourage you to read the Glenn Greenwald articles cited elsewhere in these comments.

                  When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                  by PhilJD on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:11:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I understand your point, but still do not accept (0+ / 0-)

                    it as an argument for not voting to close GITMO, as Senators Harkin, Leahy, and Whitehouse did not accept such an argument.

                    This argument also appears to assume that a future composed Congress would be condusive in granting the opportunity to address this issue. In otherwords, it assumes a second bite at the apple, based upon some thought that all requirements have been met and agreed to in order to close GITMO.

                    Finally, We can't be arguing that the President failed in not closing GITMO and then say Senators like Feingold were right in not allowing him the vote to close GITMO. It doesn't make sense.

                    •  the point is that it was NOT closing GITMO (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      BradyB, PhilJD

                      it was about relocating it to America.

                      without the ants the rainforest dies

                      by aliasalias on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 03:10:04 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  So what if the prisoners were relocated to (0+ / 0-)

                        America? There are lots of terrorists in American jails who have gone through the judicial system. Yours is the argument Republicans used in order to galavanize votes to stop the President. They were successful thanks to people like Feingold.

                        According to a Government Accountability Office study in 2009, U.S. prisons already held 373 prisoners convicted of terrorism in 98 facilities across the country.

                        What you and your fellow Obama critics are saying is that it was right for Feingold to vote against the President also in opposition to Harkin, Leahy, and Whitehouse, because it is really not about GITMO, since you feel the prisoners would just be housed in the U.S.

                        Well, this just proves my contention that the constant attack on the President for not closing GITMO was really more about attacking the President than about closing GITMO.  Every Democrat who voted with the Republicans on this issue should be ashamed.

                        •  your missing the point, we do not PRESENTLY have (0+ / 0-)

                          a GITMO in the USA and that would have been one in America, officially a prison where people are indefinitely detained with or without any or charges filed against them.

                          Again, in case you don't know it somehow, GITMO is not like the federal or State prisons in the USA. In this country prisoners would have certain rights and that's why Bush/Cheney didn't want it located inside this Country.

                          without the ants the rainforest dies

                          by aliasalias on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:03:31 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not sure we're speaking the same (0+ / 0-)

                            language. Based upon your response, you seem to imagine that I have no clue what GITMO is about.

                            Ok, I'll humor you on that. Let's say I am in the dark, no pun intended, as to the grotesque travesty of GITMO. Still, do you honestly believe a Senator like Sheldon Whitehouse, who was a United States Attorney for the State of Rhode Island as well as, after becoming a U.S Senator, a member of the The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, does not know the difference between the laws governing GITMO and the U.S. prison system? And the ramifications of shutting the camp down?

                            Of course he doesn't....  

        •  that zombie story refuses to die (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PhilJD, Lady Libertine, allenjo

          https://www.commondreams.org/...

          Whenever the subject is raised of Obama's failure to close Gitmo, the same excuse is instantly offered on his behalf: he tried to do so but Congress (including liberals like Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders) thwarted him by refusing to fund the closing. As I documented at length last July, this excuse is wildly incomplete and misleading. When it comes to the failure to close Gitmo, this "Congress-prevented-Obama" claim has now taken on zombie status - it will never die no matter how clearly and often it is debunked - but it's still worth emphasizing the reality.
          I won't repeat all of the details, citations and supporting evidence - see here - but there are two indisputable facts that should always be included in this narrative. The first is that what made Guantánamo such a travesty of justice was not its geographic locale in the Caribbean Sea, but rather its system of indefinite detention: that people were put in cages, often for life, without any charges or due process. Long before Congress ever acted, Obama's plan was to preserve and continue that core injustice - indefinite detention - but simply moved onto US soil.

          Put simply, Obama's plan was never to close Gitmo as much as it was to re-locate it to Illinois: to what the ACLU dubbed "Gitmo North". That's why ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said of Obama's 2009 "close-Gitmo" plan that it "is hardly a meaningful step forward" and that "while the Obama administration inherited the Guantánamo debacle, this current move is its own affirmative adoption of those policies." That's because, he said, "the administration plans to continue its predecessor's policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial for some detainees, with only a change of location."

          And the reason Democratic Senators such as Feingold voted against funding Gitmo's closing wasn't because they were afraid to support its closing. It was because they refused to fund the closing until they saw Obama's specific plan, because they did not want to support the importation of Gitmo's indefinite detention system onto US soil, as Obama expressly intended.
          (emphasis mine)

          without the ants the rainforest dies

          by aliasalias on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:43:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Put simply....... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aliasalias
            Put simply, Obama's plan was never to close Gitmo as much as it was to re-locate it to Illinois: to what the ACLU dubbed "Gitmo North".

            That's why ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said of Obama's 2009 "close-Gitmo" plan that it "is hardly a meaningful step forward" and that "while the Obama administration inherited the Guantánamo debacle, this current move is its own affirmative adoption of those policies."

            That's because, he said, "the administration plans to continue its predecessor's policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial for some detainees, with only a change of location."

            "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

            by allenjo on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 12:37:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  What is the excuse for Obama's budget & SS? (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        allenjo, mkor7, elwior, PhilJD, aliasalias

        just got this in the mail from Campaign for America's future

        Dear Don:

        Terrible news. According to The Wall Street Journal, “The White House is strongly considering including limits on entitlement benefits in its fiscal 2014 budget.”

        The report specifies that the budget proposal, to be released next week, could cut Social Security payments behind the smokescreen of the “chained CPI.”

        This must be stopped, and we have only a few days to stop it.

        Click here to warn President Obama: Don’t sell out our retirement security. No Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid cuts in your budget.

        If The Wall Street Journal is correct, President Obama is planning on a major capitulation to the Republicans, paving the way for a disastrous “grand bargain” that would bargain away the pillars of the New Deal.

        Just last month, the Campaign for America’s Future sounded the alarm about the chained CPI and the threat to our retirement security, and many of you have responded to our call.

        But the threat now is more urgent than ever.

        Sign the petition to President Obama: No Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid cuts in your budget.

        The president needs to know that gutting Social Security is going in the wrong direction. The middle class needs more retirement security, not less.

        The president needs to know if he tries to ram this “grand swindle” through Congress, he will shatter his party and lose the support of the people.

        And if we are to stop the capitulation from happening, the president needs to hear from you immediately, before he unveils his budget in a matter of days.

        Stay strong, and we’ll win this.

        Sincerely,

        Roger Hickey
        Co-Director, Campaign for America’s Future

      •  Don (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        allenjo

        Knowing you are critical of my post is most reassuring.

        •  Quicklund - you only have 2 HR for me. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aliasalias, allenjo

          gogogo has 4

          howarddream, indyguy   both of these have 3

          there are 4 or you with 2 HR each

          in case you have not noticed, what I got HR before, saying bad stuff about Obama, is these days all over the place here on dailykos

          the early warnings from Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges have come to pass yet many still look up to the president

          we have seen "democrats" ready to sell out the new deal

          as someone pointed out, when something good happens, it is Obama's action, when something bad happens it is because of the republicans

          •  so true, Don (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PhilJD, Nada Lemming
            when something good happens, it is Obama's action, when something bad happens it is because of the republicans
            The applause is dying down here on dkos - there aren't as many of Obama's most ardent supports posting here, those that want us all to of course applaud the good but then to always ignore the bad.

            "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

            by allenjo on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 12:42:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  of course (8+ / 0-)

      what a big bi-partisan multi-branches mess.

      Andy Worthington:

      However, there is another reason for the hunger strike that is rather harder to deny; namely, that the prisoners despair of ever being released, over four years after President Obama promised to close Guantánamo, and despite 86 of the remaining prisoners being cleared for release by an interagency Guantánamo Review Task Force that the President established in 2009.

      The President himself is to blame for imposing a blanket ban on the release of two-thirds of these men — all Yemenis — after a Nigerian man,Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, tried and failed to blow up a plane bound for the US on Christmas Day 2009. Abdulmutallab was recruited in Yemen, but the President’s ban imposes an unjustifiable life sentence on the Yemenis on the basis of their nationality alone.

      Also to blame is Congress, where lawmakers introduced legislation designed to block the release of prisoners, including an obligation on the defense secretary to certify that any released prisoner would not subsequently be able to engage in anti-American activities — a certification that seems to me to be impossible to make. As a result, only four prisoners have been released in the last two years, and during that same time period three prisoners have died. The prisoners also understand these statistics: at present there is a 43 percent probability that if they manage to leave Guantánamo, which is unlikely, it will be in a coffin.

      [...]Instead of responding, however, President Obama is doing nothing — or rather, just watching as officials establish that nearly $200 million is required to renovate the facilities at Guantánamo, including, as Gen. Kelly let slip, $50 million to replace Camp 7, the secretive camp where the 16 “high-value detainees,” including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, are held. The President, I’m sorry to note, escaped the scrutiny he deserved when these figures emerged, because the cost, of course, includes the figures for the cleared prisoners. It was established in November 2011 that it costs $72 million a year to hold the cleared prisoners; and to that can be added half of the $150 million that is not being spent on the “high-value detainees.” With the annual cost, that is $150 million that will be spent this year on holding men that the US government decided three to four years ago it no longer wished to hold.

      If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution. ~ Emma Goldman

      by Lady Libertine on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:56:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40, Quicklund, Don midwest

      It's so much fun talking into the wind, ain't it?

      The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

      by lcj98 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:17:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Right. The Commander-in-Chief of our military (4+ / 0-)

      has no authority at all over how our forces are disposed or the Pentagon's budget is spent.

      Oh, and the same guy is also President of the United States. He could figure out a way to close this hellhole if it mattered to him.

      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

      by PhilJD on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:49:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not according to the US Constitution (0+ / 0-)

        That document really does in point of fact divide power. The President is not Der Furher. It's entirely demoralizing to see so few Kossacks today understand the US system of governance. This place is approaching GOP levels of comprehension.

        •  Ah, a tried and true argument: the civics lesson! (5+ / 0-)

          Sometimes the old talking points are still the best.

          Surprisingly enough, I've heard that song before.

          Just off the top of my head though, Mr. Obama could--as CiC--order all US troops home from Gitmo, leaving the cells unlocked behind them.

          He could also--as President--decline to sign any Defense Department budget that includes continued funding for the prison.

          If Mr. Obama was serious about implementing his oft-repeated vow to close this horror, he could start by releasing the 86 detainees who have been cleared for release. He could also, pending closure, act to alleviate conditions there. The fact that he declines to take even these minimal concrete steps speaks volumes...

          to anyone willing to listen.

          When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

          by PhilJD on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:18:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  where is the part giving the Pres the right to be (4+ / 0-)

          judge jury and executioner? Or to even have a Kill list that is secret to all but a few people and has no oversight whatsoever?

          No, it's interesting how often people argue Obama's hands are tied by the Constitution when Mr. Kinetic Action can order bombing another Country to smithereens after Congress refused to support it .

          What a Constitution, now you see it , now you don't.

          without the ants the rainforest dies

          by aliasalias on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:57:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It certainly is, Quicklund, it certainly is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PhilJD, BigAlinWashSt
          It's entirely demoralizing to see so few Kossacks today understand the US system of governance.
          In the oval office of Obama, no buck ever stops there, right?

          "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

          by allenjo on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:18:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Technically true, but somewhat misleading (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Don midwest, PhilJD, BradyB, aliasalias

      I know Glenn Greenwald is persona non grata to the "Obama supporters" side, but his article does a better job than anything else I know discussing this topic.

      To summarize: Even if Obama's plan to close Guantanamo had been accepted in full by Congress, the indefinite detention system would've merely been moved to the US. In other words, the plan was not to actually try the inmates in court or release them; it was to move them to the US and continue to hold them without trial. Obama never intended to close Gitmo, just relocate it. (This, incidentally, is why people like Feingold and Sanders voted against it.)

      So yes, Congress blocked the closing of that one particular prison. But you can't coherently place all the blame for indefinite detention on them.

      "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

      by TealTerror on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:58:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Which Congress? (0+ / 0-)

      The one that consisted of 60 Democrats in the Senate and over 300 Democrats in the House?

      It wasn't a priority to the President. He was far, far too busy negotiating away healthcare.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (134)
  • Community (63)
  • 2016 (52)
  • Environment (42)
  • Elections (38)
  • Republicans (36)
  • Media (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (32)
  • Jeb Bush (30)
  • Iraq (30)
  • Barack Obama (30)
  • Law (29)
  • Climate Change (29)
  • Culture (28)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (26)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Labor (21)
  • Economy (21)
  • LGBT (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site