NYT: White House Says Tribunals Can Resume at Guantánamo

[varkam]

The New York Times
March 7, 2011
Link

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a setback to hopes for a quick closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison, the Obama administration on Monday lifted a stay on filing new charges in military tribunals there and set up a process for continuing to hold detainees who have not been charged.

President Barack Obama said he ordered the Defense Department to lift an order that had suspended the filing of new charges in the military tribunals at the camp. Obama had suspended such charges when he announced his review of the detainee policy in early 2009, shortly after he took office.

The White House said that review was now complete.

Obama also issued an executive order on Monday establishing a process to continue to hold some Guantanamo detainees who have been neither charged, convicted nor designated for transfer but who are deemed to pose a threat to security.

However, the White House said Obama remained committed to eventually closing the prison at Guantanamo, at some point.

Committed to closing Guantanamo. Eventually. At some point.

[Solly Mack]

1. k/r

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

2. 'Obama also issued an executive order...to continue to hold detainees who have been neither charged.

My hero.

[Rex]

3. This guy just does NOT have a clue as to how to get voters to show

up in 2012. Shit.

[JonLP24]

4. I must be fringe for being against this

[Tatiana]

5. Obama vows to close Guantanamo

Obama vows to close Guantanamo

Detention camp closure welcomed as human rights lawyers warn of legal problems to come.

18 Nov 2008 00:27 GMT

Barack Obama, the US president-elect, has promised to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, as human rights lawyers warn such a move would face a number of legal difficulties.

Obama told the CBS programme 60 Minutes on Sunday: "I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that.

"I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture.

"And I'm going to make sure that we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world."

Obama had originally promised to shut the US prison in Cuba while on the campaign trail, but his comments on Sunday were the first confirmation of his intentions since the November 4 election.

He did not, however, elaborate on where the Guantanamo detainees would be sent or whether they would be put on trial, or released.

Obama's comments come as he prepares later on Monday to meet John McCain - his former Republican presidential rival - for their first meeting since the US elections, to discuss possible bipartisan action on political issues.

(more...)

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/11/20081117102528921928.html#

***Sigh***

[msanthrope]

17. And the Congress blocked closure with the passage of a law. How is Obama supposed to override the

laws of Congress?

http://www.webcitation.org/5jPWyaCDq

[varkam]

31. To be fair, that's not what Congress did.

The House denied him the funds he sought to transfer the detainees to civilian facilities, which is not the same thing as passing a law that would prevent closure. Obama's hands aren't tied in the matter.

[msanthrope]

36. He isn't allowed to bring them on to American soil. Nor is there any funding for

closure. Where is the money supposed to come for that? Where are they supposed to go, since no other country will have them?

[varkam]

45. Well, there's a number of options...

First, I'm pretty sure he could transfer them to American soil, so long as they were kept confined on a military base (e.g. Ft. Levinworth). Failing that, he could release them to their country of origin -- I'm pretty sure that under international law your country of origin cannot refuse you entry unless there's extraordinary circumstances (although that might differ from country to country). I also think that a lot of these folks would have a pretty good cause for an asylum petition somewhere. Under many immigration laws, indefinite detention without charge or process is one way to define persecution.

But even if we were to keep these folks at Guantanamo, we could, essentially, bring the civilian criminal justice system to them. Since Obama is CIC I'm pretty sure he has authority to establish special tribunals at Guantanamo that would essentially blend the military tribunals and UCMJ with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Evidence. He would, in essence, be able to try these detainees with all the protections afforded individuals in civilian courts (for example, a prohibition on ex parte presentation of evidence would be a nice start). I'd be willing to bet that, if he did that, a good number of them would probably be acquitted or, if given credit for time served, would probably already have maxed out.

But those are just a couple options I can think of off the top of my head, and I'm not all that creative. I'm sure there are other possibilities that could be pursued, so long as the political will to pursue them existed.

[msanthrope]

56. You are, IMHO, utterly incorrect on all counts.

1) American soil is American soil. No exceptions for military bases is written into the law. If there is an exception, kindly show us where in the statute it is.

2) I suggest you read up on the fact that yes, countries of origin DO NOT want these guys. Specifically, read up on Yemen--90 dudes they aren't taking back. Read up on the Uighurs of China, who CAN'T go back, lest they be killed.

3) Cite the authority Obama has to circumvent the UCMJ. Not just 'he's the CIC.' You do realize that article 1, Section 8 gives CONGRESS, not the executive, the authority to amend or change the UCMJ--there was a reason for this. It's called King George.

4) Further, explain how an Article 3 court gets a) established by the Executive, and b) outside of US soil.

I think your argument would be stronger if you could make an argument that doesn't call for wholesale violation of the separation of powers.

[varkam]

62. Well, I can rest easy knowing it's your humble opinion.

1) The President is CIC of the armed forces -- at home and abroad. There's a reason why military bases have their own judicial systems, police systems, etc -- because they're separate from civilian life. I would ask that you point to where the President stops being CIC when the military base in question is in America.

2)I suggest that you keep reading my response. If your country of origin won't take you back, a lot of these guys have a pretty good claim for asylum in many other countries. There are many ways to define persecution, and many things that would point to it, but most first-world nations would include an indefinite period of confinement without charge or process as one possible means of establishing persecution (and therefore, eligibility for asylum).

3)What I'm saying is that as CIC I'm pretty sure he'd be able, through executive order, to establish a special tribunal at Guantanamo. Tribunals themselves aren't article three courts anyway. I'm not saying that Obama would even have to amend to alter the UCMJ, but to essentially transplant the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence specifically for the purpose of these special tribunals.

4) An article three court has nothing to do with this since, as was pointed out, military tribunals aren't article three courts.

[msanthrope]

66. Again, you haven't supported any of your speculations.

1) Explain how being the CIC allows the President to override the laws of Congress. Cite an actual LAW or precedent that supports your idea that being CIC vitiates Article 1, Section 8.

2) Okay. Name a single country that wants 90 Yemeni possible terrorists, and will entertain their asylum claim.

3) Cite your authority. Explain how one 'transplants' the FRCP and the FRE into tribunals constituted under the MCA of 2006? Essentially, you are stating that the President gets to override the laws of Congress with an EO. Explain HOW that happens, legally.

4) You are advocating for the establishment of a court that follows the rules of other article Three courts. Explain how the Executive does this.

You keep ignoring the MCA of 2006. Your explanations conveniently ignore its existence, suggesting that either you fail to understand how laws are passed, or you just don't care.

[varkam]

69. If you're going to be a jerk, I don't see a reason to keep talking to you.

Are you going to play nice, or should I go ahead and ignore you from here on out? I'd be fine either way, as I do have other things to get done today.

At any rate, I asked you to explain how the President ceases to be CIC when the jurisdiction that we're talking about is an American military base. I kind of feel like the burden of proof is on you on that one, since he's CIC at any other place, at any other time.

France. Canada. Australia. Great Britain. There you go. I named four, for the price of one!

Honestly, I can't explain the nuts and bolts of how it would work -- and maybe it wouldn't through executive order. The judiciary has, however, been giving the executive greater authority in the war on terror in how it chooses to prosecute -- it wouldn't be crazy to try to carve out a special tribunal to deal with gitmo. It may require some politicking, but it strikes me as a compromise between trying them in civilian courts and trying them under the UCMJ. The administration, however, has shown zero interest in trying something like this.

And I may be advocating for the establishment of a court that would follow the FRCP and FRE, but the key about article three courts is jurisdiction. A tribunal, unlike an article three court is not a court of general jurisdiction. These tribunals aren't competent to hear suits at common law or suits litigating constitutionality, or habeas petitions.

You say I keep ignoring the MCA of 2006, but this is the first time that you've brought it up (much like the NDA below). The MCA authorizes the establishment of a certain type of tribunal, but it's statutory language doesn't appear to limit the creation of further tribunals.

eta: After reading your comment below, I've decided to discontinue our exchange. Have a nice night.

[msanthrope]

74. Well, name-calling when on the losing end of an argument certainly bolsters your assertions. Again,

you haven't cited a single fact to support your assertions.

1) You haven't explained how being CIC allows Obama to override the laws of Congress. Kindly cite a SINGLE case or law that allows the CIC to ignore the laws of Congress, by virtue of being the CIC. Read the Youngstown decision, for starters.

2) Right. Do you have any evidence that the countries you named want the remaining Gitmo detainees?

3) If you can't explain the nuts and bolts, then maybe you should try listening to the people who can.

4) Again, you still haven't explained what you want. Nor, the authority under which you expect such a court to be established.

5) I assumed you knew the names of the laws you are advocating Mr. Obama ignore.

I don't think you are a jerk, but I think you woefully ignorant of basic separation of powers.

[Bluebear]

97. You made a smart decision.

[SidDithers]

103. Yup. When in a hole, stop digging...

backing out of a lost argument is never a bad thing.

Sid

[Canuckistanian]

6. Hope and change

Hope and changeHope and changeHope and changeHope and changeHope and changeHope and changeHope and changeHope and changeHope and changeHope and changeHope and changeHope and changeHope and changeHope and changeHope and changeHope and changeHope and changeHope and changeHope and changeHope and change

[nosmokes]

7. Tribunals - great way to scapegoat the innocent .

Change you can GOP in!

This is so fucking absurd it hurts.

[roguevalley]

14. Well, he did just recently hug and kiss old man bush and his spawn,

Jeb. Prolly doesn't want to look back shoveling w's shit into the waste bucket. They are after all only muslims.

I hope I don't have to put a sarcasm thing.

[FiveGoodMen]

8. Not only is this NOT what I voted for...

It is exactly what I thought I was voting against.

NOT. ON. OUR. SIDE.

[JonLP24]

10. Exactly how I feel

[bvar22]

9. Somebody should tell the President that Video is Forever.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

[frylock]

11. obama remained committed to eventually closing the prison at guantanamo, at some point

comedy gold.

[jaxx]

12. Obama and Congress remain at odds on closing Guantanamo

Obama and Congress remain at odds on closing Guantanamo

Updated: Wednesday, January 12th, 2011 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

President Barack Obama's campaign promise to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center has switched from In the Works to Stalled and back again (and again). All that movement reflects a simple dynamic: Obama really wants to close the center. But Congress really doesn't.

The latest turn of events was the law authorizing defense spending for 2011. In addition to funding the military for the year, members of Congress attached several stipulations about Guantanamo. The law says no funds canbe used to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the United States, and no funds can be used to transfer detainees to the custody of foreign countries, unless specific conditions are met about how the prisoners will be held.

Obama didn't like those provisions and issued a statement deploring them. He said the limitation on transferring prisoners to the U.S. is "a dangerous and unprecedented challenge to critical executive branch authority ... ." Of the new requirements on transferring prisoners to foreign governments, Obama said it could "hinder the conduct of delicate negotiations with foreign countries and therefore the effort to conclude detainee transfers in accord with our national security."

<..> Obama may want to close Guantanamo, but legal impediments still stand in the way of him achieving his goal. The meter remains at Stalled.

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

[EFerrari]

18. Where there's no will, there's no way. n/t

[jaxx]

76. Oh there's plenty of will and plenty of congress people getting in the way.

Maybe you could contact your reps and see if they'd help the President by voting to close it.

[EFerrari]

100. No, Obama started down this road before Congress acted at all. n/t

[sufrommich]

13. Here's the whole statement on Guantánamo from the

administration. I know some would rather just bitch than read, but nonetheless:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/07/fact-sheet-new-actions-guant-namo-and-detainee-policy

[Tatiana]

21. The whole statement is even worse.

"....In the Archives speech, the President recognized there are certain Guantanamo detainees who have not been charged, convicted, or designated for transfer, but must continue to be detained because they “in effect, remain at war with the United States.”

Charge them, convict them, or let them go. This "military tribunal" business is unethical and goes against the principles our justice system were founded upon. How do we know these people "remain at war with the United States?" Where is the evidence, and if there is evidence, why can't it be presented in a court of law?

[jaxx]

77. Thanks for that.

<..>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.


Says a lot, doesn't it? Undermining the process....this is what the teapubs want to do. Scardy cats!

[msanthrope]

15. Can anyone on this board explain how President Obama is supposed to defy the laws of Congress?

Not for anything, but can a single poster on this Obama-bashing thread explain just how President Obama is supposed to override the laws of Congress?

You know, the law Congress passed in 2009, reauthorized in 2010, and still in effect now?

http://www.webcitation.org/5jPWyaCDq

[sufrommich]

19. You won't get an answer. nt

[EFerrari]

20. You mean, how is he supposed to use a signing statement?

Stuff like that?

Seriously, I think there are posters on this board that would defend Homeland Security even as it dragged their own families out of their beds in the middle of the night.

[msanthrope]

23. Really? A signing statement overrides Article 1, Section 8? Tell us how.

Seriously. Please explain to us how a law of Congress gets overridden and money appears and prisoners leave Guantanamo, and go, precisely, where?????

[EFerrari]

29. You must be joking.

The purpose of signing statements are precisely to override Congress.

But to repeat, where there's no will, there's no way.

[msanthrope]

35. Again, explain to us all just how a signing statement moves detainees from Gitmo?

Please. I've asked you this, and I want to hear your brilliant plan.

Please explain who is moving the detainees?

Where the money is coming from?

Where are the detainees going?

You are advocating that the President of the United States circumvent Congress through the use of signing statements. I cannot support that, because I actually like it when the Constitution is followed.

[frylock]

73. why don't you ask obama?

were any of these things considered when he fucking said he would shut down gitmo, or was he just blowing smoke up everyone's ass knowing full well it wasn't going to get done?

[msanthrope]

75. I'm asking the person who offered up a solution to explain it.

That's all.

[EFerrari]

99. Bullshit. Obama moved to preserve Bush's practice before Congress did anything.

He LED the way:

Obama's new executive order on Guantanamo

snip

The preservation of the crux of the Bush detention scheme was advocated by Obama long before Congress' ban on transferring detainees to the U.S. It was in May, 2009 -- a mere five months after his inauguration -- that Obama stood up in front of the U.S. Constitution at the National Archives and demanded a new law of "preventive detention" to empower him to imprison people without charges: a plan the New York Times said "would be a departure from the way this country sees itself." It was the same month that the administration announced it intended to continue to deny many detainees trials, instead preserving the military commissions scheme, albeit with modifications. And the first -- and only -- Obama plan for "closing Guantanamo" came in December, 2009, and it entailed nothing more than transferring the camp to a supermax prison in Thompson, Illinois, while preserving its key ingredients, prompting the name "Gitmo North."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/08/guantanamo/index.html

[Tatiana]

22. So Congress issues Executive Orders? n/t

[msanthrope]

25. No, they pass laws. Specifically, laws that prevent closure of Gitmo and forbid the President

from transferring detainees to American soil.

http://www.webcitation.org/5jPWyaCDq

And, FYI, in a pissing match, who do you think wins??? Read the Youngstown decision.

[Tatiana]

26. Excuses. Bottom line, the President made yet another promise he didn't keep.

Don't say "I'll close Guantanamo" if you can't do it.

Bottom line is that this administration has caved, again, to the wingnuts and failed to formulate a plan for trying the prisoners or working with other nations to transition them from Guantanamo.

There was no plan. And clearly Gates wasn't offering suggestions.

[msanthrope]

27. The vote in the Senate was 90-6. Graham and McCain supported CLOSURE.

He didn't cave to the wingnuts--the majority of Democrats VOTED AGAINST him.

http://www.webcitation.org/5jPWyaCDq

The President tried to close Gitmo, and the Congress overode him. What, precisely, would you have him do?

[tekisui]

39. Try the detainees in civilian court. Nothing is prohibiting that action.

Release the acquitted, sentence the guilty.

Worst of all is that Obama has claimed the right to detain indefinitely without charge. We should all be outraged by that position.

[msanthrope]

42. The law prevents detainees from setting foot on American soil.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/08/bill-bar-guantanamo-detainees-soil/#

Care to name an American civilian court not on American soil?

[tekisui]

44. Yeah, the WH messed up on letting Congress do that. They

dicked around too long. I remember when it played out. No leadership on it, no hardball, just rolling over. It is the only option to do the right thing.

Aside from that issue the fact that Obama claims he can hold many of them forever without charge or trial is disgusting.

[msanthrope]

52. He passed an Executive order within 2 days of inauguration.

He managed to get some countries to agree to take detainees, but if no one will agree to take the rest, then where do they go?

[tekisui]

54. Are you talking about those found guilty, innocent or never tried?

Imprison the guilty here. Release those acquitted to their home states. Try them all.

[msanthrope]

57. You do realize that their hone states don't want them back, right?

I suggest you read up a bit on the 90 prisoners from Yemen, and the Uighurs of China. Yemen, and other home countries, have consistently refused to take back these detainees.

As for the Uighurs, read up on how they can't go back.

[tekisui]

61. THis is what diplomacy is for.

If they truly are innocent, they must be released. The US is responsible for correcting these wrongs. If they are guilty, have them serve their time (a lot should be done with that too) and then release them to their home state.

[coalition_unwilling]

28. More to the point, Obama is not going to the mat over this issue. He's

bascially caved in to the craven element in Congress who want to keep Gitmo open for biz. Man, was I schmucked in 2008. Won't get fooled again.

[msanthrope]

30. He issued an Executive Order for closure. His own party sponsored a 90-6 vote in the Senate

that keeps Gitmo open.

He's called for closure, and advocated for it. What else is he supposed to do?

[coalition_unwilling]

91. Resign on principle. Some issues are more important than

retaining power.

[tekisui]

32. Move detainees to the states for civilian trials. Imprison those convicted

and release those acquitted. Try them ALL. Leave Gitmo open if COngress won't fund closure, but remove detainees.

[msanthrope]

40. He cannot move Gitmo detainees to American soil. Really.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/08/bill-bar-guantanamo-detainees-soil/#

Where do they go? Guilty or innocent, where?


You also have the problem of Yemen. Yemen has 90 citizens at Gitmo, and they don't want them back.

[varkam]

34. As pointed out above, closing Guantanamo would not be defying a law of Congress.

I'm pretty sure, as CIC, Obama could theoretically order all the detainees released right now if he wanted to. Congress didn't pass a law saying he couldn't, in fact, Congress passed no law at all: the House just denied him the funds he sought to use to transfer detainees to civilian facilities.

I'm not advocating that he just release all the detainees, but there are other things Obama could do -- short of closing Guantanamo -- that would probably help to alleviate some of the concerns about Guantanamo. For example, I'm pretty sure as CIC Obama could institute a special tribunal in Guantanamo that would use civilian procedural and evidentiary law instead of the UCMJ which allows for ex parte presentation of evidence (among other things).

In short, Obama is far from out of options on Guantanamo.

[msanthrope]

48. Closing Guantanamo would be defying a law of Congress.

There are no funds for closure. To allocate funds from another purpose is an act designed to provoke impeachment.

Further, you keep ignoring that Congress also didn't allow the detainees to come onto American soil. So where do they go?

Lastly, I don't think you understand separation of powers. Article Three courts are created by CONGRESS, not the Executive.

[varkam]

53. Well, a denial of funds is not the equivalent to passing a law.

A law requires bicameralism and presentment -- so far as I understand, the House of Representatives denying an allocation of funds does not meet those requirements. I've also already addressed the american soil issue and military tribunals are not Article Three courts. The President as CIC has plenary power over the military and its operations.

[msanthrope]

58. Holy Crap. The Defense Authorization Bill is a friggen' LAW.

Really.

When the Congress acts under Article 1, Section 8, those are LAWS.

In an minute, I'm gonna post "I'm Just a Bill."

[varkam]

64. Your humility is overwhelming.

To begin with, bills aren't laws -- that's why we have different words for them. Bills require bicameralism and presentment before they can become law. A law is a bill that has been passed by both houses of Congress and then been presented to the President for signature or veto. The Defense Authorization Act is a law, a law which wasn't referenced in the link you posted earlier. The link you were referring to earlier was talking about an amendment in the Senate to a supplemental appropriations bill, not the NDA. You confused me by talking about one thing when you were apparently meaning to talk about another, so if you would like to talk about the NDA we can certainly do that.

[msanthrope]

67. You might try reading up in what you are arguing about. I assumed you knew the history of the law

you were talking about.

The law currently blocking the removal of Gitmo detainees is the Defense Authorization of 2010. A LAW. A LAW that remains in effect. The original LAW was passed as a supplemental to the Defense Authorization of 2009. You can look it up. Really.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mmonk]

24. Nothing like kangaroo courts to prove we're a nation of laws.

[tekisui]

33. And some lucky ones won't even get the kangaroo court. They will just

be detained for life without ever being charged or tried.

[mmonk]

37. That is correct.

[varkam]

38. Which, ironically enough, means they may have served a longer sentence...

than if they were tried, convicted, and sentenced of various crimes against the US.

[tekisui]

41. It is amazing there isn't more outrage on this. Some of these guys

were 14 when picked up and could very well spend the rest of their lives in a detention camp. They very well could die of old age in a US detention facility, having NEVER been charged or tried. We should all be ashamed.

[msanthrope]

43. I agree. They should all get a trial. Which is hopefully what the resumption

of military tribunals will do.

[tekisui]

46. They have no intention of trying them all.

They have already claimed the right to indefinitely detain 50+ without trial or charge. These military tribunals will not address those whatsoever.

[varkam]

50. Well, I should hope we would want them to get a fair trial, not just any trial.

The phrase kangaroo court does indeed come to mind. The UCMJ's protections of the accused, especially in situations like at Gitmo, are farcical. I don't care if these guys are terrorists or not, the tribunals are a black eye if we want to call ourselves a nation of laws.

[Bake]

47. What? Is Gitmo still open?

I thought Candidate Obama said he was going to close it. I'm sure I heard that.

didn't I?

I thought for sure it was closed by now. I bet next you'll tell me we're still in Afghanistan!

Bake

[Rex]

49. You didn't hear that! Impossible! Obama is correct about everything!

What you gonna believe? Your lying ears or the POTUS?

[Bake]

51. But we're OUT of Afghanistan, right?

Right?

:rofl:

Bake

[Rex]

59. First, take a deep breath...

:hi:

Um...Iraq, well we are kinda sorta still there too... :hide:

[sufrommich]

55. You can blame congress for Gitmo still being open. Obama

signed a bill to close it in 2009, which was then blocked in congress.

[Bake]

71. Didn't Boy George do everything by "executive order?"

Seems like that might've worked here ...

Bake

[ClarkUSA]

82. A President cannot appropriate funding to close Gitmo via executive order.

Only Congress can do that, and they refused.

For the facts, read here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=579604&mesg_id=580500

[Bake]

83. But the military can spend $1,000 on a toilet seat ...

I suspect it could be done, one way or another. Just turn out the lights ... hell, it saves money.

Bake

[GSLevel9]

60. I thought Gitmo was closed...

:sarcasm:

[msanthrope]

63. The Congress blocked closure.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/08/bill-bar-guantanamo-detainees-soil/#

[GSLevel9]

65. oh yes that's right...

A DEM HOUSE voted 212-206 to keep them in Gitmo.

Why couldn't Obama make the phone calls to reject the blocking of funds? Maybe he did... maybe this way he gets to keep detainees in Gitmo AND gets to tell people he closed Gitmo. Wow, multi-level chess. I'm 3 turns behind ;)

[jaxx]

79. I want to congratulate you for sticking to the facts and presenting them well.

You were up against those who would rather demand any action, legal or not, and ignore the facts.
Thanks for trying. I appreciate your effort.

[ladjf]

68. Weasel words. nt

[leftstreet]

72. K&R

[ClarkUSA]

78. What's relevant: Congress forced his hand by refusing to allow detainees to be tried on US soil.

Obama made the change with clear reluctance, bowing to the reality that Congress' vehement opposition to trying detainees on U.S. soil leaves them nowhere else to go. The president emphasized his preference for trials in federal civilian courts, and his administration blamed congressional meddling for closing off that avenue.

<snip>

Congress hardened its objections to trying detainees on U.S. soil by including language in legislation signed by Obama in January that would block the Defense Department from spending money to transfer Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S. for trial. The legislation also set up new rules for moving detainees elsewhere, and as a result Gates has told lawmakers that it has become very difficult for the government to release detainees to other countries because he now has to certify they will pose no danger. Officials have said that about one-quarter of those released so far have returned to battle.

The White House said Monday that it would continue to work to overturn those congressional prohibitions.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110307/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_guantanamo

[tekisui]

80. A Democratic majority Congress gave the President the shaft, and he took it.

Failure of leadership. Failure to produce on a promise. He failed.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

84. I disagree. I prefer the facts as elucidated by the AP story I quoted.

msanthrope also did a great job of stating the facts in this thread.

[tekisui]

85. They may be facts, but they are still just an excuse for failure.

Obama failed, the Dems failed.

[ClarkUSA]

87. That's your opinion. I disagree with you.

[tekisui]

88. He failed his promise. You can't disagree with that.

You can say why or how he failed, but he has failed. Whether it was naive to make the promise or a lack of leadership power within his own party or because of sabotage, he failed. That is not opinion, that is fact.

[ClarkUSA]

89. What promise? He signed an executive order to close Gitmo that Congress refused to fund.

CNN: "Obama signs order to close Guantanamo Bay facility"

<snip>

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.

"We believe that the Army field manual reflects the best judgment of our military, that we can abide by a rule that says we don't torture, but that we can still effectively obtain the intelligence that we need," Obama said."This is me following through ... on 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."

A third executive order establishes an interagency task force to lead a systematic review of detention policies and procedures and a review of all individual cases.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-22/politics/guantanamo.order_1_detention-guantanamo-bay-torture?_s=PM:POLITICS

Which led to this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=579604&mesg_id=581649

[tekisui]

90. The promise to close Gitmo.

I thought that is what we were talking about?:shrug:

Did he really think an executive order would be enough? Anyway, it stays open, his party screwed him and he was powerless against them. A sad failure on this promise.

[ClarkUSA]

92. Obama is only two years into his presidency. To say he has "failed" at this "promise" is premature.

For example, Politifact says he has "stalled" not failed because "Obama and Congress remain at odds on closing Guantanamo":
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/

[tekisui]

93. Okay, he is "failing" spectacularly. We can check in again in two years.

And again in six, if re-elected.

[ClarkUSA]

94. I disagree. Pulitzer Prize winner Politifact disagrees w/your opinion as well, as I just pointed out

Feel free to check back in six years.

Until then, I will continue to concur with Pulitzer-Prize winning Politifact's reasoned and well-documented analysis:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/

[coalition_unwilling]

95. Epic Fail, imho. He should have resigned immediately.

[mochajava666]

86. Should anyone be surprised?

Another broken promise.

[coalition_unwilling]

96. Actually, I was not too surprised. I knew I'd been schmucked when

Obama allowed Bush and Cheney and the Junta to skate. Won't get fooled again. And probly won't bother voting again either. I've had it.

[chill_wind]

98. Bush, Snarl and Neocons everywhere: "0bama has finally seen the light!"

Smith and other lawmakers in both parties received Monday’s decision warmly, with Smith stating that Obama “has finally seen the light.”

Obama to resume Gitmo military trials
03/07/11
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/147871-obama-military-commissions-to-resume-for-gitmo-detainees


Cheney: Obama has learned that Bush policies were right
Jan 2011
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/138341-cheney-obama-has-learned-from-experience-that-bush-moves-were-necessary

The vindication of Dick Cheney
January 2011
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/18/cheney

[truebrit71]

101. "eventually" "at some point"....just like punting on the tax gifts to the wealthy..

...despicable...just despicable..

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AngryAmish]

104. Winning!