Question. If you couldn't close Gitmo would you...

[DFab420]

A) Hold everyone there hostage indefinitely, even without chance of a military trial, while arguing with Republicans about funding for civilian trials.

B) Release all the prisoners, even those who may in fact represent a clear and present danger to the well being of the United States and her peoples.

or

C) Realize that it's a bitter pill to swallow, but that allowing tribunals to move forward at least allows for the processing of prisoners in some fashion. Not every person who faces a tribunal is found guilty...

What would you do??

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. D)

Admit failure.

[DFab420]

3. Which would solve the problem how?

Thankfully OUR administration isn't ready to go belly up that fast

[tekisui]

5. They went belly up when they allowed the Democratic Congress to

block transfers to US soil.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. By allowing someone else to "try."

[tekisui]

2. Prefer criminal not military trials. Actually that is the only correct option.

The Democratic Party fucked that option up, royally.

You can argue that military tribunals are better than nothing, but that doesn't make them fair or necessarily constitutional.

What you left out of your scenario, though, is that the Obama Administration has no intention of even trying them all in military court. They have long said there are a significant number who will never be tried, will never charged and likely never be released.

[DFab420]

8. I'm sorry bit I googled Obama saying some wouldn't face trial

The only example I found was someone else talking about how some couldn't have a trial because all the evidence gathered was gathered with Bush-era torture.

Do you have quotes I could see?

[tekisui]

15. There are 48 that the Administration has admitted can't be tried and should be held.

IT has been public knowledge for years. Here is one mention of the 48. You

An administration task force ultimately determined that at least 48 detainees were too dangerous to release but could not be put on trial. Officials have said the evidence against these detainees has been tainted by torture or cannot be used in court because it is classified or would not meet legal standards.

"When the review panel puts someone in the category of long-term detention, the 48 people, what happens then?" the administration official said. "Are they there for the rest of their lives? What's the review mechanism? How impartial is it? Do they have a chance to contest it? All of that stuff has to be answered. And we have been working on an executive order laying out these elements."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/21/AR2010122105523_2.html

[DFab420]

32. Thank YOU!

Very informative,


Only stuff I could find was news of the recent XO signing.

[hobbit709]

77. How many people are on the streets today because of insufficient/tainted evidence?

Quite a few. Some of them were rearrested on other charges

[fittosurvive]

4. C) And although logic is sometimes hard to swallow, a logic based decision

is superior to a decision based on emotions.

[leftstreet]

7. I wouldn't let anyone stop me from closing it n/t

[DFab420]

11. Which indicates that you have a

..poor... understanding on how our government "functions". Or at least how it functions on this specific issue.

I use the word functions lightly...

[tekisui]

16. Obama let the Democratic-held Congress do this to him.

Weak, sad leadership. Well, lack thereof.

[DFab420]

37. What would could he have done?

Beat them?

Bribe them?

Should he have made compromises?

HOW?

Leading isn't just telling people how it's supposed to be, then yelling and pouting at them till it's that way..I think Scott Walker is proving that point very well.

[tekisui]

38. Sticks and carrots, then breaking arms. It is all about $$$upport

for pet projects. It could have been done.

[DFab420]

40. Not if you are trying to pass HealthCare Reform

and Credit Reform


and Housing Market Reforms

I unfortunately think Gitmo became the stick and carrot for the other things the Dems were too scared to back.

[tekisui]

42. That was a bad trade.

[DFab420]

44. Some would say it was, some would say it wasn't

I think that would be a really interesting debate.

[dionysus]

53. some want a left wing version of bush\walker...

[coalition_unwilling]

68. He should have gone to the mat with the Dem Congress. Specifically,

hold up action on any and all bills until the Dem Congress backs off and lets him do what he campaigned to do and what I voted for him to do. If Congress refused to heed his wishes, he should have threatened to resign. And carried out the threat. Some things are more important than retaining power.

Now, Obama's pretty much lost me for 2012. Sure, I'll hold my nose and vote for him probly, if I can be bothered to waste time to vote. But volunteer or donate to him? Fugeddabout it.

ON EDIT: Gitmo is AN ABOMINATION.

[Solomon]

75. "If Congress refused to heed his wishes, he should have

threatened to resign. And carried out the threat."


Oh boy.

[coalition_unwilling]

79. Welcome to my Ignore list, you condescending, partronizing asshole. - n/t

[JoePhilly]

55. Congress is a co-equal brach of our government ... Obama can't force them to do dick.

[tekisui]

58. A sign of weakness. Force isn't the only means anyway.

[JoePhilly]

59. Right ... he was supposed to sweat talk the Blue Dogs.

What nonsense.

[tekisui]

60. He failed. Everything else is a sad excuse.

It wouldn't take sweet talk, it would take compromising and money for pet projects. There are a myriad of ways he could have gotten there had he really wanted to.

[JoePhilly]

63. Yea, he didn't really want to close it.

Again, more nonsense.

If he did not want to close it, why spend a good chuck of the past 2 years trying to close it? The dems in Congress will not support closing it (many of them voted for the Iraq war in the first place).

Again ... the key phrase to learn ... "co-equal branches of government" ... that is what the founders created, by intent. Obama is not God, not King, and not a Dictator.

[tekisui]

64. Obama is not God, not King, and not a Dictator. Neither is he a leader.

Nor does he know how to get the party he heads to work with him. So sad.

[JoePhilly]

80. The party he heads is not nearly monolythic enough.

The GOP has become very monolithic. The Democratic party is not.

Obama can not order the Blue Dogs to do anything, as much as we wish it was so. And he can't 'lead them' anywhere that they do not want to go, period.

And I will bet that you can't name a single DEM who would be more persuasive and get the Blue Dogs to do what you want.

Correct?

[RandomThoughts]

9. Honestly, there treatment, and other actions over decades

has radicalized some people, and that will probably be paid by some bad things happening for a generation or two.

Or more can be radicalized. By keeping them in prisons.

:shrug: But not going to be bitter about it, because I am not going down that path, and neither are the millions of people that do not need to be treated as if they are ran by a Hamiltonian control security state like the Federalist want.

So it would be better to release them and lose a few thousand people in 'attacks', then to hold someone outside of the principles that maintain a high ground. Although then again people would have to learn that concept. And that goes against security state concepts.

I think everyone on TV should be calling Americans cowards after 9/11 for not being able to handle a bad event now and then.

Sometimes bad things happen, and freaking out with fear is not the way a country should handle that, although the leaders did not help much with that, and moved the fear to thoughts of a game like war.

Maybe I think to much of people, but a thorough explanation of the problems of consolidations, and distributions, and how that creates unrest and problems in many places would have been a better reaction to 9/11

Not to mention we could have been off oil by 2000 if we had stared in 1970. So really the whole middle east domination strategy has that as a problem.


LOL Sorry I am not having a bitter pill, and neither should people, because with education it is not bitter, and then it is only done if actually needed. And if it was needed, there are a few million people that need there wealth removed, and need any control or influence over information systems removed.

although I do clearly see the 'federalist' scripts are still being ran, even if they lead to destruction. At least they have been told what they are doing.

Then again I am not bitter, but will see justice and compassion in many things.

And I am due beer and travel money and many experiences.

[Bake]

10. And why couldn't I close Gitmo?

Two words: EXECUTIVE ORDER.

Just do it.

Bake

[DFab420]

12. Three words

No Congressional Funding

He signed an XO closing it. Didn't stick. Now what?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

13. There is an episode of Criminal Minds that you should watch.

It is from the second or third season. It is Paget Brewster's first episode as a member of the BAU. Gideon, Reed and Prentiss go to Guantanamo to speak to a guy they have been beating up for seven years. They couldn't even get the dude's real name from him. They are there for like two days and simply speak to the man. They find out who he is, what his philosophy is and thwart some terrorist attacks in the making. It's a FANTASTIC episode.
I think we should close it, but if we're not going to, how about we start using some non-torture methods to question people? How about we try to get to know them, show them respect, respect their religion, and stop reinforcing the idea that Americans are evil?
Duckie

[DFab420]

18. That's a nice story

unfortunately is just a story.

That's like those people who say they saw Jack Bauer shoot someone in the knee and he told them all he wants to know, therefor torture is ok. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

26. It makes a point, though.

You get far more information by actually talking to someone, learning about them, showing them respect (fake or not) than you do by torture. It's a proven fact. Are you a torture apologist? If you are, you are on the wrong website.
Duckie

[DFab420]

30. Haha nooo

Did you see anything in my posts that suport torture?

All I was saying is one television show showing people being nice is just like that television show shooting people. Neither have applicable solutions to a real life situation.

I agree with what you say, I am just saying if we dismiss the 24 fans we would have to dismiss the Criminal Minds story too...

Also, I was trying to be nice and just talk politics and policy, did you have to accuse me of being a torture apologist because I didn't agree with how you were making your point? Like... seriously? Did you have to there? You could have totally left that sentence out and made your point perfectly well.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

45. The way you said it...

...it sounded like it. I'm sorry I assumed. Sometimes it gets me into trouble. I admit that freely and apologize if I offended you. I wasn't being accusatory. I thought you were coming out and saying it.
I was just asking. And I don't dismiss the 24 fans either, mostly because I know if I got shot in the knee, I'd rat out my grandmother. :evilgrin:

[DFab420]

46. Haha

It's all good, I wasn't trying to be mean either.

Thank you for clearing it up with me.

ps.. dont feel I would also sell my Nana down river.... haha just kidding Grams!!...(not really tho)

[bluestateguy]

14. I'll take C

I've just kind of moved on to other things.

The economy, jobs, the working men and women in Wisconsin and Ohio, health care, jobs, education, the environment, marriage equality and standing up to the Westboro Baptist Church.

I'd like to see the prison closed, but it's about #497 out of 500 priorities that I have for this country right now.

[tekisui]

19. Yeah, human rights are not important at all. Neither is the Constitution.

[DFab420]

25. Oh yea

cause this situation is so simple as that.

[tekisui]

28. I never claimed it was simple, only worthwhile.

It is a question of human rights and constitutionality. That makes it of the utmost importance. That part is simple and important enough to do it, even if it is hard and complicated.

[DFab420]

35. I agree

and the hard and complicated part of this is holding trials in order to at least seek some form of closure to these cases..

We can't just let them free. How do we get them home? What do we do with people who have nothing to go to? Where do we get the money for that?

What about those that represent actual danger to human beings. If you release someone then they go and blow up a cafe or a car or something awful (not saying they will, just a what if, you have to consider when making these decisions) then was a violation of their rights enough to release them?


The situation is untenable, that is something I think we can all agree upon, but simply "letting them all go" would be a giant mistake.

[mike_c]

17. false description of the circumstances....

Unless I'm mistaken, Obama could close Gitmo tomorrow if he wanted to. The president picks up the phone, calls the base commander (or his commander's commander, more likely) and says "My order today is that you close the prison at Gitmo with all due dispatch." I presume he'd have to send a written executive order.

What he apparently cannot do, because he seems incapable of negotiating his way out of a wet paper bag, is work with congress to find a solution that's mutually acceptable to republicans and blue dogs. That's a whole other kettle of fish, and further indication of his lack of spine when doing the RIGHT thing-- and no one will ever convince me that Gitmo is anything but a crime against humanity-- is in conflict with what his opponents want.

[tekisui]

20. "he seems incapable of negotiating his way out of a wet paper bag,"

Yep. Even within the party that he heads!!

[DFab420]

22. Actually it's your description of the circumstances that is false.

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22gitmo.html

Then this happened. Congress BLOCKS Gitmo close.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hiCyuo47rG5_B_88fhT_MOqZU-Tw

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/06/01/872012/-Smog-Alert:-Hot-Air-in-Congress-Could-Block-Gitmos-Closing

Then this. Obama wants to try terror suspects in NY

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/obama-still-backs-terror-trial-in-ny/

SOOOO HOW about you try to keep up. He sent a written order. Then the other part of our THREE branches of government said No.

[mike_c]

34. explain to me who in congress has the authority to countermand an order...

...from the commander in chief of military operations to his chain of command in the executive's realm of authority? Would the speaker of the house have that authority? Would the senate majority leader?

No.

What congress did was block the alternatives he stated as objectives, largely by refusing to fund them. What Obama hasn't done is press his authority to simply close Gitmo if he wishes. He has agreed-- even if tacitly-- to abide by congress's decisions, not because he is bound to them, but because he is loath to go around them.

Obama could close the prison camp this afternoon if he wanted to put doing the RIGHT thing in front of his future political ambitions. Instead, he apparently prefers complicity in war crimes.

Just another broken promise.

I'll just sit over here and "try to keep up."

[DFab420]

36. So what would You do after your army released the 174 prisoners onto Cuban soil?

How would you find the money to get them home?

"" "" Rehabilitate them?

Would you sign another executive order demanding money for the operations?

Wouldn't that be a gross over step by any president? Even if it was "for the right thing"

Then that would sent the precedent for the next CiC to start signing XO's whenever congress didn't agree..

Should we just let the President make sweeping XOs without any heed paid to the other two wings of our government?

[mike_c]

41. first and foremost, nearly all of them are the victims of crimes against humanity...

...committed by the American military. Any discussion of their treatment needs to begin there. Second, I suspect the president has enough money at his disposal to fuel some airplanes for personnel transport to wherever the freed prisoners want to go and can go. The last president had the money to fly them the Cuba against their wishes. This one can certainly find some funds in the pentagon budget to fly them home. Some might not be able to return to their countries of origin. I say, buy them a condo in New Jersey. Or wherever. They are OUR victims now, no matter what they might or might not have done in the past. The U.S. has NO CASE against most of the Gitmo detainees and never had one. They deserve freedom, a sincere apology, reparations, and assistance. If they can't be moved from Guantanamo at all, build them some condos there. Again, I suspect that Obama could find the money if he had the courage.

That's what I would do. And yes, Obama could and should do exactly that. Human rights don't suspend themselves for political expedience. He's got a pickle. How he solves it shows his mettle. Utterly failing to solve it does too.

[DFab420]

43. I can totally see the headline on Fox..

"Obama buys and flys freedom for Gitmo Prisoners"


then after we give them reparations and assistance ONE....just ONE of 174 suspected terrorists is ACTUALLY a terrorist, and does something horrible.


Listen, I'm not saying what we are doing there is right. It isn't. It's horrible and it's disgusting. But that doesn't mean that the 174 people there are ALL innocents. I think the President is showing his mettle by realizing that sometimes you just have a take a bite of shit-sandwich and chew....He isn't wanting to arrest new prisoners, he doesn't want to fill it back up, he simply wants to deal with the prisoners already detained. Which I think is an appropriate thing to do.




THat and I would never make someone live in Jersery...

[wellst0nev0ter]

47. Who Gives A Shit About Fox?

If they are too dangerous to be let out to the general public PROVE IT. Period, end of sentence. What are we, Soviet America?

[mike_c]

49. you see, that's the thing about human rights-- you either believe in them...

...or you don't. But whatever Fox News has to say about it is irrelevant. Right is right. Human rights are not ambiguous.

Do you know what the word "inalienable" means? It refers to rights that are everyone's by benefit of their humanity, not their nationality. Human rights are inalienable. They transcend national politics, and the need of individual leaders to beat their chests, impress their constituents, or please Fox News.

Obama is participating in an ongoing crime against humanity. We have a word for people participating in crimes. Obama has willing joined that dubious fraternity, and by participating in some of the most heinous crimes we recognize. Indefinite detention without trial is a crime against humanity any way you slice it. Preventing it was one of the causes that led to the creation of this nation.

To hell with what Fox News thinks or says. I want a president who stands up for human rights, not one that sits down when Roger Ailes tells him to.

[TheKentuckian]

74. You have the gall to whine about setting a precedent in the face of setting one where

the Constitution is put through the shredder, burned, and the ashes pissed on.

Indefinite detention.

Fucking up habeas corpus.

Violating the right to a fair and speedy trial by one's peers.

Allowing Congress to violate the Constitution while allowing them to cuckold the Administration into dereliction of its own Constitutional duties.

Jack, this isn't disagreeing, this is a Congress that has exceeded its own founding document and dictating essential lawlessness.
You have the President rolling over for a seriously illegal action forcing the nation to willfully violate its most fundamental law, break treaties, and commit crimes against humanity.

You are just digging for excuses. The only Constitutional action is to try the prisoners that we can and release those that cannot be charged. Seeking another path is how this situation turned into a fiasco. Obama was trying to thread some needle for political purposes and sought a political solution to a legal problem and attempted to effectively relocate Gitmo from Cuba to US soil and didn't get funding for his scheme and for his trouble Congress pushed the envelope of its authority to the breaking point by passing unConstitutional law as a ryder dictating the President be required to give 120 days notice of trial or release.

Even to this moment the President could discharge his lawful duties but he doesn't wish to be seen as weak on terror or take the heat for a problem and so will let Congress "hamstring" him rather than to act in the only lawful way possible.

[msanthrope]

48. Explain how being CIC overrides Article 1, Section 8 of the Constiution?

You know, there's a reason the Executive isn't able to override the laws of Congress.

[mike_c]

51. bit of a non-sequitur, isn't it?

I mean, has congress passed legislation banning Obama from closing the prison camp at Gitmo? I'm not aware of such legislation. Did Obama sign such a bill into law? After all, it would require his signature or a congressional veto override.

No.

[msanthrope]

61. Yes. They did pass such a law.

In 2009 as a supplemental, and as part of the Defense Authorization of 2010, which is extant.

As President OBama does not have a line-item veto, and he had a veto-proof majority.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2647

Really. You can look this all up.

But you still haven't explained how being CIC overrides the authority granted to congress under Art 1, Section 8.

[mike_c]

65. close, but not quite....

I presume you're referring to section 1041 (jeeze, give me a hint next time-- I mean, it's 655 pages!). It does NOT prohibit freeing the prisoners from Guantanamo, and even if it did I'd STILL blame Obama for signing any such bill into law under any circumstances. Such a law would institutionalize crimes against humanity in the U.S. There have been a number of such instances in the last several presidencies, and they're all crimes for which presidents are culpable, IMO.

Nonetheless, Section 1041 of the H.R. 2647 simply blocks appropriations for resettlement of detainees in the U.S. Further, it has expired. It expressly does NOT prevent the president from freeing the Guantanamo detainees or finding another solution that is congruent with international human rights standards and U.S. law. It also provides Obama with a way to get around even the funding restriction. (on edit: note too, that section 1041 only encumbers the Secretary of Defense, not the President. In some ways that's a distinction without a difference, but it also allows Obama additional leeway for action should he have the courage to do the right thing rather than the merely expedient thing)

Here is section 1041 (on edit-- here is the SUMMARY VERSION of section 1041):

Section 1041 -
Prohibits the Secretary, from October 1, 2009, through December 31, 2010, from using any funds to release into the United States any non-U.S. individuals detained at the Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Prohibits the Secretary, during the same period, from using such funds to transfer any such individuals to the United States or its territories or possessions until 45 days after the President submits to the defense and appropriations committees a plan for the disposition of such detainees. Requires the plan to include, at a minimum: (1) an assessment of risks posed by such an individual; (2) measures to be taken to mitigate such risks; and (3) the costs associated with executing the plan.

[msanthrope]

71. You do realize it was reauthorized and strengthened for 2011, right? In December, 2010.

And again, you still haven't explained how being CIC overrides the perogatives of Congress expressed in article 1, Section 8.

Obama can't close Gitmo. He can't release prisoners who have no where to go. He can't bring them on American soil.

“Let me tell you what the bill actually does. ... It prohibits the transfer or release of detainees into the United States or its territories,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) said last week. “This is the most thorough and comprehensive set of restrictions ever placed on the transfer and release of detainees. It is substantially stronger than current law.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46743.html#ixzz1FyHotMMH

[mike_c]

72. there are numerous ways that Obama could do it....

First, I haven't "explained how being CIC overrides the perogatives of Congress expressed in article 1, Section 8" because the operation of the Guantanamo prison isn't one of congress's prerogatives. Congress's only legitimate role in this regard is to pass legislation that the president can choose to sign into law and then must obey, and to appropriate funds or refuse to appropriate them. In the former instance Obama would be worse than a fool for putting his signature onto a law telling him that he must operate Guantanamo in violation of U.S. law and international human rights, and he simply has not done so, as I've pointed out previously. He's operating it that way on his own authority, not Congress's.

Second, Obama has numerous alternatives. Here's one: negotiate a deal with a neutral third party who will accept the detainees, then repatriate them in whatever manner is best for all parties. Once outside U.S. jurisdiction, congress can pound sand. Give 'em a passport and maybe a name change and they could settle anywhere they want, including Miami. Think for a minute about how difficult it would be to secure such negotiations-- for the richest, most powerful nation on Earth. I suspect finding someone who will do the right human rights thing for a favor or two wouldn't prove insurmountable. It is entirely within Obama's authority to do that under the present laws as I understand them. He CAN order the prison emptied and the crimes against humanity stopped, and there are solutions for relocating the prisoners, most of whom, as I've said up-thread, are victims of U.S. crimes, not perpetrators of crimes against the U.S. You know how I know that latter circumstance to be true? Because this is America, where we BELIEVE that people are innocent until proven guilty as a matter of PRINCIPLE, and the U.S. has no case against most of the detainees. We are committing crimes against humanity because we're EMBARRASSED to stop. How can you possibly keep defending that?

on edit: I did the rapid scanning through lengthy legislation the last time. If you think it helps your point, YOU quote the law this time!

[quaker bill]

50. Gitmo is a prison

what was done there may well have been crimes against humanity. Places are not crimes.

The republican leadership is a great many things, some unmentionable in polite company, but a wet paper bag they are not.

[mike_c]

57. the prison we're discussing was created expressly to commit crimes against humanity...

...so I think the minor verbal sloppiness involved in calling the prison itself a crime against humanity is apropo, if not entirely accurate in the strictest sense. Nonetheless, I take your point.

Indefinite detention without trial, torture, kidnapping, war crimes against combatants and non-combatants both-- those are all arguably crimes against humanity. The prison camp at Guantanamo contravenes the principles of the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Charter, both of which the U.S. has adopted as law via treaty. Whatever we want to call the prison, there is little ambiguity about the nature of the crimes we have committed there.

[quaker bill]

73. I do not argue

but it is still just a building. What goes on there now is a matter of concern. What happened there in the past should be dealt with at the ICC. We did not need GITMO to engage in such activities, as this was hardly the only place where such things happened. Closing it alone will not necessarily prevent such activities from happening again elsewhere.

It is only a symbol for what happened there, and as such, closing it is not relevant. Ending the policy is all that ever was relevant.

[Demeter]

21. Ain't no reason to say "Can't Close Gitmo"

so arguing from a faulty premise is a waste of time. Better resign, and let someone who has a backbone and a sense of decency take charge.

[DFab420]

23. Just posted this above but just incase you don't read posts, just like you don't read the news.

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22gitmo.h...

Then this happened. Congress BLOCKS Gitmo close.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hiCy...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/06/01/872012/-Smog-A...

Then this. Obama wants to try terror suspects in NY

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/obama-sti... /

[tekisui]

24. Like the poster said, get someone with backbone to do it.

All of those Congressional acts were from the President's Party. The party that he heads. Pathetic lack of leadership.

[DFab420]

27. He actually heads the country..

While it is on Pelosi and Reed to wrangle the other houses.

[tekisui]

29. And the party.

He is the head of the Democratic Party at the moment and was when his party gave him the shaft. He stood there and took it, unable or unwilling to make his party work for the promise he made to the American people. He failed.

[dionysus]

54. so obama needs to resign because he has no backbone or decency?

[Demeter]

70. Not to worry

Lack of decency guarantees he won't.

[Shagbark Hickory]

31. D.) Judge Judy.

Seriously. A hybrid between B and C. A little outside my area of expertise though.

[Cali_Democrat]

33. B

First of all, the main reason why the politicians fear real trials is because many of the prisoners were tortured in order to extract information regarding a non-existent link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The hope was that the information could then be used by Bushco to justify the invasion of Iraq.

The problem is that this would all come out in a real court and evidence extracted through torture won't be permissible in a real court. The prisoners would then be let go.

Even if they are a threat, we fucked up by violating their human rights and we have to bite the bullet. Let that be a lesson to us regarding the violation of human rights.

[DFab420]

39. Huh, not what I would go for, but a well thought out response.

Thank you for using logic and reason. While I may disagree with your conclusion, I can totally see where you are coming from.

[quaker bill]

52. I would act to release as many as I could

through the existing process and continue to work on a better solution for the remainder.

[readmoreoften]

56. Why can't I close Gitmo?

For that matter, why can't I hold all my students hostage. I suspect some of them are dangerous to the well-being of the US.

[mmonk]

62. I would have closed Guantanamo bay.

Fear would not keep me from doing the right thing and following the rule of law. I do not fear the rule of law. The tribunals are a sham.

[dionysus]

66. and without congress approving it you would have been a laughingstock

apparently.. ah fuck it...


:rofl:

[tekisui]

67. Obama failed badly on this very important promise. He couldn't even

get his own party to support him.

[Solomon]

76. LOL "He couldn't get his own party to support him"

The rabit hole gets deeper. Everything is Obama's fault and his alone because he should be able to make people support him and do what he says. He's an utter failure. All he needs to do is just really want something to happen but he really doesn't want it, because if he did he could make it happen.

Oh boy.

[tekisui]

81. He's not an utter failure. He failed on this issue.

Good to see you think constitutional and human rights abuses are LOL worthy. Obama and the Dems fucked this up. They have only themselves to blame for this failure.

[mmonk]

69. I didn't realize the executive branch gave back its dictatorial powers.

[Bandit]

78. There is no real reason Gitmo can not be closed immediately

It is only because of Republican opposition that Obama has caved and will do whatever bidding the Republicans demand..It was opened in a matter of days and can be closed in the same amount of time..

[RagAss]

82. No ! It must stay open for DU Trolls.

Seriously, close it down now!