- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 65,981
- Reaction score
- 23,408
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Then why did he promise again in 2012 to close Gitmo? Sorry, your trying to cover his ass doesn't work.
I sure wouldn't go that far as to call the president a liar. Every president has a bunch of campaign promises that go unfulfilled. most campaign promises is just a candidate telling his base and what he thinks the audience he is addressing wants to hear. I, for one am thankful he hasn't carried through on the campaign promise, I also do not look at him as a liar for not doing so.
If the president has to close the base just to bring the terrorist here to the states, that is a big mistake and plays right into communist Cuba's hands. Besides, if I remember right congress passed a law prohibiting the transfer of the prisoners at GITMO to the states. Then there is what looks good, what sounds good as a candidate can change when one becomes president. He learns things that he was not privy to as a candidate. He has to govern instead of running for an office. Things chance and as long as the prisoners stay at GITMO, I am happy.
Then why did he promise again in 2012 to close Gitmo? Sorry, your trying to cover his ass doesn't work.
Clearly, what is right and wrong is irrelevant to you in this case.
Most of these people have done NOTHING wrong. Almost all of them have never been convicted of anything.
The only reason most of them are still in Gitmo is because their host countries will not take them back.
Were I POTUS, I would immediately order the military or CIA or whomever to find a country that will take most of them - even if that country has to be bribed to do so.
Once I found such a country, I would ask the inmates in question whether they wanted to stay in Gitmo or go to this country. Obviously they would take freedom.
Then I would give them each a few million and transport them to that country.
The rest that there is evidence that they are guilty of terrorism, I would order the military to immediately start trials on them - whatever the evidence available is.
If they are convicted, then start there incarceration.
If they are found innocent, the same deal as how the others are treated.
And I don't give a crap what spineless politicians in Congress want.
Were I Obama, I would stand up and tell them to get off their asses, grow backbones and figure out what to do with these innocent (mostly) people.
And I would keep on them, day after day, until they did.
QUOTE]
Wow, there seem to be so many constitutional issues with your ideas, I don't even no where to start, lol. Your advocating that the President, unilaterly, bribe another country, to take people, who have never been tried for a crime, but are viewed as enemy combatants. Then pay those people who were imprisoned, still without trial, and have the military or the CIA take them to that country, all without any involvement from congress at all? I'm all for doing what's right, because it's the right thing to do, damn the concequences. But advocating that a President circumvent the checks and balances of the legislative branch, does not seem like a good idea to me under any circumstances.
Hello?Wow, there seem to be so many constitutional issues with your ideas, I don't even no where to start, lol. Your advocating that the President, unilaterly, bribe another country, to take people, who have never been tried for a crime, but are viewed as enemy combatants. Then pay those people who were imprisoned, still without trial, and have the military or the CIA take them to that country, all without any involvement from congress at all? I'm all for doing what's right, because it's the right thing to do, damn the concequences. But advocating that a President circumvent the checks and balances of the legislative branch, does not seem like a good idea to me under any circumstances.
That is what his base wanted to hear, Romney was no difference in the campaign promises he made. He knew very well he couldn't fill-full many to most of them. I can think of a whole lot of things to be upset about with this president, but GITMO isn't one of them. As it stands now, he can't legally transfer the prisoners anyway.
Clearly, what is right and wrong is irrelevant to you in this case.
Most of these people have done NOTHING wrong. Almost all of them have never been convicted of anything.
The only reason most of them are still in Gitmo is because their host countries will not take them back.
Were I POTUS, I would immediately order the military or CIA or whomever to find a country that will take most of them - even if that country has to be bribed to do so.
Once I found such a country, I would ask the inmates in question whether they wanted to stay in Gitmo or go to this country. Obviously they would take freedom.
Then I would give them each a few million and transport them to that country.
The rest that there is evidence that they are guilty of terrorism, I would order the military to immediately start trials on them - whatever the evidence available is.
If they are convicted, then start there incarceration.
If they are found innocent, the same deal as how the others are treated.
And I don't give a crap what spineless politicians in Congress want.
Were I Obama, I would stand up and tell them to get off their asses, grow backbones and figure out what to do with these innocent (mostly) people.
And I would keep on them, day after day, until they did.
QUOTE]
Wow, there seem to be so many constitutional issues with your ideas, I don't even no where to start, lol. Your advocating that the President, unilaterly, bribe another country, to take people, who have never been tried for a crime, but are viewed as enemy combatants. Then pay those people who were imprisoned, still without trial, and have the military or the CIA take them to that country, all without any involvement from congress at all? I'm all for doing what's right, because it's the right thing to do, damn the concequences. But advocating that a President circumvent the checks and balances of the legislative branch, does not seem like a good idea to me under any circumstances.
Except Obama is Commander-in-Chief. He does not need anyone's agreement or permission. He can just do it by military chain-og-command authority.
I pretty much agree with this. I think they run into road blocks all of the time. Yeah, sure it easy to say "i'll do this" and "i'll do that" if i become president.
But once they get in the WH, it's quite different.
Sorry, but Bush warned both Clinton and Obama during the campaign to not make big promises, because things would look different once they sat in the Oval Office. He was talking about Gitmo.
Yes he can. He can do anything he wants with "enemy combatants." He's Commander-In-Chief.
Congress not approving of something doesn't stop him as Commander-In-Chief. He engaged in war against the government of Libya ordering many thousands of airstrikes - none with Congressional approval. Congress can pass all the resolutions it wants to, but as Commander-In-Chief he has the final and total say of what to do with military prisoners on military bases.
I believe another option exists.Your assertion seems very narrow, to me. Obviously, he can close the darn thing whenever he wants to. The question is, what happens to the people inside? Congress has made it impossible for them to be brought to the US for trial, and has mandated they can only be held in military detentions. So the only other options are to keep Guantanamo open, or release them all and close it. Spine has nothing to do with the discussion, common sense and rational thinking does. Of course he isn't going to release them, so he has to except that ignorant, uninformed people are going to call him a liar, regardless of fact on the issue.
Did I say Obama lied? Show me where I said he lied.
I claimed Obama is an ignorant and incompetent fool. Nothing you or your sidekick "OhISee'Then" have proven otherwise.
You both have proven that you didn't fully comprehend my post as proven by the fact you attack my post yet prove my point. It is a prime example of Obama's ignorance and incompetence that he was so arrogant as not to see that even a majority of Democrats in Congress would oppose his plan to move war prisoner terrorists from the base in Gitmo to the continental USA. You can claim that the Republicans stopped Gitmo being closed but you fail to remember that Democrats held control of both houses of Congress in Obama's first two years in office, the time during which he said he would close Gitmo as well as the time during which he and his Attorney General claimed it would be a good idea to have show trials of the 9/11 terrorists in New York City courts.
I didn't need to be Nostradamus to see what would happen - I simply needed to have my head in the air and not shoved up the asses of Obama and his fawning media lackies.
Hello?
The vast majority of inmates at Gitmo were already released without Congress's consent.
Except Obama is Commander-in-Chief. He does not need anyone's agreement or permission. He can just do it by military chain-og-command authority.
Since when does the Cammander-in-Chief have judicial powers? Because that's what he wanted to do. Put those people on trial, and cut the military out of it all together. That was the point of closing Guantanamo in the first place.
Why is no one discussing the fact that Congress prevented anyone from being able to close Guantanamo Bay? From what I understand, Congress used it's budget oversight ability to specifically ban any funding to go to trials of Guantanamo inmates on US soil. The also blocked the sale of a prison in Illinois to the federal government to house prisoners. Additionally, I'm pretty sure the most recent defence bill included a provision that mandates military detention of all al Qaeda suspects.
I believe another option exists.
Again, narrow focus. The sentence you bolded, was talking about your argument as a whole, not that one piece. Your argument as a whole is incredibly unconstitutional, and gives tremendous power to the office of the President. I certainly don't support power like that being given to one person.
In 2008, Obama repeatedly vowed to close Gitmo if he became Commander In Chief and that Gitmo shamed America to the entire world. When elected president, since Gitmo is part of a military base and operation, he could have closed it merely by signing an Executive Order without any need for approval by Congress.
He did not close it. Amazingly, closing Gitmo was again part of his campaign in the 2012 election.
Personally, I can think of no more clear example (of so many) in which Obama is an outright calculated - if not pathological - liar.
However, the poll question is simple:
Did Obama lie during the 2008 election when he vowed to close Gitmo if he became president?
No one could prevent Obama from closing Gitmo because it is a military base and he is Commander-In-Chief.
I apologize, I clearly didn't articulate that well. You never called him a liar, I was simply taking issue with argument of him being a liar based on this one incident. I didn't mean to imply that you called him a liar, you absolutely did not and I know that.
That being said, I think you need to do some fact checking. Inside a month of being sworn in, President Obama halted prosecution at Guantanamo, and started a 120 day review of each prisoner, to ensure each were given appropriate trials, and then signed an executive order saying the prison would be closed with in a year. I'll give you that, SO DUMB, to sign that order, without doing the comprehensive review first. The reason being, that the files and evidence regarding each prioners case, were miss handled and many were missing. Causing a delay. It wasn't until 2010 that review was complete, and by then, the midterm elections were taking place. Because of that, you are correct, a lot of house Democrats got scared and didn't think supporting the idea of bringing terrorist to the US for trial would look good for their election chances. By the end of that year, the damage was done, the GOP won the house, and nothing could be done about it.
My point, is that hindsight is 20/20, and claiming that the President should have known that the files were miss handled and that congressional Democrats would turn on a dime, is idiotic. The President had massive support for the idea of closing Guantanamo, until digging into the issue and realizing nothing was what it seemed regarding the facts of the issue. Congression Democrats supported the idea when he was running for President, and then changed their mind as soon as it looked like they might loose their races because of that support. I think your being facetious about that issue when you try to claim that it was plain as day that this would happen.
In 2008, Obama repeatedly vowed to close Gitmo if he became Commander In Chief and that Gitmo shamed America to the entire world. When elected president, since Gitmo is part of a military base and operation, he could have closed it merely by signing an Executive Order without any need for approval by Congress.
He did not close it. Amazingly, closing Gitmo was again part of his campaign in the 2012 election.
Personally, I can think of no more clear example (of so many) in which Obama is an outright calculated - if not pathological - liar.
However, the poll question is simple:
Did Obama lie during the 2008 election when he vowed to close Gitmo if he became president?
Except Obama is Commander-in-Chief. He does not need anyone's agreement or permission. He can just do it by military chain-og-command authority.
I grant that I'm not fully aware of all US laws and the implications, however, if it's true that a President can close any military base at any time he chooses, why does Congress always have committees and commissions looking at such things whenever base closures are at issue?
Remember, they are 'enemy combatants' held at a U.S. military facility in Cuba and Obama is Commander-in-Chief.
Does Obama have the authority to release the prisoners held at Gitmo - yes or no?
I appreciate all you're saying - I still think if he didn't just want the soundbite and thought through his policy of closing Gitmo to its end point, and if he was competent, he never would have made the suggestion nor signed the executive order, unless he was capable of negotiating a deal with Congress - to me, that makes him arrogant, ignorant, and incompetent. And he's proven that on many different areas of public policy throughout his time in the Presidency.
Yes, as long as they remain enemy combatants. The issue, is that he does not want them treated that way. He wanted them put on trial in US courts. Done so using judicial powers, not military ones.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?