Please Tell Me More About How It Was Obama Who Failed To Close Gitmo

[MrScorpio]

Senator Pat Roberts proves what I've said all along: Congress failed, not Obama.



For six years I've listened to people on all sides of the debate complain because 'Obama failed to shut down Guantanamo" and for six years I've said it was Congress, not Obama. Well, here you go, straight from the almost-certainly-doomed-to-be-former-Senator from Kansas:

The Hill:

A day after Tea Party hero Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) campaigned with him in Wichita, (Sen. Pat Roberts) threatened to wage a marathon talk session similar to the one Cruz held last year to protest the implementation of ObamaCare.

“I stopped him once from trying to send a Gitmo terrorist to Leavenworth. I shall do it again, I shall do it again and if he tries it again I will shut down the Senate,” Roberts said, referring to the military prison located sixty miles east of his campaign headquarters in Topeka where he spoke to campaign volunteers.

Roberts made a similar threat back in 2009, when Obama originally signaled he wanted to relocate detainees to the United States. At the time, the disciplinary barracks at Fort Leavenworth, as well as a maximum-security prison in Obama’s home state of Illinois were being considered to house the prisoners.

Roberts told reporters that he would hold the Senate floor for hours on end if necessary to stop Obama.

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/10/please-tell-me-more-about-how-it-was-obama

[KittyWampus]

1. Dear Mr. Scorpio, there are some DU'ers who are impervious to political reality

But I do thank you for posting this and at least making an effort.

It appears a sizable number of DU'ers really want a dictator who has "super" authority. Which is ironic since same DU'ers tend to throw around the label "authoritarian" onto others.

AND they also seem to think voting is about a politican getting them excited.

Politics is about being informed and engaged… on a continual basis.

Posting on DU isn't being engaged. It gives the illusion of being involved though.

Some of the childish nonsense that is being posted here lately is cringe-worthy stuff.

[BlueCaliDem]

7. + 1000. Thank you!

[brer cat]

12. +2 nt

[SidDithers]

15. Well said...nt

Sid

[LostInAnomie]

17. +1

[JI7]

30. i can tell when people think posting on DU and other sites is activism

and they think they achieved something by getting a lot of recs.

[zappaman]

40. Well said!

[flamingdem]

44. Perfectly stated

Kw

[IronLionZion]

63. Much of the posting on DU is discouraging and defeatist

More of a circular firing squad rather than a forum for any sort of progress.

[davidpdx]

2. The sad part is no one who blames Obama will admit they wrong

Just like those on DU outright lie about why Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, and plenty of other things.

[emulatorloo]

3. DU's Loud Crowd are not that interested in facts or truth

They are more into half-truths, twisted facts that back up their anti-Democratic propaganda efforts.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Of all of the Obama "failures" this one...

bugs me the most.

One might argue that he didn't try hard enough, or that he really didn't care after all. But to completely ignore Congress' part in all this is absolutely wrong. Obama had a decent plan and it was thrown out.

[madokie]

5. Everything is Obama fault

when it isn't it still is. Most amazing man who can make that happen. Most of us are only blamed for what we actually do but on his shoulders all wrongs is cast. fuck a bunch of didn't get my pony asshole, even the ones who call themselves dems

[freshwest]

6. I've posted the story of not only this guy, but others for a long time. I don't bother anymore. The

facts interfere with the oft repeated media narrative so they'll be ignored. Just the same as others. Nice try, MrScorpio.

[jwirr]

8. Hopefully historians will be more informed about what is going on in Congress today than most of

the people in the USA are.

[BlueCaliDem]

9. If some loud ones on DU refuse to understand the vital role Congress plays in our government,

there's nothing anyone can say to help them.

All they have to do is type in "congress stops Obama from closing Gitmo" and they'll get a plethora of media that have clearly placed the blame for that on Congress, not President Obama. On the other hand, if one is biased toward this president, no amount of facts will change their mind and he'll always be seen by them as "not good enough".

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Thank you. I'm glad you brought this up

If anyone wants to fault Obama for failing to be the President he led us to believe he would be, there are plenty of legitimate matters that one can cite. The "failure" to close Gitmo isn't one of them. That was the purest example of Republican obstruction.

[JayhawkSD]

11. Wall Street Journal, Oct 10, 2014

"Obama Aims to Close Guantanamo Unilaterally" reads the headline, and the article outlines several executive actions which Obama is considering to employ to close Gitmo without Congressional action.

These measures have been available to him since the day he took office six years ago. So I ask you, who failed to close Guantanamo?

[hughee99]

13. Exactly. Closing the camp isn't the problem, it's what to do with the existing prisoners.

Some people don't consider "Closing Gitmo" a victory if we simply move the detainees, some of whom have been in "custody" for more than a decade without being CHARGED with anything, to another facility. THAT was Obama's plan to close Gitmo that the republicans blocked.

On day one of his first term, Obama could have pardoned all the remaining prisoners and closed the camp in a day. Even then, though, he still would have had an issue deciding what to do with those that he just pardoned. Where does someone go when their own country doesn't want them returned? He could have always let them free to travel America, I suppose.

[PADemD]

14. I missed that. Did he stand for hours on end?

[spanone]

16. K&r...

[former9thward]

18. So now GOP campaign rhetoric is now taken as 'facts' and 'truth'.

I don't think Obama thinks so....

Obama Aims to Close Guantanamo Unilaterally, Wall Street Journal Reports

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/10/10/obama_closing_guantanamo_president_considering_autonomous_action_paper_reports.html

[Igel]

19. That's not where the problem lies.

Obama also promised to eliminate the deficit.

In both cases, he made promises that resonated strongly with some portion of the electorate, promises made to encourage support, and promises that he surely knew he was in no position to unilaterally implement.

As a senator, he knew the role Congress played, even leaving out his stint as faculty at a law school. What he may not have known was why some of the Gitmo inmates were there. But it was either an act of shameless political expediency, partisan ill-will, or intellectual arrogance that kept him from thinking, "Gee, perhaps the current president really does know something I don't know." (Or perhaps two or all three of those.) Instead of closing it as intended, his best solution was to transfer them--knowing that suddenly on US soil a different set of principles would apply to them (but not openly discussing this at the time).

Even now Obama is blamed for not closing Gitmo either because people want him to be all-powerful or can't conceive that he would have knowingly made a promise he knew he couldn't keep. Even worse would be to say he made a promise he honestly thought he'd unilaterally have the authority to keep, a promise that would highlight some semblance of ignorance or hubris.

Same with the deficit. He chortles that the deficit is finally down, after take hikes, a stimulus 4x greater than what he tolerated in early 2008, 5 years of economic recovery, and even sequestration ... down to the record deficit under Bush II. Getting rid of the deficit in X number of years, as he promised, was crazy-stupid talk for crazy-stupid voters. Yet many bought it.

They don't want a president, they want a god, a symbol, a savior. Instead, they get a man.

[Raine1967]

39. A lot of people like to ignore that deficit issue. This is often ignored:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/25/barack-obama/obama-says-deficit-falling-fastest-rate-60-years/

[AgingAmerican]

20. Obama can't close it

...because some right wing crackpot threatens to blather for a few hours on the senate floor, another phony filibuster, ala Ted Cruz?

Are you fucking kidding me? lol Seriously? lol

[Nye Bevan]

21. The problem is that "I couldn't do (whatever) because Congress said no"

doesn't really cut it. Good presidents find ways to get things done even in the face of a hostile Congress, by applying pressure, using their bully pulpit, and horsetrading. Plenty of DUers criticize Obama for not achieving single-payer health care, even though Congress was very much opposed to it.

[grammiepammie]

64. Nye Bevan post

No President has had to put up with a congress like Obama. Everything he has tried to do has been filibustered in the Senate and voted no in the House. So please, stop the nonsense that our President could have done more. I am so tired of listening to this. They are even screaming about the dedication of a "monument" because he used his executive authority. Please, a monument.

[AgingAmerican]

77. He could have done it by executive order, citing human rights violations

...then let the courts decide it.

So what if the Republicans would throw a fit, they do that no matter what he does anyway.

[scarystuffyo]

22. 78 year old senator was going to talk for hours

[ZombieHorde]

23. Couldn't have President Obama pulled Gitmo's funding without Congress? nt

[Cha]

24. Wouldn't have the funds to send them elsewhwere. If the President could do this without the assholes

in congress he would.

[ZombieHorde]

25. Wouldn't need the funds to send them elsewhere.

Just say "figure it out or they're being released." He could have forced their hands if he really wanted to.

[Cha]

27. From the link..

"Obama ordered the closure of the prison camp as one of his first acts as president, but the Congress overrode him by prohibiting the use of federal funds to transfer detainees."

And, some of those were Democrats.

[ZombieHorde]

29. Sure, but if President Obama said no more funding for Gitmo,

Congresses hand would be forced. Either Congress would have to figure something out, or the prisoners would be released.

[Cha]

31. President Obama wanted Gitmo CLOSED and Congress wouldn't Give him the MONEY.

[ZombieHorde]

33. Yes, but you're not understanding what I am saying.

President Obama has the option of not funding Gitmo.

Yes, closing Gitmo in a way that would seem responsible would cost money, however, and this is important to my point, keeping Gitmo open also costs money. No money equals no Gitmo. The prisoners would just have to be released, as opposed to transferred.

[Cha]

34. You don't get it. President Obama wanted Gitmo CLOSED and Congress wouldn't Give him the MONEY.

[ZombieHorde]

42. He doesn't need money to stop funding Gitmo.

Not funding Gitmo doesn't cost money. It's free. He doesn't need Congress to do that.

[Cha]

48. They need money to send the remaining ones who haven't passed review and been released..

into the US Prison System to close Gitmo.

[ZombieHorde]

58. There are two things here that cost money.

1. Closing Gitmo.
2. Not closing Gitmo.

Now what happens if there is no money for either option?

[rhett o rick]

55. Who doesn't "get it"? If President wanted it closed, it'd be closed. He has a lot of options as

the most powerful man in the world. Also, he has lots of options as CIC. You wish he wanted it closed, you wish it sooo bad you think it's fact.

[Cha]

57. You don't get it.

[Hippo_Tron]

68. That would be political suicide

I'm all for politicians leading and not following, but there are limits on how much you can realistically expect them to defy public opinion.

Really, the Supreme Court are the ones who should be saying "figure it out or they're being released". But sadly that institution has been taken over by right wing nuts.

[ZombieHorde]

71. Americans wanted Gitmo shut down.

If President Obama played chicken with Congress, most people would have sided with the President. Congress would have been the ones committing political suicide if President Obama explained his position well and took control of the framing.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. Picture a TV ad...

'President Obama has told congress that he will release terrorists from prison. Call President Obama and tell him you don't support releasing terrorists from prison'.

Support for closing Guantanamo would drop to Dick Cheney approval rating levels after that ad is run.

[ZombieHorde]

74. If President Obama was dumb,

and let the Republicans frame the argument, then it would be political suicide. However, if President Obama was smart, he would anticipate this framing, and discuss it when he announced his plan to close Gitmo.

Democrats are pretty dumb on the subject of messaging, so maybe President Obama would just sit back and let the Republicans control the conversation.

[Hippo_Tron]

75. There is no way to frame your proposal...

In a manner that would win over the support of the American people.

They might tolerate closing Guantanamo if the detainees are released to other countries or prosecuted in civilian courts. But if the President threatened to let them loose on the streets of the US, people would go apeshit.

You're fighting against decades of media induced paranoia. No framing can beat that.

[ZombieHorde]

76. Frame it this way:

The American people want Gitmo closed. I have pulled funding from Gitmo, and now Congress must do the right thing, the safe thing, and properly fund the transfer of prisoners to location X.

[Hippo_Tron]

78. I will say that I agree he should've proposed location X

That way everyone outside of location X wouldn't yell NIMBY.

[hughee99]

45. If you send the prisoners, some of whom have been held without charges for more than a decade

to another prison, and then close Gitmo, have you really "fixed the problem"? Congress is preventing him from doing THIS. The president could pardon and release ALL the people in Gitmo and just let them go, and congress couldn't do anything about that. Then, with no more prisoners, close the camp.

[Cha]

47. President Obama is releasing some of the prisoners after they have been reviewed. YOu don't just

open the gate. It's an ongoing process.

[hughee99]

53. They've been down to about 150 prisoners for quite some time now. 86 are cleared for release,

they're not WAITING on anything, except a country to take them in since their home country doesn't want them back. You literally can "just open the gate" for them. The government has already determined they can be released, and without being convicted of any crime you can let them live in the US until they are able to get the proper paperwork to emigrate to a country willing to take them, as opposed to living in a prison camp.

Then you've got the "high value detainees". It's not that they haven't had a chance to review these prisoners who have been held for more than a decade, it's that they don't have sufficient evidence to convict most of them of anything, but they know they're bad guys.

[Cha]

26. I've been saying the same thing, MrScorpio.. it's one of those things that's claimed by the

profiteering left and repeated enough that it's established by those who don't bother to do their own research.

"Obama ordered the closure of the prison camp as one of his first acts as president, but the Congress overrode him by prohibiting the use of federal funds to transfer detainees."

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/10/please-tell-me-more-about-how-it-was-obama

[LawDeeDah]

28. Willful ignorance or something else? Why would people from the supposed left lie about this

like the right lies about this?

I have a few good guesses!

[Cha]

32. Seems like they want it to be the President's fault.. no matter what the facts are.

[Cha]

37. They want him to be Mr Magic Man.. presto it's closed! Doesn't work that way and you can't explain

it to them because their minds are made up.. "It's Obama fault."

[Maedhros]

35. Obama was not attempting to close the Gitmo prison.

He simply wanted to move it to the continental U.S.:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/why-obama-still-wont-close-guantanamo-even-if-he-wants

Experts from both sides of the aisle do agree that when Obama talks about closing Guantanamo, he's not talking about ending the practice of indefinitely detaining terrorist suspects without trial. Instead, he's talking about what to do with the prisoners already in US custody, whose future is uncertain.

"Obama has embraced indefinite detention since 2009 and has never backed away from it," says Karen Greenberg*, who is the director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law, and is the author of The Least Worst Place: Guantanamo's First 100 Days. "He's never clearly made that break from George W. Bush."

Stimson thinks the president doesn't want to limit his options. "No president in his right mind is going to constrain his ability to detain somebody," he says.

That means even if Obama does manage to close Guantanamo, the sticky issue of indefinite detention will remain, and civil liberties activists won't be satisfied. "There's no such thing as closing Guantanamo if you move the prisoners to Illinois or somewhere else on earth, and keep indefinite detention," Greenberg says.

[progressoid]

56. Shush.

You're ruining this little charade.

[Maedhros]

61. They are only worried about the D-R scorecard,

and care not one whit for the integrity of the Constitution.

The issue is indefinite detention, which Obama enthusiastically endorses, and habeus corpus, which Obama has gleefully decided to discard. Where the prisoners are detained, in Gitmo or elsewhere, is window dressing to the main issue.

[Major Hogwash]

62. That's quite a hit piece on Obama you've got there.

Are you proud of it?

[m-lekktor]

65. yup. this. nt

[kentuck]

36. Let him talk...

How many can he get to talk with him? Would they filibuster together? Now that would be entertaining!

[Cha]

38. Who Are the 55 Cleared Guantánamo Prisoners on the List Released by the Obama Administration?

"POSTSCRIPT January 2013: The Center for Constitutional Rights has confirmed that a 56th prisoner was added to this list after its initial drafting — Djamel Ameziane, an Algerian mentioned below."


See more at: http://www.closeguantanamo.org/Articles/69-Who-Are-the-55-Cleared-Guantanamo-Prisoners-on-the-List-Released-by-the-Obama-Administration#sthash.nbXzxCTB.dpuf

[Cha]

41. Kick

[sheshe2]

43. Well someone here told me...

that the anti-Obama rhetoric is all about the recs.

Thanks for trying to make them see the light MrScorpio.

[Cha]

49. Some facts, she.. "The Left and Right Are Both Wrong About Obama’s Bergdahl Prison Swap"

snip//

"But the Bergdahl release has resurrected an attack from the anti-Gitmo left, the notion that, if the President can use a signing statement to justify the release of these five prisoners, then he can do so for all of the Gitmo detainees. If the President can “ignore the law” in this case, then why not do the same for the rest of the detainees? MSNBC’s Chris Hayes asked that very question, on behalf of anti-Gitmo activists, on his All In program Monday night, but the premise of that question relies on the same fundamental misunderstanding about signing statements that the right relies on. They’re both asserting that the President is using the signing statement to ignore the law. Here is what President Obama said about using signing statements in 2007, at a Montana town hall campaign event:

When Hayes played that clip last night, he cut it off when Obama said “we’re not going to use signing statements,” but the rest of that sentence is “as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”

The President’s NDAA signing statement doesn’t do that, it seeks to preserve the will of Congress, with a very narrow, well-defined exception. The test of that exception isn’t settled by the signing statement, it is settled by the U.S. Constitution, and if it is challenged, by the Supreme Court. No one has said that the Bergdahl swap would not withstand such a challenge, but a wholesale release of Gitmo detainees likely would not.

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/06/right-left-attack-obama-signing-statement-rationale-bowe-bergdahl-swap/

Just some reality injected into the neverending whine fest about "Obama could do it if he wanted to.."

[sheshe2]

52. Yes Cha!

Just some reality injected into the neverending whine fest about "Obama could do it if he wanted to.."

The Whine fest~



GAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW! Where is my pony!!!

[fadedrose]

46. Congessional cockroaches

They always cause trouble and blame Obama . . . then they take a vacation, run for office, blaming their nonaction on Obama too.

Sure, everything he does isn't what everyone wants, but who in office ever did.

[Rex]

50. Congress is a non-starter. The fact that the POTUS has had to go it alone because

of GOP obstruction is criminal. Sadly, we don't have any way to punish the GOP for putting all our lives in danger...they get voted in by their idiot voters.

[MADem]

51. I've seen that excuse used here by people who should know better. nt

[morningfog]

54. No one made him make that promise. What made Obama think he do it?

Besides, Obama has claimed the right to detain indefinitely 40-50 without charge. It doesn't matter where they are detained forever, but that they are detained forever.

[Cha]

59. Who Are the 55 Cleared Guantánamo Prisoners on the List Released by the Obama Administration?

"POSTSCRIPT January 2013: The Center for Constitutional Rights has confirmed that a 56th prisoner was added to this list after its initial drafting — Djamel Ameziane, an Algerian mentioned below."

See more at: http://www.closeguantanamo.org/Articles/69-Who-Are-the-55-Cleared-Guantanamo-Prisoners-on-the-List-Released-by-the-Obama-Administration#sthash.nbXzxCTB.dpuf

[Cha]

60. "The Left and Right Are Both Wrong About Obama’s Bergdahl Prison Swap"

snip//

"But the Bergdahl release has resurrected an attack from the anti-Gitmo left, the notion that, if the President can use a signing statement to justify the release of these five prisoners, then he can do so for all of the Gitmo detainees. If the President can “ignore the law” in this case, then why not do the same for the rest of the detainees? MSNBC’s Chris Hayes asked that very question, on behalf of anti-Gitmo activists, on his All In program Monday night, but the premise of that question relies on the same fundamental misunderstanding about signing statements that the right relies on. They’re both asserting that the President is using the signing statement to ignore the law. Here is what President Obama said about using signing statements in 2007, at a Montana town hall campaign event:

When Hayes played that clip last night, he cut it off when Obama said “we’re not going to use signing statements,” but the rest of that sentence is “as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”

The President’s NDAA signing statement doesn’t do that, it seeks to preserve the will of Congress, with a very narrow, well-defined exception. The test of that exception isn’t settled by the signing statement, it is settled by the U.S. Constitution, and if it is challenged, by the Supreme Court. No one has said that the Bergdahl swap would not withstand such a challenge, but a wholesale release of Gitmo detainees likely would not.

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/06/right-left-attack-obama-signing-statement-rationale-bowe-bergdahl-swap/

[Cha]

66. John Boehner Wigs Out and Calls Obama Lawless For Trying to Close Illegal GITMO Prison

snip//

"Obama has tried on a yearly basis to close GITMO, but he has been consistently blocked by Democrats and Republicans in Congress who refuse to provide the funding that is required in order to close the prison and move the prisoners.

Congress stepped up their efforts to keep the secret prison open by passing laws that prohibited President Obama from bringing prisoners to the United States for trial. The fact that many people don’t understand is that it is the Pentagon that makes the final decision on detainee transfer, not Obama. So far, the Pentagon has slowed walked the president’s requests for more detainee transfers.

Republicans in Congress are the main reason why GITMO has remained open. The president is squeezed by a congress that refuses to close the prison, and the Pentagon bureaucracy that is doing whatever it pleases.

Given these obstacles, it is no wonder the president is looking for ways to close GITMO on his own. Boehner’s conclusion that Obama is lawless for trying to uphold the law would be funny if it weren’t so typical of the Republican treatment of this president.

More..
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/10/10/john-boehner-wigs-calls-obama-lawless-close-illegal-gitmo-prison.html

[Hippo_Tron]

67. I'm fairly critical of the President, but this is one instance he was screwed by his own party

Just about every single member of congress, even the Democrats, yelled NIMBY at the top of their lungs when it was being discussed where they'd transfer the prisoners to.

[Reter]

69. Obama is far from innocent on Gitmo

He never even mentions it. How come he doesn't say "It's Congress who is blocking it" and how come he doesn't condemn it? Either he wants it to remain open or he was told by someone who's really in charge to shut up.

[Number23]

70. ((weeping)) Bully Pulpit!!! ((sobs)) Bully FREAKING pulpit!!!1

(I just thought I'd go ahead and get it out the way. Save some folks the trouble))

[aikoaiko]

73. Well, its not like Congress promised to close it.