Congress blocked Gitmo from closing. That is just reality. Yes, the Democratic Congress blocked it.

[Pirate Smile]

Geez, people were around for the last two years, right? This isn't ancient history.

Democrats in Senate Block Money to Close Guantánamo

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/us/politics/20detain.html

House Panel Deals Gitmo Closure a Major Setback

http://washingtonindependent.com/85355/house-panel-deals-gitmo-closure-a-major-setback

Smog Alert: Hot Air in Congress Could Block Gitmo's Closing

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

Senate blocks transfer of Gitmo detainees

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30826649/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

House acts to block closing of Gitmo
In blow to Obama, ban on detainee-transfer funds part of spending bill

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/8/congress-deals-death-blow-gitmo-closure/

[William769]

1. Sorry but the only thing I can infer from this post is...

The Democrats we have in Congress are no better than Republicans, or our sitting President (leader of our party) is not a good leader. What are you trying to tell us here?

[Pirate Smile]

4. When it came down to actually doing it, the NIMBY's broke out all over.

It was easy to say but when it came to the reality of implementing its closure, nobody in Congress wanted the GITMO detainees in their backyard. They freaked and acted like idiots. Not everybody but enough moderate Dems were scared of the political implications of moving a GITMO detainee into a maximum security facility in their state.

The fact that Congress did that made it extremely hard to get other countries to agree to take some also. The Wikileaks showed how it undermined us in that way.

Even NYC freaked about having trials there.

Frankly, sometimes the politicians act like this because it is also what the American people want. They say they want it closed but when the specifics of doing it come out then they say - wait, I don't want them in my state.

It reminds me of all the deficit crap. People freak out about the deficit - "Balance the budget", "Live within our means" - but they want all their services and nothing really cut except "foreign aid".

I don't mean everyone and I'm not saying that is you but it is enough for the mushy middle to align with the RW and make it so Congress is unwilling to do what they said they would.

[William769]

10. Thank you for the clarification.

I understand the context of the OP know.

Thank you again.

[phleshdef]

6. On this issue, a vast number of Democrats in Congress ARE no better than Republicans.

On almost every other issue, they are vastly better.

Does that help your confusion some? Does that help clear everything up in your black and white world? Or are you still "sorry"?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[vaberella]

9. I'd like to know what you mean this shows that Obama is not a good leader? n/t

[Forkboy]

87. How does it prove he is a good leader?

[Arkana]

19. There is only so much cajoling the President can do.

And just because you didn't hear about meetings between him and top Democrats doesn't mean they didn't happen. It was one of the first executive orders Obama signed upon entering office--you're a fool if you don't think he broke his back to try and get them to change their minds.

[Wilms]

2. Isn't this different than indefinite detention and the resumption of military tribunals?

[jaxx]

3. We are near the 69th anniversary of executive order 9066

"United States Executive Order 9066 was a United States presidential executive order signed and issued during World War II by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942 authorizing the Secretary of War to prescribe certain areas as military zones. Eventually, EO 9066 cleared the way for the relocation of Japanese Americans to internment camps.

The order authorized the Secretary of War and U.S. armed forces commanders to declare areas of the United States as military areas "from which any or all persons may be excluded," although it did not name any nationality or ethnic group. It was eventually applied to one-third of the land area of the U.S. (mostly in the West) and was used against those with "Foreign Enemy Ancestry" — Japanese.

<..> Americans of Italian and German ancestry were also targeted by these restrictions, including internment. 11,000 people of German ancestry were interned, as were 3,000 people of Italian ancestry, along with some Jewish refugees. The Jewish refugees who were interned came from Germany, and the U.S. government didn't differentiate between ethnic Jews and ethnic Germans (jewish was defined as religious practice). Some of the internees of European descent were interned only briefly, and others were held for several years beyond the end of the war. Like the Japanese internees, these smaller groups had American-born citizens in their numbers, especially among the children. A few members of ethnicities of other Axis countries were interned, but exact numbers are unknown.

Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson was responsible for assisting relocated people with transport, food, shelter, and other accommodations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

[mkultra]

55. how is it different.

The only alternative would be to let them all go free. is that what you are advocating?

[Wilms]

57. Well, there is the notion of civilian trials.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x583859

[mkultra]

63. also blocked by congress

and that is the only other alternative.

[Wilms]

64. However, according to Glenn Greenwald

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."

None of this was even arguably necessitated by Congressional action. To the contrary, almost all of it took place before Congress did anything. It was Barack Obama's position -- not that of Congress -- that detainees could and should be denied trials, that our court system was inadequate and inappropriate to try them, and that he possessed the unilateral, unrestrained power under the "laws of war" to order them imprisoned for years, even indefinitely, without bothering to charge them with a crime and without any review by the judiciary, in some cases without even the right of habeas review (to see why claims of such "law of war" detention power are so baseless, see the points here, especially point 5).

In other words, Obama -- for reasons having nothing to do with Congress -- worked from the start to preserve the crux of the Bush/Cheney detention regime. Even with these new added levels of detention review (all inside the Executive Branch), this new Executive Order is little more than a by-product of that core commitment, and those blaming it on Congress either have little idea what they're talking about or are simply fabricating excuses in order to justify yet another instance where Obama dutifully "bolsters" the Bush War on Terror template. Indefinite detention and military commissions are continuing because Obama worked from the start for that goal -- not because Congress forced him to do so.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html

[mkultra]

71. Actually, Glenn says it was congress

From the article you linked.

It is true that Congress -- with the overwhelming support of both parties -- has enacted several measures making it much more difficult, indeed impossible, to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the U.S.

Glenn just asserts, incorrectly i might add, that obama never attempted to try them in civilian courts.

His administration was caught off guard last week when opposition mounted to trying the accused plotters of the Sept. 11 attacks in a lower Manhattan courthouse amid concerns about security and costs as well as potentially affording the suspects certain legal rights.

“One of the things that we’ve had to try to communicate to the country at large is that, historically, we’ve tried a lot of terrorists in our courts; we have them in our federal prisons; they’ve never escaped,” Obama said in an interview with YouTube.GUANTANAMO/

“It’s been one of those things that’s been subject to a lot of, in some cases, pretty rank politics,” he said, referring to Republican opposition to the criminal trials. While much of the opposition has been by Republicans, a few Democrats have joined in the disapproval.

http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2010/02/01/obama-slams-opposition-to-civilian-trials-for-terrorism-suspects/

[Wilms]

74. That's about transfer.

What about indefinite detention?

[mkultra]

89. detention is indefinite until they can be tried

which was blocked stateside by congress. Thus the resumption of military trials.

[dennis4868]

5. did you not get the DU memo?

we are suppose to blame Obama for everything....don't you know that Obama is a king and does not need congress to do anything? At least that's the DU thought process by many here....

[phleshdef]

7. Ideology does not exempt a group from having its own unthinking children as participants.

Being on the right side of politics does not automatically mean you have a grasp on reality. It took electing a good, Democratic man to the office of President to expose ours.

[brentspeak]

8. Where's Congress' signature on Obama's executive order for indefinite detention?

Point it out to us, please.

[no limit]

17. I guess I didnt get the memo where if Obama signs something in to law he's not responsible for it

[Arkana]

20. What does this even mean?

[no limit]

25. The provision that prevented Obama from transferring gitmo detainees here was a bill

it was the defense authorization act Obama signed in to law in early 2010. He had every power to veto that bill until that provision was taken out, he chose not to. And now some people here either want to rewrite history or they feel that Obama is never responsible for anything that he signs in to law.

[jeff47]

60. Doesn't work that way

While Obama could veto the bill, Congress doesn't have strip out the parts he doesn't like.

He can lobby, but one can not underestimate the cowardice of the blue dogs.

[obamafourmore]

11. Facts are unacceptable around here. Blame Obama first, and then all the rest

[dennis4868]

50. Blame Obama first, and then all the rest

Is that DU's new slogan?

[no limit]

13. Are you aware of something called veto power that the president has?

[phleshdef]

14. What exactly should he veto? This isn't a situation where a veto would be relevant.

[no limit]

15. The veto is very relevant. What blocked transfer of detainees was the defense spending bill

Obama could veto the bill or he could simply refuse to sign it. To try and absolve him of all blame in this is disingenuous.

[phleshdef]

22. Yea, veto pay for battlefield troops, veto healthcare funding for their children.

Veto the whole damn thing because of one issue.

This is why I'm glad someone like Obama is President and not someone like you.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[phleshdef]

27. Its not a talking point. Its the TRUTH. The bill covered funding for those very items.

You would have to be a complete moron to veto funding for things like that. Obama isn't a moron.

[no limit]

28. Yup, just like democrats had to keep funding the wars or otherwise they would have been idiots

Eventhough as congress they had the power of the purse.

amirite?

[phleshdef]

31. They would have been. ANYTIME we send troops into harm's way, we make damn sure they GET PAYCHECKS.

I was antiwar from the beginning. But you don't do an antiwar movement any justice by being willing to cut off the troops themselves from their livelihood or their children's healthcare. You achieve nothing more than making the antiwar movement look like a bunch of dickheads. And you equip the Republicans with more political power, more electoral wins, etc. You add nothing to your cause.

[no limit]

35. I see. So you are telling me if Obama threatens to veto a defense authorization bill...

he is a dick head, correct? Because that is exactly what he did:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/98989-gates-obama-would-veto-defense-bill-over-f-35-engine

After all, he was threatening to cut off funding for our troops over a single program.

[phleshdef]

44. Obama didn't threaten anything according to that article.

The article states that Gates said a veto was likely, this was back in May, way before the 2010 election which lost us the majority in Congress and way before an actual bill passed.

If Obama had actually vetoed the bill without any concrete way of insuring that soldiers in the battlefield got paid, then yes, that would have been a dick move. Though I'm sure unthinking souls like yourself would have cheered it.

[no limit]

47. Well...

"I obviously did not issue the statement that I did in my testimony on the Hill without talking with the president first," Gates said during a Pentagon conference Thursday. "I try not to climb too far out on a limb without knowing nobody is back there with a saw."

Are you saying Gates was lying?

And so it is your position that if Obama ever vetos a defense authorization bill he is a dick? I would love to have you on record on that.

You can get creative with what you mean by ensuring funding but a veto is a veto. He could get creative with the funding for the veto I'm talking about as well.

[Pirate Smile]

26. There were veto-proof margins. Congress could have passed it as a stand alone bill and over-come a

veto.

[no limit]

29. So it wasn't even worth trying?

[Pirate Smile]

32. Sorry - nevermind.

What was piled up behind it that we were trying to get passed? DADT repeal, START Treaty, 9/11 Responders Bill?

The Defense Authorization had to pass before we could get the moderate Republicans to stop the filibuster so we could vote on all the good things in the Lame Duck.

Was it really worth a symbolic veto that we already knew could be overcome by a veto-proof margin? Absolutely not.

Edit - as shown below - this was the year before (2009) - sorry.

[no limit]

33. This was in early 2010, what you talk about didn't happen until the lame duck session in late 2010

Republican votes on START, DADT, and the 911 responders bill had nothing to do with how Obama handled the defense authorization bill in early 2010.

[Pirate Smile]

36. You are right. Sorry. I am scanning through a bunch of different articles on both 2010 & 2011.

[no limit]

38. I think you are right in the sense the same provision was again in the 2011 bill

but what I was referring to was the 2010 authorization bill, should have made that clearer on my part.

[Pirate Smile]

43. Frankly, trying to find more of the details re what exactly was in each when it appears to be a lot

of the same provisions is driving me a little nuts right now. I need to go work and I've already wasted a bunch of time searching for the specific details of both the 2010 & 2011 Defense Authorization Bills. :crazy:

[no limit]

45. I'm glad I'm not the only one that is sometimes driven nuts by trying to find this stuff

:toast:

[phleshdef]

37. Wrong. There have been mulitple votes related to funding the transfer from 2009 - end of 2010.

Look at the articles in the OP. These are different occurrences of Congressional action all defeating the closure of the prison.

[no limit]

41. Did the defense authorization bills Obama signed have these provisions in them or not?

The correct answer is yes, they did. Which as I'm sure you know Obama has power to veto any one of these bills.

[Pirate Smile]

48. I guess it comes down to the fact that there were enough votes to overcome a Presidential veto.

President Obama could have vetoed it but chose not to because (a) He didn't want to pick a fight with a Congress-controlled by his own party who he needed to pass HCR, Wall Street Reform, DADT Repeal, etc. and (b) He didn't believe it would be beneficial to veto it and have it overturned by a Congress controlled by his Party.

Perhaps people here would have appreciated it (I doubt it really - the effect would have been the same) but it doesn't look like it would have accomplished anything substantively.

[no limit]

51. You are probably right. But then the question becomes why did he make the promise?

Was he naive? Was he lying? Did he not talk to senators before making the promise?

I am not trying to argue that closing Gitmo was politically possible. But the president certainly said it was. Then when it came down to it he didn't fight for it.

[Pirate Smile]

54. I remember almost all Dems being for closing Gitmo. It really seemed like when it came down to doing

it that all of a sudden a bunch of them had an epiphany ~ oh, Republicans are really going to be able to demagogue on this and the polls look like the public will buy it. Never mind.

Some messes are just horrible to clean up after and I believe that this was just another one of those that Bush left. I remember how everyone was saying "why would anyone want to be President after Bush and have to clean up all of his messes. This is just another one of those disasters to deal with where all options pretty much suck.

[phleshdef]

39. And furthermore. A veto would still be irrelevant here. Vetoing a lack of funding does not....

...give you funding.

[no limit]

42. A veto would have removed the provision that forbid Obama from transferring detainees here

Lack of funding doesn't mean something is impossible to do. Plenty of max security prisons in this country that are already fully funded.

Second, if you truly believe Obama had absolutely no way to do this then why do you think Obama made the promise to close Gitmo? Was he lying or was he simply naive (or a little bit of both)?

[phleshdef]

46. Actually yes, lack of funding basically makes it impossible.

They aren't just funding the transfer of the prisoners. They have to fund the actual containment of the prisoners. The feeding of the prisoners. The healthcare of the prisoners and anything else they have to do for the prisoners. Whats your big fucking plan? Ship them via fedex and then just stick them in a closet somewhere and forget about them until their trial? You've give this no thought at all, whatsoever. You just run your mouth.

The fact is, the provision that forbids transfer to the states means nothing. Obama was unable to get it done without that having happened at all. It requires a measure of Congressional approval to make it happen and its not getting it. Period. Your reluctance to accept that Congress actually has power to prevent this does not change the fact that Congress has the power to prevent this.

And yes, opposition to closing Gitmo was very underestimated. Are you telling me that you thought Congress would be more apt to cooperate? I know I did. But I'm not the one attempting to call the President naive. Its not inherently naive to underestimate something, it just means you underestimated it and nothing more than that.

[no limit]

49. Transfer of Gitmo prisoners is already funded.

That's how they find their way to Gitmo. There are also plenty of prisons in this country that are funded, as I just told you above. Before Obama signed that bill in to law there is nothing that I'm aware of that would have prevented Obama from taking the Gitmo prisoners and moving them to existing (already funded) prisons here in the US.

But since he signed that law doing that would now be illegal whereas it wasn't before.

[BklnDem75]

21. Are you?

Vetoes aren't royal decrees. Something has to pass before it can be vetoed.

[no limit]

23. The defense authorization bill which included the gitmo provision

which prevented Obama from transferring detainees to the united states. Obama did not veto this bill, he signed it in to law.

[BklnDem75]

58. The bill was signed on January 7, 2011

Passed by super majority in the House
Passed by unanimous consent in the Senate
The bill was veto proof.

Not that Obama would veto it. The GOP tried everything to stop the bill including trying to have the entire bill read on the floor. Thinking such a bill would be vetoed after making it that far is just unrealistic.

[jenmito]

16. Exactly. And Richard Wolffe on MSNBC said just that-that CONGRESS denied him what he wanted to do.

He STILL wants to close Gitmo, but thanks to the Repubs. AND the Dems. who were scared by the Repubs., it ain't gonna happen.

[no limit]

18. And thanks to Obama signing the bill in to law that prevented detainees from being transferred

[bigwillq]

34. DEMS caved again.

So happy I worked and donated my time and vote for these folks. Well, actually, the folks that represent me are pretty good. But politicians who lose votes or support have no one else to blame but themselves. A lot of folks are frustrated with how Washington is operating right now. I don't blame them. I think our DEMS in Congress are so out of touch. At least most of them anyway.

[jenmito]

53. Right. But Obama gets the blame. n/t

[no limit]

56. He caved just as they did. He had veto power chose not to use it

[jenmito]

59. Keep saying that. It doesn't make it true. n/t

[bigwillq]

66. That's what happens when you're the president

and the head of the party. I know it's hard for you to accept that, but that's the truth.

[jenmito]

67. You know it's hard for me to accept that?

No-it's hard for me to understand why so many Dems. say Obama is just like Bush when Obama wanted to CLOSE Gitmo, but the Dems. in Congress wouldn't allow it.

[bigwillq]

68. Perhaps it's a reflection of his leadership skills

and his inability to persuade his party on this subject.

[treestar]

75. You know I'm getting sick of that one

If you can convince everyone of anything at any time, why aren't you President?

Do you really think one can convince people elected to Congress by sheer force of personality? No, they'd have to get something.

Why don't voters try to convince their representatives? Or maybe they do, and those representatives vote for what those voters want? Maybe everyone does not agree at all times. That makes no one a failure as a leader.

[bigwillq]

76. I've called and wrote, and called and wrote.

They don't listen to me. They're going to do what they want to do anyway. The only way is to vote them all out.

[jenmito]

78. Perhaps you'd like to THINK so, but you'd be wrong.

The Dems. were worried about their own re-election and RW scare tsctics.

[bigwillq]

79. They are poor leaders too.

Only worried about themselves.
I do blame them more than Obama on this one.

[bigwillq]

30. They should be ashamed.

:mad:

[tekisui]

40. Failure is failure. Excuses notwithstanding.

[Pirate Smile]

61. He is not a dictator. Sometimes the other branches of Government have a say in what happens.

[tekisui]

65. Another excuse.

He is the leader of the party that screwed him. Failure of leadership.

[Pirate Smile]

69. LOL. OK. We get it. You blame President Obama. Some of us disagree.

[tekisui]

70. You can disagree, but he still failed in this objective.

[Pirate Smile]

72. I don't think anyone was claiming that Gitmo was actually closed.

I wont say anymore about it so you can have the last word, OK?

[tekisui]

73. Thanks. I like having the last word. The military tribunals may not

even be constitutional, they certainly won't be fair. And the Administration has already conceded that at least 48 detainees cannot be tried due to tainted evidence and can't be released. It really doesn't matter where they are held, but that they are being held without charge, indefinitely.

[ClarkUSA]

77. Politifact doesn't feel the same way. They note that because of Congress, his push is "stalled".

I agree with them. Obama is just 2 yrs. into his presidency. To say he is a "failure" is premature. There's another Congress after 2012, after all.

[tekisui]

80. He has failed thus far. He has lost all the major battles on this.

Turning to military tribunals is an admission of defeat.

[ClarkUSA]

81. Congress is a co-equal branch of gov't. They have failed President Obama thus far, to be exact.

[tekisui]

82. Together the co-equal branches have failed. Obama has accepted defeat

and has now chosen the unconstitutional 'solution'.

[ClarkUSA]

83. No, Congress failed to allocate funds so Pres. Obama has been "stalled" as Politifact.com puts it.

Furthermore, no news report I've read has said that military tribunals are "unconstitutional".

[tekisui]

84. That claim is debatable. I also don't look to Politifact for my opinions.

[ClarkUSA]

85. Considering Politifact.com has won a Pulitzer Prize, I trust their veracity at reporting the facts.

[Forkboy]

86. Awesome.

[bvar22]

52. Video is Forever....Roll the tape:

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







Who represents THIS overwhelming American Majority?
"By their works you will know them."

[AtomicKitten]

62. 'tis true

nt

[Forkboy]

88. This is why we can't afford to let Republicans win.

[TheKentuckian]

90. How does a President allow a Congress to cuckold him into a clearly unconstitutional position?

Congress has no authority to override the right to a trial or dictate indefinite detention. I think it is also extremely dubious that the body has any constitutional authority to funnel folks into military tribunals.

The President is obligated to fight such demands to the mat as are we as citizens.

This all is rooted in trying to thread the needle and maintain some of the military commissions and trying to close Gitmo by relocating it.
If Obama wanted to do the right thing he could have done it before Congress had acted in any way by simply ordering the base closed for business and had the prisoners awaiting trial. He certainly could have vetoed this unconstitutional decree and still can give Congress their 120 days and rock on but he will not because he is so willing to avoid short term blow back that he is willing to scuttle the US Constitution and allow our government to de-legitimize it's self completely in a now bipartisan breaking of our own founding documents and multiple treaties.