Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Report: Obama really, truly, seriously might possibly close Gitmo after election

Report: Obama really, truly, seriously might possibly close Gitmo after election

After ISIS, will promise of closing Gitmo motivate Democratic base to vote?

We’ve already seen how Democrats are trying to mobilize the base with the quiet promise of Obama executive action on “immigration reform.”

Here’s the chaser for the base — Obama might also close Gitmo, via Washington Examiner:

President Obama is exploring executive action to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a move that would stoke an even larger fight with congressional Republicans over the scope of his presidential powers.

Obama is mulling options for bringing Guantanamo detainees to U.S. soil, despite a congressional ban of such a practice, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.

Obama’s inability to close the prison facility in Cuba is arguably his greatest unmet promise since taking office in 2008.

However, with Obama also set to announce executive action on immigration reform after the November midterm elections, the move to shutter Gitmo could give Republicans ammunition to suggest he is overstepping his constitutional authority.

The president could potentially veto the annual defense spending bill or attach a signing statement to the legislation labeling restrictions on prisoner transfers as unconstitutional.

This tweet pretty much sums it up:

Bonus Question: After ISIS, is the Democratic base still anti-Gitmo?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“Obama’s inability to close the prison facility in Cuba is arguably his greatest unmet promise since taking office in 2008.”

Oh, COME ON…!!! How can that be true? I mean, there are so many, many of them. How do you award that one the crown?

I mean, where do you even BEGIN…???

I never quite understood who objected to Gitmo. Anybody know?

    Ragspierre in reply to McAllister. | October 10, 2014 at 12:25 pm

    Well, start with HOlder and Barracula.

    Work your way down the America-hating phylum from there.

    MattMusson in reply to McAllister. | October 10, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    Opening Gitmo in Cuba was genius. As soon as the prisoners are moved to a United States territory where civilian law applies – every one of them will start sueing for rights they do not have as enemy combatants. But – Liberal judges will give them those rights anyway.

    I have finally come to realize that Liberals are not really Liberals. They are just big crybabies.

“Bonus Question: After ISIS, is the Democratic base still anti-Gitmo?”

Translated into Jihadist Arabic, the old saying goes:

“Two-thousand heads are better than one.”

We still don’t know who in the Bush administration came up with the idea of a detention camp on the Guantanama base, but it was an act of brilliance.

It’s difficult to put it such a facility in the US. There are only a few reasons for government detention in the country; proven or suspected criminal activity, prisoner of war, or, as per FDR’s concentration camps, suspicion of, ummm, something-or-other. And it can’t be set up in most foreign countries, as the available ones will raise a fuss due to bad PR and uncertain legal status. But nobody cares if Cuba objects, so that’s the ideal location.

If it’s closed, the internees have to go somewhere. And that means the US. But where and with what legal justification? Atrocities in the name of Allah committed in a foreign country aren’t generally violations of US laws, so there’s little good reason for incarceration for criminal status. POW status is distinct from criminal status, and POWs are held for the duration of a real war, as in a declared war between the US and Japan or Germany, not a more nebulous “war on terror”. When are prisoners released and repatriated? Sometime soon after the declared war is declared to be ended, usually by a suitable treaty duly ratified by the Senate. The “war on terror” isn’t likely to fit in that category. And although FDR’s camps were finally declared constitutional by a Supreme Court made up almost entirely of FDR appointees, that program was later repudiated by two Republican Presidents (Ford and Reagan); perhaps George Bush wasn’t too hot to go down in history as the man who revived such an odious policy.

So while closing the camp is almost certainly a legit action for the Commander-in-Chief, moving the detainees to the US itself is a major domestic and international hot potato, and I can’t see see it as a burden an essentially lazy man like Obama would want to bring on himself. So I’d say it’s just talk to get some of our ultra-lefties excited.

    Ragspierre in reply to tom swift. | October 10, 2014 at 1:35 pm

    As I’ve (astutely) noted many times, jihadist terrorists fall most correctly into the ambit of “pirates”, or “enemies of all mankind” legally.

    They are decidedly NOT “combatants” according to any definition in the operative treaties of which I know.

    Hence, GITMO is a wonderful place for them. They are certainly NOT criminals in any conventional sense, and they are NOT entitled to any of the due process normally afforded a criminal accused.

    They have, very intentionally, put themselves in a twilight zone of the law. They are not stupid. They ARE evil, and present a clear and present danger to American civil populations.

      Not to rehash all this, but the authority re: pirates is best used as originally envisioned: a quick trial and a prompt hanging once obvious guilt is ascertained through witnesses. Turning it into anything else makes things complicated.

    ConradCA in reply to tom swift. | October 11, 2014 at 5:11 pm

    Couldn’t we keep them on a ship that is kept at sea permanently? Preferably up in Alaska were these terrorists will enjoy the cold weather?

Henry Hawkins | October 10, 2014 at 1:40 pm

Move Gitmo to Ferguson, MO. Csll it Fermo.

9thDistrictNeighbor | October 10, 2014 at 1:56 pm

Close GITMO and ship ’em all to Thomson, Illinois…that was the plan a couple of years ago, and Durbin earmarked money in the FY2014 budget for the prison.

Henry Hawkins | October 10, 2014 at 3:45 pm

Meanwhile, cities all over America are quickly taking down their Asylum City signs…..

Maybe.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend