Did Obama, Trump, and Biden not think any of the released prisoners would not return to Afghanistan when given the chance?...
"We do not feel safe with an accused human rights violator on our campus!"...
Obama outlined a blueprint that involves transferring the bulk of remaining detainees to other countries and moving the rest -- who can't be transferred abroad because they're deemed too dangerous -- to an as-yet-undetermined detention facility in the United States.
Source: 'Al Qaeda followers' among 17 being transferred from Gitmo The group of 17 detainees expected to be transferred out of Guantanamo Bay as early as this week includes “multiple bad guys” and “Al Qaeda followers,” a source who has reviewed the list told Fox News. Little is known publicly about which prisoners are being prepared for transfer, but the Obama administration has notified Congress it plans to ship out 17 detainees – some of whom could be transferred within days.
We do not maintain Guantanamo because we want to. We maintain it because it is in the best interest of our national security to do so. In this way, Guantanamo is not a unique site-not sui generis or separated from historical practice, as many of its critics say. It is, in plain terms, a humane and professional wartime military prison: the unpleasant but inescapable necessity of any conflict, well-grounded in the laws of war. Guantanamo was created to house captured combatants and has always been set for closure once hostilities end.
Obama’s Gitmo Workaround President Obama is about to send Congress a doomed plan to close the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay, so he can then shut down Gitmo the way he does nearly anything—by executive order. White House press secretary Josh Earnest repeated the familiar drill Wednesday. They “work with Congress where we can,” Mr. Earnest said. “But if Congress continues to refuse, I wouldn’t rule out the President using every element of his authority to make progress.”
“I thought we had enough consensus there that we could do it in a more deliberate fashion,” Obama added. “But the politics of it got tough, and people got scared by the rhetoric around it. Once that set in, then the path of least resistance was just to leave it open, even though it’s not who we are as a country and it’s used by terrorists around the world to help recruit jihadists.” Instead, Obama said, we’ve been forced to “chip away it” a little bit at a time, releasing a small number of detainees who could not be charged but leaving more than 100 still in captivity with no trials in sight.Watch:
“Do you think [the administration] should keep Gitmo open or close it?”No. Surely not.“Open, so we can have fun.” “Club Gitmo?” “You know it!”
“Do you know what ISIS is?”This is real. This is a thing that is real that has happened and if I have to deal with it, then so do you. Watch:“Being alone.”
Senator Cotton: Ok now I want to explore the so-called risk balance between recidivism of released terrorists and the propaganda value that terrorists get from Guantanamo Bay. How many recidivists are there at Guantanamo Bay right now? Secretary McKeon: I'm not sure I follow the question... Senator Cotton: How many detainees at Guantanamo Bay are engaged in terrorism or anti-American incitement? Secretary McKeon: There are none. Senator Cotton: Because theyre detained. Because they only engage in that kind of recidivism overseas. Now let's look at the propaganda value: How many detainees were at Guantanamo Bay on September 11, 2001?After a few more questions and feeble answers, Senator Cotton goes in for the kill.
He could veto the annual bill setting military policy, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, in which the ban on transferring detainees to the U.S. is written. While the veto wouldn’t directly affect military funding, such a high-stakes confrontation with Congress carries significant political risks. A second option would be for Mr. Obama to sign the bill while declaring restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners an infringement of his powers as commander in chief, as he has done previously. Presidents of both parties have used such signing statements to clarify their understanding of legislative measures or put Congress on notice that they wouldn’t comply with provisions they consider infringements of executive power.Similar efforts are likely on immigration, "climate change" and other areas where Obama is unable to obtain congressional approval. Whichever option he chooses, he's sure to meet with political backlash that won't be limited to anger at the White House. Although the 2014 midterms will be behind us by the time the President makes the choice to act, the use of executive action on the issue could have a detrimental effect on democrats seeking election (or re-election) in 2016.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Sr. Contrib Editor