3 ms·

Maybe I am mistaken, but as the commander in chief he is allowed to send troops to a different base if he wanted?

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Maybe I am mistaken, but as the commander in chief he is allowed to send troops to a different base if he wanted? He is not allowed to do anything that costs money if Congress has prohibited spending money for that purpose, as it did for closing the detention facility at Guatanamo (which, not Guatanamo itself, is what Obama had campaigned on closing.) It also prohibited transferring detainees to US bases. The President could have reassigned the US troops assigned to the detention facility without closing it or transferring the detainees, but I can't imagine that would be regarded as a good thing.
- mcv 5y ago
  Couldn't he just have released the detainees? There wasn't any legal basis for keeping them there, as far as I understand, and if there was, he can pardon.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Couldn't he just have released the detainees? Well, for the most part foreign countries weren't willing to take them and bringing them into the US (whether for release or prosecution or detention) was prohibited (whether for release, imprisonment, or trial) was prohibited by Congress, so, no.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  I wasn't suggesting closing the base. It seems like he could have attempted to do a run around congress. Instead of closing the base or detention center or whatever he could have transferred the troops to different bases. Several of the prisoners released (re)joined terrorist organizations when they got back to the Middle East. I am of course not suggesting he should have released more prisoners. I was thinking more of transferring prisoners to a Middle East base. I think doing questionable things to enemy combatants in a war zone is generally considered more acceptable? I am not sure if he could have done that or not. I assume if he transferred the base personnel to a Middle Eastern base they could have taken the prisoners without extra cost. (There of course would be an extra cost, but no additional money would need to be spent) If there is one thing politicians are known for it is wiggling their way out of stuff with slick maneuvers. I am sure Obama could have figured out a way.

> Maybe I am mistaken, but as the commander in chief he is allowed to send troops to a different base if he wanted? He is not allowed to do anything that costs money if Congress has prohibited spending money for that purpose, as it did for closing the detention facility at Guatanamo (which, not Guatanamo itself, is what Obama had campaigned on closing.) It also prohibited transferring detainees to US bases. The President could have reassigned the US troops assigned to the detention facility without closing it or transferring the detainees, but I can't imagine that would be regarded as a good thing.

mcv 5y ago
Couldn't he just have released the detainees? There wasn't any legal basis for keeping them there, as far as I understand, and if there was, he can pardon.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Couldn't he just have released the detainees? Well, for the most part foreign countries weren't willing to take them and bringing them into the US (whether for release or prosecution or detention) was prohibited (whether for release, imprisonment, or trial) was prohibited by Congress, so, no.
_-david-_ 5y ago
I wasn't suggesting closing the base. It seems like he could have attempted to do a run around congress. Instead of closing the base or detention center or whatever he could have transferred the troops to different bases. Several of the prisoners released (re)joined terrorist organizations when they got back to the Middle East. I am of course not suggesting he should have released more prisoners. I was thinking more of transferring prisoners to a Middle East base. I think doing questionable things to enemy combatants in a war zone is generally considered more acceptable? I am not sure if he could have done that or not. I assume if he transferred the base personnel to a Middle Eastern base they could have taken the prisoners without extra cost. (There of course would be an extra cost, but no additional money would need to be spent) If there is one thing politicians are known for it is wiggling their way out of stuff with slick maneuvers. I am sure Obama could have figured out a way.