3 ms·

Guantanamo has nothing to do with congress. It was effectively authorized in this 2001 executive order: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/mo-111301.htm http://

by trimbo 14y ago

Guantanamo has nothing to do with congress. It was effectively authorized in this 2001 executive order: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/mo-111301.htm http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/mo-111301.htm

pyre 14y ago
Rescinding that executive order doesn't make magic happen. There is the process of closing down and what to do with the prisoners that matters. It's sounding like Congress is tying the President's hands by restricting his ability to use funds (funds that Congress authorizes) towards those goals. If you're in the US and you want this to happen, I would look towards your representatives in Congress, and research these bills. This rings similar to the 'legalize marijuana' issue. Making it legal 'tomorrow' would be a massive undertaking because of all of the infrastructure that's in place with the assumption that it's illegal. Sometimes decisions/actions seem 'easy' on the surface, while the devil is in the details.
- taproot 14y ago
  Yet leaving it illegal is the problem we face on both counts. I dont see why youre bothering to state this nonsense in the form of an argument against doing the right thing. It would have been easier to do nothing in the first place yet here we bloody well are.
  - pyre 14y ago
    I would support you if you want to go after the people that made this happen, that said if you want to clean up the mess as it currently is, then you'll have to work out how to get it done. Complaining about how it shouldn't have happened in the first place doesn't translate into action now to remedy the situation.
    - taproot 14y ago
      I wasn't complaining, I was simply replying in kind. Good job on catching that.
- ctoth 14y ago
  I find it interesting that you referenced http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali... at a time in the United States when two states have in fact legalized Marijuana. I think this simply highlights the point that change for the better is possible if the people want it enough. What does this mean for Gitmo? Could we apply the same sort of sidestep? I.E. a small forward-thinking community with a not terribly overworked prosecutor petitions to have them tried there? As I remember from back in 2009, the biggest issue was that our congresscritters were screaming "Not in my back yard!" in regards to the evil terrorists, which when you think about it from their perspective is quite a reasonable thing to do. Are there any places here in the U.S. that would actually take and try the Gitmo detainees? (gotta love Newspeak... prisoners)
  - pyre 14y ago
    | Are there any places here in the U.S. | that would actually take and try the | Gitmo detainees? I imagine that they would be tried in Federal court, but I would be curious what the jurisdiction would be if the crimes were committed outside of the US.

by trimbo 14y ago

Guantanamo has nothing to do with congress. It was effectively authorized in this 2001 executive order: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/mo-111301.htm http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/mo-111301.htm

pyre 14y ago

Rescinding that executive order doesn't make magic happen. There is the process of closing down and what to do with the prisoners that matters. It's sounding like Congress is tying the President's hands by restricting his ability to use funds (funds that Congress authorizes) towards those goals. If you're in the US and you want this to happen, I would look towards your representatives in Congress, and research these bills. This rings similar to the 'legalize marijuana' issue. Making it legal 'tomorrow' would be a massive undertaking because of all of the infrastructure that's in place with the assumption that it's illegal. Sometimes decisions/actions seem 'easy' on the surface, while the devil is in the details.

taproot 14y ago
Yet leaving it illegal is the problem we face on both counts. I dont see why youre bothering to state this nonsense in the form of an argument against doing the right thing. It would have been easier to do nothing in the first place yet here we bloody well are.
- pyre 14y ago
  I would support you if you want to go after the people that made this happen, that said if you want to clean up the mess as it currently is, then you'll have to work out how to get it done. Complaining about how it shouldn't have happened in the first place doesn't translate into action now to remedy the situation.
  - taproot 14y ago
    I wasn't complaining, I was simply replying in kind. Good job on catching that.
ctoth 14y ago
I find it interesting that you referenced http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali... at a time in the United States when two states have in fact legalized Marijuana. I think this simply highlights the point that change for the better is possible if the people want it enough. What does this mean for Gitmo? Could we apply the same sort of sidestep? I.E. a small forward-thinking community with a not terribly overworked prosecutor petitions to have them tried there? As I remember from back in 2009, the biggest issue was that our congresscritters were screaming "Not in my back yard!" in regards to the evil terrorists, which when you think about it from their perspective is quite a reasonable thing to do. Are there any places here in the U.S. that would actually take and try the Gitmo detainees? (gotta love Newspeak... prisoners)
- pyre 14y ago
  | Are there any places here in the U.S. | that would actually take and try the | Gitmo detainees? I imagine that they would be tried in Federal court, but I would be curious what the jurisdiction would be if the crimes were committed outside of the US.