5 ms·

"For anyone who actually understands politics, the failure to close Gitmo was not Obama's fault." I disagree. For anyone that understands politics understands

"For anyone who actually understands politics, the failure to close Gitmo was not Obama's fault." I disagree. For anyone that understands politics understands that things can get done by applying a significant political push. I think Obama symbolically tried, then threw his hands up in the air in defeat when he got some resistance from Congress. I assume this is because the political chips he would lose by pushing harder on closing Gitmo are chips he was not willing to lose. Meanwhile, CISPA, which was already defeated once, is making its way through Congress again. It's a perfect example of "political push" (and if you read between the lines, that means "money").

enraged_camel 14y ago
I responded to this below. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5553198 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5553198
pkulak 14y ago
That's a lot of metaphor there. No matter the "chips", and "pushing", it's still the legislative branch that makes the laws. There's got to be a limit to the blame you can assign someone for failing to convince someone else to do something.
- mirkules 14y ago
  I really can't subscribe to that argument when you look at other national issues for which the President is fighting tooth and nail. Without straying too far from the subject, take gun control as an example [and please note, I am deliberately writing this from a partisan-agnostic perspective]. The opposition to this is fierce, and the issue extremely polarizing. Yet, the President seems to be willing to go the distance on the issue of gun control. The movement has failed again and again to gain bipartisan support. Yet, here we are still talking about it in the news. Same can be said about abortion, too. These debates went on for decades now. Nobody can say the President isn't trying hard enough in those cases, whichever side of the fence you happen to fall on. Yet, when we talk about basic human rights, the President somehow gets to just give up on the issue, and we should be OK with that? In my opinion, there is definitely a lack of effort by the President to do something about closing Gitmo, and I find that almost as disappointing as Gitmo being opened in the first place.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - dyno12345 14y ago
    By this logic, if the gun control measures fail to pass Congress it should be the President's fault?
    - mirkules 14y ago
      What I'm saying is nobody will blame his lack of effort. And, if history is any indication, he or his successors will keep trying until they do pass.
      - rhizome 14y ago
        Indeed, and you only have to look at copyright for examples: SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, etc.
jbooth 14y ago
He made a huge deal about trying to get the detainees legal trials in New York. It was a big political story for a number of weeks. What would have had him do, specifically? He tried, it clearly wasn't happening. Maybe he should try again, but I can tell you the same exact thing would happen again. That would be your symbolic gesture.
- mabhatter 14y ago
  It's simple really. It cost the GOP no bad Karma to let Cheney and Bush open the thing. The President called it a "military camp" so legally it was the same as keeping these bad guys in a tent in Iraq. For Obama to MOVE THEM would have required some kind of law to put them in Federal courts, or even standard Military courts. Also, congress threatened to EXPLICITLY tell the President no funds were available. ... Kind of like how the 1980 congress told Reagan there would be no funds available to trade for hostages. In 1980 Reagan just went ahead and BROKE THE LAW something Obama has too much respect to do. The issue was divisive enough That Obama couldn't count in his own slim majority to vote on his side. Because Obama doesn't RULE the Democrats like Cheney did.
specialist 14y ago
For anyone that understands politics understands that things can get done by applying a significant political push. Yes. What does that pressure look like? I've lobbied. A fair amount for an amateur. We had some small victories, but mostly lost ground. The victories we had were because we packed the hearings with warm bodies. Where are the people willing to pack the chambers over Gitmo? It absolutely should be closed. But Gitmo is not a motivating issue. Down thread, you cite Obama's enthusiasm for gun control. What's the salient difference? People are going to show up for gun control hearings.
- mirkules 14y ago
  I agree with you, people need to be motivated about closing Gitmo. People won't be motivated to do anything about it as long as everyone inside Gitmo is labeled a terrorist. If Obama et al truly felt that closing Gitmo was a priority, the news would be packed day after day with stories from the prison, humanizing the prisoners, and introduction of one legislation measure after another, all to drum up support (just like gun control). But that just isn't happening, which makes me conclude it's a lack of effort for whatever reason. In your experience, the ground that you did lose, was it because of lack of support? Could you have tried again and how? (I don't have any political experience, so I'm kind of curious)
  - specialist 14y ago
    What motivates people is the human interest angle. The people upholding Gitmo have been very effective at keeping the detainees nameless and faceless. -- I worked on election integrity. Stuff like opposing internet voting, touchscreens, purging the voter registration databases, etc. When we lost it was because we were a day late, a dollar short, outgunned, exhausted, ignorant, naive, internal strive, etc. It's important to remember that our opponents have essentially unlimited resources. They also have the long view. You won this time? No biggie. They'll be back. They're happy with incrementalism, and will convert those inches into yards into miles. A few years ago, remembering the prior overwhelming opposition to internet voting, they suspended the rules and fast-tracked the legislation. So no public hearings. The deed was done before we even noticed. This is why interest groups hire lobbyists; activism is not something you can sustain on a casual basis. I will try again. Not quite done recharging my batteries. Meanwhile, I'm working on better advocacy tools. So that future me and other activists have better data, tools, resources. A bit like the open government stuff from Sunlight Foundation. But more like the commercial legislation information systems that big lobbyists use. -- Some non-political friends wanted to know how to get involved. The key is to show up. I encouraged them to pick their local city council meetings and just start showing up. (Many are televised or available via web.) Just being present will change their behavior. And there's absolutely a current local issue that you have an opinion on. So once you figure out what's what, you should testify.

enraged_camel 14y ago

I responded to this below. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5553198 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5553198

pkulak 14y ago

That's a lot of metaphor there. No matter the "chips", and "pushing", it's still the legislative branch that makes the laws. There's got to be a limit to the blame you can assign someone for failing to convince someone else to do something.

mirkules 14y ago
I really can't subscribe to that argument when you look at other national issues for which the President is fighting tooth and nail. Without straying too far from the subject, take gun control as an example [and please note, I am deliberately writing this from a partisan-agnostic perspective]. The opposition to this is fierce, and the issue extremely polarizing. Yet, the President seems to be willing to go the distance on the issue of gun control. The movement has failed again and again to gain bipartisan support. Yet, here we are still talking about it in the news. Same can be said about abortion, too. These debates went on for decades now. Nobody can say the President isn't trying hard enough in those cases, whichever side of the fence you happen to fall on. Yet, when we talk about basic human rights, the President somehow gets to just give up on the issue, and we should be OK with that? In my opinion, there is definitely a lack of effort by the President to do something about closing Gitmo, and I find that almost as disappointing as Gitmo being opened in the first place.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- dyno12345 14y ago
  By this logic, if the gun control measures fail to pass Congress it should be the President's fault?
  - mirkules 14y ago
    What I'm saying is nobody will blame his lack of effort. And, if history is any indication, he or his successors will keep trying until they do pass.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      Indeed, and you only have to look at copyright for examples: SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, etc.

jbooth 14y ago

He made a huge deal about trying to get the detainees legal trials in New York. It was a big political story for a number of weeks. What would have had him do, specifically? He tried, it clearly wasn't happening. Maybe he should try again, but I can tell you the same exact thing would happen again. That would be your symbolic gesture.

mabhatter 14y ago
It's simple really. It cost the GOP no bad Karma to let Cheney and Bush open the thing. The President called it a "military camp" so legally it was the same as keeping these bad guys in a tent in Iraq. For Obama to MOVE THEM would have required some kind of law to put them in Federal courts, or even standard Military courts. Also, congress threatened to EXPLICITLY tell the President no funds were available. ... Kind of like how the 1980 congress told Reagan there would be no funds available to trade for hostages. In 1980 Reagan just went ahead and BROKE THE LAW something Obama has too much respect to do. The issue was divisive enough That Obama couldn't count in his own slim majority to vote on his side. Because Obama doesn't RULE the Democrats like Cheney did.

specialist 14y ago

For anyone that understands politics understands that things can get done by applying a significant political push. Yes. What does that pressure look like? I've lobbied. A fair amount for an amateur. We had some small victories, but mostly lost ground. The victories we had were because we packed the hearings with warm bodies. Where are the people willing to pack the chambers over Gitmo? It absolutely should be closed. But Gitmo is not a motivating issue. Down thread, you cite Obama's enthusiasm for gun control. What's the salient difference? People are going to show up for gun control hearings.

mirkules 14y ago
I agree with you, people need to be motivated about closing Gitmo. People won't be motivated to do anything about it as long as everyone inside Gitmo is labeled a terrorist. If Obama et al truly felt that closing Gitmo was a priority, the news would be packed day after day with stories from the prison, humanizing the prisoners, and introduction of one legislation measure after another, all to drum up support (just like gun control). But that just isn't happening, which makes me conclude it's a lack of effort for whatever reason. In your experience, the ground that you did lose, was it because of lack of support? Could you have tried again and how? (I don't have any political experience, so I'm kind of curious)
- specialist 14y ago
  What motivates people is the human interest angle. The people upholding Gitmo have been very effective at keeping the detainees nameless and faceless. -- I worked on election integrity. Stuff like opposing internet voting, touchscreens, purging the voter registration databases, etc. When we lost it was because we were a day late, a dollar short, outgunned, exhausted, ignorant, naive, internal strive, etc. It's important to remember that our opponents have essentially unlimited resources. They also have the long view. You won this time? No biggie. They'll be back. They're happy with incrementalism, and will convert those inches into yards into miles. A few years ago, remembering the prior overwhelming opposition to internet voting, they suspended the rules and fast-tracked the legislation. So no public hearings. The deed was done before we even noticed. This is why interest groups hire lobbyists; activism is not something you can sustain on a casual basis. I will try again. Not quite done recharging my batteries. Meanwhile, I'm working on better advocacy tools. So that future me and other activists have better data, tools, resources. A bit like the open government stuff from Sunlight Foundation. But more like the commercial legislation information systems that big lobbyists use. -- Some non-political friends wanted to know how to get involved. The key is to show up. I encouraged them to pick their local city council meetings and just start showing up. (Many are televised or available via web.) Just being present will change their behavior. And there's absolutely a current local issue that you have an opinion on. So once you figure out what's what, you should testify.