5 ms·

While I agree in essence with your characterization of the job done by Obama, I do want to point out (again) that it will take quite some advances in physics be

by mpyne 13y ago

While I agree in essence with your characterization of the job done by Obama, I do want to point out (again) that it will take quite some advances in physics before we're able to locate the parallel universe where Obama may have been able to shut down the prison at Gitmo. I think it's hard to imagine the sheer and total resistance to shutting down that prison if you haven't been in the country to see it yourself. I still don't understand the reasoning to this day. But there was never a chance, with the Congresses Obama was handed with, that the prison would be completely shut down. I don't know whether it's a bunch of representatives attempting to look 'Tough on Terror' or what... but you have to pin Guantanamo on the people as a whole.

AlexeiSadeski 13y ago
He could've shut it down a dozen different ways, had he wanted to. He's expended zero political capital on this issue.
- Svip 13y ago
  Health care was clearly more important. So at least Americans got that.
  - kefka 13y ago
    Yep. That means... Instead of working 39 hours per week for one job, I'll work 29 hours a week, and have to get multiple jobs. Yay.
tedivm 13y ago
I disagree. Obama had a lot of oppertunity here, but more importantly he never intended to actually stop indefinite detention. Rather than go through all the reasons here I'll just point out one of many articles that debunks this reasoning- http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/ http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/
lifeformed 13y ago
He shouldn't have promised that he would, then.
rogerbinns 13y ago
I rather see him publicly try and fail, than not try. To stand up there and point out how he did as much as is constitutionally possible, and point out the representatives who prevented it from happening. ie the fault of gitmo not closing should be clear and not rest with him.
gruseom 13y ago
But there was never a chance, with the Congresses Obama was handed with, that the prison would be completely shut down. You've added a critical word there with "completely". Congress blocked Obama from bringing Guantanamo inmates to the US for imprisonment or trial. But 86 of the 166 inmates are never going to be tried. They're already cleared for immediate release. Everyone (CIA, DoD) has agreed to this. Obama has the power to release them with the stroke of a pen, and the State Dept. apparently has a plan to do it and is just waiting for the go-ahead. So while Obama may not have the power to close Guantanamo completely, he does have the power to free more than half of the prisoners there, the ones who are not accused of anything. Yet there they stay, for no discernable (other than political) reasons. Pinning the blame on Congress has worked for Obama politically, but if it's true that he's the one keeping more than half of the prisoners there, and with weaker justification since they are the ones unanimously agreed to be innocent, then it seems fair to say that Obama is more at fault than Congress is. Source: http://ianmasters.com/sites/default/files/mp3/bbriefing_2013_05_23a_carlos%20warner.mp3 http://ianmasters.com/sites/default/files/mp3/bbriefing_2013..., which is an interview (starting at 1:36) with one of the public defenders involved.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Release them to where? Their home countries don't even want to take them back now I believe.
  - wslh 13y ago
    What?
  - gruseom 13y ago
    The interview I cited didn't say where, explicitly; what he said was that arrangements had been made by the State Department and it was the White House holding things back. I'd like to know the answer to your question too, but I'm hesitant to accept the "there's nowhere to send them" meme, which one hears often, without something to distinguish it as fact rather than propaganda. For example, another often-repeated meme, "these are the worst of the worst", is apparently entirely untrue in these 86 cases. (Even the half dozen prisoners who have actually been tried were apparently mostly just cooks and drivers and such.)
TallGuyShort 13y ago
So a person can just make empty promises on a campaign, get elected and do a bunch of crap people disagree with via executive order, and then blame all the stuff he didn't do on Congress? edit: And yes, informed voters should know what the President can and can not reasonably promise, but I would hope that presidential candidates would actually have the integrity to not intentionally mislead people, and that a person who promises to close Gitmo would at least be more outspoken about his desire to do so.

by mpyne 13y ago

AlexeiSadeski 13y ago

He could've shut it down a dozen different ways, had he wanted to. He's expended zero political capital on this issue.

Svip 13y ago
Health care was clearly more important. So at least Americans got that.
- kefka 13y ago
  Yep. That means... Instead of working 39 hours per week for one job, I'll work 29 hours a week, and have to get multiple jobs. Yay.

tedivm 13y ago

I disagree. Obama had a lot of oppertunity here, but more importantly he never intended to actually stop indefinite detention. Rather than go through all the reasons here I'll just point out one of many articles that debunks this reasoning- http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/ http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/

lifeformed 13y ago

He shouldn't have promised that he would, then.

rogerbinns 13y ago

I rather see him publicly try and fail, than not try. To stand up there and point out how he did as much as is constitutionally possible, and point out the representatives who prevented it from happening. ie the fault of gitmo not closing should be clear and not rest with him.

gruseom 13y ago

But there was never a chance, with the Congresses Obama was handed with, that the prison would be completely shut down. You've added a critical word there with "completely". Congress blocked Obama from bringing Guantanamo inmates to the US for imprisonment or trial. But 86 of the 166 inmates are never going to be tried. They're already cleared for immediate release. Everyone (CIA, DoD) has agreed to this. Obama has the power to release them with the stroke of a pen, and the State Dept. apparently has a plan to do it and is just waiting for the go-ahead. So while Obama may not have the power to close Guantanamo completely, he does have the power to free more than half of the prisoners there, the ones who are not accused of anything. Yet there they stay, for no discernable (other than political) reasons. Pinning the blame on Congress has worked for Obama politically, but if it's true that he's the one keeping more than half of the prisoners there, and with weaker justification since they are the ones unanimously agreed to be innocent, then it seems fair to say that Obama is more at fault than Congress is. Source: http://ianmasters.com/sites/default/files/mp3/bbriefing_2013_05_23a_carlos%20warner.mp3 http://ianmasters.com/sites/default/files/mp3/bbriefing_2013..., which is an interview (starting at 1:36) with one of the public defenders involved.

res0nat0r 13y ago
Release them to where? Their home countries don't even want to take them back now I believe.
- wslh 13y ago
  What?
- gruseom 13y ago
  The interview I cited didn't say where, explicitly; what he said was that arrangements had been made by the State Department and it was the White House holding things back. I'd like to know the answer to your question too, but I'm hesitant to accept the "there's nowhere to send them" meme, which one hears often, without something to distinguish it as fact rather than propaganda. For example, another often-repeated meme, "these are the worst of the worst", is apparently entirely untrue in these 86 cases. (Even the half dozen prisoners who have actually been tried were apparently mostly just cooks and drivers and such.)

TallGuyShort 13y ago

So a person can just make empty promises on a campaign, get elected and do a bunch of crap people disagree with via executive order, and then blame all the stuff he didn't do on Congress? edit: And yes, informed voters should know what the President can and can not reasonably promise, but I would hope that presidential candidates would actually have the integrity to not intentionally mislead people, and that a person who promises to close Gitmo would at least be more outspoken about his desire to do so.