4 ms·
There are options, Obama chose to pursue none of those. Of course there are options. The President could simply have ordered the military to start executing me
by MichaelSalib 13y ago
There are options, Obama chose to pursue none of those.
Of course there are options. The President could simply have ordered the military to start executing members of opposition leaders' families until they complied. He's the commander in chief, right?
Simply having options is not enough. We need options that are legal and likely to work. You have not demonstrated the existence of any of those options. When you tried to come up with some, you failed badly.
So, what are the feasible legal options that the President has? Can you name any?
Obama resigning about a particular subject would definitely have consequences that would help the opposition
No, that's not the issue here. The problem is that you can't threaten someone by offering to do something they want. That's not an effective way to change their behavior. It has nothing to do with helping the opposition; at a much more basic level, your proposed solution doesn't work.
but it would also send an extremely strong message that this president will not be co-opted into doing the wrong thing.
Let's say Obama resigns. Congress throws a party and does nothing about Gitmo. How does that help anyone at Gitmo? Or is resigning just a perfect expression of moral superiority?
- jacquesm 13y agoIf you believe congress would throw a party by forcing out the sitting democratically elected president then you're not very much in touch with reality, it would be a first in history and it would send some pretty significant shockwaves through the electorate. It would be the equivalent of a king abdicating elsewhere and it would make it very clear that there are lines that will not be crossed. > The President could simply have ordered the military to start executing members of opposition leaders' families until they complied. He's the commander in chief, right? I think I'm done here. Thanks for your effort.
- MichaelSalib 13y agoNo problem jacques. Just to be clear though, you still haven't been able to explain even one legal effective option the President has for closing Gitmo.
- MichaelSalib 13y agoI'm kind of amazed that this comment is the one that gets downvoted to hell. I'm not complaining, just surprised.
- VLM 13y agoIt reiterates the spin that freeing concentration camp victims equals closing the camp, and reiterates the very peculiar idea that the guy at the top of the org chart is not in charge, or the people beneath him are in rebellion
- cobrausn 13y agoExecutive Order. If it gets ignored, then we are all made aware of how tied his hands are.
- grey-area 13y agoWe need options that are legal and likely to work. The prison is illegal, or at the very least extra-legal. Obama promised to shut it down, and reneged on that promise. Please do continue to make excuses for him, but don't try to pretend Obama cares at all about his campaign promises, international law, or shutting down Guantanamo bay. He has shown no interest in any of those things.
- MichaelSalib 13y agoWhich law does it violate? I mean, I think Gitmo is monstrously unjust. But there are lots of injustices that are perfectly legal. I also think how the US treats its many many prisoners is monstrously unjust.
- grey-area 13y agoWhich law(s) does it violate? United Nations Convention Against Torture (torture itself, and rendition - refoulement) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Geneva convention US Constitution - which is apparently now only applicable at the government's discretion I'm afraid I don't subscribe to the sophistry which claims those detained are 'enemy combatants' to which no law applies simply because of a suspicion without charges or evidence, or that waterboarding is not torture. More important than the arguable illegality or (at best) extra-legality of the camp though, is the enduring damage it does to the reputation of the US throughout the world.