Gitmo detainee found dead was cleared for release in 09

[Alyrium Denryle]

Its not nearly that clear cut. Congress can pass any law it wants, and have routinely taken steps to block transfer of prisoners to the US. Sure it could face a presidential veto, but all they have to do is make it untennable to do so, as they did with this US armed forces appropriation. Sure it may be subject to SCOTUS review and struck down as unconstitutional, but no such precedent has yet been set.

Hammer, you are an idiot. They were able to block prisoner transfers and such because Obama wanted to close Gitmo, and transfer the prisoners to an in-country facility where they would still be denied trial and indefinitely detained. A facility that would need to be constructed or leased specifically for those prisoners. That is an entirely different kettle of fish from simply transferring them to pre-trial detention and treating them as any other alleged criminal accused of a crime.

Didn't stop them from impeaching Clinton over a blowjob.

As I recall, they impeached him because he committed perjury with regard to the blowjob. He lied under oath.

[General Zod]

Its not nearly that clear cut. Congress can pass any law it wants, and have routinely taken steps to block transfer of prisoners to the US. Sure it could face a presidential veto, but all they have to do is make it untennable to do so, as they did with this US armed forces appropriation. Sure it may be subject to SCOTUS review and struck down as unconstitutional, but no such precedent has yet been set.

Hammer, you are an idiot. They were able to block prisoner transfers and such because Obama wanted to close Gitmo, and transfer the prisoners to an in-country facility where they would still be denied trial and indefinitely detained. A facility that would need to be constructed or leased specifically for those prisoners. That is entirely different kettle of fish from simply transferring them to pre-trial detention and treat them as any other criminal accused of a crime.

Didn't stop them from impeaching Clinton over a blowjob.

As I recall, they impeached him because he committed perjury with regard to the blowjob. He lied under oath.

Potatoe potatoh. Compared to some of the things the Republicans claim Obama's done that was small-time.

[Mr Bean]

As I recall, they impeached him because he committed perjury with regard to the blowjob. He lied under oath.

Potatoe potatoh. Compared to some of the things the Republicans claim Obama's done that was small-time.

Nope, perjury is a crime, blowjobs are not. Even getting blowjobs on goverment time is a crime, only a disciplinary incident.

[Grumman]

It will be interesting to see if he will try to close Gitmo by executive order after being reelected.

He won't, not in any way that matters - he's pro-indefinite detention. Giving Obama credit for trying to close Gitmo is like giving the Nazis credit for closing Treblinka. It doesn't count if you're going to keep doing the same bullshit at a different site.

[TheHammer]

Its not nearly that clear cut. Congress can pass any law it wants, and have routinely taken steps to block transfer of prisoners to the US. Sure it could face a presidential veto, but all they have to do is make it untennable to do so, as they did with this US armed forces appropriation. Sure it may be subject to SCOTUS review and struck down as unconstitutional, but no such precedent has yet been set.

Hammer, you are an idiot. They were able to block prisoner transfers and such because Obama wanted to close Gitmo, and transfer the prisoners to an in-country facility where they would still be denied trial and indefinitely detained. A facility that would need to be constructed or leased specifically for those prisoners. That is an entirely different kettle of fish from simply transferring them to pre-trial detention and treating them as any other alleged criminal accused of a crime.

Still waiting for you to demonstrate how any of what I said makes me an idiot. Your rambling post really doesn't seem to have any point. I take it you also didn't bother to read any of the links from my post, so I'll cut a relevent excerpt just for you. Don't get used to it though...

Why? The principal culprit is Congress. Adopting a short-sighted “not in my backyard” attitude, Congress has barred Obama from transferring any detainees to the United States, not even to stand trial in a criminal court, and has put onerous conditions on their being transferred to any other country. These measures have effectively frozen in place one of the most counterproductive aspects of our national security policy...
Excerpted from here

Next time do the assigned reading before stepping into my classroom.

[Mr Bean]

Please quote the relevant law or act of Congress TheHammer that prevents Obama from transferring the Gitmo detainees to American prisons and the normal American justice system. The act or law that would have had to pass via a 2/3rd majority over Obama's veto if such a law existed. David Cole is a Obama apologist and supports the concept of indefinite detention on American soil which is what Obama tried to do in 2009.

[TheHammer]

Please quote the relevant law or act of Congress TheHammer that prevents Obama from transferring the Gitmo detainees to American prisons and the normal American justice system. The act or law that would have had to pass via a 2/3rd majority over Obama's veto if such a law existed. David Cole is a Obama apologist and supports the concept of indefinite detention on American soil which is what Obama tried to do in 2009.

Apologist or not, I have yet to see anyone present any evidence that this interpretation is incorrect. I've seen this same core idea referenced across numerous sites of all persuasions. If you know of any researched counter arguments to that, I'd certainly be open to reading them.

Obviously, the President would never sign a law that would pass such restrictions if they were presented on their own. Which is why the restrictions have been part of Defense spending authorizations for a few years now. Its essentially a poison pill that has to be swallowed every year, until we get a congress willing to pass an NDAA (SEC 1026, 1027, 1028 etc Just open and do a word search for GUANTANAMO to find the relevent sections) without it. The power of the purse is a bitch. Again, it would be easy to say "Just keep vetoing it", however as soon as you do that the Republicans are up on the soap box saying Obama is leaving America defenseless with an unfunded military just to appease terrorists.

We heard a lot about these provisions in the 2011 bill, not so much in 2012 because of the fact that it seemed to go even further with provisions that would in theory allow indefinite detention of U.S. citizens (later found to be an unconsitutional interpretation).

[LaCroix]

I found the relevant sections...

SEC. 1026. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT OR MODIFY
FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES TO HOUSE
DETAINEES TRANSFERRED FROM UNITED STATES NAVAL
STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—No amounts authorized to be appropriated
or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2012 may be used to construct or modify any facility
in the United States, its territories, or possessions to house any
individual detained at Guantanamo for the purposes of detention
or imprisonment in the custody or under the control of the Department
of Defense unless authorized by Congress.
(b) EXCEPTION.—The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not
apply to any modification of facilities at United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
(c) INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO DEFINED.—In this
section, the term ‘‘individual detained at Guantanamo’’ has the
meaning given that term in section 1028(e)(2).
(d) REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED AUTHORITY.—Section 1034 of the
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2011 (Public Law 111–383; 124 Stat. 4353) is amended by striking
subsections (a), (b), and (c).

SEC. 1027. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FUNDS FOR THE TRANSFER
OR RELEASE OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT UNITED
STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act
for fiscal year 2012 may be used to transfer, release, or assist
in the transfer or release to or within the United States, its territories,
or possessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other
detainee who—
(1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the
Armed Forces of the United States; and
(2) is or was held on or after January 20, 2009, at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department
of Defense.

[Mr Bean]

This backs up that the transfer itself is not illegal as such funding would be Department of Justice not Department of Defense. The DoJ still has funds on the book not affected by the Defense Authorization bill. This funding is unchanged because they have not passed a budget in... ever? Have Obama ever passed a budget to date? I honestly don't know. Regardless the point is no changes to the DoD affect the DOJ in those laws. Obama still has the freedom to act as Thanas stated last page if only he had the will and there avian would be nothing Congress could do to stop him.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This backs up that the transfer itself is not illegal as such funding would be Department of Justice not Department of Defense. The DoJ still has funds on the book not affected by the Defense Authorization bill. This funding is unchanged because they have not passed a budget in... ever? Have Obama ever passed a budget to date? I honestly don't know. Regardless the point is no changes to the DoD affect the DOJ in those laws. Obama still has the freedom to act as Thanas stated last page if only he had the will and there avian would be nothing Congress could do to stop him.

Technically the amortized maintenance cost of allowing an additional aircraft landing at Gitmo of a DoJ chartered aircraft and the few microns of runway wear and tear it would cause would count as DoD spending to transfer a detainee; same for air traffic controller salaries, etc. The language refers to any kind of spending whatsoever and you could bet that the current Republican party would file a civil suit over even 0.002 cents of amortized runway maintenance cost being used to help transfer "the terrorists". And yes, a budget has been repeatedly passed, unfortunately.

The President could probably defy this, but expect congress to go to absurd lengths to stop it.

[Mr Bean]

Technically the amortized maintenance cost of allowing an additional aircraft landing at Gitmo of a DoJ chartered aircraft and the few microns of runway wear and tear it would cause would count as DoD spending to transfer a detainee; same for air traffic controller salaries, etc. The language refers to any kind of spending whatsoever and you could bet that the current Republican party would file a civil suit over even 0.002 cents of amortized runway maintenance cost being used to help transfer "the terrorists". And yes, a budget has been repeatedly passed, unfortunately.

The President could probably defy this, but expect congress to go to absurd lengths to stop it.

So budget money for runway repairs to the DoJ they do maintain their own airstrips near drug trafficking corridors for the radar and spotter planes to land and take off from.

[TheHammer]

Technically the amortized maintenance cost of allowing an additional aircraft landing at Gitmo of a DoJ chartered aircraft and the few microns of runway wear and tear it would cause would count as DoD spending to transfer a detainee; same for air traffic controller salaries, etc. The language refers to any kind of spending whatsoever and you could bet that the current Republican party would file a civil suit over even 0.002 cents of amortized runway maintenance cost being used to help transfer "the terrorists". And yes, a budget has been repeatedly passed, unfortunately.

The President could probably defy this, but expect congress to go to absurd lengths to stop it.

So budget money for runway repairs to the DoJ they do maintain their own airstrips near drug trafficking corridors for the radar and spotter planes to land and take off from.

I don't think it would be possible to get prioners out of gitmo without using some form of appropriated funds. Sure you could say "Well, What's congress gonna do?" but I don't think that is a viable solution.

[Thanas]

I don't think it would be possible to get prioners out of gitmo without using some form of appropriated funds.

Why wouldn't it be? The US has an entire branch of Governemt which has the job of transporting prisoners from one location to the other. See US Marshals.

[TheHammer]

I don't think it would be possible to get prioners out of gitmo without using some form of appropriated funds.

Why wouldn't it be? The US has an entire branch of Governemt which has the job of transporting prisoners from one location to the other. See US Marshals.

The very act of transfering the prisoners from military to civilian custody would technically involve military funds for the personnel handling the transfer, as miniscule as it might be in the grand scheme of things.

Further, even if you did pull an end run around Congress and somehow get them out of Gitmo and to a state side prison, I don't know what you've really gained. Congress will almost certainly move to counter what the President did by passing other laws, either by over-riding veto or via poison pill, to make it nigh impossible for them to get trials. And the locals of whichever area they get sent too would likely be pretty pissed off. They will be trading one prison for another and gaining a political shit storm in the process.

[Irbis]

Why wouldn't it be? The US has an entire branch of Governemt which has the job of transporting prisoners from one location to the other. See US Marshals.

Do they even have authority to act? Aren't they, like FBI, limited to US borders?

Further, even if you did pull an end run around Congress and somehow get them out of Gitmo and to a state side prison, I don't know what you've really gained. Congress will almost certainly move to counter what the President did by passing other laws, either by over-riding veto or via poison pill, to make it nigh impossible for them to get trials. And the locals of whichever area they get sent too would likely be pretty pissed off. They will be trading one prison for another and gaining a political shit storm in the process.

And, sadly, yes, I don't see where they can be placed without retards in Congress making shitstorm (and for much longer than six weeks suggested in this thread) sinking democratic candidates both in presidential/congress race and making Guantanamo sunny park compared to what Mittens and absolute republican majority would do to "terrorists" post-win. Sometimes, half-assed measures suck, but compared to jump into the chasm...

[Thanas]

The very act of transfering the prisoners from military to civilian custody would technically involve military funds for the personnel handling the transfer, as miniscule as it might be in the grand scheme of things.

Nope. After all, you don't need any military personnel to handle the transfer. They can just do their usual shifts and have to do nothing. I am sure the guys employed would be perfectly able to pick up some keys and get them out.

Congress will almost certainly move to counter what the President did by passing other laws, either by over-riding veto or via poison pill, to make it nigh impossible for them to get trials.

Such laws would be unconstitutional as Congress cannot pass laws denying detainees in federal prison their day in court.

[TheHammer]

The very act of transfering the prisoners from military to civilian custody would technically involve military funds for the personnel handling the transfer, as miniscule as it might be in the grand scheme of things.

Nope. After all, you don't need any military personnel to handle the transfer. They can just do their usual shifts and have to do nothing. I am sure the guys employed would be perfectly able to pick up some keys and get them out.

Even if they did as you propose, they will still have to hand off the keys, someone will need to authorize their transfer. Someone on the Military side will have to fill out the paper work for the transfer. Hell, someone is going to have to open the doors to let them in. As hard as you work to find a technicality to get around the provisions of the NDAA, there are just as many technicalities that would prevent you from doing so. And again, it is still dubious as to what exactly you gain by that.

Congress will almost certainly move to counter what the President did by passing other laws, either by over-riding veto or via poison pill, to make it nigh impossible for them to get trials.

Such laws would be unconstitutional as Congress cannot pass laws denying detainees in federal prison their day in court.

Constitutional or not, Congress could fuck with this process in any number of ways. Passing laws requiring them to be sent back to Gitmo, Passing laws that would classify them all as illegal immigrants. They might get so creative as to removing funding from federal courts so that sure you'll get your trial, lets see the courts are backed up until 2030, but we'll move it through as fast as we can. Oh there is no doubt that such a thing would end up in the Supreme Court at some point, but who knows when and what the exact outcome might be. They may well rule that the transfer of prisoners to the U.S. was illegal and send them all back and you've lost all that time and effort for no gain.

[Thanas]

Constitutional or not, Congress could fuck with this process in any number of ways. Passing laws requiring them to be sent back to Gitmo, Passing laws that would classify them all as illegal immigrants. They might get so creative as to removing funding from federal courts so that sure you'll get your trial, lets see the courts are backed up until 2030, but we'll move it through as fast as we can. Oh there is no doubt that such a thing would end up in the Supreme Court at some point, but who knows when and what the exact outcome might be. They may well rule that the transfer of prisoners to the U.S. was illegal and send them all back and you've lost all that time and effort for no gain.

Then you at least tried your best and are not a illegal detention supporter like Obama .

[Alyrium Denryle]

Constitutional or not, Congress could fuck with this process in any number of ways.
Passing laws requiring them to be sent back to Gitmo

Veto. Good luck getting the votes to override.

A president with a spine would get in front of a TV camera and denounce such efforts. Obama is an excellent orator, he could have the American People eating out of his hand with talk of liberty, justice, and avoiding the same mistake we made with Japanese Internment. He could get George Takei and a bunch of other elderly japanese people to talk about how vile detention without trial is. He could express his faith in the superiority of the american justice system, and his confidence that those who are put on trial will be found guilty if they are in fact guilty. He could talk about the wholesale corruption of his predecessor's administration and how many of the people in Gitmo and Baghram are known to be innocent, but were turned in by their own countrymen for bounties. He could talk about how the terrorists want us to relinquish our belief in due process, and how failing to give them trials in civilian courts is a form of surrender to them.

Turning public opinion would not be difficult provided the president had a spine.

Passing laws that would classify them all as illegal immigrants.

Veto. Also: hey what do we do with illegal immigrants? We deport them.

Also: that is an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

They might get so creative as to removing funding from federal courts so that sure you'll get your trial, lets see the courts are backed up until 2030, but we'll move it through as fast as we can.

DOJ files suit in federal court because that is a flagrant violation of the right to a speedy trial. There is enough caselaw that the judge might even rule summarily.

[Thanas]

Any doubt about Obama's true colours should be silence by now considering he is now appealing a ruling that declared he has no power to indefinitely imprison citizens without trial.

[TheHammer]

Constitutional or not, Congress could fuck with this process in any number of ways.
Passing laws requiring them to be sent back to Gitmo

Veto. Good luck getting the votes to override.

If he poses an end run around congress they very well might cross party lines and over-ride his veto. Besides, as previously noted there are ways to veto proof a bill without having to over-ride it.

A president with a spine would get in front of a TV camera and denounce such efforts. Obama is an excellent orator, he could have the American People eating out of his hand with talk of liberty, justice, and avoiding the same mistake we made with Japanese Internment. He could get George Takei and a bunch of other elderly japanese people to talk about how vile detention without trial is. He could express his faith in the superiority of the american justice system, and his confidence that those who are put on trial will be found guilty if they are in fact guilty. He could talk about the wholesale corruption of his predecessor's administration and how many of the people in Gitmo and Baghram are known to be innocent, but were turned in by their own countrymen for bounties. He could talk about how the terrorists want us to relinquish our belief in due process, and how failing to give them trials in civilian courts is a form of surrender to them.

Turning public opinion would not be difficult provided the president had a spine.

Yes because his oration has worked so well for Health Care reform, tax reform - something to tentatively help the vast majority of Americans. No, there would be no great public uprising to support this issue. That's why it has languished as it has.

Passing laws that would classify them all as illegal immigrants.

Veto. Also: hey what do we do with illegal immigrants? We deport them.

Also: that is an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

Since when has something being consitutional have anything to do with a law being passed? That would be for the supreme court to decide, and in the interim there are many other ways to get around it.

They might get so creative as to removing funding from federal courts so that sure you'll get your trial, lets see the courts are backed up until 2030, but we'll move it through as fast as we can.

DOJ files suit in federal court because that is a flagrant violation of the right to a speedy trial. There is enough caselaw that the judge might even rule summarily.

Look, the point I'm making is that congress could fuck with this process in any number of ways. Their goal would be simply to delay the process long enough that a fine upstanding Republican president can stroll in and have all those prisoners sent back to gitmo.

Any doubt about Obama's true colours should be silence by now considering he is now appealing a ruling that declared he has no power to indefinitely imprison citizens without trial.

Did you read the appeal or just the article? They actually make a logical argument for why they are appealing this particular ruling, and acknowledge that it would not apply to U.S. citizens. I'll expand upon this later, but in the interim you might want to give it a glance.

[Thanas]

I read the appeal and I don't see where in it Obama is arguing against indefinite detention. Wether citizens or not doesn't really matter much to me.