What excuse remains to not close Gitmo?

[Thanas]

Link

What Excuse Remains for Obama’s Failure to Close GITMO?

The excuse-making on behalf of President Obama has always found its most extreme form when it came time to explain why he failed to fulfill his oft-stated 2008 election promise to close Guantanamo. As I’ve documented many times, even the promise itself was misleading, as it became quickly apparent that Obama — even in the absence of congressional obstruction — did not intend to “close GITMO” at all but rather to re-locate it, maintaining its defining injustice of indefinite detention.

But the events of the last three days have obliterated the last remaining excuse. In order to secure the release of American POW Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the Obama administration agreed to release from Guantanamo five detainees allegedly affiliated with the Taliban. But as even stalwart Obama defenders such as Jeffery Toobin admit, Obama “clearly broke the law” by releasing those detainees without providing Congress the 30-day notice required by the 2014 defense authorization statute (law professor Jonathan Turley similarly observed that Obama’s lawbreaking here was clear and virtually undebatable).

The only conceivable legal argument to justify this release is if the Obama White House argues that the law does not and cannot bind them. As documented by MSNBC’s Adam Serwer - who acknowledges that “when it comes to the legality of the decision [critics] have a point” – Obama has suggested in the past when issuing signing statements that he does not recognize the validity of congressional restrictions on his power to release Guantanamo detainees because these are decisions assigned by the Constitution solely to the commander-in-chief (sound familiar?). Obama’s last signing statement concluded with this cryptic vow: “In the event that the restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees in sections 1034 and 1035 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.”

Both Serwer and a new Washington Post article this morning note the gross and obvious hypocrisy of Obama and his Democratic loyalists now using Article-II-über-alles signing statements to ignore congressionally enacted laws relating to the War on Terror. Quoting an expert on signing statements, the Post – referencing Obama’s Bush-era condemnation of signing statements — sums up much of the last six years of political events in the US: “Senator Obama had a very different view than President Obama.”

But the eagerness of many Democrats to radically change everything they claimed to believe as of January 20, 2009 is far too familiar and well-documented at this point to be worth spending much time on. Far more significant are the implications for Obama’s infamously unfulfilled pledge to close Guantanamo.

The sole excuse now offered by Democratic loyalists for this failure has been that Congress prevented him from closing the camp. But here, the Obama White House appears to be arguing that Congress lacks the authority to constrain the President’s power to release detainees when he wants. What other excuse is there for his clear violation of a law that requires 30-day notice to Congress before any detainees are released?

But once you take the position that Obama can override — i.e., ignore — Congressional restrictions on his power to release Guantanamo detainees, then what possible excuse is left for his failure to close the camp? As Jason Leopold notes in an astute article at Al Jazeera, this week’s episode “has led one human rights organization to question why the Obama administration has not acted to transfer dozens of other detainees who have been cleared for release for many years.” He added:

Raha Wala, an attorney with Human Rights First, told Al Jazeera if the administration can make the argument that the five Taliban detainees are transferrable “without any significant problems under the congressionally imposed transfer restrictions” then certainly “the same argument can be made for the detainees who have already been cleared for release.”

Obama defenders seem to have two choices here: either the president broke the law in releasing these five detainees, or Congress cannot bind the commander-in-chief’s power to transfer detainees when he wants, thus leaving Obama free to make those decisions himself. Which is it?

[TheHammer]

He got 5 guys out of there didn't he? Perhaps that was testing the waters for future transfers. Remember, this was done under the guise of a military prisoner exchange, which might represent a perceived legal loophole.

[Edi]

He got 5 guys out of there didn't he? Perhaps that was testing the waters for future transfers. Remember, this was done under the guise of a military prisoner exchange, which might represent a perceived legal loophole.

It was not and you well know it. It has been explained to you time and time again every time this subject has come up for discussion, but you have always ignored every argument, as is your wont.

[Rogue 9]

A POW exchange could be argued to fall under his power as commander in chief of the military. A general release wouldn't. Lincoln had much the same issues on several fronts.

[TheHammer]

Rogue 9 gets it, Edi doesn't. He's already being sued by the GOP for alleged violations of the law that they themselves were in favor of (delay of Healthcare mandate). Don't think they wouldn't love for him to do something like a mass release in violation of the defense authorization statute.

[Ahriman238]

Couldn't the president conceivably revoke the exception to habeas corpus for suspected terrorists and sit back while the federal courts go to town?

[Alyeska]

Something else Obama could do is issue pardons. It would completely destroy the purpose of GITMO and circumvent congress. If Obama were to consider this route, it would be in the final hours of his presidency.

[General Zod]

Something else Obama could do is issue pardons. It would completely destroy the purpose of GITMO and circumvent congress. If Obama were to consider this route, it would be in the final hours of his presidency.

Doesn't issuing a pardon to someone who hasn't even been convicted of a crime come with its own set of problems? The last I checked you've got whole swathes of inmates in Gitmo that haven't been convicted of anything.

[Gaidin]

Doesn't issuing a pardon to someone who hasn't even been convicted of a crime come with its own set of problems? The last I checked you've got whole swathes of inmates in Gitmo that haven't been convicted of anything.

There's an implicit admission of guilt, as far as what I'm aware of. Not necessarily a conviction. If they don't want to admit guilt as such, then there's no pardon, as I understand it, if the pardon is offered.

[Mr Bean]

Something else Obama could do is issue pardons. It would completely destroy the purpose of GITMO and circumvent congress. If Obama were to consider this route, it would be in the final hours of his presidency.

Doesn't issuing a pardon to someone who hasn't even been convicted of a crime come with its own set of problems? The last I checked you've got whole swathes of inmates in Gitmo that haven't been convicted of anything.

Funny enough there exists already precedent thanks to Ford and Nixon that you can pardon for crimes not yet charged for or with existing convictions. There's also civil war precedent to issue blanket pardons for large groups of people without specific convictions for any of them.

[Ralin]

Something else Obama could do is issue pardons. It would completely destroy the purpose of GITMO and circumvent congress. If Obama were to consider this route, it would be in the final hours of his presidency.

Doesn't issuing a pardon to someone who hasn't even been convicted of a crime come with its own set of problems? The last I checked you've got whole swathes of inmates in Gitmo that haven't been convicted of anything.

Funny enough there exists already precedent thanks to Ford and Nixon that you can pardon for crimes not yet charged for or with existing convictions. There's also civil war precedent to issue blanket pardons for large groups of people without specific convictions for any of them.

Ever since I found out as a kid that the president has the power to pardon people I've always half-seriously wondered why he couldn't just have his minions murder all of his political rivals and then preemptively pardon them for it.

[Eulogy]

Ever since I found out as a kid that the president has the power to pardon people I've always half-seriously wondered why he couldn't just have his minions murder all of his political rivals and then preemptively pardon them for it.

Because sooner or later he'd be found out and Bad Shit would go down?

[Thanas]

Like when Bush pardoned Libby? Oh wait.

[Zaune]

Ever since I found out as a kid that the president has the power to pardon people I've always half-seriously wondered why he couldn't just have his minions murder all of his political rivals and then preemptively pardon them for it.

That was a plot point in one of Tom Clancy's later -and probably not ghostwritten- novels in which the protagonists were black operators charged with extra-judicially executing terrorist leaders.

[LaCroix]

That was a plot point in one of Tom Clancy's later -and probably not ghostwritten- novels in which the protagonists were black operators charged with extra-judicially executing terrorist leaders.

Which was probably inspired by Dumas' "Three Musketeers" - the Cardinal's pardon - "By My Hand, and for the good of the State, the bearer has done what has been done."

[Ralin]

In practice I'm assuming the same thing that would stop the Supreme Court from making a ruling suspending elections, declaring the Chief Justice king of America and exiling all dissenting justices to Canada. Namely that everyone would conclude they had gone insane and ignore them until they decided how to go about setting the precedent of forcibly removing them from office.

[Gandalf]

At this point, isn't Gitmo just security theatre, where people in the US can feel safe because they know that someone is being "interrogated/punished" for crimes against the Glorious United States?

Everyone knows that it serves no real purpose, but it's just nice to have the security blanket.

[Rogue 9]

For the most part people don't think about it, actually. It isn't really in the news anymore and hasn't been for years.

[Gandalf]

So how would they feel if it was closed?

[Rogue 9]

This country is stupidly polarized. You'd have a large faction that would be glad of it, and a similarly large faction that would scream bloody murder about how all those dangerous terrorists are going to blow up half of downtown New York within the week.

[slebetman]

For the most part people don't think about it, actually. It isn't really in the news anymore and hasn't been for years.

And therein, to me, lies its greatest evil. To leave people, forgotten, in deplorable conditions.