How has it happened that our governments have fallen so far

[Niagara Bill]

( and Canada is no different than the US in this regard) that the President and Commander and Chief needs to go to the press and call for the closure of Gitmo. Do our leaders have so little power. Can he not just order the military to do it. Are all decisions so political that all must be done through the court of public opinion. Surely is 5 years they could have found the legal way of proceeding. I am not suggesting it should be closed, but seems to me if the C&C wants it done..it should be a simple process. Any comments would be helpful.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Fundamental misunderstanding of US government, both historical and present, is fundamental.

[Niagara Bill]

Fundamental misunderstanding of US government, both historical and present, is fundamental.

thanks for the in depth insight into the soul of the government. This is about as clear as a Mel Kiper draft review.

[TakeYouToTasker]

thanks for the in depth insight into the soul of the government. This is about as clear as a Mel Kiper draft review.

I appologize. I should have set aside 5 years of my life to design a curriculum, put together reading, lectures, and coursework, and tutor you on the economic and philisophic history of western government; apparently with the need to start at the elementary level.

 

Stop failing so hard.

[OCinBuffalo]

( and Canada is no different than the US in this regard) that the President and Commander and Chief needs to go to the press and call for the closure of Gitmo. Do our leaders have so little power. Can he not just order the military to do it. Are all decisions so political that all must be done through the court of public opinion. Surely is 5 years they could have found the legal way of proceeding. I am not suggesting it should be closed, but seems to me if the C&C wants it done..it should be a simple process. Any comments would be helpful.

Simple: It was never simple. No really, you asked for a serious and helpful answer. I am giving it to you.

 

Attempting to shut down a military base with a mere executive order...was a simpleton's solution. Shutting down the base isn't even a real solution, simpleton or otherwise. It's not about GITMO, the place, it's about the prisoners at GITMO.

 

Would you have been more comfortable if he had just ordered them all shot? Why not? That is simple. Too simple for you?

 

These turds are illegal enemy combatants, by the book. If we are talking absolutely by the book, the closest this is supposed to get to the President is a report after its over, if he cares to read it. A general officer has the right, and the duty, to convene a military tribunal all by his lonesome, and s/he can order executions if the tribunal finds them(most) to be what they most certainly are. There are regulations that define it all specifically, but essentially: it's not really an issue for the President, who's supposedly in the middle of leading an entire war.

 

The thing is, we wanted to get intel from these guys. Rather than them simply being shot by firing squad, or just by some random MP sergeant, hours after they were captured, where they were captured, and never even seeing GITMO, we moved them there, and not to US soil, so they didn't automatically gain rights granted under US law. Rights to which they are NOT entitled. They are not criminals that we've extradited. They are illegal enemy combatants, who by law are entitled to nothing more than a swift execution.

 

In seeking intel, we've created a conundrum. We can't bring them here. That's idiocy. We can't send them back, because either we know they will go right back to trying to kill us, or, nobody wants them, so there's no physical location for them to go, or, we know they will be tortured then killed where we do send them. Just shooting them cleanly is a better and more merciful solution than the last one, isn't it? So, where is the standard, liberal, "my opinion makes me more moral" answer? There isn't one(as per normal )

 

Thus, it's as I said: it's not about closing a military base(which we absolutely do not want to close, for other reasons). Of course the President can close any base he wants. It's about having no place to put the prisoners who are at that military base.

 

See? It's not simple, and only a simpleton thinks that closing the base solves the problem.

 

The only thing to do? Keep them right where they are, and that's just tough schit. They chose to get themselves involved, and for some the punishment is greater than the crime. But, it beats 2 rounds in the head, which by law, Army Regulations, and international treaty, is precisely the justice to which most of them are entitled.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

religious right wing nut bags is what happened.

 

those who cast the first stones are the ones that have the most sins

[Jauronimo]

religious right wing nut bags is what happened.

 

those who cast the first stones are the ones that have the most sins

That might be the least competent attempt at trolling I've witnessed at TBD.

[B-Man]

That might be the least competent attempt at trolling I've witnessed at TBD.

 

Sadly, thats the best he can do.

 

 

.

[Azalin]

to be honest, I don't think that the president ever really intended to close gitmo. I believe it was just a tool to use in rallying support against whoever was to be the republican nominee. I think that the idea of moving the guantanamo detainees to a maximum security facility somewhere in the midwest (wasn't it in Illinois?) may have been a trial balloon to test public opinion on a possible alternative, but I don't think anyone in this administration was truly serious about actually shutting down the detainee facility.

[Jauronimo]

to be honest, I don't think that the president ever really intended to close gitmo. I believe it was just a tool to use in rallying support against whoever was to be the republican nominee. I think that the idea of moving the guantanamo detainees to a maximum security facility somewhere in the midwest (wasn't it in Illinois?) may have been a trial balloon to test public opinion on a possible alternative, but I don't think anyone in this administration was truly serious about actually shutting down the detainee facility.

I don't think they ever considered the ramifications of closing Gitmo or considered how long it would realistically take to wind down Afghanistan and Iraq. Making promises from an ivory tower is easy when your plan consists of "figure out if its even feasible later."

[KD in CA]

to be honest, I don't think that the president ever really intended to close gitmo. I believe it was just a tool to use in rallying support against whoever was to be the republican nominee. I think that the idea of moving the guantanamo detainees to a maximum security facility somewhere in the midwest (wasn't it in Illinois?) may have been a trial balloon to test public opinion on a possible alternative, but I don't think anyone in this administration was truly serious about actually shutting down the detainee facility.

 

I assumed he was naive and foolish enough to think he could close it, along with using the obvious opportunistic benefits of campaigning on the issue.

 

I just find it humorous that the "Close Gitmo!!!" 'tards who were everywhere in 2008 have had nothing to say on the subject for the past 4 1/2 years.

[OCinBuffalo]

to be honest, I don't think that the president ever really intended to close gitmo. I believe it was just a tool to use in rallying support against whoever was to be the republican nominee. I think that the idea of moving the guantanamo detainees to a maximum security facility somewhere in the midwest (wasn't it in Illinois?) may have been a trial balloon to test public opinion on a possible alternative, but I don't think anyone in this administration was truly serious about actually shutting down the detainee facility.

Yep.

 

Either he didn't know, and he's incompetent, or he did know, and he's extremely cynical. It can only be one, so take your pick.

 

Exception: Since we are talking Obama here, I could even see how it could be both things at the same time. At first, he couldn't be bothered to take the time to understand the situation, and, once he did, he figured the political gain with the left, even though he had no intention of following through, was just fine by him.

 

Of course, with Obama's record of predicting how issues will be seen both politically and practically in the long term("Don't worry, you'll all love Obamacare, soon" ), it fits that he had no idea this issue would end up as bad as it is for him.

Edited May 10, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Azalin]

I think that the whole issue was used as just one more attack point against established republican policy. it's smart politics in that it helped keep people fired up and angry over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without getting into a debate over the validity of the wars themselves. despite all the counter arguements at the time (where are you going to keep the prisoners, do you actually want to give them civil trials, do you actually want to just release them, etc, etc) it helped the Obama team to put forth the image of being practical, principled, and compassionate....in other words, a smokescreen. many of us knew at the time that gitmo wouldn't be shut down, at least not until a new facility had been constructed somewhere else off offshore that would serve in the exact same capacity. we also knew that the media clamor over gitmo would vanish if & when Obama won the presidency. he did, and it has. his ardent supporters, the hyperpartisan democrats, either conveniently forget their previous outrage over detaining jihadists at guantanamo or try to find a way to justify to themselves that things are somehow different now. I would have so much more respect for those folks if they would just admit that maybe keeping those prisoners there and extracting intelligence from them was a pretty good idea after all.

[3rdnlng]

I think that the whole issue was used as just one more attack point against established republican policy. it's smart politics in that it helped keep people fired up and angry over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without getting into a debate over the validity of the wars themselves. despite all the counter arguements at the time (where are you going to keep the prisoners, do you actually want to give them civil trials, do you actually want to just release them, etc, etc) it helped the Obama team to put forth the image of being practical, principled, and compassionate....in other words, a smokescreen. many of us knew at the time that gitmo wouldn't be shut down, at least not until a new facility had been constructed somewhere else off offshore that would serve in the exact same capacity. we also knew that the media clamor over gitmo would vanish if & when Obama won the presidency. he did, and it has. his ardent supporters, the hyperpartisan democrats, either conveniently forget their previous outrage over detaining jihadists at guantanamo or try to find a way to justify to themselves that things are somehow different now. I would have so much more respect for those folks if they would just admit that maybe keeping those prisoners there and extracting intelligence from them was a pretty good idea after all.

 

If Obama wanted to do away with Gitmo he could easily do it by working within policies he's already adhering to. He already has a "kill list" that he updates every Tuesday. To be on that list you must be suspected of aiding or causing terrorism. Periodically someone on that list is droned. Every prisoner at Gitmo is suspected of aiding or causing terrorism. He could easily just drone the place into oblivion. Why should we have a camp like that if our new policy is to just kill suspected terrorists? Oh, and someone should remind him to warn the guards first though.

[OCinBuffalo]

If Obama wanted to do away with Gitmo he could easily do it by working within policies he's already adhering to. He already has a "kill list" that he updates every Tuesday. To be on that list you must be suspected of aiding or causing terrorism. Periodically someone on that list is droned. Every prisoner at Gitmo is suspected of aiding or causing terrorism. He could easily just drone the place into oblivion. Why should we have a camp like that if our new policy is to just kill suspected terrorists? Oh, and someone should remind him to warn the guards first though.

I was gonna say: you mind giving the Marines there a 5 minute heads up? I'm sure they'd appreciate it.

 

But yeah, the Bush policy? Capture and grill em.

Obama Policy? Kill em, so we don't have to send em to GITMO, and embarass ourselves for doing, exactly, what Bush did.

 

That's what this comes down to: it's "better" for Obama to kill innocent people(a hellfire missile isn't exactly "surgical"), or risk doing so, rather than facing the political music for his retarded campaign promise.

 

Yeah...that's right: Dead innocent people <<< political consequences.

 

I wonder if birdog would call himself "more moral" for supporting this? I wonder if our friends in Canada, who love to lecture us about how moral they are...will self-congratulate for supporting this "moral" position? Ahhhh....feel the phony moral superiority being exposed. Bask in their FAIL!

 

How about "Obama denies(Bush policy, reality) and everbody(in the kill zone) dies." Bumpersticker argument! See, I can do it too!

[3rdnlng]

I was gonna say: you mind giving the Marines there a 5 minute heads up? I'm sure they'd appreciate it.

 

But yeah, the Bush policy? Capture and grill em.

Obama Policy? Kill em, so we don't have to send em to GITMO, and embarass ourselves for doing, exactly, what Bush did.

 

That's what this comes down to: it's "better" for Obama to kill innocent people(a hellfire missile isn't exactly "surgical"), or risk doing so, rather than facing the political music for his retarded campaign promise.

 

Yeah...that's right: Dead innocent people <<< political consequences.

 

I wonder if birdog would call himself "more moral" for supporting this? I wonder if our friends in Canada, who love to lecture us about how moral they are...will self-congratulate for supporting this "moral" position? Ahhhh....feel the phony moral superiority being exposed. Bask in their FAIL!

 

How about "Obama denies(Bush policy, reality) and everbody(in the kill zone) dies." Bumpersticker argument! See, I can do it too!

 

I think "People Died and Hillary Lied" would make an excellent bumper sticker.