Is Closing Gitmo and Releasing Terrorists Impeachable?

[3rdnlng]

http://conservative-daily.com/2016/03/24/impeachable-obama-official-admits-terrible-confession/

 

 

Rep Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) questioned the Obama administration official testifying on behalf of their plan to close the terrorist prison and asked a very simple and pointed question: “How many [American] lives have been lost by those terrorists who went back to their terrorist activity.”

Paul Lewis, the DOD’s special envoy for Guantanamo’s closure, gave a remarkable response. “I can talk about that in a classified setting.”

The Congressman prodded and prodded until finally, the official made an admission that he probably wasn’t supposed to make: “What I can tell you is unfortunately there have been Americans that have died because of (Guantanamo) detainees… when anybody dies, it is tragedy and we don't want anybody to die because we transfer detainees.” But, with that said, he affirmed that the administration is moving forward anyway.

If you don’t want Americans to die, then don’t let Obama put the hardened terrorists back on the battlefield!

 

Split

 

Then, after admitting that Americans have in fact died, Paul Lewis had the gall to say that this was collateral damage and that the damage from leaving the prison open exceeded the damage from letting the terrorists return to the battlefield.

…

It is actually the opinion of the White House that locking a terrorist up is worse than killing Americans. I was absolutely speechless when I heard it.

Not only is that absolutely immoral, but it is also illegal. Congress has passed more than three laws making it illegal for the President to release Guantanamo terrorists, and yet he does it anyway.

Now, his plan is to release half of them back to the Middle East and integrate the other half into American prisons, which is also ILLEGAL!

Congress tried making what Obama is doing illegal and the President just ignores the law. They could sue the President, but they’d never win in the 4-4 split Supreme Court. They just passed a budget in December/January so if they wait for the next round of budget talks to use the Power of the Purse, it will be too late.

No, the only tool remaining is impeachment or the threat of impeachment.

Obama is literally violating the law and the constitution. Don’t let him close Guantanamo and put more American lives at risk! Force Congress to file Articles of Impeachment now!

There’s no doubt that impeachment is something only to be used as a last resort. But we are literally at the end of the line. Congress has passed resolutions, budgets, and even passed laws that explicitly prohibit what the President’s doing. Yet, Obama persists.

The Founding Fathers gave We the People the power of impeachment for just this type of scenario. Otherwise, the republic is dead. If Obama gets away with so blatantly violating the law, it will be open season for the last 10 months of his Presidency! You have a civic duty to impeach this President.

Obama just said that he will close Guantanamo no matter what, even if that means more Americans are killed. It's up to you to force Congress to stop him once and for all!

Obama is literally ignoring the law and the constitution. Don’t let him close Guantanamo and put more American lives at risk! Force Congress to file Articles of Impeachment now!

 

[B-Man]

Bad judgment .....................of course.

 

 

Poor leadership...................goes without saying.

 

 

Self serving........................exactly.

 

 

 

But impeachable ?

 

No.

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

Bad judgment .....................of course.

 

 

Poor leadership...................goes without saying.

 

 

Self serving........................exactly.

 

 

 

But impeachable ?

 

No.

 

 

.

Obama is explicitly breaking the law.

[B-Man]

Obama is explicitly breaking the law.

 

 

 

I do not disagree 3rd,

 

I wish that I could see a way to make that clear to the part of America that doesn't see the danger of too much executive power.

 

(It only seems to matter if The Donald gets it) ....................If the left uses it its okay I guess..........

 

 

But it is my opinion that at this point, the country is better served by simply stopping Mr. Obama's overreach for 45 more weeks,

and not giving him any other platform to preach from.

 

Let him fade away to the "Back Tees" of history.

 

 

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

 

I do not disagree 3rd,

 

I wish that I could see a way to make that clear to the part of America that doesn't see the danger of too much executive power.

 

(It only seems to matter if The Donald gets it) ....................If the left uses it its okay I guess..........

 

 

But it is my opinion that at this point, the country is better served by simply stopping Mr. Obama's overreach for 45 more weeks,

and not giving him any other platform to preach from.

 

Let him fade away to the "Back Tees" of history.

 

 

 

 

.

Yes, but this Gitmo bs is the overreach you mention. He says he is going to close Gitmo regardless.

 

 

 

"Not only is that absolutely immoral, but it is also illegal. Congress has passed more than three laws making it illegal for the President to release Guantanamo terrorists, and yet he does it anyway.

Now, his plan is to release half of them back to the Middle East and integrate the other half into American prisons, which is also ILLEGAL!"

[B-Man]

Yes, but this Gitmo bs is the overreach you mention. He says he is going to close Gitmo regardless.

 

 

 

"Not only is that absolutely immoral, but it is also illegal. Congress has passed more than three laws making it illegal for the President to release Guantanamo terrorists, and yet he does it anyway.

Now, his plan is to release half of them back to the Middle East and integrate the other half into American prisons, which is also ILLEGAL!"

 

 

With the climate of everyday Americans and ever increasing terror attacks ....................Let him try it.

 

 

Let me paraphrase President Jackson's famous quote-------

 

"...the decision of the Supreme Court President has fell still born,

 

and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia America to yield to its his mandate,"

[Chef Jim]

Ok I'm not the most knowledgeable on this but let me play devil's advocate.

 

1. Who are we holding in Gitmo?

2. Why are we holding them in Gitmo?

3. What is the end game for their incarceration?

4. Are they prisoners of war?

5. Can we or should we hold them forever?

6. If we cannot and do not hold them forever those we release are likely to go back to what they were doing before.

7. If the fear of them participating in terrorist activities in future is what's keeping them in Gitmo indefinitely then why do criminals in this country get released from jail?

[keepthefaith]

Ok I'm not the most knowledgeable on this but let me play devil's advocate.

 

1. Who are we holding in Gitmo?

2. Why are we holding them in Gitmo?

3. What is the end game for their incarceration?

4. Are they prisoners of war?

5. Can we or should we hold them forever?

6. If we cannot and do not hold them forever those we release are likely to go back to what they were doing before.

7. If the fear of them participating in terrorist activities in future is what's keeping them in Gitmo indefinitely then why do criminals in this country get released from jail?

Obama does not believe in prosecuting them for war crimes and since the public and Republicans on the hill were in an uproar over the plan to try them in US civilian courts, he had no choice but to leave them there and/or release them. Once again he was obstructed from doing what a man of his level of intelligence would do by people of lesser intellect and people playing politics.

[Azalin]

Obama does not believe in prosecuting them for war crimes and since the public and Republicans on the hill were in an uproar over the plan to try them in US civilian courts, he had no choice but to leave them there and/or release them. Once again he was obstructed from doing what a man of his level of intelligence would do by people of lesser intellect and people playing politics.

 

I was under the impression that they were originally to be tried by military courts/tribunals as enemy combatants, denying them "prisoner of war" status which would have afforded them protection under the Geneva Convention. Obama could have kept that process on track had he wanted.

[DC Tom]

Ok I'm not the most knowledgeable on this but let me play devil's advocate.

 

1. Who are we holding in Gitmo?

2. Why are we holding them in Gitmo?

3. What is the end game for their incarceration?

4. Are they prisoners of war?

5. Can we or should we hold them forever?

6. If we cannot and do not hold them forever those we release are likely to go back to what they were doing before.

7. If the fear of them participating in terrorist activities in future is what's keeping them in Gitmo indefinitely then why do criminals in this country get released from jail?

 

1) Bad people. I've seen some of the dossiers on wikileaks. These are high-up, well-connected people for the most part.

2) Because Gitmo is foreign territory occupied by the US Military. As such, holding them there keeps them outside the jurisdiction of Constitutional law, which is pretty much required by the Geneva Convention.

3) No one ever really thought that far ahead.

4) No...and yes. Their status is "indeterminate" under the Geneva Convention. That's supposed to be resolved by military tribunal one way or another ("civilian" or "soldier,") but the Supreme Court pretty much deep-sixed that.

5) Probably not...but I don't know that there's any other choice, outside of release them into the wild, then Predator their asses.

6) Yep

7) Because "criminal" can differ by orders of magnitude. Not that for severe crimes, many criminals aren't released.

 

Side note: during Obama's trip to Cuba, Castro demanded the return of Guantanamo Bay. Because it was "stolen." It's actually leased from Cuba (we still pay them for it...rumor is that ever since 1960, we send a check every year to the Cuban government, to assert the lease. And Castro would stuff the check in a drawer and refuse to cash it, to keep from validating the lease.) It's an interesting situation, if Cuba chooses to assert their right (since it is actually Cuban land - it's why the detainees are kept there) in international court, with the detainees still there.