If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Turns out the NDAA may actually make it possible for Obama to close Gitmo, find out who wins March Madness   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 81
    More: Spiffy, Obama, Guantanamo, Gitmo, congresses, Human Rights First, Guantanamo Bay prison, ndaa, indefinite detention  
•       •       •

977 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Dec 2013 at 9:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



81 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-10 09:22:28 AM  
What ever authority Bush had to bring them there, Obama has the same authority to reverse it.
 
2013-12-10 09:35:49 AM  

mrshowrules: What ever authority Bush had to bring them there, Obama has the same authority to reverse it.


Actually, that makes perfect sense, since Bush had no authority to bring and keep them here, and Obama can't seem to reverse it.
 
2013-12-10 09:46:15 AM  

mrshowrules: What ever authority Bush had to bring them there, Obama has the same authority to reverse it.


Without funding from Congress, the only thing he could actually do would be to set everybody free and turn them loose on Cuba.
 
2013-12-10 09:50:48 AM  
FTA: ...the difficult question of what to do with the remaining detainees, many of whom it believes cannot be prosecuted in either federal or military court...

Why can't they be prosecuted?
 
2013-12-10 09:54:40 AM  

eldritch2k4: FTA: ...the difficult question of what to do with the remaining detainees, many of whom it believes cannot be prosecuted in either federal or military court...

Why can't they be prosecuted?


No evidence against them.
 
2013-12-10 10:07:44 AM  

HeartBurnKid: mrshowrules: What ever authority Bush had to bring them there, Obama has the same authority to reverse it.

Without funding from Congress, the only thing he could actually do would be to set everybody free and turn them loose on Cuba.


that could be fun...maybe? no, wait, they'd just hop a door to freedom in the US
 
2013-12-10 10:07:48 AM  

physt: eldritch2k4: FTA: ...the difficult question of what to do with the remaining detainees, many of whom it believes cannot be prosecuted in either federal or military court...

Why can't they be prosecuted?

No evidence against them.


They are in Gitmo, which seems to be evidence enough of their guilt
 
2013-12-10 10:09:09 AM  

somedude210: that could be fun...maybe? no, wait, they'd just hop a door to freedom in the US


I'm pretty sure if they were just released, they'd greet the guys with the keys as liberators.
 
2013-12-10 10:13:13 AM  

HeartBurnKid: mrshowrules: What ever authority Bush had to bring them there, Obama has the same authority to reverse it.

Without funding from Congress, the only thing he could actually do would be to set everybody free and turn them loose on Cuba.


Hear me out... Why can't we construct rafts and put them on them, and tell them to sail to the rest of Cuba and run free...?
 
2013-12-10 10:17:58 AM  
The GOP may do this, but it will NEVER allow Obama to close Gitmo.  Never let him have that win.  Never.
 
2013-12-10 10:21:20 AM  
If we actually gave a shiat about human rights we'd free them and let them stay in the US. Too bad Bush farked up the WoT so badly.
 
2013-12-10 10:27:27 AM  

Lost Thought 00: They are in Gitmo, which seems to be evidence enough of their guilt


O_o)
 
2013-12-10 10:29:04 AM  

KellyX: HeartBurnKid: mrshowrules: What ever authority Bush had to bring them there, Obama has the same authority to reverse it.

Without funding from Congress, the only thing he could actually do would be to set everybody free and turn them loose on Cuba.

Hear me out... Why can't we construct rafts and put them on them, and tell them to sail to the rest of Cuba and run free...?


Simpler than that: Gitmo is staffed by the military. Obama is Commander in Chief of the military. He tells the staff at Gitmo, "you're all reassigned to desks in DC. Leave now." They leave the doors unlocked, and the prisoners are now Cuba's problem. (At least in the short term.)
 
2013-12-10 10:31:35 AM  
 
2013-12-10 10:33:02 AM  

KellyX: HeartBurnKid: mrshowrules: What ever authority Bush had to bring them there, Obama has the same authority to reverse it.

Without funding from Congress, the only thing he could actually do would be to set everybody free and turn them loose on Cuba.

Hear me out... Why can't we construct rafts and put them on them, and tell them to sail to the rest of Cuba and run free...?


Communists and Middle-Eastern revolutionaries...where have I heard that one before?

// or "communist revolutionaries and Middle-Easterners", I guess
 
2013-12-10 10:33:59 AM  

Uzzah: KellyX: HeartBurnKid: mrshowrules: What ever authority Bush had to bring them there, Obama has the same authority to reverse it.

Without funding from Congress, the only thing he could actually do would be to set everybody free and turn them loose on Cuba.

Hear me out... Why can't we construct rafts and put them on them, and tell them to sail to the rest of Cuba and run free...?

Simpler than that: Gitmo is staffed by the military. Obama is Commander in Chief of the military. He tells the staff at Gitmo, "you're all reassigned to desks in DC. Leave now." They leave the doors unlocked, and the prisoners are now Cuba's problem. (At least in the short term.)


I was under the impression that the Cuban military had their own perimeter around the border between Gitmo and Cuba actual.

Plus the raft thing was a tongue in cheek idea as a sort of reverse thing Fidel did when he released large amounts of Cuban criminals in one of the big raft refugee landings in Florida back in the 70s (or was it 80s)
 
2013-12-10 10:37:14 AM  

BullBearMS: Notice how the article says it will make it "slightly easier"?

That's because Obama has had the power to release detainees who have been cleared of all charges for some time now.

the defense secretary can still act


media.npr.org  = www.usnews.com ?

// get that prescription checked, son
 
2013-12-10 10:38:20 AM  

mrshowrules: What ever authority Bush had to bring them there, Obama has the same authority to reverse it.


That's kind of like saying, "Whatever authority X had to flood the Valley, Y has to unflood it." It's a nice thought, but all X had to do was blow up a dam. Y has to build a new dam, reroute the water, repair all the houses, and move people back in. Once the prisoners reached Gitmo, the issue is what to do with them. That's a lot more complicated than, "Gather them up, throw 'em in the hole, and throw away the key."
 
2013-12-10 10:42:55 AM  

DeaH: mrshowrules: What ever authority Bush had to bring them there, Obama has the same authority to reverse it.

That's kind of like saying, "Whatever authority X had to flood the Valley, Y has to unflood it." It's a nice thought, but all X had to do was blow up a dam. Y has to build a new dam, reroute the water, repair all the houses, and move people back in. Once the prisoners reached Gitmo, the issue is what to do with them. That's a lot more complicated than, "Gather them up, throw 'em in the hole, and throw away the key."


Not when our own people have said that the charges against 86 of them are bullshiat.

All that requires is someone with the courage of their convictions.

Obama has the power to release those people right now.
 
2013-12-10 10:54:25 AM  

BullBearMS: DeaH: mrshowrules: What ever authority Bush had to bring them there, Obama has the same authority to reverse it.

That's kind of like saying, "Whatever authority X had to flood the Valley, Y has to unflood it." It's a nice thought, but all X had to do was blow up a dam. Y has to build a new dam, reroute the water, repair all the houses, and move people back in. Once the prisoners reached Gitmo, the issue is what to do with them. That's a lot more complicated than, "Gather them up, throw 'em in the hole, and throw away the key."

Not when our own people have said that the charges against 86 of them are bullshiat.

All that requires is someone with the courage of their convictions.

Obama has the power to release those people right now.


Much like a house that's been flooded, the 86 thrown in there on bullshiat charges are not the same after the event. My concern is that if they were not anti-American terrorists before we thew them in there and tortured them, are they now? I don't think these guys can just be released and flown back to their own countries. Frankly, we owe them more than that. The need real psychological care.
 
2013-12-10 10:59:49 AM  

DeaH: Much like a house that's been flooded, the 86 thrown in there on bullshiat charges are not the same after the event. My concern is that if they were not anti-American terrorists before we thew them in there and tortured them, are they now? I don't think these guys can just be released and flown back to their own countries. Frankly, we owe them more than that. The need real psychological care.


If only there was some kind of international treaty the US was a signatory to when this first started to happen.

As it is now, the situation is so beyond farked up there is no "good" solution.  Just trying to figure out which is the best of the worst.  One thing is certain however, if the US wants to maintain any credibility when it comes to morality or the rule of law Gitmo's gotta close and any prisoners held without evidence or charges need to be released and the US has to make ti their business to find a country that will accept these guys or they must be granted some kind of legal status to live and work in the US.
 
2013-12-10 11:07:57 AM  

Mercutio74: DeaH: Much like a house that's been flooded, the 86 thrown in there on bullshiat charges are not the same after the event. My concern is that if they were not anti-American terrorists before we thew them in there and tortured them, are they now? I don't think these guys can just be released and flown back to their own countries. Frankly, we owe them more than that. The need real psychological care.

If only there was some kind of international treaty the US was a signatory to when this first started to happen.

As it is now, the situation is so beyond farked up there is no "good" solution.  Just trying to figure out which is the best of the worst.  One thing is certain however, if the US wants to maintain any credibility when it comes to morality or the rule of law Gitmo's gotta close and any prisoners held without evidence or charges need to be released and the US has to make ti their business to find a country that will accept these guys or they must be granted some kind of legal status to live and work in the US.


That's it exactly. It was amazingly easy to fark this up. Unfarking is always a lot harder.
 
2013-12-10 11:11:41 AM  

mrshowrules: What ever authority Bush had to bring them there, Obama has the same authority to reverse it.


Providing he can do it without spending one thin dime while doing it.

That's the limitation Congress put on him.  Now other presidents in the past have evaded such restrictions by doing things like trading arms for hostages and making profits that they could spend on their pet projects.  Maybe you want Obama to follow suit.  Is Ollie North available for consulting?
 
2013-12-10 11:15:35 AM  

DeaH: BullBearMS: DeaH: mrshowrules: What ever authority Bush had to bring them there, Obama has the same authority to reverse it.

That's kind of like saying, "Whatever authority X had to flood the Valley, Y has to unflood it." It's a nice thought, but all X had to do was blow up a dam. Y has to build a new dam, reroute the water, repair all the houses, and move people back in. Once the prisoners reached Gitmo, the issue is what to do with them. That's a lot more complicated than, "Gather them up, throw 'em in the hole, and throw away the key."

Not when our own people have said that the charges against 86 of them are bullshiat.

All that requires is someone with the courage of their convictions.

Obama has the power to release those people right now.

Much like a house that's been flooded, the 86 thrown in there on bullshiat charges are not the same after the event. My concern is that if they were not anti-American terrorists before we thew them in there and tortured them, are they now? I don't think these guys can just be released and flown back to their own countries. Frankly, we owe them more than that. The need real psychological care.


Then why start pretending you want to do right by them again, when their hunger strikes draw media attention to their plight???

Don't claim you want to do the right thing and then clutch your pearls about how hard it is.

We know these people aren't guilty of anything and that the charges were always bullshiat.

Publicly get down on you farking knees and apologize for the actions of our nation, give them an enormous pile of money as restitution, and let them go home.
 
2013-12-10 11:17:17 AM  
Do you know what impossible for the President of the United States to do with the backing of Congress?

Magic, and FTL travel.

That's about it.
 
2013-12-10 11:18:36 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: That's the limitation Congress put on him.


Obama claimed he wanted to "close Gitmo" but what he did instead is try to purchase an unused federal prison in the United States and move Gitmo onto US soil.

THAT is what Congress prevented, and good for them.

Congress has NEVER prevented him from releasing those who have been cleared of all charges.
 
2013-12-10 11:21:51 AM  

DeaH: mrshowrules: What ever authority Bush had to bring them there, Obama has the same authority to reverse it.

That's kind of like saying, "Whatever authority X had to flood the Valley, Y has to unflood it." It's a nice thought, but all X had to do was blow up a dam. Y has to build a new dam, reroute the water, repair all the houses, and move people back in. Once the prisoners reached Gitmo, the issue is what to do with them. That's a lot more complicated than, "Gather them up, throw 'em in the hole, and throw away the key."


Or, if Bush flew them there, Obama can have them flown back.
 
2013-12-10 11:23:42 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: mrshowrules: What ever authority Bush had to bring them there, Obama has the same authority to reverse it.

Providing he can do it without spending one thin dime while doing it.

That's the limitation Congress put on him.  Now other presidents in the past have evaded such restrictions by doing things like trading arms for hostages and making profits that they could spend on their pet projects.  Maybe you want Obama to follow suit.  Is Ollie North available for consulting?


Obama is the commander in chief and has a military operational budget which he controls.
 
2013-12-10 11:26:11 AM  

BullBearMS: DeaH: mrshowrules: What ever authority Bush had to bring them there, Obama has the same authority to reverse it.

That's kind of like saying, "Whatever authority X had to flood the Valley, Y has to unflood it." It's a nice thought, but all X had to do was blow up a dam. Y has to build a new dam, reroute the water, repair all the houses, and move people back in. Once the prisoners reached Gitmo, the issue is what to do with them. That's a lot more complicated than, "Gather them up, throw 'em in the hole, and throw away the key."

Not when our own people have said that the charges against 86 of them are bullshiat.

All that requires is someone with the courage of their convictions.

Obama has the power to release those people right now.


Release them where? It is my understanding that many of the detainees are not welcome to return to their home countries, or face physical violence should they return. It would be inhumane to release a prisoner under those circumstances, and perhaps even a violation of national and international law.

Once the Bush administration started sending people to Gitmo - many of them on the basis of little or no evidence, or evidence obtained by torture - the situation became unmanageable. It was a decision that was bound to lead to tragedy.
 
2013-12-10 11:28:38 AM  

BullBearMS: Obama claimed he wanted to "close Gitmo" but what he did instead is try to purchase an unused federal prison in the United States and move Gitmo onto US soil.


How is that NOT "closing Gitmo"? US prisons are subject to US law. It isn't "Gitmo" anymore once it's a US prison.

BullBearMS: Congress has NEVER prevented him from releasing those who have been cleared of all charges.


You know who has? Other countries that won't take those people. If you're so keen on releasing them, how about you house a few?
 
2013-12-10 11:32:50 AM  

BMulligan: Release them where?


The majority of them are from Yemen.

Since Wikileaked State Department Cables show that the President of Yemen was willing to lie on our behalf and claim he was responsible for the large group of civilians murdered in the first US airstrike there, I'm pretty sure he will be willing to do whatever we say.
 
2013-12-10 11:36:33 AM  

BullBearMS: The majority of them are from Yemen.

Since Wikileaked State Department Cables show that the President of Yemen was willing to lie on our behalf and claim he was responsible for the large group of civilians murdered in the first US airstrike there, I'm pretty sure he will be willing to do whatever we say.


Aaaand you'd be wrong. Yemen won't take them. Try again.
 
2013-12-10 11:37:45 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: BullBearMS: Obama claimed he wanted to "close Gitmo" but what he did instead is try to purchase an unused federal prison in the United States and move Gitmo onto US soil.

How is that NOT "closing Gitmo"? US prisons are subject to US law. It isn't "Gitmo" anymore once it's a US prison.


Except for the part where he publicly said he still intended to hold people without charges or a trial there?

cameroncrazy1984: You know who has? Other countries that won't take those people. If you're so keen on releasing them, how about you house a few?


Awww... Always some lie or bullshiat excuse.

Why does Obama bother to keep claiming he even wants to do this, then? He has the power to release them. Yemen is willing to take them.
 
2013-12-10 11:39:57 AM  

BullBearMS: Congress has NEVER prevented him from releasing those who have been cleared of all charges.


Let's see a blue wall of text saying how many of them have actually been cleared of all charges.
 
2013-12-10 11:41:24 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: BullBearMS: The majority of them are from Yemen.

Since Wikileaked State Department Cables show that the President of Yemen was willing to lie on our behalf and claim he was responsible for the large group of civilians murdered in the first US airstrike there, I'm pretty sure he will be willing to do whatever we say.

Aaaand you'd be wrong. Yemen won't take them. Try again.


The same Yemen that was willing to lie for Obama about murdering their civilians?

"If you go to the village of Al-Majalah in Yemen, where I was, and you see the unexploded clusterbombs and you have the list and photographic evidence, as I do--the women and children that represented the vast majority of the deaths in this first strike that Obama authorized on Yemen--those people were murdered by President Obama, on his orders, because there was believed to be someone from Al Qaeda in that area. There's only one person that's been identified that had any connection to Al Qaeda there. And 21 women and 14 children were killed in that strike and the U.S. tried to cover it up, and say it was a Yemeni strike, and we know from the Wikileaks cables that David Petraeus conspired with the president of Yemen to lie to the world about who did that bombing. It's murder--it's mass murder--when you say, 'We are going to bomb this area' because we believe a terrorist is there, and you know that women and children are in the area. The United States has an obligation to not bomb that area if they believe that women and children are there. I'm sorry, that's murder."

LOL
 
2013-12-10 11:45:50 AM  
The gap in logic between the claimed presidential authorities to wage a drone war anywhere the world he chooses and spend a couple billion dollars bombing Libya without getting Congress involved while he is somehow prevented by Congress from issuing orders to the military about how to handle its prisoners, continues to astound me.  So does the ability of people who purportedly object to the legal black hole we've created to shrug this off as simply Congress' problem.
 
2013-12-10 11:47:39 AM  

Karma Curmudgeon: The gap in logic between the claimed presidential authorities to wage a drone war anywhere the world he chooses and spend a couple billion dollars bombing Libya without getting Congress involved while he is somehow prevented by Congress from issuing orders to the military about how to handle its prisoners, continues to astound me.  So does the ability of people who purportedly object to the legal black hole we've created to shrug this off as simply Congress' problem.


I'm a Liberal and I like Obama but this is clearly up to him to deal with.  Congress is part of the problem but they don't own it.  Obama does and he should fix it now.
 
2013-12-10 11:49:20 AM  

mrshowrules: Karma Curmudgeon: The gap in logic between the claimed presidential authorities to wage a drone war anywhere the world he chooses and spend a couple billion dollars bombing Libya without getting Congress involved while he is somehow prevented by Congress from issuing orders to the military about how to handle its prisoners, continues to astound me.  So does the ability of people who purportedly object to the legal black hole we've created to shrug this off as simply Congress' problem.

I'm a Liberal and I like Obama but this is clearly up to him to deal with.  Congress is part of the problem but they don't own it.  Obama does and he should fix it now.


He could move them to a military prison stateside today and there's not a goddam thing Congress could do except pout, piss and moan.
 
2013-12-10 11:52:08 AM  
Or repeal the AUMF.  Congress would be free to do that too.
 
2013-12-10 11:58:40 AM  

Karma Curmudgeon: mrshowrules: Karma Curmudgeon: The gap in logic between the claimed presidential authorities to wage a drone war anywhere the world he chooses and spend a couple billion dollars bombing Libya without getting Congress involved while he is somehow prevented by Congress from issuing orders to the military about how to handle its prisoners, continues to astound me.  So does the ability of people who purportedly object to the legal black hole we've created to shrug this off as simply Congress' problem.

I'm a Liberal and I like Obama but this is clearly up to him to deal with.  Congress is part of the problem but they don't own it.  Obama does and he should fix it now.

He could move them to a military prison stateside today and there's not a goddam thing Congress could do except pout, piss and moan.


He could release them to whichever country that would take them.  Heck, he could airdrop where they captured them with some supplies and bag of local currency.
 
2013-12-10 12:00:16 PM  

Karma Curmudgeon: mrshowrules: Karma Curmudgeon: The gap in logic between the claimed presidential authorities to wage a drone war anywhere the world he chooses and spend a couple billion dollars bombing Libya without getting Congress involved while he is somehow prevented by Congress from issuing orders to the military about how to handle its prisoners, continues to astound me.  So does the ability of people who purportedly object to the legal black hole we've created to shrug this off as simply Congress' problem.

I'm a Liberal and I like Obama but this is clearly up to him to deal with.  Congress is part of the problem but they don't own it.  Obama does and he should fix it now.

He could move them to a military prison stateside today and there's not a goddam thing Congress could do except pout, piss and moan.


Here's what he tried to do.

In ordering the federal government to acquire an Illinois prison to house terrorism suspects who are currently held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, President Obama on Tuesday took a major step toward shutting down the military detention facility that its detractors say had become a potent recruitment tool for Al Qaeda.

Administration officials acknowledged that the move would require Congressional approval, since Congress now bars Guantánamo detainees from being brought onto American soil unless they face prosecution, and some of the detainees may be indefinitely confined without being tried. But one administration official said that Democrats, who control both houses, were planning to lift that restriction if the administration came up with an acceptable plan for closing the military prison at Guantánamo.


Obama never tried to close Gitmo in the first place. He tried to move it onto US soil. Congress, with the Democrats in all but complete control of both Houses, refused to allow him to establish indefinite detention without charges or a trial on American soil.

Good for them.
 
2013-12-10 12:02:49 PM  

Karma Curmudgeon: mrshowrules: Karma Curmudgeon: The gap in logic between the claimed presidential authorities to wage a drone war anywhere the world he chooses and spend a couple billion dollars bombing Libya without getting Congress involved while he is somehow prevented by Congress from issuing orders to the military about how to handle its prisoners, continues to astound me.  So does the ability of people who purportedly object to the legal black hole we've created to shrug this off as simply Congress' problem.

I'm a Liberal and I like Obama but this is clearly up to him to deal with.  Congress is part of the problem but they don't own it.  Obama does and he should fix it now.

He could move them to a military prison stateside today and there's not a goddam thing Congress could do except pout, piss and moan.


Okay, fine. Now they're in a military brig on US soil. Now what? We still can't try them on criminal charges because the evidence (should such exist) is tainted. In many cases they can't be sent home. So what do we do with them?

This problem is an enormous tarball which will not be fixed until all branches of the government, including Congress, are willing to work together to find a solution.
 
2013-12-10 12:03:10 PM  

BullBearMS: Vlad_the_Inaner: That's the limitation Congress put on him.

Obama claimed he wanted to "close Gitmo" but what he did instead is try to purchase an unused federal prison in the United States and move Gitmo onto US soil.

THAT is what Congress prevented, and good for them.

Congress has NEVER prevented him from releasing those who have been cleared of all charges.


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.

So where is this release to take place?  Gitmo itself is a "possession"  You let the people go inside gitmo itself (and it costs anything) you have violated Section 1027.  Can't use the US or possessions as a staging area either.

I know, Obama is just supposed to wave his magic wand and teleport them home without them passing through US anything, even gitmo itself..
 
2013-12-10 12:13:03 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: BullBearMS: Vlad_the_Inaner: That's the limitation Congress put on him.

Obama claimed he wanted to "close Gitmo" but what he did instead is try to purchase an unused federal prison in the United States and move Gitmo onto US soil.

THAT is what Congress prevented, and good for them.

Congress has NEVER prevented him from releasing those who have been cleared of all charges.

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.

So where is this release to take place?  Gitmo itself is a "possession"  You let the people go inside gitmo itself (and it costs anything) you have violated Section 1027.  Can't use the US or possessions as a staging area either.

I know, Obama is just supposed to wave his magic wand and teleport them home without them passing through US anything, even gitmo itself..


Because he couldn't possibly come up with the cost of plane tickest from Cuba to Yemen in about ten minutes on Kickstarter??

Set up a Kickstarter campaign. Tweet about it once. Done.

Don't be so retarded.
 
2013-12-10 12:15:41 PM  

Karma Curmudgeon: The gap in logic between the claimed presidential authorities to wage a drone war anywhere the world he chooses and spend a couple billion dollars bombing Libya without getting Congress involved while he is somehow prevented by Congress from issuing orders to the military about how to handle its prisoners, continues to astound me.  So does the ability of people who purportedly object to the legal black hole we've created to shrug this off as simply Congress' problem.


THIS.

Stop making retarded arguments about how Obama couldn't possibly keep his word, but had to move Gitmo onto US soil instead.

He had no choice!
 
2013-12-10 12:36:34 PM  

BullBearMS: Awww... Always some lie or bullshiat excuse.


What was the lie? Or the excuse?

BullBearMS: Obama never tried to close Gitmo in the first place. He tried to move it onto US soil


Which, again, something you keep ignoring is that US prisons must adhere to US prison law. As opposed to, you know, a detention camp on foreign soil.
 
2013-12-10 12:37:09 PM  

BullBearMS: Karma Curmudgeon: The gap in logic between the claimed presidential authorities to wage a drone war anywhere the world he chooses and spend a couple billion dollars bombing Libya without getting Congress involved while he is somehow prevented by Congress from issuing orders to the military about how to handle its prisoners, continues to astound me.  So does the ability of people who purportedly object to the legal black hole we've created to shrug this off as simply Congress' problem.

THIS.

Stop making retarded arguments about how Obama couldn't possibly keep his word, but had to move Gitmo onto US soil instead.

He had no choice!


Correct, he had no choice. They can't be freed because no country will take them. They can't be moved because Congress blocked funding. What could he do? What was the choice?
 
2013-12-10 12:40:50 PM  
Oh wow, advocating extra-congressional intervention from the President
 
2013-12-10 12:43:52 PM  

Zafler: Oh wow, advocating extra-congressional intervention from the President


I guarantee you if Obama had done that, he would've called the President a "dictator"
 
2013-12-10 12:54:40 PM  

BullBearMS: Because he couldn't possibly come up with the cost of plane tickest from Cuba to Yemen in about ten minutes on Kickstarter??

Set up a Kickstarter campaign. Tweet about it once. Done.

Don't be so retarded.


I'm sure there are daily direct flights from Cuba to Yemen.  With busfare from Gitmo to Havana International Airport.

But you think that US personal work for free?   Funds pay salaries too,  Even the guy who unlocks the gate to let your prospective releasee go is taking funding to perform that function.
 
Displayed 50 of 81 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report