Posted on 02/25/2016 4:52:01 AM PST by SeekAndFind
That should prove relatively easy, since transferring Gitmo detainees to the US remains illegal — under a law signed by Barack Obama. Paul Ryan promised a fight in both the legislative and judicial arenas to stop Obama’s latest iteration of his demand to shutter the detention facility at the Guantanamo naval base:
House Speaker Paul Ryan says Republicans are taking legal steps to stop President Barack Obama from closing the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Ryan told reporters Wednesday that lawmakers have the votes to block Obama’s plan in Congress and enough votes to override any veto. Separately, the Wisconsin Republican said the GOP is “taking all legal preparations necessary” to ensure the prison remains open and terror suspects aren’t moved to the U.S.
In truth, it will probably take only a minimal effort on both fronts. Obama keeps making the same demands with the same arguments, and voters keep rejecting them by wider and wider margins. Congress responds to the will of voters … well, at least theoretically. In cases with this kind of broad consensus, though, it’s clear that Obama’s on the fringe in wanting to bring terrorists back to the US.
In my column for The Week, I call yesterday “Gitmohog Day,” nothing more than the final annual sop for a presidential promise that has become impossible to deliver. It doesn’t help that his arguments have become almost parodies of themselves:
Few of the arguments have changed over the years. Obama once again claimed that the the operation of Guantanamo’s detention facility gives Islamist terror groups a major recruitment propaganda point. That claim has always been suspect. The original raison d’être of al Qaeda was the so-called American “occupation” of Muslim land via our military and diplomatic presence in Asia and Africa. Their original targets, outside of the World Trade Center in 1993, reflected their earliest demands — bombings on Americans housed in the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, two in 1998 at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 that killed 17 American sailors. All of these terrorist attacks, and the 9/11 attacks in 2001, took place long before the detention center at Guantanamo was refurbished for potentially unlawful combatants captured by our military, intelligence services, and allies.
Even if al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Taliban mention Guantanamo Bay in their propaganda, is it reasonable to believe that this is the primary driver of anti-American hatred in their recruiting territories? Drone strikes in their neighborhoods matter more than a handful of would-be terrorists sitting in one particular prison over another. Our continued military presence in the Middle East and diplomatic presence in Asia and Africa matter more as well. We pursue those policies because they enhance our national security, and we don’t back down just because terrorist groups dislike it. Why should Americans agree to transfer terrorists to the U.S. to pander to the unpanderable? …
One argument was particularly strange. “But 15 years after 9/11,” Obama scolded, “15 years after the worst terrorist attack in American history, we’re still having to defend the existence of a facility and a process where not a single verdict has been reached in those attacks — not a single one.” Voters can be pardoned for scratching their heads and asking, Who’s been in charge the last seven years? That’s not an indictment of Guantanamo — it’s an indictment of Obama’s leadership. Congress repeatedly modified the military commission process to meet the demands of Obama and other Democrats up to and including in 2009, but this administration has dragged its heels on using those processes in a petulant bid to get Congress to agree to close Gitmo. Eric Holder once announced that he would unilaterally try the 9/11-linked detainees in New York, only to get shouted down by Democrats like Chuck Schumer.
Small wonder, then, that Congress has followed the broad consensus on Obama’s demand. They passed a bill making it illegal to transfer Guantanamo Bay detainees to the U.S. on a bipartisan basis; Obama signed it into law as part of the budget process. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan both reminded Obama of this after his Gitmohog Day performance on Tuesday, and Ryan pledged that the law would remain in place. At least we know spring is just a few weeks away.
If Obama wants to know why his promise to close Gitmo has failed so utterly, The Guardian has identified the culprit — Obama himself. The conservative reaction was predictable, Spencer Ackerman writes, but Obama turned Guantanamo into a fetish by offering to change nothing else but the location. At that point, Ackerman notes, there wasn’t much for progressives to support:
"The president," said Wells Dixon of the Center for Constitutional Rights, "has no one but himself to blame for the fact that Guantanamo has been open longer under his watch than under the prior administration." …
Yet with the exception of torture, Obama chose to retain every objectionable practice at Guantánamo. While he said he preferred to try detainees in civilian courts, he defended the military commissions, and downplayed his 2006 Senate vote against them, calling them an "appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war".
Most importantly, Obama conceded a role for indefinite detention -- this time in the United States. He called them "a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States". …
The human rights groups so encouraged by Obama's pledge to close Guantánamo smelled a bait-and-switch. Even if Obama got what he wanted, he wouldn’t be closing the facility in any substantive fashion. The indefinite detentions without charge, the military commissions, everything, save torture, that made Guantanamo internationally infamous would live on, except this time closer to home.
That has been the conservatives’ point all along. If this is a war against radical Islamist terror networks, and Congress certainly made it so with its 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, then the capture of unlawful combatants requires military commissions at best. There is no reason to offer them access to the civilian judicial system, only to provide due process. That is especially true for those captured by military or intelligence services in a wartime context, or by our allies in the war.
And if that’s the case, then location makes little difference except for US security concerns. Given Gitmo’s remote location and lack of access to potential escape routes, it serves as perhaps the best option, and one that should remain in place. Obama has never offered a good reason for its closure, and the litany of tired and debunked arguments do not grow any more effective with repetition.
Such tough talk from such a small man.
Just like immigration and Obamacare
Show some GD spine, pubbies. If Trump has accomplished anything, he has you all thinking like the opposition for a change.
Oh. We have a house and a Senate? Do they...do anything?
Hey, it’s election year. They will do as they say.
So we can rest assured there will be no votes on Closing Guantanamo or confirmation of any Supreme Court nominee until at least November 9.
So obama uses the U.S. treasury to bribe some 3rd world country into taking these dregs who are the worst of the worst, puts them in planes chartered with military funds, and ships them all out
He may not shut down GITMO but he can empty it out and put these sociopaths back into jihad against us
What’s Ryan gonna do? What’s Congress gonna do?
Or he could trade all the prisoners for one army deserter.
oh yes..
They spend lots of money..
lots and lots of money..
Can we can court martial that deserter and lose more soldiers to the very people Obama released?
Because that tends to be what happens when Dumbo ears lets um loose.
Ryan, Congress and the American people had better prepare for a scenario something like: Obama gives a speech that Congress has given him no choice but to close Gitmo under his own (non)authority. He announces that he has transferred or released all prisoners to willing countries, say Iran. He orders the US military to pack up and leave. He terminates the lease with Cuba and invites the Castros to take over. Fait accompli. Who will stop him?
Interesting scenario
not gonna go there
He’s visiting Cuba soon
Watch for the timing of a big move and announcement that makes buffoons out of congress which is not terribly difficult to do
+1.
Spend our money - to excess.
Meanwhile, Ryan aides are quietly distributing personalized tubes of K-Y Jelly to members of the House Republican caucus.
Oh. So now with the tough talk again. This is all a smoke screen from the GOP. Were gonna stand up to the Uniparty. Fools. You are the Uniparty. Think Trumps not in there heads. Lol. Romney attacking Trump to setup debate issue. Sorry Boys. The game is up. Rubio aint got a chance in hell.
Go Trump
What torture at Guantanamo? Just because the Left called the interrogations of terrorists “torture” doesn’t mean that torture happened.
What torture at Guantanamo? Just because the Left called the interrogations of terrorists “torture” doesn’t mean that torture happened.
Good luck.
The Cubans will have the deed and all the prisoners will be gone before you can say “impeachment”. Which we all know you WON’T do. Including Obama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.