Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gitmo Is Killing Me

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 539 posts

Re: Gitmo Is Killing Me

#61

Post by jorgeortiz85 »

Locke1689 wrote: post #46
Zak wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems unlikely that Congress micromanages the budget of the Department of Justice to the degree that it could not initiate prosecution of detainees in the civilian legal system. Whether that would be a reasonable solution is debatable, but it's certainly within the President's authority to attempt. There's always the nuclear option: threaten to release the detainees if Congress doesn't provide funding for another…

This back and forth has happened many times. The Defense Appropriations bills that have passed Congress have forbid the President from using fund for any of these activities. There is no nuclear option. Veto is not an option. What people don't seem to understand is that this isn't a failure of democracy to act: this is what the American people want . We don't care that Guantanamo is open and we'd rather see it stay o…

The Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of individuals from the tyranny of "the people".

Re: Gitmo Is Killing Me

#62

Post by carbocation »

atsaloli wrote: post #43
pixelcort wrote: post #8

With this story of Guantanamo Bay and the story of children born into prison camps in North Korea, as a mere software engineer, it makes me feel hopeless as to how to help.

If you're in the US, pixelcort, may I invite you to consider the Downsize DC effort? ( http://www.downsizedc.org/ ) Here is a quick summary of what DownsizeDC.org is about: We believe the federal government has grown too centralized, too intrusive, and too expensive. We believe in constitutional limits, smaller government, civil liberties, federalism, and low taxes. We want to end laws and programs that don't work, c…

Isn't this topic -- the question of how to close Guantanamo Bay -- a prime counterexample to the virtues of "mak[ing] it law to read aloud each bill before signing it into law" and "mak[ing] each bill deal with one subject at a time"?

Wouldn't such requirements make politically unpopular things, such as touching Guantanamo Bay in any way, even more difficult to handle?

This article doesn't strike me as fertile, favorable ground for this topic at all.

Not that one would say this, but if the counterargument were to be, "this movement would have prevented Guantanamo in the first place," then (1) but I live in the world we have now, not a hypothetical world that we don't actually have, and (2) maybe so, maybe not.

Re: Gitmo Is Killing Me

#63

Post by pyre »

trimbo wrote: post #47
dublinben wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress deserves as much or more blame for this situation. They've prevented the President from carrying out his intended solution to this problem. Without their support, he is powerless to release these people.

Guantanamo has nothing to do with congress. It was effectively authorized in this 2001 executive order: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/mo-111301.htm

Rescinding that executive order doesn't make magic happen. There is the process of closing down and what to do with the prisoners that matters. It's sounding like Congress is tying the President's hands by restricting his ability to use funds (funds that Congress authorizes) towards those goals. If you're in the US and you want this to happen, I would look towards your representatives in Congress, and research these bills.

This rings similar to the 'legalize marijuana' issue. Making it legal 'tomorrow' would be a massive undertaking because of all of the infrastructure that's in place with the assumption that it's illegal.

Sometimes decisions/actions seem 'easy' on the surface, while the devil is in the details.

Re: Gitmo Is Killing Me

#64

Post by femto »

biesnecker wrote: post #13
thornjm wrote: post #4

Reading things like I can't help but understand why some groups of people can hate America. (I am Australian)

It's the entire Western sense of superiority (I'm American). Gitmo is America saying that the rules we hold ourselves to don't apply to "others." It's hypocritical bullshit, and we deserve what we get because of it. But it's not just the US (or just Gitmo) -- read about the treatment of refugees in Australia (tl;dr: it's better than Gitmo, but not good by a long shot -- http://mitahungerstrike.wordpress.com ). And I…

On the subject of Australia and Refugees, a relatively recent book called "The People Smuggler"[1] is a fascinating read. It's the story of an Iraqi man, called Ali Al Jenabi, and how he ended up ferrying people from Indonesia to Australia.

[1] http://www.thepeoplesmuggler.com/

Re: Gitmo Is Killing Me

#65

Post by snprbob86 »

natmaster wrote: post #48
ck2 wrote: post #10

Obama could order it closed tomorrow. Congress could refuse to fund that action but it would still be ordered closed and his hands would be a tiny bit cleaner. But he likes his drones and gitmo now, so that's pretty much it until Hillary becomes president and I think she likes the idea of gitmo too.

It costs money to run Gitmo, not to stop running it. How would closing it require more money?

Not necessarily more, but it would require a different distribution. Money would need to be spent to relocate the prisoners. Congress has blocked that reappropriation.

Quoting Wikipedia:

On May 20, 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90-6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[14] President Obama issued a Presidential memorandum dated December 15, 2009, ordering Thomson Correctional Center, Thomson, Illinois to be prepared to accept transferred Guantanamo prisoners.

On January 7, 2011, President Obama signed the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill, which, in part, placed restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the mainland or to foreign countries, thus impeding the closure of the facility.[17] U.S. Secretary of Defense Gates said during testimony before the US Senate Armed Services Committee on February 17, 2011: "The prospects for closing Guantanamo as best I can tell are very, very low given very broad opposition to doing that here in the Congress."[18] Congress particularly opposed moving prisoners to facilities in the United States for detention or trial.

/quote

In short, congress passes bills to prevent Obama from closing Gitmo. Obama signed one or more of those in order to balance other political agendas. The annual Defense Authorization Act is a particularly politicized bill that congress is known to use as an offensive weapon.

Re: Gitmo Is Killing Me

#66

Post by declan »

jorgeortiz85 wrote: post #61
Locke1689 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This back and forth has happened many times. The Defense Appropriations bills that have passed Congress have forbid the President from using fund for any of these activities. There is no nuclear option. Veto is not an option. What people don't seem to understand is that this isn't a failure of democracy to act: this is what the American people want . We don't care that Guantanamo is open and we'd rather see it stay o…

The Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of individuals from the tyranny of "the people".

Could this be where pleasant political theory meets cold hard reality?

Re: Gitmo Is Killing Me

#67

Post by declan »

Joeri wrote: post #39
pacdavidson wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, as the wikipedia entry states, he has been on Berkeley's faculty since 1993. His return to Berkeley after being seconded to Bush's DoJ was met with heated resistance and continual protest (e.g. waterboarding enactments outside the law school). As a tenured professor, though, he couldn't be tossed out.

I don't believe this argument of impotence. If they wanted to throw him out, they would have. Tenure is not written down in the constitution. These 'we want to but we can't' arguments bother me more and more as i grow older. It's usually a pretty transparent excuse for not doing the right thing, by scared old men or ambitious young men.

I suspect you may not know the way tenure works, especially at a public institution.

Re: Gitmo Is Killing Me

#69

Post by dublinben »

mudil wrote: post #41
dublinben wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress deserves as much or more blame for this situation. They've prevented the President from carrying out his intended solution to this problem. Without their support, he is powerless to release these people.

dublinben: Can you substantiate your claim that Congress is responsible for this? Seems like Obama is the Commander in Chief and is the head of the Executive branch...

This section of the Wikipedia article does an excellent job of explaining President Obama's actions to close the detention camp, and how Congress interfered. They've made it impossible for the President to lawfully transfer the detainees to any US state or foreign country. There is realistically no way for the President to release them without being able to transfer them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay_detention_...

Re: Gitmo Is Killing Me

#70

Post by md224 »

jorgeortiz85 wrote: post #61
Locke1689 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This back and forth has happened many times. The Defense Appropriations bills that have passed Congress have forbid the President from using fund for any of these activities. There is no nuclear option. Veto is not an option. What people don't seem to understand is that this isn't a failure of democracy to act: this is what the American people want . We don't care that Guantanamo is open and we'd rather see it stay o…

The Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of individuals from the tyranny of "the people".

The Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of Americans from the tyranny of "the people."

Alas.

Post reply on HN