Plan B Forum

Congress sends Obama defense bill that bans moving Guantanamo detainees to US

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress sent President Barack Obama a $607 billion defense policy bill that he is expected to sign even though he adamantly opposes its ban on moving some Guantanamo Bay detainees to U.S. prisons.

The Senate overwhelmingly approved the bill, 91-3, on Tuesday just days after the House passed the bipartisan measure, 370-58. The legislation authorizes Pentagon spending on military personnel, ships, aircraft and other war-fighting equipment.

The president plans to send Congress a blueprint for fulfilling his campaign pledge to close the U.S. prison in Cuba. But the plan is widely expected to be dead on arrival on Capitol Hill,[no shit, Sherlock]with Republicans and some Democrats opposed to any move to detain some of the terror subjects on U.S. soil.

The congressional decision to retain a ban on transferring detainees to the U.S. has prompted debate on whether the president will try to bypass Congress and close the prison through executive action. "We know he's contemplating it," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Obama would sign the bill because it includes provisions critical to protecting the United States. But he said the president's signature does not change his position about the need to close the prison.

To do so, however, Obama would have to ignore the will of Congress.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said if Obama issued an executive order on Guantanamo it "clearly would violate the law."

"This is not something the American people want to see happen with Guantanamo, and so the president needs to follow the law and the law is very clear on this," she said.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/art ... es-from-us

Despite overwhelming public and Congressional opposition, Obama has had a fetish-like obsession with closing Gitmo ever since literally day one of his Presidency. (similar to the fetish-like obsession that he pursed to try to end American military involvement in the Mid East...the results of that have been lovely...)

If he does try to pull this off with another Executive overreach, he will undoubtedly find himself in court the next day. If a President can accomplish by Executive Order a policy that he has been expressly and explicitly prohibited from pursuing by an overwhelming majority in both Houses of Congress, a prohibition that he himself has signed (albeit reluctantly) into law, then the Congress might as well hold a going-out-of-business sale, and we can turn the Capitol Building into a shopping mall...

I can't imagine that the SC would let him get away with this. He's already in deep legal trouble with his attempt to create a new federal amnesty program by Executive Fiat, (I see that the 5th Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision blocking it; I wouldn't give him any better than 50% chance when it gets to the Supremes.)

And in the Gitmo case, he doesn't have a cynical fig leaf like "prosecutorial discretion" to try to hide behind, nor can he try to claim that he's somehow compelled to act because of Congressional inaction. In this case, the Congress has acted loudly and clearly: "DON'T DO IT"...

My fear is that his obsession over this may result in him doing something truly reckless, like pardoning all of the terrorists in Gitmo in the waning days of his Presidency...

Maybe he will just take his ball and go home.

My fear is that his obsession over this may result in him doing something truly reckless, like pardoning all of the terrorists in Gitmo in the waning days of his Presidency...

and while that may well indeed be reckless (but then we don't really know why the prisoners are there, but presumably he does, so it may not be reckless), it is something that I think a prudent congressman should weigh. I'm sure a compromise could be reached which would make both sides equally happy/unhappy; but that requires rational discussion and a desire to reach a compromise. We keep plenty of prisoners who are at least as dangerous as some claim these to be in prisons on US soil, so I have no doubt the legitimate concerns of each side could be dealt with in any such compromise.

As for just closing it on his own, it could be problematic, but then, running the prison system is an executive function and congress generally has no say where any particular prisoner is kept (indeed, I don't really know if Congress trying to exert its will this way is Constitutional, but I think a good point could be made that it is not; face it if they could exert such influence, then would it also be able to append to a bill "take so and so out of supermax and send him to a Club Fed Facility" and force the executive to comply?). IMHO, the chances that the UUSC would view such an action as something within the power of the executive are probably better than its upholding DAPA.

How long would you like to see us hold the Guantanamo prisoners in custody without due process, LJ?

My fear is that his obsession over this may result in him doing something truly reckless, like pardoning all of the terrorists in Gitmo in the waning days of his Presidency...

It would be nice to see all the detainees released......























And forced to relocate in Obama's new neighborhood.