Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Will anyone disagree with this? President Obama deserves harsh criticism over the Gitmo horror [View all]Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)35. I disagree most heartily, as does anyone else who doesn't have an "agenda".
Obama Signing Statement Takes On Congress Refusal To Close Gitmo
By: Sarah Jones
Dec. 23rd, 2011
Today when the President signed H.R. 2055, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012″ into law, he issued another signing statement in his battle with congress over the closure of Gitmo. Ever since Obama issued an executive order to close Gitmo, Congress has been running end games around funding the closure and transfer of detainees. This year was no different.
In his signing statement, Obama noted, I have previously announced that it is the policy of my Administration, and in the interests of promoting transparency in Government, to indicate when a bill presented for Presidential signature includes provisions that are subject to well-founded constitutional objections. The Department of Justice has advised that a small number of provisions of H.R. 2055 raise constitutional concerns.
A signing statement is something of a public pronouncement a president might make about a bill they are signing into law. They have been used to clarify their positions or elaborate dissent. In this case, Obama is once again noting that he will seek the repeal of measures in the act that prohibit transfers of Guantanamo Bay detainees.
In this bill, the Congress has once again included provisions that would bar the use of appropriated funds for transfers of Guantanamo detainees into the United States (section 8119 of Division A), as well as transfers to the custody or effective control of foreign countries unless specified conditions are met (section 8120 of Division A). These provisions are similar to others found in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. My Administration has repeatedly communicated my objections to these provisions, including my view that they could, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. In approving this bill, I reiterate the objections my Administration has raised regarding these provisions, my intent to interpret and apply them in a manner that avoids constitutional conflicts, and the promise that my Administration will continue to work towards their repeal.
http://www.politicususa.com/obama-ndaa-signing-statement.html
A simple google would have provided proof positive that you are shit stirring, and nothing more.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
111 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Will anyone disagree with this? President Obama deserves harsh criticism over the Gitmo horror [View all]
cali
Apr 2013
OP
A closed Gitmo is irrelevant if the inmates remain incarcerated somewhere else.
Maedhros
Apr 2013
#85
"Obama sought not to close Guantánamo but simply to re-locate it to Illinois" Thanks
grahamhgreen
Apr 2013
#90
Closing Gitmo won't end their incarceration. The plan was to transfer them to the U.S. and continue
Luminous Animal
Apr 2013
#10
They also acted like the prisoners were so EVIL they couldn't be allowed on US soil,....
Spitfire of ATJ
Apr 2013
#51
What a bag of bull shit. Obama was blocked from closing it by the Republicans in Congress.
olegramps
Apr 2013
#63
Apparently, yes. For some, when an embarassing issue is raised, it's always somebody else's fault.
AnotherMcIntosh
Apr 2013
#8
uh, he can release those cleared to be released to begin with. He can do something about the
cali
Apr 2013
#13
Why does he need to close it down? Why not just charge or release the prisoners?
hughee99
Apr 2013
#16
Blame the right people: The Republicans!!!!! You're now on IGNORE. Good-bye!
Liberal_Stalwart71
Apr 2013
#79
I disagree most heartily, as does anyone else who doesn't have an "agenda".
Tarheel_Dem
Apr 2013
#35
It's like a vicious dogpile. Dems are trying to lead on gun control, immigration reform, and.....
Tarheel_Dem
Apr 2013
#45
And many of whom cannot return to their homes, because their governments don't want 'em.
Tarheel_Dem
Apr 2013
#84
Haven't quite grasped the concept of "co-equal" branches of government, have you?
Tarheel_Dem
Apr 2013
#47
Haven't quite grasped the concept of "indefinite detention without trial," have you?
Comrade Grumpy
Apr 2013
#61
Obama ordered GITMO closed and Republicans cut finding to move the prisoners....
Spitfire of ATJ
Apr 2013
#49
Absolutely. It would cost nothing, and not require any Congressional funding, for him to invite
AnotherMcIntosh
Apr 2013
#54
We just came off the heels of the Bush Thugs acting like the rest of the world wants us dead.
Spitfire of ATJ
Apr 2013
#55
As far as I know, President Obama tried, but Democrats voted against him also.
akbacchus_BC
Apr 2013
#102
ACLU: Urgent White House Action Needed to Avert Guantánamo Human Rights Crisis
ProSense
Apr 2013
#65
If you continue, obfuscate or exonerate the crimes of your predecessor, hell yes!
RedCloud
Apr 2013
#68