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: If we DON'T criticize the admin for this, there's something very wrong [View all]Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)153. "President Obama Can Shut Guantanamo Whenever He Wants"
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/05/president_obama_can_shut_guantanamo_whenever_he_wants_to.html
View From Chicago
President Obama Can Shut Guantanamo Whenever He Wants
Congress isnt actually stopping him.
By Eric Posner
Updated Thursday, May 2, 2013, at 5:54 PM
In his press conference Tuesday, President Obama repeated that he wanted to shut Guantanamo Bay but blamed Congress for stopping him. They would not let us close it, he said. But thats wrong. President Obama can lawfully release the detainees if he wants to. Congress has made it difficult, but not impossible. Whatever hes saying, the president does not want to close the detention centerat least not yet.
The relevant law is the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). This statute confirms the presidents power to wage war against al-Qaida and its associates, which was initially given to him in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed shortly after 9/11. The NDAA also authorizes the president to detain enemy combatants, and bans him from transferring Guantanamo detainees to American soil.
The NDAA does not, however, ban the president from releasing detainees. Section 1028 authorizes him to release them to foreign countries that will accept themthe problem is that most countries wont, and others, like Yemen, where about 90 of the 166 detainees are from, cant guarantee that they will maintain control over detainees, as required by the law.
There is another section of the NDAA, however, which has been overlooked. In section 1021(a), Congress affirms the authority of the U.S. armed forces under the AUMF to detain members of al-Qaida and affiliated groups pending disposition under the law of war. Section 1021(c)(1) further provides that disposition under the law of war includes Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the AUMF. Thus, when hostilities end, the detainees may be released.
The president has the power to end the hostilities with al-Qaidasimply by declaring their end. This is not a controversial sort of power. Numerous presidents have ended hostilities without any legislative action from Congressthis happened with the Vietnam War, the Korean War, World War II, and World War I. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the president has this authority.
Nor is there any reason why President Obama couldnt declare the war with al-Qaida at an end. The groups original core is essentially gone. A Department of Defense official recently hinted that the end of the conflict with al-Qaida is approaching, while the troop drawdown in Afghanistan will be completed next year. Associates and fellow travelers continue to exist, but the president is free to end hostilities even so; this, too, has happened many times before, like in Korea and Vietnam.
Its true that section 1027, the provision of the NDAA that flatly prohibits the use of funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees to U.S. soil, appears to make it impossible to transfer them to prisons inside the U.S. But if thats the case, and detainees cant be transferred to foreign countries under section 1028 either, then section 1027 essentially orders the president to detain non-combatants indefinitely, and such an order is of dubious constitutionality at best. When the Supreme Court approved indefinite detention of members of al-Qaida and the Taliban in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld in 2004, the premise was the presidents military authority under the AUMF and the active combat operations against Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. When active combat operations cease, this pillar of the Supreme Courts opinion falls. And while courts have been reluctant to grant rights to detainees that constrain the presidents power, they are likely to take the opposite view if he advances those rights while declaring that hostilities have ended.
MORE
Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, is a co-author of The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic and Climate Change Justice. Reach him on Twitter at @EricAPosner.
View From Chicago
President Obama Can Shut Guantanamo Whenever He Wants
Congress isnt actually stopping him.
By Eric Posner
Updated Thursday, May 2, 2013, at 5:54 PM
In his press conference Tuesday, President Obama repeated that he wanted to shut Guantanamo Bay but blamed Congress for stopping him. They would not let us close it, he said. But thats wrong. President Obama can lawfully release the detainees if he wants to. Congress has made it difficult, but not impossible. Whatever hes saying, the president does not want to close the detention centerat least not yet.
The relevant law is the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). This statute confirms the presidents power to wage war against al-Qaida and its associates, which was initially given to him in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed shortly after 9/11. The NDAA also authorizes the president to detain enemy combatants, and bans him from transferring Guantanamo detainees to American soil.
The NDAA does not, however, ban the president from releasing detainees. Section 1028 authorizes him to release them to foreign countries that will accept themthe problem is that most countries wont, and others, like Yemen, where about 90 of the 166 detainees are from, cant guarantee that they will maintain control over detainees, as required by the law.
There is another section of the NDAA, however, which has been overlooked. In section 1021(a), Congress affirms the authority of the U.S. armed forces under the AUMF to detain members of al-Qaida and affiliated groups pending disposition under the law of war. Section 1021(c)(1) further provides that disposition under the law of war includes Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the AUMF. Thus, when hostilities end, the detainees may be released.
The president has the power to end the hostilities with al-Qaidasimply by declaring their end. This is not a controversial sort of power. Numerous presidents have ended hostilities without any legislative action from Congressthis happened with the Vietnam War, the Korean War, World War II, and World War I. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the president has this authority.
Nor is there any reason why President Obama couldnt declare the war with al-Qaida at an end. The groups original core is essentially gone. A Department of Defense official recently hinted that the end of the conflict with al-Qaida is approaching, while the troop drawdown in Afghanistan will be completed next year. Associates and fellow travelers continue to exist, but the president is free to end hostilities even so; this, too, has happened many times before, like in Korea and Vietnam.
Its true that section 1027, the provision of the NDAA that flatly prohibits the use of funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees to U.S. soil, appears to make it impossible to transfer them to prisons inside the U.S. But if thats the case, and detainees cant be transferred to foreign countries under section 1028 either, then section 1027 essentially orders the president to detain non-combatants indefinitely, and such an order is of dubious constitutionality at best. When the Supreme Court approved indefinite detention of members of al-Qaida and the Taliban in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld in 2004, the premise was the presidents military authority under the AUMF and the active combat operations against Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. When active combat operations cease, this pillar of the Supreme Courts opinion falls. And while courts have been reluctant to grant rights to detainees that constrain the presidents power, they are likely to take the opposite view if he advances those rights while declaring that hostilities have ended.
MORE
Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, is a co-author of The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic and Climate Change Justice. Reach him on Twitter at @EricAPosner.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
171 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
So, if an enemy invaded US territory they wouldn't be "enemy combatants"
Jackpine Radical
Jul 2013
#49
Would a person who exposes classified information about troop movements
Jackpine Radical
Jul 2013
#53
I would think a person who betrays their country in a time of war would be a legal target.
randome
Jul 2013
#54
In your top photo, with all the National Guardsmen, it's amazing that they only managed to kill 4,
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#106
I think the DA's decision was right since all the circumstances were not filmed.
randome
Jul 2013
#64
I guess it must have happened in a crowd where there were no witnesses…
Jackpine Radical
Jul 2013
#82
Bearing in mind this has nothing to do with Federal anti-terrorism or war policy.....
brooklynite
Jul 2013
#171
Also, What is WAr? Is the "War on Terrorists" a war? If so is the war on drugs a war? etc etc. nm
rhett o rick
Jul 2013
#137
bzzzt. fail. not anymore we don't but even were that true, it's not a battlefield.
cali
Jul 2013
#94
It amazes me to no end to think that we think we can justify a perpetual state of
matthews
Jul 2013
#142
The US did NOT intentionally target US Citizens during WW1 or WW2, even through there were quite a
leveymg
Jul 2013
#33
Sorry, but the SCOTUS disagreed with you in Marbury v Madison, 1803. Justices have ultimate power
leveymg
Jul 2013
#87
Unbelievable statement! So you DID agree with Bush then. Did you say this when Democrats
sabrina 1
Jul 2013
#77
It is intellectually dishonest to put words in their mouth. No one said that we're murdering
rhett o rick
Jul 2013
#139
I'm not concluding anything. I'm not there making the decisons. None of us are.
randome
Jul 2013
#140
Related - Take the poll: How do you feel about the FBI using drones?
wanttosavetheplanet
Jul 2013
#18
Bush did not assassinate US Citizens abroad, AFAIK. That is an Obama expansion of assumed power.
leveymg
Jul 2013
#29
Earl Warren was appointed by Eisenhower. Terrible Judge. A real reactionary that one! ;-)
leveymg
Jul 2013
#34
And yet you fawn over Republicans Hagel and Comey as they drone and judge...
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2013
#37
Well to be fair, you are correct that Congress voted to not let him send the prisoners
Vinnie From Indy
Jul 2013
#125
"President Obama Can Shut Guantanamo Whenever He Wants; Congress isn’t actually stopping him."
Hissyspit
Jul 2013
#155
The point wasn't who he is. The point is his argument against claims that Obama
Hissyspit
Jul 2013
#168
This sounds correct, and is certainly more comprehensive than my explanation.
hughee99
Jul 2013
#158
Quakers are known trouble-makers. They have been for some time. Since the 1600's.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#110
Prophetic words that all should listen to. After March 20, 2003, we have no grounds any
HardTimes99
Jul 2013
#85
This is a scourge on BO and the U.S.. We have allies who were practicing this behavior
GoneFishin
Jul 2013
#39
What the apologists forget is that from the point of view of an Iraqi or Afghan...
Lydia Leftcoast
Jul 2013
#109
Here's a solution for those who (1) say that Congress will not allow Obama to close Gitmo and
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#113
Who needs courts, laws, and other fripperies when we have a "decider" in office?
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jul 2013
#117