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

Hissyspit

(45,790 posts)
153. "President Obama Can Shut Guantanamo Whenever He Wants"
Sat Jul 20, 2013, 09:49 PM
Jul 2013
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 isn’t 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 that’s wrong. President Obama can lawfully release the detainees if he wants to. Congress has made it difficult, but not impossible. Whatever he’s saying, the president does not want to close the detention center—at least not yet.

The relevant law is the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). This statute confirms the president’s 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 them—the problem is that most countries won’t, and others, like Yemen, where about 90 of the 166 detainees are from, can’t 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-Qaida—simply by declaring their end. This is not a controversial sort of power. Numerous presidents have ended hostilities without any legislative action from Congress—this 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 couldn’t declare the war with al-Qaida at an end. The group’s 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.

It’s 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 that’s the case, and detainees can’t 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 president’s 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 Court’s opinion falls. And while courts have been reluctant to grant rights to detainees that constrain the president’s 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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

How long before the first "But I trust my president" post? nt Bonobo Jul 2013 #1
I sincerely hope not cali Jul 2013 #2
It also shouldn't just be true for US citizens. Bonobo Jul 2013 #3
of course. but aside from the war powers concern cali Jul 2013 #6
There is no such thing as 'due process' during war. randome Jul 2013 #15
" There is no such thing as 'due process' during war." Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #25
I meant no such thing as 'due process' for combatants. randome Jul 2013 #30
But who is a combatant? Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #43
A 'combatant' is someone who is on the field of battle. randome Jul 2013 #47
So, if an enemy invaded US territory they wouldn't be "enemy combatants" Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #49
I don't know the answer to that. Let's hope it never happens. randome Jul 2013 #51
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
To threaten our energy supply in a time of war-- Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #56
No. You're trying to conflate them all but it doesn't work. randome Jul 2013 #58
Riiiiiiiiiight. Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #60
And for a little trip down Memory Lane… Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #62
In your top photo, with all the National Guardsmen, it's amazing that they only managed to kill 4, AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #106
I didn't realize how many rounds were fired. truedelphi Jul 2013 #127
kent state questionseverything Jul 2013 #131
This is seared into my memory as if it was yesterday. nt Mojorabbit Jul 2013 #150
I think the DA's decision was right since all the circumstances were not filmed. randome Jul 2013 #64
that is why we have these things called trials dsc Jul 2013 #69
A trial is still possible even without the DA's help. randome Jul 2013 #76
I guess it must have happened in a crowd where there were no witnesses… Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #82
Oh, you mean somebody they can shoot! ret5hd Jul 2013 #130
Why the hell do you think I would want someone shot? randome Jul 2013 #136
Except when you ARE condoning it dreamnightwind Jul 2013 #132
Right. Because law enforcement stating that Occupy is peaceful is evidence... randome Jul 2013 #135
Nice try dreamnightwind Jul 2013 #170
Bearing in mind this has nothing to do with Federal anti-terrorism or war policy..... brooklynite Jul 2013 #171
Yes, we've seen the Bush definition before. Pholus Jul 2013 #68
Then YOU define 'enemy combatant'. randome Jul 2013 #78
Why should I? Pholus Jul 2013 #81
Can't be defined, because it's a diplomatic fiction used to justify... TheMadMonk Jul 2013 #156
The problem is that "the field of battle" has been defined as anywhere. Maedhros Jul 2013 #161
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
"War on Terror--" Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #143
A war on war would be a better use of resources. randome Jul 2013 #144
Exactly. So the War Powers Act does not apply. nm rhett o rick Jul 2013 #145
so all of the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan is a battlefield? cali Jul 2013 #63
I'm not really defending it, I'm pointing out it's a complicated situation. randome Jul 2013 #67
bzzzt. fail. not anymore we don't but even were that true, it's not a battlefield. cali Jul 2013 #94
Right. Just as soon as TPTB get done killing the SNAP program, matthews Jul 2013 #138
I would not mind withdrawing from the world, basically. randome Jul 2013 #141
what war? cali Jul 2013 #27
You know how complicated Pakistan is. randome Jul 2013 #31
that was true in the past. not so much anymore. cali Jul 2013 #65
What war is right. Bonhomme Richard Jul 2013 #133
It amazes me to no end to think that we think we can justify a perpetual state of matthews Jul 2013 #142
You are so right. We are living it now. LuckyLib Jul 2013 #160
The US did NOT intentionally target US Citizens during WW1 or WW2, even through there were quite a leveymg Jul 2013 #33
This is not the 1940's. It's an entirely different century, in fact. randome Jul 2013 #55
You know, that is really pathetic. Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #59
lol. this is NOT the 18th century, damnit! That pesky bill of rights? cali Jul 2013 #70
Congress wields the ultimate power over this country. randome Jul 2013 #75
Sorry, but the SCOTUS disagreed with you in Marbury v Madison, 1803. Justices have ultimate power leveymg Jul 2013 #87
Thanks for setting me straight on that. randome Jul 2013 #92
my god. how on earth do you maintain such an incredible cali Jul 2013 #96
Strength of character? randome Jul 2013 #99
Executive Order 9066. Try again. SwankyXomb Jul 2013 #149
That order did not target Japanese Americans for death during WW2. leveymg Jul 2013 #151
Unbelievable statement! So you DID agree with Bush then. Did you say this when Democrats sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #77
As I clarified, there is no 'due process' for enemy combatants. randome Jul 2013 #79
and as I've explained to you literally dozens of times cali Jul 2013 #93
So you believe we're murdering people for fun? randome Jul 2013 #97
Uh...yeah LiberalLovinLug Jul 2013 #122
seriously? just how desperate are you? my advice? stop digging. cali Jul 2013 #123
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
I'll preemptively post a "Would you trust President Cruz?" MNBrewer Jul 2013 #4
Is that a trick question? nt eilen Jul 2013 #148
doesn't matter how depraved an action by the prez or the dem party, the cadre KG Jul 2013 #5
It really is a window Broward Jul 2013 #7
"the cadre" Kolesar Jul 2013 #11
So what do you think of the admin's drone policies? cali Jul 2013 #12
another thread for the zerohedge kids to dance around in ... eom Kolesar Jul 2013 #13
Those dead innocents never loved him anyway. JoeyT Jul 2013 #19
wowzer. there's some brilliant analysis. defensive much, hon? cali Jul 2013 #28
I do. SkyDaddy7 Jul 2013 #22
Democrats have been in charge for ten years? randome Jul 2013 #16
Or, how can a racist white American judge a black presidenr? East Coast Pirate Jul 2013 #10
I trust my President on this.... nadinbrzezinski Jul 2013 #46
You still haven't answered me on your Comicon thread. Why not??? nt msanthrope Jul 2013 #129
Yet another policy where Obama is virtually the same as Bush. :( reformist2 Jul 2013 #8
I hear civil liberties Riftaxe Jul 2013 #9
Finally! chervilant Jul 2013 #14
It's early yet and then there's the avoidance-hope-it-sinks-thing. cali Jul 2013 #17
Related - Take the poll: How do you feel about the FBI using drones? wanttosavetheplanet Jul 2013 #18
In America, nothing is exempt from judicial review. kentuck Jul 2013 #20
An opinion article by a Nixon appointed judge and you want us all to be angry?. pwb Jul 2013 #21
And we have a winner Savannahmann Jul 2013 #23
Gag. truebluegreen Jul 2013 #24
Bush did not assassinate US Citizens abroad, AFAIK. That is an Obama expansion of assumed power. leveymg Jul 2013 #29
oh brother. is there a worse argument you could have used? Not likely. cali Jul 2013 #32
Earl Warren was appointed by Eisenhower. Terrible Judge. A real reactionary that one! ;-) leveymg Jul 2013 #34
Its interesting how the opinion author equates how you deal with JoePhilly Jul 2013 #35
yes, because nothing says threat more than cali Jul 2013 #71
Due process always, always, alway requires judicial oversight and review. Divernan Jul 2013 #36
And yet you fawn over Republicans Hagel and Comey as they drone and judge... Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #37
Rec AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #72
LOL Oilwellian Jul 2013 #89
"He is trying to close Guantanamo. The Pukes will not let him zeemike Jul 2013 #38
Read the Constitution before posting ridiculous claims Progressive dog Jul 2013 #40
Well in case you did not know. zeemike Jul 2013 #44
In case you don't know, he can't close the prison Progressive dog Jul 2013 #48
Better yet point to where the constitution says that zeemike Jul 2013 #50
Okay, if you choose to continue your three word Progressive dog Jul 2013 #61
Well then you do not understand the military zeemike Jul 2013 #66
So the President of the USA is a dictator over the Congress Progressive dog Jul 2013 #73
No he is dictator over the military. zeemike Jul 2013 #86
You sir are either not American or Progressive dog Jul 2013 #88
Well I served 8 years in the military. zeemike Jul 2013 #90
And the Congress of the US is not in the military Progressive dog Jul 2013 #91
Again, show me where it says that. zeemike Jul 2013 #100
IF CIC is all you know or care to know about the US Constitution, Progressive dog Jul 2013 #102
I feel sorry for you. misdirection and bizarre nonsense about how people cali Jul 2013 #107
Now we should change the subject to drones, Progressive dog Jul 2013 #114
As commander in chief he IS a dictator of the military zeemike Jul 2013 #112
Repetetion doesn't make arguments stronger Progressive dog Jul 2013 #116
Right you are. zeemike Jul 2013 #120
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
That is such garbage that wow just wow Progressive dog Jul 2013 #164
Yes, I clearly think citing anti. Hissyspit Jul 2013 #165
I deleted the incomplete sentence Progressive dog Jul 2013 #166
The point wasn't who he is. The point is his argument against claims that Obama Hissyspit Jul 2013 #168
The point is that he is an idiot and Progressive dog Jul 2013 #169
Eric Posner also advocates abolition of both the Progressive dog Jul 2013 #167
He absolutely CAN close the prison, what congress is blocking him from doing hughee99 Jul 2013 #111
Eric Posner: Hissyspit Jul 2013 #154
This sounds correct, and is certainly more comprehensive than my explanation. hughee99 Jul 2013 #158
"President Obama Can Shut Guantanamo Whenever He Wants" Hissyspit Jul 2013 #153
Agreed. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #74
A person can't be both a terrorist and an American citizen at the same time?? Demit Jul 2013 #41
Civilians can criticize the commander in chief bobduca Jul 2013 #42
LOL! I hope you are not serious. n-t Logical Jul 2013 #57
WINNER: "no matter where they are in the world. " Pholus Jul 2013 #84
Quakers are known trouble-makers. They have been for some time. Since the 1600's. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #110
Lol! NealK Jul 2013 #163
We do it to them now . . . another_liberal Jul 2013 #26
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
Post removed Post removed Jul 2013 #45
The sad answer is. zeemike Jul 2013 #52
Rec'd with full support Catherina Jul 2013 #80
Thanks Catherina. I'm actually finding this thread heartening cali Jul 2013 #98
How many have adopted Britney's philosophy? xocet Jul 2013 #83
K&R Solly Mack Jul 2013 #95
broken record. MjolnirTime Jul 2013 #101
damned straight. I've posted dozens and dozens of threads on the cali Jul 2013 #104
Thank you. And please keep up the good work. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #108
Seems that the broken record is MT's 13 hidden posts. L0oniX Jul 2013 #119
Your transparency page also looks like a broken record. L0oniX Jul 2013 #118
K&R MotherPetrie Jul 2013 #103
Thank you, MP. I really appreciate it. cali Jul 2013 #105
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
That's thinking outside the box! randome Jul 2013 #115
Who needs courts, laws, and other fripperies when we have a "decider" in office? Tierra_y_Libertad Jul 2013 #117
HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!! WillyT Jul 2013 #121
K&R Howler Jul 2013 #124
SNOWDENS CHARACTER NEEDS TO BE ATTACKED DONTCHA KNOW1111!!!!! Apophis Jul 2013 #126
It is sad that John Yoo's stupid positions Vattel Jul 2013 #128
Well, durn... chervilant Jul 2013 #134
+1. blkmusclmachine Jul 2013 #146
DURec leftstreet Jul 2013 #147
Cali, your heart is in the right place. You fought tooth & nail for Obama during the primaries pacalo Jul 2013 #152
thank you for remembering. cali Jul 2013 #162
+1000 blackspade Jul 2013 #157
I remember when we were the good guys... n/t FourScore Jul 2013 #159
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If we DON'T criticize the...»Reply #153