General Discussion

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)

30. This incident represents something of a catch-22 for the President.

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 06:28 PM

Jun 2014

For years, his primary rationale for keeping the prison at Gitmo open was that he was unable to release any prisoners without Congressional approval.

Now, he has proven that rationale to be false - he was able to release 5 of the more troublesome inmates without such approval.

He should now release those 70 prisoners who have been cleared of wrongdoing and bring the rest to a speedy trial. He has just demonstrated by his own action that there is no impediment to doing so, other than his own political will (or lack thereof).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Dianne Feinstein: WH "totally not following the law" in Bergdahl affair. [View all] DanM Jun 2014 OP

she's become little more than a washed-up apologist for the security state bigtree Jun 2014 #1

Unless the security state surveills her or her computers . . . then she's "oh noes!" n/t DanM Jun 2014 #8

Actually she's more than that tularetom Jun 2014 #53

Ugh. abelenkpe Jun 2014 #2

She's up in 2018 Le Taz Hot Jun 2014 #4

she isn't going anywhere.. frylock Jun 2014 #18

Well, if it's another Dem *worse* than her on criticizing a Dem WH, we might want to keep her. n/t DanM Jun 2014 #10

On the bench: Le Taz Hot Jun 2014 #13

Like that list :) abelenkpe Jun 2014 #16

Gavin Newsome would be fine. Laelth Jun 2014 #34

Time to retire Feinstein. Obama was correct to do what he did. Autumn Jun 2014 #3

Don't want her to retire until she gets another AWB in, then she can go. n/t DanM Jun 2014 #11

DiFi wants the everlasting war to go on and on and on and on. deminks Jun 2014 #5

Difi, did you follow the law when you voted for things that got your husband millions? hobbit709 Jun 2014 #6

+30,000,000. closeupready Jun 2014 #14

No Kidding Aerows Jun 2014 #54

Take your precious consultations and stuff them, DiFi BeyondGeography Jun 2014 #7

Swear to god, would LOVE for Pres O to publicly smack her down verbally. Just once, PLEASE! DanM Jun 2014 #12

Somehow this didn't seem to bug her so much back in 2003 n/t n2doc Jun 2014 #9

Easily explained, actually. DanM Jun 2014 #15

Informative post. Thanks. n/t Laelth Jun 2014 #35

Her oversight role has been very profitable for her household. bobduca Jun 2014 #17

And if I recall correctly, Le Taz Hot Jun 2014 #19

16.5 million. ForgoTheConsequence Jun 2014 #26

Looks like she sold it in 2009 bobduca Jun 2014 #44

Perhaps she should have had congress allow prosecution of the 5 men in question Johonny Jun 2014 #20

KamaAina: DiFi "totally worthless" in Senate. KamaAina Jun 2014 #21

Duly noted is your concern MattBaggins Jun 2014 #22

Isn't this the same law offered as why we can move on Gitmo? Not that I object to the release but TheKentuckian Jun 2014 #23

What's her endgame with this? Jenoch Jun 2014 #24

You can always depend on HER to be on the wrong side of things. Why she calls herself a Dem sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #25

She keeps getting elected Le Taz Hot Jun 2014 #45

Will she be totally pissed or pleased ... GeorgeGist Jun 2014 #62

I hope she is. People like her who consistently support the Security State and all the sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #63

DiFi is a waste of space.... mike_c Jun 2014 #27

Obama AMENDED that law with his signing statement AngryAmish Jun 2014 #28

Signing Statement don't mean anything. They're unconstitutional toilet paper. n/t NOVA_Dem Jun 2014 #29

This incident represents something of a catch-22 for the President. Maedhros Jun 2014 #30

The BOGrs always say "He can't close Gitmo without approval from Congress." NOVA_Dem Jun 2014 #39

He can't close Gitmo without doing something with the prisoners, hughee99 Jun 2014 #49

If they don't mean anything, why would President Obama create them? AngryAmish Jun 2014 #31

You don't know much about the Constitution let President Obama tell you about "signing statements:" NOVA_Dem Jun 2014 #38

You should start a new SamKnause Jun 2014 #57

He did not amend the law, that is a power reserved to Congress. tritsofme Jun 2014 #32

I am no fan of DiFi. Laelth Jun 2014 #33

She's defending the congressional oversight role here bobduca Jun 2014 #46

She didn't want this deal to go through, she knows the signing statement TwilightGardener Jun 2014 #52

even if what you said is true DonCoquixote Jun 2014 #58

President Obama should put her in her place! Michigander_Life Jun 2014 #36

You know, best to edit out the "put her in her place" reference, alp227 Jun 2014 #43

I believe you are being too sensitive. The "place" in this case is "NOT EXECUTIVE." WinkyDink Jun 2014 #60

who gives a shit, the republicans haven't been following the law ANYWHERE FOR onecent Jun 2014 #37

Feinstein is a waste. bigwillq Jun 2014 #40

Next that that can happen is 2018. She's probably retiring anyway. alp227 Jun 2014 #41

Ugh bigwillq Jun 2014 #42

To paraphrase The Doctor MurrayDelph Jun 2014 #47

Whine Whine Whine. nm Cha Jun 2014 #48

Okay, wake me up when they decide to sincerely care about the decade of maleficence under W. Rex Jun 2014 #50

"and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States" phleshdef Jun 2014 #51

There is a reasonable argument that the 30-day notification provision is unconstitutional. PoliticAverse Jun 2014 #55

I hope so and I hope it gets smacked down hard. phleshdef Jun 2014 #56

I give you an "A+" in Reading Comprehension! WinkyDink Jun 2014 #61

1% is as 1% does. WinkyDink Jun 2014 #59