55% of Liberal Democrats agree with Obama’s decision to keep Guantanamo concentration camp open. 77% agree with his use of killer drones. Both are policies that liberals deplore – when the President who exercises them is a Republican.
Principles Under Wraps Until 2017 (or 2021 or 2025 or…)
13 Comments. Leave new
No, 55% of Liberal Democrats UNDERSTAND that it’s not Obama’s fault that Gitmo is still open (the rest have purity blinders on). We know who’s actually at fault, and where to correctly aim our anger; that is most definitely not the same thing as agreeing that Gitmo should remain open.
It is a well known fact that presidents have only the power to open torture facilities and start preemptive wars, whereas they are powerless to close and end them.
It is also well known that whatever power any president can exercise, it is always contingent upon the president being Republican; whereas Democratic presidents have only the power to lead the powerless by their shining example of powerlessness.
I’m with Glenn here. Obama absolutely has the power to close Gitmo and end drone strikes. He chooses not to for immoral cowardly political reasons. I’m not really sure why everyone focuses soo much on drones though. In my mind they’re no different from the cruse missle strikes clinton, or any of the 100s of small overseas deployments of US troops. I’m against them in general. Drone are just another flavor of the same old thing
Did Obama sign an executive order to close Gitmo?
Was implementation of that order blocked by the Republicans (and a handful of spineless, traitorous Democrats)?
There is no way to answer those questions honestly and make a credible claim that Gitmo still being open is Obama’s fault. I know its trendy to give the man a magic wand that he can just wave and *POOF* progress on (insert your pet issue here) will be made.
It doesn’t work like that. The reality is, Obama did everything within his power to close Gitmo, and he failed. It sucks. Gitmo should be closed.
But focusing your anger on the man who wants to close it and failed rather than the people ACTUALLY responsible for keeping it open does nothing but guarantee it’ll stay open longer.
Focusing your anger on one person is exactly what many of the people who have contributed to where we are now want you to do – they don’t want you to look at them or anywhere else.
@Whim, OK. Sorry. I was not aware that Obama signed an executive order closing Gitmo. That is something. Still, isn’t he commander in chief with the power to move armed forces anywhere he wants without congressional approval? Also doesn’t he have the power to pardon anyone for any crime? My understanding is that Obama could simple order the army to transfer the prisoners at gitmo back to Afghanistan if he wanted to. He doesn’t need anyone’s permission. He could also pardon them of any crimes, even crimes they haven’t been charged with like Ford pardon’s Nixon. If I’m wrong about this OK, but I don’t think I am. Bush was able to start an entire war without congress declaring war (there support vote is not the same). I’m pretty sure Obama could find a way to legally close gitmo if he was willing to take a little heat the way Bush did.
I think the important distinction on all this is being missed.
We are talking about a prison camp with 100+ inmates. Some of those inmates have been put there on nothing more substantial than one paid informant’s “testimony.” (This is similar to how the U.S. prisons are filled, so we shouldn’t be too shocked.) The inmates have been given trials. However, the legitimacy of those trials is dubious. Keep in mind, this is all happening over in a military base in Cuba because of fears that all the cases would be thrown out on flaws in procedure, evidence, and so forth. Still, even in what satisfies all the criteria for a kangaroo court (except that it’s under American authority, and we’re always the good guys), some of these people have been found “not guilty.” But some of those “found not guilty” inmates are still in Gitmo, and will probably not be released any time soon.
It is not a question of whether the president can or cannot free them (a pardon would free them in a heart beat). It’s a question of why the president allows something this immoral to continue under his watch without putting up a fuss.
Because, honest to God, you can’t get much more immoral than railroading someone into jail on dubious evidence and then deliberately keeping him there, even after he somehow beats the rap, because you (somehow) couldn’t get too worked up about it.
And, as the cherry on the sundae, keep in mind that Obama and pals know it, too. That’s why it’s all happening off in a military base over in Cuba. Out of sight, out of mind. There’s a reason slaughterhouses don’t have picture windows.
The drones themselves are not the main issue. It’s the use of drones to realize the seized monarchal power to kill US citizens without due process.
Mr. Rall, are the numbers for this cartoon from this WaPo article from last year?
As a series of question for the rest of the crowd, is it possible for a peaceful progressive to win the office of POTUS and not engage in military actions that his base would disapprove of? As someone who has voted for Kucinich, I did so under the impression that, if (somehow, perhaps through magic?) elected, he wouldn’t be a warmonger. But is there any precedent for me to believe that this would actually happen? What was the last Presidential administration that didn’t have blood on its hands through either US military and/or murderous CIA activities in other countries? Is it impossible, in the 21st century, for the US to exist without killing people who might maybe one day pose some form of threat to it?
Because in my lifetime, that hasn’t happened. After the 2000 and 2004 elections, I became convinced that anyone voting for the Republican Party was in support of unending international warfare. After the 2008 and 2012 elections, to be consistent, I should have become convinced that anyone voting for the Democratic Party is in support of the same. …I’d rather not believe that 100+ million Americans are actually supporting unending international warfare, so the best case scenario my brain has come up with is that Republican and Democratic voters view unending international warfare as an unintended consequence of voting for Republicans or Democrats. Bush and Obama voters weren’t voting _for_ blowing up Pakistani civilians, they’re just stuck having to vote for candidates who do such things.
…I’m not sure if this is the best case scenario, so if anyone has a better one, I’m open to hearing it.
@Andy
Let me give you an anology: I own an IT company that has contracts with local hospitals. Under the terms of the contract, the President of any one of those hospitals can call me up and order a complete system upgrade. However, you know what’s going to happen if the budget department refuses to provide the money for said upgrade? You guessed it, absolutely nothing.
That’s what happened (and frankly, will happen- until people focus their anger in the right place and kick more Republicans out of office) to Obama. He ordered the base closed. And unprincipled Republicans, in an uprecedented move, blocked funding. He can order anything he likes, but unless there’s a sudden outbreak of sanity and responsibility in the Republican party, it’s not going to be funded.
Blaming Obama, and letting Republicans slide (on something that is clearly their fault) plays right into the Republcians hands. Worse than that, it does NOTHING to make them fund Gitmo’s closure- thus ensuring it will remain open, no matter what Obama orders.
Now as for the pardon issue -No, he can’t. The President only has the ability to pardon people for federal criminal convictions, which are adjucated in United States District Courts. Should Gitmo prisoners have been tried in US Courts? Absolutely. Who blocked that plan again? (Yup, you guessed it- Republicans)
Now, @Alex is technically correct, that Obama could expend political capital on kicking up a fuss. Would that suddenly make the GOP sane and interested in responsible government, and willing to fund closing Gitmo? No, it would not. All it would do is eat up capital that might sucessfuilly be used elsewhere.
There’s a word for a president that wastes his poltical capital tilting at windmills- it’s “idiot”.
Is it wrong? Does it suck? Absolutely. But it is what it is. Sometimes, as part of a sucessful LONG-TERM strategy, you have to tolerate things that suck.
Which brings me to @artiofab- almost no one supports undening war. But if both sides are promoting it, then opposing it isnt really a viable option in the short term.
In the long term, is there a way to shift the party left so that eventually, your chocies will be between unending war and a viable alternative? There sure is, but it requires patience and a grasp of election strategy- qualities the left no longer seems to possess.
The Idiot Whimsical, right on time.
Shorter version of Idiot Whimsical:
————————–
Dear Leader is NEVER wrong, by definition. Therefore, it’s always some other reason beyond his control when bad things happen. Dear Leader is morally pure, an 11-dimensional chess player, and beyond reproach. Therefore, it can never be the case that he has supported policies that we Democrats would normally rage about.
Torture? Not Obama’s fault — he’s pure.
Drones? Not Obama’s fault — he’s pure.
Extra-judicial killing? Not Obama’s fault — he’s pure.
Gitmo? Not Obama’s fault — he’s pure.
Stopping the Public Option? Not Obama’s fault — he’s pure.
Constitution shredding? Not Obama’s fault — he’s pure.
You see, Obama — by definition — can never be in the wrong. Which is why when the next Republican is in office, we’ll go right back to screaming and complaining about all these things without a hint of irony.
We’re not hypocrites. It’s all very logical and clear:
When Republicans do it, it’s bad.
When Democrats do it, it’s ok.
Where’s the inconsistency there? It’s just fact.
————————–
Such is the brain of Idiot Whimsical, and others like him. Nothing you can do about it. Just sit back and marvel at the show. It’s entertainment value like no other.
I am NOT a liberal….however, I do agree with the use of predator drones….I don’t see what the problem is.
Silly, silly plant, incoherent and incorrect, as always. Still waiting for your response to Alex in the other thread, btw. Though I doubt you have the courage or intellect to provide an actual answer to his challenge.
*munches popcorn, enjoying watching the plant squirm*