[thirsteh]

Why use Gitmo as an example when there are plenty of other areas where you can bash Obama, like continuing many of the Executive Order programs? At least he genuinely tried to shut down Gitmo and was blocked from doing so.

I think believing a single person/president/whatever can fix all problems is wishful thinking, and indeed a system in which that was possible would likely not be a democracy.

Start by blaming all the representatives who pushed for or voted against ending the programs you don't like, and voting accordingly. Look at the voting histories of candidates rather than what they say. Look at who funds the candidates , not at what the candidates say. Actually, listen to everything other than what candidates say during election season; the game is set up in such a way that you will always be disappointed if you simply believe what is said, no matter the candidate.

[Zikes]

There are plenty of other examples where he's let me down, and plenty of good he's done, but the fact remains that Gitmo is still running.

He's literally the leader of the armed forces, he has all the power he needs to shut that place down any time he wants.

[revscat]

This is factually and legally incorrect. The President cannot use any federal funds to modify the prison at Gitmo, or to transfer prisoners. This was part of the budget in I believe 2012, and has been every year since. (Should you need citations I will find them when I return home later.)

Point is that shutting down Gitmo was something the Administration attempted to do and that Congress forcefully blocked.

[ensignavenger]

Obama has been President since 2008. The fact is he pissed around while he had the ability to close gitmo at the beginning of his presidency, and has blamed his failure on the rethuglicans as a convenient scapegoat.

[kefka]

The POTUS has, and I quote, the following:

"The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1

They are detainees of the USA. He has full power to bestow each and every one of them a full unequivocal presidential pardon for all crimes accused and committed against the US. No if's, and's, or but's.

[A_COMPUTER]

Pardon isn't on the table, his plan was to move them to a mainland US prison. I don't think he's ever said anything other than the people there are dangerous. Which, based on the way they were captured and held for over a decade without charges or rights, is kinda disgusting in itself that he supports that.

[mmanfrin]

Extremes should not be remedied with extremes.

[task_queue]

You're right. Those presidential pardons are reserved for important people.

[Terr_]

Side note: Presidential pardons are the ultimate answer to any argument for "torture the terrorist to stop the nuclear bomb" scare-stories.

If you aren't willing to gamble that you'll need/get a Presidential pardon, then you clearly don't know enough to justify what you're about to do to the suspect.

[lugg]

Maybe if he threatened to pardon them they might get trials?

That'd be a little less extreme, and a little more, I dunno, constitutional?

[dragonwriter]

> He's literally the leader of the armed forces, he has all the power he needs to shut that place down any time he wants.

Actually, the Congress governs the armed forces; the Constitutional designation of the President as Commander-in-Chief simply means limits the Congress, in adopting rules governing the military, from appointing someone else as supreme commander of the military within those rules.

The President isn't the King of the military, or anything else.

[fredgrott]

Let me tell you a story..Mr Lincoln did not free the slaves...Congress did by enforcing martial law until the South Legislatures passed new state Constitutions and allowed Blacks to vote..time taken ten years after CW ended.

Gitmo does not get closed by one lone person..it takes Congress