[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?