Guantánamo Won’t Close by January, Obama Says

[ElNono]

Guantánamo Won’t Close by January, Obama Says

By JACK HEALY
Published: November 18, 2009

President Obama acknowledged for the first time on Wednesday that his administration would miss a self-imposed deadline to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, by mid-January, admitting the difficulties of following through on one of his first pledges as president.

In television interviews during his week-long trip to Asia, Mr. Obama said that he hoped to shut down the prison facility sometime next year, but he did not set a new deadline.

“We are on a path and a process where I would anticipate that Guantánamo will be closed next year,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with Fox News in Beijing. “I’m not going to set a exact date because a lot of this is also going to depend on cooperation from Congress.”

As he campaigned for office last year, Mr. Obama railed against the detention complex on an American military base in Cuba, calling it a symbol used by terrorists to recruit new members.

Mr. Obama ordered the closing of Guantánamo as one of his first acts as president, but his plans to transfer some of its 200 remaining inmates to other countries or to trial or detention in the United States have been stymied by vocal opposition from Democrats and Republicans in Congress, as well as residents who live close to prisons that could house terrorists.

Most recently, Illinois Democrats have discussed a plan to send terrorism suspects to a maximum-security federal prison in Thomson, Ill., about 150 miles west of Chicago, though some other sites have also been proposed.

Last week, the Department of Justice decided that five terrorism suspects — including the self-avowed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed — would be prosecuted in federal court in New York City, rather than face military tribunals.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the decision marked an important milestone toward closing the Guantánamo detention center.

In a separate interview with NBC News as he traveled through Asia, Mr. Obama was asked whether the White House was missing its own deadlines on issues like closing Guantánamo and passing health care reform, which is currently mired in the Senate.

Mr. Obama replied, “Guantánamo, we had a specific deadline that was missed,” according to a transcript, but he said that other benchmarks for action had been imposed by the news media.

LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/us/19gitmo.html?_r=1&hp)

[DarrinS]

Last week, the Department of Justice decided that five terrorism suspects — including the self-avowed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed — would be prosecuted in federal court in New York City, rather than face military tribunals.



This should do wonders for the Obama approval rating.

[ElNono]

This should do wonders for the Obama approval rating.

I guess Gitmo doesn't matter to you. Or the trials, regardless of the outcome, don't matter to you either.

What really stands out to you is what's the Prez's approval rating?

[ChumpDumper]

This should do wonders for the Obama approval rating.Why do you say that?

[DarrinS]

Either 911 was an act of war or it was a crime.


Either we are at war with Al Qaeda, or they are just organized crime.


Giving KSM a criminal trial suggests that this admin sees Al Qaeda as no different than organized crime and that 911 was just a criminal act by that group.


Hopenchange.

[Winehole23]

9/11 was a crime. The men who did are criminals. Why shouldn't we prosecute them?

[ElNono]

Either we are at war with Al Qaeda

Technically speaking we're not at war with anybody, considering only Congress has the authority to declare war and has not done so since World War II.

More here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States)

[ChumpDumper]

So you were against the trial of the 1994 WTC bombers too, right?

Just like Giuliani was?

[Wild Cobra]

Who would have thought.

Another broken promise. How many is that now?

[DarrinS]

Who would have thought.

Another broken promise. How many is that now?


SNL will probably do another skit on Obama "accomplishments".


CNN will then fact-check the skit -- again.

[jack sommerset]

Who would have thought.

Another broken promise. How many is that now?

He already broke this promise (liar) when he said it would be closed in 100 days after taking office, so is it fair to count this again because he can't get it closed by January? YES! The asshole just says shit to make his followers happy and when he does not deliver (which he knows he can't in the first place makes it a LIE) he knows they will forgive him.

[Ignignokt]

Technically speaking we're not at war with anybody, considering only Congress has the authority to declare war and has not done so since World War II.

More here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States)

so the geneva war conventions don't apply?

[George Gervin's Afro]

He already broke this promise (liar) when he said it would be closed in 100 days after taking office, so is it fair to count this again because he can't get it closed by January? YES! The asshole just says shit to make his followers happy and when he does not deliver (which he knows he can't in the first place makes it a LIE) he knows they will forgive him.

or maybe he just changed his mind. can people change their minds jack? maybe he saw the wisdon of not shutting it down as quickly as his initial intentions. wouldn't that be a good thing?

speaking of liars I guess you can never vote for Plain... since you are dead set on liars winning an office..

[Wild Cobra]

Technically speaking we're not at war with anybody, considering only Congress has the authority to declare war and has not done so since World War II.

More here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States)
That's bullshit.

I have explained this before. The understood duties of a Commander in Chief include declaring war. The constitution allows congress to also authorize war. These are not mutually exclusive. It was spelled out for congress because it was not a normal legislative function, but it is as a presidential CiC function.

Again, they are not mutually exclusive.

Your wiki article says "Despite the constitutional requirement that Congress declares war". Well, it is not a requirement, it specifically says they have the power to. It does not say they have the "exclusive power" to. It also says "that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a "Declaration of War."

[jack sommerset]

or maybe he just changed his mind. can people change their minds jack? maybe he saw the wisdon of not shutting it down as quickly as his initial intentions. wouldn't that be a good thing?

Nope. He lied



Speaking of liars

Glad you can finally admit Obama is a liar


I guess you can never vote for Plain... since you are dead set on liars winning an office..

More Palin....:lol

[mogrovejo]

or maybe he just changed his mind. can people change their minds jack? maybe he saw the wisdon of not shutting it down as quickly as his initial intentions. wouldn't that be a good thing?

That's beyond the point that either due to incompetence or to understanding that he was wrong he's not complying with his most ardent promises. I think those who voted for Obama because of what he said he'd do are justified to feel betrayed and disappointed.

I'm not sure how can anyone take Obama and whatever he says seriously if he decides to run for office again.

[Winehole23]

I'm not sure how can anyone take Obama and whatever he says seriously if he decides to run for office again.It depends on who runs against him. I wouldn't underestimate the fecklessness of his opposition. Just look at the losers the GOP nominated last year, or who are opposing him right now. The GOP is still in a parlous state, having ruined their own electoral and intellectual credibility during their erstwhile majority. Their only hope is that voters will hate Obama more.

[coyotes_geek]

or maybe he just changed his mind. can people change their minds jack? maybe he saw the wisdon of not shutting it down as quickly as his initial intentions. wouldn't that be a good thing?

:rollin

Yeah, i'm sure that's exactly what happened you blue team puppet. You really want to know what made him "change his mind" about closing gitmo? A 94-6 senate vote that blocked him from doing so. Congressional democrats only gave a shit about closing gitmo when it made a good whoopin stick to use against Bush. When it came time to actually back up the talk they developed a chronic case of n.i.m.b.y. and wanted no part of it.

[mogrovejo]

It depends on who runs against him.

Why? Either an individual has credibility or he doesn't have credibility. Either what Obama says can be taken seriously or it can't.

[Winehole23]

Why? Either an individual has credibility or he doesn't have credibility. Either what Obama says can be taken seriously or it can't.Political choices aren't made in a vacuum. If Obama's opponent is perceived as being less credible, or somehow less capable and serious, it may not matter so much that Obama is lacking credibility.

Logically and rationally, this may not make much sense, but the US electorate by and large does not bow to the diktats of logic. Irrationality has a lot to do with electability here. Much more, I would say, than any rational process of evaluation.

[mogrovejo]

Political choices aren't made in a vacuum. If Obama's opponent is perceived as being less credible, or somehow less capable and serious, it may not matter so much that Obama is lacking credibility.

Logically and rationally, this may not make much sense, but the US electorate by and large does not bow to the diktats of logic. Irrationality has a lot to do with electability here. Much more, I would say, than any rational process of evaluation.

That's beyond the point. I wasn't arguing about Obama's electability, just wondering how can anyone take seriously whatever he says.

[Winehole23]

Because he's the US President, and some people still like him. Simple as that.

[mogrovejo]

Because he's the US President, and some people still like him. Simple as that.

Sure, but the kind of person who says "I take him seriously because he's the president" or "because I like him" aren't part, by definition, of a civilized conversation.

Objectively, one can assess the credibility of a particular individual using valid arguments and not resorting to fallacies.

[George Gervin's Afro]

:rollin

Yeah, i'm sure that's exactly what happened you blue team puppet. You really want to know what made him "change his mind" about closing gitmo? A 94-6 senate vote that blocked him from doing so. Congressional democrats only gave a shit about closing gitmo when it made a good whoopin stick to use against Bush. When it came time to actually back up the talk they developed a chronic case of n.i.m.b.y. and wanted no part of it.

I don't pretend to know people's motives. I leave that to you dead enders. It's amazing to me how all you teabaggers speak as if you know what people are thinking. Don't believe me?Take a look at sme of the dead enders posts..they all know what people are thinking all of the time...:rolleyes

[coyotes_geek]

I don't pretend to know people's motives. I leave that to you dead enders. It's amazing to me how all you teabaggers speak as if you know what people are thinking. Don't believe me?Take a look at sme of the dead enders posts..they all know what people are thinking all of the time...:rolleyes

Translated: Since I am unable to refute anything you said about blue team I will create a diversion by pointing the finger at red team.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Translated: Since I am unable to refute anything you said about blue team I will create a diversion by pointing the finger at red team.

translation: I'll go on pretending I can read Obama's mind...

[Winehole23]

Sure, but the kind of person who says "I take him seriously because he's the president" or "because I like him" aren't part, by definition, of a civilized conversation.Much of so-called civilized conversation is little more than a mask for such preferences.


Objectively, one can assess the credibility of a particular individual using valid arguments and not resorting to fallacies.Sure.

For better and for worse, in America such argumentation is of very little moment, politically speaking. Political discourse here is not a intellectual salon.

Nor is SpursTalk, for that matter.

En serio, do you expect it to be, mogrovejo?

[coyotes_geek]

translation: I'll go on pretending I can read Obama's mind...

translation: I still can't refute anything you said.

[George Gervin's Afro]

translation: I still can't refute anything you said.

you can't prove he lied dummy.

you want me to refute your opinion? something you just made up?

[George Gervin's Afro]

translation: I still can't refute anything you said.


Mr. Obama ordered the closing of Guantánamo as one of his first acts as president, but his plans to transfer some of its 200 remaining inmates to other countries or to trial or detention in the United States have been stymied by vocal opposition from Democrats and Republicans in Congress, as well as residents who live close to prisons that could house terrorists.


he can still close it if he wants dummy..

[ElNono]

I'll give him props for setting in gear the mechanisms to actually get it closed.
He could have sit on his ass and done nothing about it.
However, I'll only be pleased about Gitmo the day they actually do close it for good.

[jack sommerset]

I'll give him props for setting in gear the mechanisms to actually get it closed.
He could have sit on his ass and done nothing about it.
However, I'll only be pleased about Gitmo the day they actually do close it for good.

Oh brother. Wow a prison that holds bad guys! Lets close all of them. Lets let all the bad guys out. :lol

Gitmo is nothing but a political card that repugs and dems can fight over. It really is silly that people want it closed. Pick something better to fight over instead of fighting over something we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on to keep the bad guys off our island.

[coyotes_geek]

you can't prove he lied dummy.

you want me to refute your opinion? something you just made up?

I never said he lied. I said that the democrats wienied out on closing gitmo. That's not an opinion. That's a fact.

The only opinion I offered was that I think it's foolish to believe that Obama "saw the wisdon of not shutting it down as quickly as his initial intentions" shortly after his own party stepped in to tell him that he couldn't. It's kinda like a guy asking out a girl, getting turned down and then trying to tell his friends that he didn't want to go out with her in the first place. Personally, I'm not buying it. But you're free to, and evidently are.


he can still close it if he wants dummy..

Only if he can convince his own party to go through with it. Which he'll eventually succeed in doing, given enough time and enough pork.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I never said he lied. I said that the democrats wienied out on closing gitmo. That's not an opinion. That's a fact.

The only opinion I offered was that I think it's foolish to believe that Obama "saw the wisdon of not shutting it down as quickly as his initial intentions" shortly after his own party stepped in to tell him that he couldn't. It's kinda like a guy asking out a girl, getting turned down and then trying to tell his friends that he didn't want to go out with her in the first place. Personally, I'm not buying it. But you're free to, and evidently are.



Only if he can convince his own party to go through with it. Which he'll eventually succeed in doing, given enough time and enough pork.

My point is he changed his mind because he could have still done it without congress.