If Bergdahl had been left in Afghanistan, the mean things said by Fox News would be worse than the mean things they're saying now about the prisoner exchange. So the exchange was the better option.

But if the rest of the Gitmo prisoners are released, there's no upside whatsoever. Fox News will just say mean things.

As usual, our president is always thinking ahead, making sure that we minimize Fox News' ability to stop Tea Party members from voting for Democrats.

on how government works.

FUCK RON PAUL

Nor would it change the Democrats in the Senate's positions. Nor would it be illegal.

You seem to be suggesting that Obama would be exposed to impeachment if he were to take action, release or transfer the detainees and close Guantanamo Bay. To be impeached, he would have be found to have committed a crime, right?

Or are you suggesting something else?

How would releasing the detainees lead to Pres. Joe Biden in the 2016 primary? What are you suggesting?

a-b-c-d-e

that is why I put a question mark. sorry I was not more something.


hmmm....President Joe Biden vs Hillary in primary?

Because I don't see it. You must have meant something.

Or did you have another reason to post what you did?

I encourage you to own it! Don't be afraid to speak your mind.

If they try to impeach it wouldn't pass the Senate anyway (before November). And it could actually stir up the left getting them to turn out.

without charge and were tortured along the way.

...if he became a strong President like that. I think he should.

I'm no expert on Gitmo but I thought part of the problem was that some detainees who've been cleared for release by the U.S. are still there because there's no place for them to be released to. They're citizens of countries that don't want them back. No other country has agreed to admit them.

Congress has certainly obstructed Obama but there's also an element of inherent intractability to the problem.

For many of these guys there's no place that will accept them.

could potentially torture them, ironically.

And, other countries condition release into their country on a US guarantee that they won't engage in terrorism. There are places for a vast majority of them to be released to. Most of the remaining detainees are Yemeni and could be transferred there.

There are still some that could be tried and sentenced. There are avenues for all of them, ultimately.

yeah just set him up for an impeachment right? I am sure you would cheer for that too! Y'all don't fool me none!

that doesn't extend to all of Gitmo.

the power to release. Rather, the authority it there, he just used the swap likely because he believed it more politically palatable. Although, we see how that turned out.

Bush released 500 or so, Obama released around 200. There was nothing special about the swap with respect to the authority to release or transfer.

Only 6 of the remaining 150 face formal charge. The rest MUST be released ASAP, and Obama could do it if he really wanted to.

But it isn't true.

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/06/right-left-attack-obama-signing-statement-rationale-bowe-bergdahl-swap/

But the Bergdahl release has resurrected an attack from the anti-Gitmo left, the notion that, if the President can use a signing statement to justify the release of these five prisoners, then he can do so for all of the Gitmo detainees. If the President can “ignore the law” in this case, then why not do the same for the rest of the detainees? MSNBC’s Chris Hayes asked that very question, on behalf of anti-Gitmo activists, on his All In program Monday night, but the premise of that question relies on the same fundamental misunderstanding about signing statements that the right relies on. They’re both asserting that the President is using the signing statement to ignore the law. Here is what President Obama said about using signing statements in 2007, at a Montana town hall campaign event:

When Hayes played that clip last night, he cut it off when Obama said “we’re not going to use signing statements,” but the rest of that sentence is “as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”
The President’s NDAA signing statement doesn’t do that, it seeks to preserve the will of Congress, with a very narrow, well-defined exception. The test of that exception isn’t settled by the signing statement, it is settled by the U.S. Constitution, and if it is challenged, by the Supreme Court. No one has said that the Bergdahl swap would not withstand such a challenge, but a wholesale release of Gitmo detainees likely would not.

He can do it. He has done it. He needs to finish the job.

Usually, we're told that the Congress is preventing President Obama from doing so. I guess the Congressional Opposition magically vanished recently.