01 May 13
President Obama in 2009 signed an executive order to close the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Six months into the new administration, a Democratically controlled Congress passed legislation that prevented the president from moving any Guantanamo detainee into the U.S. or to other countries.
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/23/169922171/obamas-promise-to-close-guantanamo-prison-falls-short
Does Congress always have the power to override an executive order of the POTUS if it has enough votes?
Why did Obama's own party go against him on this issue?
01 May 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainI'm not an American but I can only assume that the President must work
President Obama in 2009 signed an executive order to close the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Six months into the new administration, a Democratically controlled Congress passed legislation that prevented the president from moving any Guantanamo detainee into the U.S. or to other countries.
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/23/169922171/obamas- ...[text shortened]... of the POTUS if it has enough votes?
Why did Obama's own party go against him on this issue?
with the Congress in order to achieve anything. If he didn't then he
would just be a dictator instead of a democratically elected politician.
The people of the USA believe that there are dangerous people in that camp
and if it closes down they wonder where will those people go to.
They don't want them on American soil.
01 May 13
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyI think it is interesting that Obama's own political party voted to keep Guantanamo prison, effectively bypassing his executive order. I also wonder why no democrat used a filibuster tactic. I find it interesting that Democrats are reluctant to use the filibuster even though republicans use it often these days.
I'm not an American but I can only assume that the President must work
with the Congress in order to achieve anything. If he didn't then he
would just be a dictator instead of a democratically elected politician.
The people of the USA believe that there are dangerous people in that camp
and if it closes down they wonder where will those people go to.
They don't want them on American soil.
They are only dangerous if they are released or break out of prison. I doubt a prison break is likely so I assume the fear is they will be released because of lack of evidence, but if there is not enough evidence perhaps they are innocent. Even if they are released they can be deported, so what is the big deal?
I think Lindsay Graham is a moron for suggesting having them on American soil is a justifiable concern.
01 May 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe Republicans unanimously opposed closing GITMO as well.
I think it is interesting that Obama's own political party voted to keep Guantanamo prison, effectively bypassing his executive order. I also wonder why no democrat used a filibuster tactic. I find it interesting that Democrats are reluctant to use the filibuster even though republicans use it often these days.
They are only dangerous if they are rel ...[text shortened]... Lindsay Graham is a moron for suggesting having them on American soil is a justifiable concern.
I don't know how a filibuster comes into play here. The Democrats don't use a filibuster because they're the majority and they can win an up & down vote.
The Republicans minority have abused it at an unprecedented level because to them hamstringing Obama and the Democrats is much more important than the good of the country.
01 May 13
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperAlthough the filibuster is more often used by the minority, it can be used by the majority as well, to forestall a cloture vote. Senators don't always vote the party line.
The Republicans unanimously opposed closing GITMO as well.
I don't know how a filibuster comes into play here. The Democrats don't use a filibuster because they're the majority and they can win an up & down vote.
The Republicans minority have abused it at an unprecedented level because to them hamstringing Obama and the Democrats is much more important than the good of the country.
01 May 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainI don't think he ever intended to close it. Just campaign rhetoric.
President Obama in 2009 signed an executive order to close the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Six months into the new administration, a Democratically controlled Congress passed legislation that prevented the president from moving any Guantanamo detainee into the U.S. or to other countries.
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/23/169922171/obamas- ...[text shortened]... of the POTUS if it has enough votes?
Why did Obama's own party go against him on this issue?
01 May 13
Originally posted by joe beyserI agree with that. I think congress opposition to Obama is just role playing to make it look like Obama is trying when he really isn't. Obama rarely fights hard for anything against the status quo.
I don't think he ever intended to close it. Just campaign rhetoric.
01 May 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainAnd the Republicans opposing it, was that to make Obama look good as well?
I agree with that. I think congress opposition to Obama is just role playing to make it look like Obama is trying when he really isn't. Obama rarely fights hard for anything against the status quo.
01 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperNot look good, just not look as bad and give the illusion that policies are not predetermined by people who run government from behind the scenes.
And the Republicans opposing it, was that to make Obama look good as well?
You are supposed to believe this is a democracy. Even more obvious dictatorships hold fixed elections to try and fool people into thinking they live in a democracy. Saddam Hussein allowed people to vote in elections. That wasn't meant as a sick joke to piss off the people of Iraq. Some segment of the population actually thought they picked their leaders.
01 May 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhy didn't he just veto the legislation?
President Obama in 2009 signed an executive order to close the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Six months into the new administration, a Democratically controlled Congress passed legislation that prevented the president from moving any Guantanamo detainee into the U.S. or to other countries.
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/23/169922171/obamas- ...[text shortened]... of the POTUS if it has enough votes?
Why did Obama's own party go against him on this issue?
02 May 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainInteresting points. But I think the most relevant point is that here and now in the present, the President is really starting to push closing Guantanamo, and it is the Republican-controlled House who strenuously opposes such, and also Republican senators who strenuously oppose such and would filibuster. AS for Democrats, the time is much better now to get their support.
President Obama in 2009 signed an executive order to close the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Six months into the new administration, a Democratically controlled Congress passed legislation that prevented the president from moving any Guantanamo detainee into the U.S. or to other countries.
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/23/169922171/obamas- ...[text shortened]... of the POTUS if it has enough votes?
Why did Obama's own party go against him on this issue?
02 May 13
Originally posted by moon1969I looked at some recent polls. Although there is more support for closing the prison than their used to be, more people polled want it to stay open than closing it.
Interesting points. But I think the most relevant point is that here and now in the present, the President is really starting to push closing Guantanamo, and it is the Republican-controlled House who strenuously opposes such, and also Republican senators who strenuously oppose such and would filibuster. AS for Democrats, the time is much better now to get their support.
Did congress have enough votes to override a veto?
02 May 13
Originally posted by no1marauderHe should have vetoed it and asked for a bill with only defense funding. I have been speaking out against these cluttered bills for a long time now. This is just another poor excuse for doing the wrong thing.
It was an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. He would have had to veto the whole bill which would have meant no funding for the entire Defense establishment.
Obama never really wanted what he said he wanted.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34788.htm