Why Do The Republicans Keep Blocking The Closure of Guantanamo?

CaptainPicard 2011/12/24 03:32:42
Today President Obama signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012. The bill contains a provision added by Republicans which prohibits the use of any Federal funds to transfer Guantanamo prisoners either to the United States or in some circumstances to foreign countries. On January 22, 2009, President Obama fulfilled one of his campaign promises when he signed an Executive Order directing the closure of the Guantanamo prison facility. Since then the Republicans have blocked every attempt to fund the process of closing it. At the same time, the conservatives have consistently claimed that the President failed, or some even call it lied, about his promise to close the base.

In his signing statement, the President said in part:

In this bill, the Congress has once again included provisions that would bar the use of appropriated funds for transfers of Guantanamo detainees into the United States (section 8119 of Division A), as well as transfers to the custody or effective control of foreign countries unless specified conditions are met (section 8120 of Division A). These provisions are similar to others found in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. My Administration has repeatedly communicated my objections to these provisions, including my view that they could, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. In approving this bill, I reiterate the objections my Administration has raised regarding these provisions, my intent to interpret and apply them in a manner that avoids constitutional conflicts, and the promise that my Administration will continue to work towards their repeal.

Read More: http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-ndaa-signing-...

Add Photos & Videos

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • Rusty Bubbles 2011/12/24 05:20:06 (edited)
    Rusty Bubbles
    The bill contained a buss load of provisions that were not very tasteful to the conservative and liberal palate and you're pointing to only one as if it were the sole reason for opposition? .........................Why is that?
  • Captain... Rusty B... 2011/12/24 15:54:19
    I never said it was the sole reason for opposition. There were numerous poison pills that the conservatives threw into the bill. I only bring up this one because I get very tired of right wingers claiming that the President lied about closing Gitmo or at the very least that he "broke his campaign promise".

    If you don't think Gitmo should be closed you're entitled to your opinion. I just think the conservatives should be honest about it.
  • Reichstolz 2011/12/24 05:11:55
    Give me your address we will send them to your house.
  • Captain... Reichstolz 2011/12/24 15:55:07
    No thanks. We have more than enough maximum security prison facilities in this country to handle a few more prisoners.
  • Reichstolz Captain... 2011/12/24 15:59:22
    They are war combatants not prisoners., big difference.
  • Captain... Reichstolz 2011/12/24 16:31:02
    For one thing, many if not most of the people we're holding at Gitmo are not "combatants". Like bin Laden's driver.

    For another thing, a prison is a prison. The necessity and the mechanics of imprisoning someone are no different regardless of what crime they're accused of.

    And if that's the line you want to draw, then why didn't they send the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber, the guy who tried to blow up the Tides Foundation, Jared Loughner, Scott Roeder, James van Brunn and others who have committed acts of terrorism to Guantanamo? Is bin Laden's driver really that much more of a threat than Jared Loughner?
  • Reichstolz Captain... 2011/12/24 16:34:30
    Yes they are combatants.
    Second, war criminals are not criminals as the left classifies them.
    Acts committed on US soil are handled differently.
  • Captain... Reichstolz 2011/12/26 02:31:29
    Criminals are criminals. Killing someone for some political cause is no different than killing someone so you can take their fancy jewelry.
  • Reichstolz Captain... 2011/12/26 14:59:37
    Glad you are naive, just like most in this nation.
  • Captain... Reichstolz 2011/12/27 01:14:58
    A box is a box. Put a bad guy in one and you're done. It doesn't matter where the box is.
  • Reichstolz Captain... 2011/12/27 06:04:33
    It is transfer of rights where none exist.
  • Andy 2011/12/24 03:36:53
    Don't want war criminals to come to US soil. Too many issues could develop here
  • Captain... Andy 2011/12/24 03:47:06
    We already have war criminals in US custody on US soil.

    And besides, why wouldn't they at least want the ones who can be shipped to other countries to be moved out. It would lower the cost of maintaining the facility, and Republicans love to cut spending, don't they?

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/13 19:21:50

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals