Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Obama Closes Gitmo, Law Be Damned

by JASmius

Beats the heck out of me why he waited this long, but here it comes.  Kind of like the old Green Bay Packers' power sweep: We've always known it was coming, but we still can't stop it:

Barack Obama released his long- awaited plan for closing the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying transferring as many as sixty of the detainees captured during the war on terrorism would eliminate a recruiting tool for [Muslim]s....

A description that far better fits what he laughingly calls his "counter-terrorism" policy, with the phony "war" against ISIS and his "Let's relocate all the Muslim rape gangs Angela Merkel hasn't already poached over here" Syrian "refugee" policy front and center.  Our - his - weakness is the Global Jihad's biggest recruitment tool, and if that death cult was capable of being deterred, Gitmo would be a powerful deterrent to it.  Why?  Because it is a testament to Islamic Fundamentalist weakness.  Every inmate by definition was defeated by the "infidels".  Ergo, ipso facto, the greater the population of Gitmo, the bigger jihadist deterrent it becomes.

And what has O been doing for the past seven years?  Emptying it.

Do the math.

.....and save the U.S. money.

“For many years it’s been clear that our detention facility at Guantanamo Bay does not advance our fight against terrorism,” Obama said in a statement at the White House.

By keeping jihadists caged (in lieu of executing them after we've waterboarded every last bit of intel out of them, yes, it does, actually.  But then The One doesn't want to "fight terrorism," other than of the Bundy variety.

The continued existence of the prison “doesn’t not advance our national security, it undermines it,’’ he said.

Quite the opposite.  But this is dreadfully overplowed ground, and is about his "legacy"quest rather than any effects on a "War on Man-Caused Disasters" that he "ended" years ago.

The proposal, demanded by lawmakers who have resisted Obama’s attempts to close the facility, calls for spending up to $475 million to transfer thirty to sixty of the detainees to facilities in the U.S.

Where they can mix with and recruit to the jihadist cause countless violent American convicts, and once they escape, can run wild through and slaughter the American civilian population in lone wolf fashion or join up with existing ISIS, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc. cells.

Hey, don't look at me that way; Obama is their president, not yours.

And he's never been mine.

There are thirteen potential sites that could be used for the prisoners, but the plan outlined by the [Obam]agon doesn’t identify a specific location. [emphasis added]

Sorry, I zoned out there for a moment.

Indeed, why would we want to know where these bloodthirsty jihadist savages were being sent?  That way we might be able to see them coming when they come to murder us all.

The administration says it would work with Congress to identify the most appropriate place to hold the detainees.

i,e. Congress will follow Obama's orders and tell him what he wants to hear.  And, of course, pay for it, if they don't want him to just take the money and spent it himself.

It doesn't sound like they're too inclined to lend him that hand, at least without any fingers extended:

Republicans Tuesday struck out at Barack Obama's long-promised plan to close the United States' detention center at Guantanamo Bay, with several insisting that his plan to transfer detainees to American soil is against the law.

"After seven years, Barack Obama has yet to convince the American people that moving Guantanamo terrorists to our homeland is smart or safe," House Speaker Paul Ryan said shortly after Obama's announcement, "and he doesn't seem interested in continuing to try."

Further, said Ryan, Obama's extensive [decree] "fails to provide critical details required by law, including the exact cost and location of an alternate detention facility. Congress has left no room for confusion. It is against the law — and it will stay against the law — to transfer terrorist detainees to American soil. We will not jeopardize our national security over a campaign promise." [emphasis added]

It's cute that the Speaker thinks Congress has a choice in this matter, isn't it?

Darrell Issa was even more succinct:

California-49 Republican Representative Darrell Issa said Tuesday that it was little surprise that Obama made his announcement, as it's been his "goal from day one" to close Gitmo.

"The fact that he's willing to do it in violation of an explicit law probably means two things," said Issa. "One, he has very little to lose in his opinion. He doesn't believe the American people will impeach him, and with the death of Justice [Antonin] Scalia, he might view that the Supreme Court will back him by a 4-4 decision, the liberals letting him do it even if it's a clear violation of the law."

Further, said Issa, the president has signed a law that included not allowing detainees into the United States, but "this is a president who doesn't respect the law or Constitution." [emphases added]

Precisely.  Closing Gitmo is what he wants, and he's going to do it, no matter what the law says.  Period.  And since his constitutional duty is to enforce the law, and he refuses to do so, and it's politically impossible to punish him for it, and we've lost our tenuous majority on the Supreme Court, just exactly who or what is there to stop him?  Exactly, minus that last factor, as has been the case for the past seven years.

And that doesn't just apply to closing Gitmo, but, as I have pointed out before, extends to surrendering the Guantanomo Bay naval base to the Castros as well:

If Obama ignores the law, the matter can be taken to court, Issa continued, but the courts won't likely rule quickly, and meanwhile, the United States has a lease in perpetuity for the Gitmo property.

"For Obama to void a lease may be more complicated than just saying so," he said. "If Congress determines that the lease is not authorized to be voided, it's a lease in perpetuity, he may order the military to leave. I have to be quite candid, it's the decision U.S. military leaders have to make: Are they going to obey an unlawful order to move people from Guantanamo, an unlawful order to close the base?"

Not to rain on Issa's parade, but what choice will they have?  O has long since littered the top echelons of U.S. military leadership with cringing bootlickers, leftwing poltical hacks, and fellow-travelers as it is; if there are any top generals and flag officers whose loyalty is still first to the law and Constitution over their lawless, despotic commander-in-chief, he'll simply have Ash Carter sack them and replace them with more cringing bootlickers, leftwing political hacks, and fellow-travelers who will.  And as Issa points out, if Red Barry orders the abandonment of the Guantanamo Bay facility, there would be absolutely nothing to prevent the Castro Regime from taking it over, regardless of the lease we have on it.  What's that old saying?  "Possession is nine-tenths of the law".

And that's the only law to which Barack Obama pays the slightest bit of attention, along with those that actually advance his Ameriphobic agenda.

No comments: