• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did Obama lie about closing Gitmo?

Did Obama lie about closing Gitmo if he became president?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 62.1%
  • No

    Votes: 5 17.2%
  • IDK/Other

    Votes: 6 20.7%

  • Total voters
    29
I sure wouldn't go that far as to call the president a liar. Every president has a bunch of campaign promises that go unfulfilled. most campaign promises is just a candidate telling his base and what he thinks the audience he is addressing wants to hear. I, for one am thankful he hasn't carried through on the campaign promise, I also do not look at him as a liar for not doing so.

If the president has to close the base just to bring the terrorist here to the states, that is a big mistake and plays right into communist Cuba's hands. Besides, if I remember right congress passed a law prohibiting the transfer of the prisoners at GITMO to the states. Then there is what looks good, what sounds good as a candidate can change when one becomes president. He learns things that he was not privy to as a candidate. He has to govern instead of running for an office. Things chance and as long as the prisoners stay at GITMO, I am happy.


Then why did he promise again in 2012 to close Gitmo? Sorry, your trying to cover his ass doesn't work.
 
Then why did he promise again in 2012 to close Gitmo? Sorry, your trying to cover his ass doesn't work.

That is what his base wanted to hear, Romney was no difference in the campaign promises he made. He knew very well he couldn't fill-full many to most of them. I can think of a whole lot of things to be upset about with this president, but GITMO isn't one of them. As it stands now, he can't legally transfer the prisoners anyway.
 
Clearly, what is right and wrong is irrelevant to you in this case.

Most of these people have done NOTHING wrong. Almost all of them have never been convicted of anything.

The only reason most of them are still in Gitmo is because their host countries will not take them back.

Were I POTUS, I would immediately order the military or CIA or whomever to find a country that will take most of them - even if that country has to be bribed to do so.

Once I found such a country, I would ask the inmates in question whether they wanted to stay in Gitmo or go to this country. Obviously they would take freedom.

Then I would give them each a few million and transport them to that country.

The rest that there is evidence that they are guilty of terrorism, I would order the military to immediately start trials on them - whatever the evidence available is.

If they are convicted, then start there incarceration.

If they are found innocent, the same deal as how the others are treated.


And I don't give a crap what spineless politicians in Congress want.

Were I Obama, I would stand up and tell them to get off their asses, grow backbones and figure out what to do with these innocent (mostly) people.

And I would keep on them, day after day, until they did.
QUOTE]

Wow, there seem to be so many constitutional issues with your ideas, I don't even no where to start, lol. Your advocating that the President, unilaterly, bribe another country, to take people, who have never been tried for a crime, but are viewed as enemy combatants. Then pay those people who were imprisoned, still without trial, and have the military or the CIA take them to that country, all without any involvement from congress at all? I'm all for doing what's right, because it's the right thing to do, damn the concequences. But advocating that a President circumvent the checks and balances of the legislative branch, does not seem like a good idea to me under any circumstances.
 
Wow, there seem to be so many constitutional issues with your ideas, I don't even no where to start, lol. Your advocating that the President, unilaterly, bribe another country, to take people, who have never been tried for a crime, but are viewed as enemy combatants. Then pay those people who were imprisoned, still without trial, and have the military or the CIA take them to that country, all without any involvement from congress at all? I'm all for doing what's right, because it's the right thing to do, damn the concequences. But advocating that a President circumvent the checks and balances of the legislative branch, does not seem like a good idea to me under any circumstances.
Hello?

The vast majority of inmates at Gitmo were already released without Congress's consent.
 
Last edited:
That is what his base wanted to hear, Romney was no difference in the campaign promises he made. He knew very well he couldn't fill-full many to most of them. I can think of a whole lot of things to be upset about with this president, but GITMO isn't one of them. As it stands now, he can't legally transfer the prisoners anyway.

Yes he can. He can do anything he wants with "enemy combatants." He's Commander-In-Chief.

Congress not approving of something doesn't stop him as Commander-In-Chief. He engaged in war against the government of Libya ordering many thousands of airstrikes - none with Congressional approval. Congress can pass all the resolutions it wants to, but as Commander-In-Chief he has the final and total say of what to do with military prisoners on military bases.
 
Clearly, what is right and wrong is irrelevant to you in this case.

Most of these people have done NOTHING wrong. Almost all of them have never been convicted of anything.

The only reason most of them are still in Gitmo is because their host countries will not take them back.

Were I POTUS, I would immediately order the military or CIA or whomever to find a country that will take most of them - even if that country has to be bribed to do so.

Once I found such a country, I would ask the inmates in question whether they wanted to stay in Gitmo or go to this country. Obviously they would take freedom.

Then I would give them each a few million and transport them to that country.

The rest that there is evidence that they are guilty of terrorism, I would order the military to immediately start trials on them - whatever the evidence available is.

If they are convicted, then start there incarceration.

If they are found innocent, the same deal as how the others are treated.


And I don't give a crap what spineless politicians in Congress want.

Were I Obama, I would stand up and tell them to get off their asses, grow backbones and figure out what to do with these innocent (mostly) people.

And I would keep on them, day after day, until they did.
QUOTE]

Wow, there seem to be so many constitutional issues with your ideas, I don't even no where to start, lol. Your advocating that the President, unilaterly, bribe another country, to take people, who have never been tried for a crime, but are viewed as enemy combatants. Then pay those people who were imprisoned, still without trial, and have the military or the CIA take them to that country, all without any involvement from congress at all? I'm all for doing what's right, because it's the right thing to do, damn the concequences. But advocating that a President circumvent the checks and balances of the legislative branch, does not seem like a good idea to me under any circumstances.


Except Obama is Commander-in-Chief. He does not need anyone's agreement or permission. He can just do it by military chain-og-command authority.
 
I pretty much agree with this. I think they run into road blocks all of the time. Yeah, sure it easy to say "i'll do this" and "i'll do that" if i become president.
But once they get in the WH, it's quite different.

Sorry, but Bush warned both Clinton and Obama during the campaign to not make big promises, because things would look different once they sat in the Oval Office. He was talking about Gitmo.
 
Sorry, but Bush warned both Clinton and Obama during the campaign to not make big promises, because things would look different once they sat in the Oval Office. He was talking about Gitmo.


Sure there might have been some suggestions/warnings from some people, but there were a lot more president before the ones you spoke of.
Im not only speaking of presidents, but all of those that hold an elected office somewhere.
 
Yes he can. He can do anything he wants with "enemy combatants." He's Commander-In-Chief.

Congress not approving of something doesn't stop him as Commander-In-Chief. He engaged in war against the government of Libya ordering many thousands of airstrikes - none with Congressional approval. Congress can pass all the resolutions it wants to, but as Commander-In-Chief he has the final and total say of what to do with military prisoners on military bases.

Exactly.

Why do so many people forget that these people in Gitmo are not being held within the American civilian legal system?
 
Your assertion seems very narrow, to me. Obviously, he can close the darn thing whenever he wants to. The question is, what happens to the people inside? Congress has made it impossible for them to be brought to the US for trial, and has mandated they can only be held in military detentions. So the only other options are to keep Guantanamo open, or release them all and close it. Spine has nothing to do with the discussion, common sense and rational thinking does. Of course he isn't going to release them, so he has to except that ignorant, uninformed people are going to call him a liar, regardless of fact on the issue.
I believe another option exists.
 
Did I say Obama lied? Show me where I said he lied.

I claimed Obama is an ignorant and incompetent fool. Nothing you or your sidekick "OhISee'Then" have proven otherwise.

You both have proven that you didn't fully comprehend my post as proven by the fact you attack my post yet prove my point. It is a prime example of Obama's ignorance and incompetence that he was so arrogant as not to see that even a majority of Democrats in Congress would oppose his plan to move war prisoner terrorists from the base in Gitmo to the continental USA. You can claim that the Republicans stopped Gitmo being closed but you fail to remember that Democrats held control of both houses of Congress in Obama's first two years in office, the time during which he said he would close Gitmo as well as the time during which he and his Attorney General claimed it would be a good idea to have show trials of the 9/11 terrorists in New York City courts.

I didn't need to be Nostradamus to see what would happen - I simply needed to have my head in the air and not shoved up the asses of Obama and his fawning media lackies.

I apologize, I clearly didn't articulate that well. You never called him a liar, I was simply taking issue with argument of him being a liar based on this one incident. I didn't mean to imply that you called him a liar, you absolutely did not and I know that.

That being said, I think you need to do some fact checking. Inside a month of being sworn in, President Obama halted prosecution at Guantanamo, and started a 120 day review of each prisoner, to ensure each were given appropriate trials, and then signed an executive order saying the prison would be closed with in a year. I'll give you that, SO DUMB, to sign that order, without doing the comprehensive review first. The reason being, that the files and evidence regarding each prioners case, were miss handled and many were missing. Causing a delay. It wasn't until 2010 that review was complete, and by then, the midterm elections were taking place. Because of that, you are correct, a lot of house Democrats got scared and didn't think supporting the idea of bringing terrorist to the US for trial would look good for their election chances. By the end of that year, the damage was done, the GOP won the house, and nothing could be done about it.

My point, is that hindsight is 20/20, and claiming that the President should have known that the files were miss handled and that congressional Democrats would turn on a dime, is idiotic. The President had massive support for the idea of closing Guantanamo, until digging into the issue and realizing nothing was what it seemed regarding the facts of the issue. Congression Democrats supported the idea when he was running for President, and then changed their mind as soon as it looked like they might loose their races because of that support. I think your being facetious about that issue when you try to claim that it was plain as day that this would happen.
 
Hello?

The vast majority of inmates at Gitmo were already released without Congress's consent.

Again, narrow focus. The sentence you bolded, was talking about your argument as a whole, not that one piece. Your argument as a whole is incredibly unconstitutional, and gives tremendous power to the office of the President. I certainly don't support power like that being given to one person.
 
Except Obama is Commander-in-Chief. He does not need anyone's agreement or permission. He can just do it by military chain-og-command authority.

Since when does the Cammander-in-Chief have judicial powers? Because that's what he wanted to do. Put those people on trial, and cut the military out of it all together. That was the point of closing Guantanamo in the first place.
 
Why is no one discussing the fact that Congress prevented anyone from being able to close Guantanamo Bay? From what I understand, Congress used it's budget oversight ability to specifically ban any funding to go to trials of Guantanamo inmates on US soil. The also blocked the sale of a prison in Illinois to the federal government to house prisoners. Additionally, I'm pretty sure the most recent defence bill included a provision that mandates military detention of all al Qaeda suspects.

I don't believe it is true that he made any promises about Gitmo during the last presidential race or since then.

He did try to close Gitmo, as noted in the quote. I think he could have, and should have, tried harder. He could probably order the closing as Commander in Chief. The establishment, including Obama, are probably afraid of more blowback if the prisoners let the world know how they have been treated, especially when it comes from the ones who are innocent (if there are any, which is probable)

Obama did end (as far as can be known) torture by the USA's operatives, but he allows renditions, which still results in torture. He also has expanded murder by drone.

The Gitmo promise was a half lie, he tried, but didn't do everything he could. He promised to respect human rights and the rule of law during his first run for president, but in reality his human rights record has only been slightly better than Bush IIs. I'm very disappointed, but sadly, the other politically viable party has no interest in establishing a better human rights policy, and would probably be much worse now that Obama has gotten away with his failures to change course.
 
Again, narrow focus. The sentence you bolded, was talking about your argument as a whole, not that one piece. Your argument as a whole is incredibly unconstitutional, and gives tremendous power to the office of the President. I certainly don't support power like that being given to one person.

Remember, they are 'enemy combatants' held at a U.S. military facility in Cuba and Obama is Commander-in-Chief.

Does Obama have the authority to release the prisoners held at Gitmo - yes or no?
 
In 2008, Obama repeatedly vowed to close Gitmo if he became Commander In Chief and that Gitmo shamed America to the entire world. When elected president, since Gitmo is part of a military base and operation, he could have closed it merely by signing an Executive Order without any need for approval by Congress.

He did not close it. Amazingly, closing Gitmo was again part of his campaign in the 2012 election.

Personally, I can think of no more clear example (of so many) in which Obama is an outright calculated - if not pathological - liar.

However, the poll question is simple:

Did Obama lie during the 2008 election when he vowed to close Gitmo if he became president?

No.

For one, Congress wouldn't have approved of it. There was pushback by a lot of Senators to prevent the transport of the terrorist suspects at Guantanamo to federal prisons here on the US mainland.

And President Obama already doesn't have the best of relationships with Congress anyways.

So no, the closing of the terrorist suspect prison camps at Guantanamo is not the biggest lie Obama has told.

Rather, he's told other lies.
 
No one could prevent Obama from closing Gitmo because it is a military base and he is Commander-In-Chief.


He certainly can be stopped. The head of any organization is not omnipotent. He - like any leader - has constituencies that he has to keep happy if he wants to continue to be an effective leader. And if anything the issues are WORSE in the public sector. Just look at happens when the military tries to close bases that it wants to close. Congress often doesn't let them.
 
I apologize, I clearly didn't articulate that well. You never called him a liar, I was simply taking issue with argument of him being a liar based on this one incident. I didn't mean to imply that you called him a liar, you absolutely did not and I know that.

That being said, I think you need to do some fact checking. Inside a month of being sworn in, President Obama halted prosecution at Guantanamo, and started a 120 day review of each prisoner, to ensure each were given appropriate trials, and then signed an executive order saying the prison would be closed with in a year. I'll give you that, SO DUMB, to sign that order, without doing the comprehensive review first. The reason being, that the files and evidence regarding each prioners case, were miss handled and many were missing. Causing a delay. It wasn't until 2010 that review was complete, and by then, the midterm elections were taking place. Because of that, you are correct, a lot of house Democrats got scared and didn't think supporting the idea of bringing terrorist to the US for trial would look good for their election chances. By the end of that year, the damage was done, the GOP won the house, and nothing could be done about it.

My point, is that hindsight is 20/20, and claiming that the President should have known that the files were miss handled and that congressional Democrats would turn on a dime, is idiotic. The President had massive support for the idea of closing Guantanamo, until digging into the issue and realizing nothing was what it seemed regarding the facts of the issue. Congression Democrats supported the idea when he was running for President, and then changed their mind as soon as it looked like they might loose their races because of that support. I think your being facetious about that issue when you try to claim that it was plain as day that this would happen.

I appreciate all you're saying - I still think if he didn't just want the soundbite and thought through his policy of closing Gitmo to its end point, and if he was competent, he never would have made the suggestion nor signed the executive order, unless he was capable of negotiating a deal with Congress - to me, that makes him arrogant, ignorant, and incompetent. And he's proven that on many different areas of public policy throughout his time in the Presidency.
 
In 2008, Obama repeatedly vowed to close Gitmo if he became Commander In Chief and that Gitmo shamed America to the entire world. When elected president, since Gitmo is part of a military base and operation, he could have closed it merely by signing an Executive Order without any need for approval by Congress.

He did not close it. Amazingly, closing Gitmo was again part of his campaign in the 2012 election.

Personally, I can think of no more clear example (of so many) in which Obama is an outright calculated - if not pathological - liar.

However, the poll question is simple:

Did Obama lie during the 2008 election when he vowed to close Gitmo if he became president?

Did his lips move?

If they did he lied!! JK
 
Except Obama is Commander-in-Chief. He does not need anyone's agreement or permission. He can just do it by military chain-og-command authority.

I grant that I'm not fully aware of all US laws and the implications, however, if it's true that a President can close any military base at any time he chooses, why does Congress always have committees and commissions looking at such things whenever base closures are at issue?
 
Remember, they are 'enemy combatants' held at a U.S. military facility in Cuba and Obama is Commander-in-Chief.

Does Obama have the authority to release the prisoners held at Gitmo - yes or no?

Yes, as long as they remain enemy combatants. The issue, is that he does not want them treated that way. He wanted them put on trial in US courts. Done so using judicial powers, not military ones.
 
I personally thing that our political system is just one giant lie. Obama has and still lies...but I can't think of any politician in history that hasn't.
 
I appreciate all you're saying - I still think if he didn't just want the soundbite and thought through his policy of closing Gitmo to its end point, and if he was competent, he never would have made the suggestion nor signed the executive order, unless he was capable of negotiating a deal with Congress - to me, that makes him arrogant, ignorant, and incompetent. And he's proven that on many different areas of public policy throughout his time in the Presidency.

Fair enough. I simply disagree with that assertion on this particular issue. Big picture, and his Presidency as a whole, I could definitely agree with a lot of that. However, this who Guantanamo Bay disagreement came at a time when the GOP had (and some extent still does) no desire to negotiate with the President. That is partially his own fault, but the issue still stands. Congress through the provisions regarding Guantanamo prisoners into a defense authorization bill, in which the President does not have the line item veto power. I can't help but think, that was done on purpose, with political intent. President Obama would have had to veto the entire thing, just to fight that one issue. Whether or not that would have been the right move, is definitely up for debate. If he was truly arrogant, ignorant and incompetent, he would have done whatever he wanted regardless of the ramifications to the country.
 
Yes, as long as they remain enemy combatants. The issue, is that he does not want them treated that way. He wanted them put on trial in US courts. Done so using judicial powers, not military ones.

I don't care what your issue is - or Obama's.

And he rarely mentions them - so don't tell me he is so worried about them getting due process.

He clearly could care less.



You admit he can legally release them if he wants to.

They have been held for over ten years without trial in most/all cases.

Enough is enough.

Either release them now or put them on trial now.


I am done talking with you on this.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom