I think the US government should offer most of the detainees visas to come and live in the US and should offer them financial compensation for unjust imprisonment. That is politically impossible, so I think the government should continue working to repatriate them and improve living conditions in Gitmo itself.
That's not a good solution. But it seems like the best feasible solution. I'd love to be proven wrong. Can you do that? Or are you going to make a big public display of your moral purity by talking down on pragmatism?
It takes a lot of chutzpah to ask the question, "Into the sea?" as if that's what anyone wants, as if a rational being could ever commit that misunderstanding, and then get all butt-hurt when someone points out that the vast majority of abductees have been released with no problems.
Aren't you the ass who came up with "green lanternism"? I actually googled it: the first usage was Brad DeLong pulling heroic pundit duty on the Fed Chair campaign of Larry Summers. Just as I said: status quo Beltway-insider conventional wisdom. Do I have a sixth sense about this shit or something?
Now you want "to be proven [sic] wrong"? Please. If anyone has a burden of proof, it's whoever who describes Guantanamo as "pragmatic". Good grief. If the commander-in-chief wanted prisoners in any USA military facility in the world transferred to any other USA military facility in the world, he could send an email and have wheels up within an hour. Of course, keeping a campaign promise might have consequences for him. He might have to send a Joint Chief to testify to Congress or something. I'm not sure how he'd recover from that harrowing ordeal, but I still think he should keep his promise.
Just as I said: status quo Beltway-insider conventional wisdom.
This is so weird. The invocation of green lanterism was coined to make fun of Beltway insiders and their bizarre fixation on using magical thinking to solve all problems.
he could send an email and have wheels up within an hour.
Except for when Congress passed a law making that illegal. Hey, are military officers required to obey illegal orders?
The problems are created when some defense contractor's lobbyist floats some vile proposal and then makes it worth a few Pentagon staffers' time to implement it. The magical thinking is saved for the talking-head shows, when enough of the public notices the travesty. Then an ex-general or columnist or whoever must be sent around to argue the dubious proposition that stopping indefensible conduct is much more difficult than starting it. As if that were even an argument. When I fuck up, I experience the consequences. Why is that impossible for people in the federal government?
Hey, are military officers required to obey illegal orders?
Now I know you're trolling me. Anyway, Obama signed that law in 2011.
... and in 2010, 2012, and 2013. It's been part of the National Defense Authorization Act every year Mr. Obama has been in office. The last two years he's stumped around the time the bill was moving through the house, trying to use the Bully Pulpit to remove the prohibition of funds being used to relocate the prisoners. So far, he has been unsuccessful.
The important part is, "Obama signed that law". No one held a gun to his head. No one will be holding a gun to his head next year while he signs it either. Every year, Obama chooses to sign the law that gives him a pretext to continue operating the Guantanamo obscenity for another year. Is it so hard to see this pattern?
Sure, it might cost him some political capital to do the right thing. That merely illustrates that to Obama, keeping his campaign promise is not worth spending some political capital. That's a far cry from this "impossible" bullshit I've been reading.
That's not a good solution. But it seems like the best feasible solution. I'd love to be proven wrong. Can you do that? Or are you going to make a big public display of your moral purity by talking down on pragmatism?