Obama Breaks Another Promise…KSM To Be Tried At Gitmo

Congress has banned the use of any funds to bring Gitmo prisoners to the United States, even to face trial; banned the use of any funds to purchase or build facilities to hold any prisoners currently held at Gitmo; and banned the release of any Gitmo prisoner cleared for release by the interagency Guantánamo Review Task Force to countries considered dangerous by lawmakers. (We all know that, I presume.) All three bans were inserted into spending authorizations necessary to provide continued funding for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, effectively eliminating the President’s option to veto them.

Of course Obama could have gone the George W. Bush route and issued presidential signing statements, simply ignoring whatever bits of duly enacted legislation he doesn’t happen to like. I guess that isn’t Obama’s style.

Essentially Congress has made civil trials in the U.S. impossible, and made it impossible to close Gitmo because there’s nowhere else to put anyone who is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.

Fighting this would result in delaying trials even longer. Obama, unlike Bush, is apparently unwilling to put the trials off forever, so Holder made the announcement. Obviously Holder didn’t like it.

If you don’t like whatever results may follow, keep in mind that none of it will be Barack Obama’s doing. He wanted Gitmo closed and the Gitmo detainees tried in a civil court, their guilt voted on by a jury, and their sentences pronounced by a judge. A majority of our elected Congressional representatives have decided to make that impossible.

Holder is too familiar with Muslim names.
What’s the escape policy for Lib ya?

@James Raider, #5:

Nobody needs to float excuses. The Obama administration made a decision on the trials, which was subsequently monkeywrenched in Title IX, Sec. 9011 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010.

The preceding administration–which left Obama with a trashed economy, two wars, and this FUBAR legal mess–slipped away to the ranch after 5 years of indecisiveness, video records of the interrogations that led to central “voluntary confessions” having been destroyed before they left.

@James Raider, #7:

Yup, that’s just too difficult. Congress just made it so tough. Genius.

That’s exactly what they’ve done. In fact, they’ve made it virtually impossible. It doesn’t take a genius to figure it out, either:

In addition to the provisions of Title IX, Sec. 9011 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010, republicans are now putting forward the Detainee Security Act of 2011, which they announced on March 8. Refer to Sec. 9: Permanent Prohibition on Use of Funds to Construct or Modify Facilities in the United States to House Detainees Transferred from Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

This section would make it impossible for the Obama Administration to isolate Guantanamo detainees sufficiently to ensure that they couldn’t “advocate, coerce, or incite violent extremism, ideologically motivated criminal activity, or acts of terrorism among inmate populations at incarceration facilities within the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, or the United States territories if the individual were transferred to such a facility.”

Title IX, Sec. 9011(d)(1) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010 requires that the administration present an estimation of the danger of that to Congress–presumably as an assurance that it can’t happen.

See how that all works? It’s quite easy to grasp, really. They’re creating requirements that cannot be met, owing to the funding restrictions that they’ve previously imposed.

Monkeywrenching, plain and simple. The latter day GOP’s forte.

I can guess their motives. There’s a lot that they’re worried might come out in an open court that they want never to see exposed in the full light of day.

my question is why would commie bambi and commie holder want to hold these trials in the USA?

the two commies either don’t know what they are doing or it was just part of their great plan, whatever that is, you know like the muslim uprising in the USA, like uprisings over in the middle east?

i just wonder why these two commies wanted the trials in the USA.

Greg, trying political prisoners in public is bad because of our military secrets getting out. i know that is hard for you to understand because we have a few generations of males, that have never even been around military anything and really don’t know or don’t care about our national security and the secrets we have to keep. i am not criticizing you greg, just stating a fact. imho

@Greg:

Monkeywrenching, plain and simple. The latter day GOP’s forte.

Explain that statement, in regards to the law you linked, considering the original bill was sponsored by Murtha, a democrat, passed by both the house and the senate in late 2009, both of which were large democrat majorities. Your statement makes no sense, in that regard. Have you forgotten the lockouts of GOP involvement in the major bills of that year, and of the following year with Obamacare? What makes you think that the GOP was allowed any involvement, even at the committee level, in crafting any portion of H.R. 3326?

@ Greg #8

You really cannot read can you. Unfortunately this is another waste of time.

That old straw, “ignorance is bliss” is truly appropriate, and sadly you represent a large swath of the population that is responsible for rotting America from within. Terrorists have nothing on your mindset. You do their work for them. Bin Laden looks on your idiocy and is pleased.

@johngalt, #13:

Apparently, you misunderstand the purpose of signing statements. It isn’t so that the President can ignore the laws, or bits of laws, that are passed and he signs. A president will issue a signing statement on a law to commemorate the signing of important laws, and to issue statements pertaining to certain sections of the law to clarify how the President and his staff will interpret it. Even Obama has done so on certain bills he has signed.

People seem to have either forgotten about the level of controversy that surrounded Bush’s heavy-handed use of signing statements in the application of Unitary Executive Theory, or to have never been aware of it to begin with.

@JustAl, #15:

During his 8 years in office GWB issued 161 signing statements. It’s not the total count of signing statements that matters so much as their nature. Rather than being only rhetorical–commemorative, as JohnGalt has suggested–they were a means by which he challenged or circumvented over 1,000 specific provisions of the bills he signed into law. Signing statements were used as a means for countering the power and intentions of Congress. As noted in this article, a Congressional Research Service study found that 78% of his signing statements raised constitutional objections.

So far Obama hasn’t come close. Still, Obama is only in this 3rd year, and his predecessor set what was apparently an acceptable standard–at least judging by the lack of criticism of GWB coming from those who claim to be the strongest advocates of constitutional law. I suppose Obama might assert executive authority more strongly during a second term.

@johngalt, #12:

The provisions in Title IX, Sec. 9011 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010 didn’t render civil trials impossible. When they’re combined with Sec. 9 of the proposed Detainee Security Act of 2011, that has been achieved.

@johngalt, #19:

Is your statement wrong, then?

I believe it’s entirely accurate to say that specific actions taken by Congress have now made it practically impossible for the Obama administration to close Gitmo, and have also made it impossible for Gitmo detainees to be tried in federal court. Taken together, specific provisions of the Defense Appropriations Act of 2010 and the proposed Detainee Security Act of 2011 add up to that result. I have no doubt that this was deliberate–hence my use of the term monkeywrenching.

Your observation that the Defense Appropriations Act of 2010 was sponsored by a democrat is also accurate. Democrats were then in the majority and it generally falls to the majority to sponsor such recurring legislation. I’m unclear how Sec. 9011 came to be part of it. Politicians being what they are, I’d guess the fact that 2010 was an election year and civil trials were a matter of great controversy played some small part.

The bottom line is that the Obama administration has not broken another promise. It has been prevented from keeping a promise by deliberate actions taken by the legislative branch.

@anticsrocks, #21:

Yeah, Obama doesn’t ever use PSS’s…

Obama has issued a few. He hasn’t used them as a means to repeatedly do an end-run around Congress.

Such a distinction is a subtle thing. Grasping it might represent a serious challenge for some people. It likely poses the same sort of difficulty as distinguishing torture from interrogation.

@Greg:

I’d guess the fact that 2010 was an election year and civil trials were a matter of great controversy played some small part.

It was not passed in 2010, even though it bears the label. It was debated in the second half of 2009, and passed by both houses in late 2009.

And as for your statement, it is either wrong, or you misstated in a later post. You blamed it on the GOP, however, in the statement I highlighted, you stated that Title IX, Sec. 9011 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010 is responsible for Obama backing off of his promise. So, again, is your statement wrong? Or is it a misstatement?

Now, just a few of Obama’s signing statements:

Statement on Signing the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
• Foreign Affairs. Certain provisions of the bill, in titles I and IV of Division B, title IV of Division E, and title VII of Division H, would unduly interfere with my constitutional authority in the area of foreign affairs by effectively directing the Executive on how to proceed or not proceed in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to negotiate and enter into agreements with foreign nations.
• United Nations Peacekeeping Missions. Section 7050 in Division H prohibits the use of certain funds for the use of the Armed Forces in United Nations peacekeeping missions under the command or operational control of a foreign national unless my military advisers have recommended to me that such involvement is in the national interests of the United States. This provision raises constitutional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions in military missions, by conditioning the exercise of my authority as Commander in Chief on the recommendations of subordinates within the military chain of command, and by constraining my diplomatic negotiating authority. Accordingly, I will apply this provision consistent with my constitutional authority and responsibilities.
• Executive Authority to Control Communications with the Congress. Sections 714(1) and 714(2) in Division D prohibit the use of appropriations to pay the salary of any Federal officer or employee who interferes with or prohibits certain communications between Federal employees and Members of Congress. I do not interpret this provision to detract from my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control, and correct employees’ communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential.
• Legislative Aggrandizements (committee-approval requirements). Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes. Therefore, although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. Likewise, one other provision gives congressional committees the power to establish guidelines for funding
1
costs associated with implementing security improvements to buildings. Executive officials shall treat such guidelines as advisory. Yet another provision requires the Secretary of the Treasury to accede to all requests of a Board of Trustees that contains congressional representatives. The Secretary shall treat such requests as nonbinding.
• Recommendations Clause Concerns. Several provisions of the Act (including sections 211 and 224(b) of title II of Division I, and section 713 in Division A), effectively purport to require me and other executive officers to submit budget requests to the Congress in particular forms. Because the Constitution gives the President the discretion to recommend only “such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient” (Article II, section 3 of the Constitution), the specified officers and I shall treat these directions as precatory.

Statement on Signing the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009
………..
Section 8203 of the Act provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall appoint certain
members of the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor Commission “based on
recommendations from each member of the House of Representatives, the district of which
encompasses the Corridor.” Because it would be an impermissible restriction on the
appointment power to condition the Secretary’s appointments on the recommendations of
members of the House, I will construe these provisions to require the Secretary to consider
such congressional recommendations, but not to be bound by them in making appointments to
the Commission.

Statement on Signing the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009
…………
Section 5(d) of the Act requires every department, agency, bureau, board, commission,
office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the United States to furnish to the
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a legislative entity, any information related to any
Commission inquiry. As my Administration communicated to the Congress during the
legislative process, the executive branch will construe this subsection of the bill not to abrogate
any constitutional privilege.

Statement on Signing the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009
………….
However, provisions of this bill within sections 1110 to 1112 of title XI, and sections 1403
and 1404 of title XIV, would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign
relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with
international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the
Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions. I will not treat these provisions as limiting
my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations.

And those were just from 2009. As highlighted, and in bold, the President, in his signing statement, informs Congress of certain provisions or sections in the bills, and why he cannot, or will not adhere to the language present in the bill.

Now, for some of President Bush’s, so as to compare:

Statement on Signing the NASA Flexibility Act of 2004
………..
Section 3 of the Act enacts new subsections 9802(g), (h), and (i) in title 5 of the
United States Code, which purport to require or regulate the submission of certain
plans, recommendations, and budget requests to the Congress. The executive branch
shall construe these subsections in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional
authority to supervise the unitary executive branch, to withhold information the disclosure
of which could impair the deliberative processes of the Executive, and to recommend
for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President judges
necessary and expedient.

Statement on Signing the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2005
………….
The executive branch shall construe as calling solely for notification the provisions
of the Act that purport to require congressional committee approval for the execution
of a law. Any other construction would be inconsistent with the principles enunciated
by the Supreme Court of the United States in INS v. Chadha.

Statement on Signing the National Heritage Areas Act of 2006
………….
A number of provisions of the Act purport to give to management entities or local coordinating
entities, composed of individuals who are not officers of the United States appointed
in accordance with the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, significant
governmental authority, such as authority to make grants from Federal appropriated
funds to implement management plans for heritage areas. As is consistent with the Appointments Clause and with requirements in the Act concerning approval by the Secretary
of the Interior of the management plans, the executive branch shall construe the provisions
to require exercise by the Secretary of the Interior of the significant governmental
authority given by the provisions, specifically including the exercise by the Secretary of
final authority over any disbursement of Federal appropriated funds by a management
entity or local coordinating entity.

That is just a few of the many signing statements by Bush. Nowhere in either Obama’s, nor Bush’s, is there any hint of ‘end-around’ type action. It is entirely within their rights to identify certain elements of the laws passed by congress, and signed by them, and to delineate exactly how the executive branch will treat them, particularly if they could run afoul of constitutional requirements.

In my opinion, though, as President, the laws that come to his/her desk should be vetted entirely for any passages that may run afoul of Constitution, or limit the President’s constitutional powers, and if found, the bill should be vetoed and sent back to address the concerns. Unfortunately, politics plays a big part of it, and a bill narrowly passed, that the President wants, might not pass the second time around, particularly if the changes requested are objected to by the opposition party. In that case, I can see it being entirely reasonable for the President to issue a signing statement, with the objections, and how it will be treated according to the Constitution.

Either way, signing statements are used for numerous reasons, particularly when there are constitutional questions at stake, and the president does not want to risk a revote on the bill.

For a list of, and text to, Obama’s and Bush’s signing statements go here:
http://www.coherentbabble.com/listBHOall.htm

@Greggie: As I expected you got your azz handed to you on the issue of signing statements, so I will leave that alone.

However it is really hard to believe that you actually went here….

Obama has issued a few. He hasn’t used them as a means to repeatedly do an end-run around Congress.

Do you REALLY want to open up THAT can of worms?

Obama doesn’t do end runs around Congress? Or the judiciary branch???

105 billion in “pre-appropriated” funds buried in 2800 page Obamacare bill raises Separation of Powers, process Concerns

E.P.A. Expected to Regulate Carbon Dioxide

Obama Administration IGNORES Judge’s Ruling on Drilling Moratorium

White House Says It Will Implement ObamaCare Despite Judge’s Declaration that His Ruling Against It Is ‘Equivalent of Injunction’

These are but just a few examples of Obama plunging ahead with his agenda regardless of Congress or the SCOTUS. So are you sure you really want to go there? LOL

Ah Greggie, I love it when you open mouth and insert foot keyboard.