That sure is nice of them.
How did it get to a point where this is actually up for debate? It sure sounds to me like that's a statement from somebody who thinks that they have options in how Snowden should be treated by the government.
I think I'll take the exile, thanks Barry.
I think you're reaching looking for an insult here.
I'm seeing a lot of grandstanding and assumed affront in this post (Pincas above as well). It's not becoming.
People can be asses and still do the right thing on occasion. And sometimes a nickname is just a nickname.
Small side note: Referring to Manning as 'he' in events she was involved in before Manning to choose to publicly make a switch shouldn't be an issue -- that's something Manning herself suggested actually. So for the grandparent post to have used the 'he' pronoun would not have been an issue at all.
Which would make its use understandable if Obama gave it up in college a few months ago, and the person using it was someone who had interacted with him frequently during the time he was using it. Less so when he graduated from college before many of the adults using it were born, much less became aware that Mr. Obama existed.
> I think you're reaching looking for an insult here.
I think you're reaching looking for a justification for the equivalent of mocking a mid-career professional by persistently using a nickname they stopped using in kindergarten.
The scary scenario would be the classification of Snowden as an enemy combatant, who would then be subject to military justice. I hope that all three branches of the US government consider that to be a ridiculous stretch of the imagination.
[1] http://uscodebeta.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-pre...
That shit has sailed before it was built.
There really isn't that sort of problem with Snowden. A videotaped, non-coerced confession? Hundreds of articles sourced by him? How could the facts be clearer-cut? Trials could begin immediately, the worst he could do is pull an Assange-style blockade in some embassy.
As someone from outside the US, I found that particular advocacy (and the rationales claimed to justify it) one of the low points of recent years. It makes sense that you might need different rules for acceptable treatment of enemy combatants when you're in combat, when you don't have the luxury of time and calm deliberation that a court affords because people are shooting at each other. But to me, the appropriate response to recent "terrorist" attacks is to treat them exactly like any other threat, assault or murder, and to put suspects/perpetrators through exactly the same legal processes as anyone else. It is disturbing that we are even considering the possibility that someone who isn't accused of any violent crime at all might have to worry about being labelled an enemy combatant and thus forfeit their normal legal right to due process.
[1] http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2013/04/king-mccain-grah...
If we compromise our values in the name of defending freedom, there is no freedom left to defend.
For example, didn't Obama promise to close Guantanamo Prison? http://www.npr.org/2013/01/23/169922171/obamas-promise-to-cl...
Also, he's the President. The prison at Guantanamo was established by President Bush without an act of Congress, and it could be removed by President Obama in exactly the same way.
a) The President signed, rather than vetoed, as was his option.
b) Went into effect three years after he took office.
It would have been politically damaging for President Obama to close Camp X-Ray during his first few years in office. It would not have been impossible.
Presidents have signed many laws they disagreed with. Vetos are not particularly common, especially on critical appropriations bills.
> b) Went into effect three years after he took office.
I don't know where you pulled three years from. Obama took office January of 2009. The 2011 NDAA was passed January of 2011 for the fiscal year that began October 2010.
I also don't know what you think you're arguing with me about. Even if I entirely agreed with everything you just said, my comment would have said exactly the same thing. There is no contradiction.
The original comment I replied to said the GOP had "blocked" Obama's attempts to close the camp. Surely the GOP is largely against it, but they had little ability to block its closure if President Obama had been willing to pay the political price. I'm not sure if you disagree with that assessment or not, since you haven't specified which law President Obama would have had to get through Congress in 2009 or 2010 to have the power to close the camp. The need for a law is the only way to justify the notion of a GOP "block", and even there it's a bit of a silly claim, since of course the GOP tried as hard as they could to block the stimulus and ACA; both of those passed.
The 2011 NDAA passed by a vote in the House of 341-48 and 93-7 in the Senate. It was then signed by the President. That doesn't look like the GOP blocking anything to me.
I'm done here, but in the future, it'd be really nice if you'd decide what you're arguing about before you start.
As the CinC, couldn't Mr Obama order the USAF to send a C-5 to Guantanamo and collect all the detainees, subsequently flying them back to Pakistan and Afghanistan?
Wouldn't that be a military operation without Congressional veto?
Reminds me when DOJ sent an entirely redacted document in response to a FOIA request.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/justice-departm...
Its not actually "up for debate", the President's statement is a way of making noises that sound reassuring when formed into a soundbite that passes through in a stream of media stories while being devoid of substantive content.
Its specifically designed to be revealed as empty of any commitment beyond what is already undisputably mandatory when analyzed rationally (so that in any case where it would be a source of "unfulfilled promise" political damage that would be the least concern), but to be soothing when heard in the typical media context which is pretty much designed to maximize emotional response and short-circuit rational consideration.