It's fine when Congress cut off funding for the Contras, but

in this case the President can ignore it?

If Congress says, Mr. President, you can't spend money on X, then he can't spend money on X. Since everything the President does costs money, it's saying he can't do X. End of story.

It's the same thing as during the Iran/Contra times.

From December 2011:
http://www.foreignaf...-close-guantanamo

Congress has used its spending oversight authority both to forbid the White House from financing trials of Guantánamo captives on U.S. soil and to block the acquisition of a state prison in Illinois to hold captives currently held in Cuba who would not be put on trial -- a sort of Guantánamo North. The current defense bill now before Congress not only reinforces these restrictions but moves to mandate military detention for most future al Qaeda cases unless the president signs a waiver. The White House withdrew a veto threat on the eve of likely passage Wednesday, saying the latest language gives the executive enough wiggle room to avoid military custody.

On paper, at least, the Obama administration would be set to release almost half the current captives at Guantánamo. The 2009 Task Force Review concluded that about 80 of the 171 detainees now held at Guantánamo could be let go if their home country was stable enough to help resettle them or if a foreign country could safely give them a new start...

(The article ends there unless you register.)

I don't like this "the entire world is a battlefield" stuff. I don't like people being held without trial. I don't like the implicit argument that "we can't try the ones who were tortured because the evidence is tainted (and it would be embarrassing) so we have to hold them forever" - if we can't try them, let them go. Keep and eye on them and arrest them properly if they break the law in the future.

We agree on much, I think, but we don't agree that Obama can run roughshod over Congress under the AUMF. We didn't like it when Bush did it, did we? Few things are clearer about Congress's power than the power of the purse.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #372,788 by Another Scott 3/22/13 10:46:42 AM Reply	It's fine when Congress cut off funding for the Contras, but in this case the President can ignore it? If Congress says, Mr. President, you can't spend money on X, then he can't spend money on X. Since everything the President does costs money, it's saying he can't do X. End of story. It's the same thing as during the Iran/Contra times. From December 2011: http://www.foreignaf...-close-guantanamo Congress has used its spending oversight authority both to forbid the White House from financing trials of Guantánamo captives on U.S. soil and to block the acquisition of a state prison in Illinois to hold captives currently held in Cuba who would not be put on trial -- a sort of Guantánamo North. The current defense bill now before Congress not only reinforces these restrictions but moves to mandate military detention for most future al Qaeda cases unless the president signs a waiver. The White House withdrew a veto threat on the eve of likely passage Wednesday, saying the latest language gives the executive enough wiggle room to avoid military custody. On paper, at least, the Obama administration would be set to release almost half the current captives at Guantánamo. The 2009 Task Force Review concluded that about 80 of the 171 detainees now held at Guantánamo could be let go if their home country was stable enough to help resettle them or if a foreign country could safely give them a new start... (The article ends there unless you register.) I don't like this "the entire world is a battlefield" stuff. I don't like people being held without trial. I don't like the implicit argument that "we can't try the ones who were tortured because the evidence is tainted (and it would be embarrassing) so we have to hold them forever" - if we can't try them, let them go. Keep and eye on them and arrest them properly if they break the law in the future. We agree on much, I think, but we don't agree that Obama can run roughshod over Congress under the AUMF. We didn't like it when Bush did it, did we? Few things are clearer about Congress's power than the power of the purse. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #372,789 by boxley 3/22/13 10:53:47 AM Reply	Move them to Bagram, turn bagram over to ahfgans Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #372,790 by Another Scott 3/22/13 11:07:51 AM Reply	Interesting. Dunno why they haven't done that. AFAICS, only Afghans have been sent from Gitmo to Afghanistan - http://en.wikipedia....amo_Bay_detainees - though some countries have accepted non-nationals. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!