Guantanamo, Illegal Settlements, And Voting.

It was recently stated in another thread that Obama is constrained by law on where he sends the prisoners from Guantanamo. That is only true concerning moving them to, or into the United states.

From CNN:

State Department efforts to transfer detainees home or resettle them in a third country have steadily reduced the inmate population.

Senior State Department officials said they have already transferred 147 detainees out of the camp since 2009. Roughly one-third of them, 50, have been repatriated to their home country, while 94 detainees have been spread throughout 26 countries. Two others were sent to Italy for prosecution and one more was prosecuted in the U.S.

Lee Wolosky, the U.S. Special Envoy for Guantanamo Closure, said last month that the State Department hoped to transfer another 34 detainees already approved for release by this summer. U.S. officials told CNN the State Department has either concluded or is in the final stages of agreements with several countries to resettle all of the 34.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/politics/guantanamo-bay-closure-plan-obama/index.html
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

It was also stated that if the U.S. did not veto United Nations Security council Resolutions against Israel, any votes that were unanimous would be weakened from the standpoint of its perceived authority.

However, the actual authority in this case is the International Community. So the above statement is without merit since U.S. public opinion has no effect on sanctions designed to punish Israel for violating International law.

It was also stated that complaining about the "money rules" system is just so much cynical grousing. However, the first step in getting out from under a system in which elected officials are ruled by money--or out from under anything, really--is to be willing to accept that the problem exists. The second step is to not hold up the current lack of solution as a reason to shut down, or condemn, criticism.

 

Yes. The United States made significant progress in depopulating Gitmo. it was recently stated, however, that "Obama said he would close Guantonamo. He lied". It was recently stated, in response, that Obama is constrained by law in how he handles release of the prisoners. (1) he can't release them in the United States; (2) he can't try them in the U.S.; (3) he can't send them to countries where they are likely to be reimprisoned and/or tortured; and (4) if he sends them home, he is required to assure that they don't return to terrorism. He slipped up there, since an estimated 30% may have done there. The recently stated post supra therefore seems to be a non-sequitor. What is your point? Are you complaining that there are still prisoners there or that we've gotten rid of most of them?

 

I don't think that what was stated was what you just said was stated, unless it was stated by someone other than me. My point was that Obama does not rule the United States as a monarch, and if he goes off on his own instructing our UN Ambassador not to veto a UN Security Council resolution against Israel, what practical effect would it have? Israel would simply disregard it. Do you envision the U.S then joining with other nations in imposing sanctions on Israel? I think that's unlikely, because U.S. public opinion and the U.S. Congress would not support it. The current climate isn't friendly to Palestinians, who are perceived as a nest of terrorists. Where would the enforcement muscle come from? International law is quite effective in some areas involving reciprocal trade arrangements, but on matters like this, it is a paper tiger. A more likely outcome is that the U.S. would withdraw from the U.N. In case you haven't noticed, the U.S., like Europe, is in the grip of rampant white nationalism.

 

From a practical standpoint, the best chance of taking even a baby step was to elect a President who would appoint Justices to the Supreme Court who would reverse Citizens United. That did not happen. Quite the opposite. The United States is lurching toward plutocracy. Yes, it's a problem--probably our greatest problem. Maybe if you'd vote for candidates who support doing something about it, we might make modest progress.

 

Why the advocacy for these individuals?


Really really struggling to see the connection between Citizens, and Israel. & Gitmo.

Please explain. I promise to behave,.

Betcha those folks at gitmo have it better than John Gotti had in Marion, In.

 

You may have come in in the middle. This is a continuation of a discussionbegun on another thread that Storch moved over here because it was off topic there. Check out http://www.hipforums.com/forum/topic/477951-how-do-you-feel-about-the-no-dakota-access-pipeline-protest/page-2 , post #50.

 

It was recently stated: "Obama is constrained by law on where he sends the prisoners. The options are limited."

Nevertheless, the fact is that all but sixty prisoners have been released. And while you restate the claim that Obama is required to assure that they don't return to terrorism, you are overlooking the fact we're talking about prisoners who have been cleared or never charged with a crime. So your comment concerning their return to terrorism doesn't make any sense as it does not apply to these prisoners.

 

​​Yes, you did make that statement.

Here it is:

My point is that if Obama adopted a unilateral policy at variance with that of the U.S. Congress and U.S. public opinion, any resolution that got through would be weakened from the standpoint of its perceived authority. What would it accomplish if Obama went on record against Israel when it appeared to be a frolic of his own?

So my point stands. . . . the actual authority in this case is the International Community. So the above statement is without merit since U.S. public opinion has no effect on sanctions designed to punish Israel for violating International law and refusing to comply. And your idea that Israel would simply disregard sanctions is unfounded. After all, the idea behind sanctions is that the one being sanctioned can no longer ignore International condemnation.

 

The solution to the problem is to first recognize the difference between owned money and owed money. Voting for a candidate who does not acknowledge the problem is meaningless.

 

Everything I said was correct, You say that "all but sixty prisoners have been released". Does Obama deserve some credit for that? And the reason there are still sixty is as I've stated at least four times before. The fact that they've never been charged is irrelevant concerning whether or not they're likely to return to terrorist activities. The fact that they haven't been charged with anything is also irrelevant re whether or not a country is willing to take them. And depending on what countries we're talking about (Egypt for example) the fact that they haaven't been charged with anything doesn't mean they won't be arrested, imprisoned or tortured. End of story on this, as far as I'm concerned.

 

Yes I did make the statement you just quoted. But not the statement you referred to in your earlier post #1, where you said "It was also stated that if the U.S. did not veto United Nations Security council Resolutions against Israel, any votes that were unanimous would be weakened from the standpoint of its perceived authority". What you left out was the important phrase"at variance with that of the U.S. Congress and U.S. public opinion." I stand by that statement, for reasons explained in previous posts on the other thread and this one. We don't have a world government, and although the U.S. is committed by law to support binding resolutions of the Security Council, that commitment would be meaningless if it went against the will of the American Congress and government. Israel has ignored UN resolutions in the past. Sanctions suggests economic and military measures against Israel. Do you think the President acting alone could pull off sanctions without the backing of the rest of the government? Obama would be branded a renegade Muslim, the treaty would be repudiated, and the Security Council would have to make the next move, as it packed its bags to relocate from the United States. To paraphrase Thomas Hobbes, treaties without the sword are hot air. The UN has been a useful instrument of U.S.foreign policy, but there are limits.
Would it be a violation of international law? Yes it would. Would the Republicans and the American ethnonationalists give a rats ass. I think not.

 

You might elaborate on this. But I don't think it's meaningless to vote for a candidate who is likely to make positive differences in important policy areas even though (s)he may not solve every problem facing the country, as opposed to one who is likely to undermine many of the positive gains made in civil rights, social programs and the environment.

 

Consider this: State Department efforts to transfer detainees home or resettle them in a third country have steadily reduced the inmate population.

Senior State Department officials said they have already transferred 147 detainees out of the camp since 2009. Roughly one-third of them, 50, have been repatriated to their home country, while 94 detainees have been spread throughout 26 countries. Two others were sent to Italy for prosecution and one more was prosecuted in the U.S.

Lee Wolosky, the U.S. Special Envoy for Guantanamo Closure, said last month that the State Department hoped to transfer another 34 detainees already approved for release by this summer. U.S. officials told CNN the State Department has either concluded or is in the final stages of agreements with several countries to resettle all of the 34.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

You are saying that, after dealing with the release of all of these prisoners in the way the State Department has dealt with them, suddenly the law constrains the Department from doing the same with the remaining prisoners who have been cleared of, or not charged with, any crimes. That makes no sense whatsoever. And no, they will not be returning to terrorism since they were not terrorists in the first place.

 

Yes, you said this: My point is that if Obama adopted a unilateral policy at variance with that of the U.S. Congress and U.S. public opinion, any resolution that got through would be weakened from the standpoint of its perceived authority.

​​And you said it in relation to illegal Israeli settlements. What you are not getting is that being at variance with the Congress and U.S. public opinion has nothing to do with the sanctions that would be levied against Israel by the International community should the U.S. not veto the U.N. Security Council Resolutions against Israel's illegal settlements.

 

I guess I'm skeptical that any such sanctions would be levied. In the past, effective international sanctions, such as they are, have required U.S. leadership. It would be hard for me to envision who would be leading the effort or how effective they'd be if the U.S. wasn't behind them. Would you expect Russia or China to take up the challenge? You'd have to assume that France and Britain would be willing to go along with Obama on this, in full realization that they'd get no U.S. support. What you'd have is an unpredictable mess, which is why Obama hasn't done what you blame him for not doing. For an Israeli line on settlements, internatiional law and condemnation of Obama' "tough confrontational rhetoric" against them, see http://jcpa.org/article/u-s-policy-on-israeli-settlements/
Paradoxically, you criticize Obama for not doing enough on matters where his critics say he did too much, ignore his accomplishments (see Meagain's list), and ignore the misfeasance or malfeasance of his opponents. Curios.

 

But sixty percent of democrats back economic sanctions against Israel, and the EU recommends sanctions against Israel. Now if the U.S. would just stop with the protective vetoes.

 

Here is an easy to understand explanation of the difference between owed and owned money. It is obvious why this must be acknowledged and addressed by anyone claiming to be a leader.

http://www.thetwofacesofmoney.com/files/money.pdf

 

100% of Democrats lost the presidential election. Obama is almost out the door. That ship has sailed. Welcome to the Brave New World!

 

I see. Voting for a candidate who doesn't acknowledge the difference between a debt-based and "owned" money sytem--that one thing--makes our votes meaningless and candidates not worth voting for. Nonsense! There were meaningful differences between Nixon and Humphrey, Bush and Gore, Hillary and the Donald. None of them acknowledged the critical problem brought to our attention by Geraldine Perry, with a Masters degree Education, minor in Library Science, Certified Natural Health Consultant and her co-author Ken Fusek, "independent government administrator" and sage of excelsior. MO, published by Wasteland Press. Yes I agree the big banks are out of control, as we saw in the 2008 financial crisis. I haven't read the book. but scrapping the existing international banking and money system and adopting another seems like a tall order. Meanwhile, we've elected a President who is about to give the keys to the economy back to bankers and big business to drive it over a cliff again.