undefined

points

[-]

This is ahistoric. No-one ever said we had to "just vote for Obama" to close Guantanamo Bay.

Frankly, Obama _tried_ to close Guantanamo Bay. He significantly shrunk the population of inmates, but it was ultimately Congress, and the courts that prevented the closure

Obama spent a huge amount of time and political capital trying to clean up Bush's messes.

by bandofthehawk2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Obama only tried to close Guantanamo by moving the prisoners to the United States, which is arguably worse than having them in Guantanamo. It would mean that you could hold prisoners in the United States indefinitely without trial. What he should have done was give the prisoners fair trials or release them.

by tartoran2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Having prisoners in the US is a lot more hassle and subject to scrutiny than keeping them tucked away on some out of bounds military prison where few have access to, which was probably the reason to put prisoners there in the first place. Anything could be done to prisoners on Guantanamo, including torture.

by umanwizard4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

You're supporting the point of the person you responded to.

by henryteeare4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

One vote isn't enough. Just Obama was insufficient when congress was not sufficiently aligned.

by Forgeties792 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

That’s the separation of powers at work, which is desirable. Congress has to (and can) do it. Obama, unlike Trump, would sometimes back down when he met the edges of executive authority. That’s how it should be.

I wanted Gitmo closed, but I don’t want it closed in a way that further expands the executive branch by once again nibbling at the edges of another branch’s authority.

by mothballed1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

At ~all times for a long period of time during Gitmos operation, there was at least one (revolving) prisoner that no nation on earth would take. I think that was the biggest challenge for someone who actually wanted to close gitmo, to close it. Not clear where you would put them that wouldn't be yet another prison.

I guess now that the US has normalized relations with the Taliban, maybe they'll end up sending them to them, not sure who else will take the last ones.

by mulmen51 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

If we didn’t want them then why did we capture them?

by mothballed39 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

A lot of them were captured for things like simply having an F91W watch and also being proximal or familial to a terrorist. They were initially wanted but then once 'cleared' the problem became once accused as a terrorist no country on earth wanted to take them even if they were cleared as likely innocent.

Obviously it was also politically infeasible to admit them into the general US.

by jibal4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

No, they refuted their strawman.

by kettlecorn4 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

This is far too nihilist.

Obama and Biden both led to meaningful policy improvements and they were far more stable than the current admin.

by coliveira4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

They were able to slow down the inevitable trajectory, they did nothing to reverse course. Doing anything different would be too "radical" for Obama or Biden.

by runarberg3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The trajectory in question was pretty well laid out in Bush’s Patriot act. If the Democratic Party at any point wanted to reverse course they would have opposed the initial legislation (like the general public did), and subsequently championed a policy which abandons it and corrects for the harm it caused.

That did not happen, quite the contrary in fact.

by thephyber2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I think you vastly undersell how much of the US voters supported extreme measures in reaction to Sept 11.

There was a social panic to “protect us against terrorism” at pretty much any cost. It was easy for the party in power to demonize the resistance to the power grab and nobody except Libertarians had a coherence response.

by runarberg2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I don‘t think it really matters how much people supported these extreme actions. This policy was clearly wrong. The general public mounted a much more significant opposition against this policy then the Democratic party did. Some members of the Democratic party did some opposition, but the party as a whole clearly did not oppose this, and therefor it was never truly on the ballots.

To be clear, I personally don‘t think stuff like this should ever be on the ballot in any democracy. Human rights are not up for election, they should simply be granted, and any policy which seeks to deny people human rights should be rejected by any of the country’s democratic institutions (such as courts, labor unions, the press, etc.)

by thephyber2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> I don‘t think it really matters how much people supported these extreme actions. This policy was clearly wrong.

This is wrong and ignorant of how we select elected representatives. They have no incentive to do “what is right” and all of the incentives to do “what is popular”. The representatives who stood up against the Patriot Act, the surveillance state, “you’re either with us or either the terrorists”, etc were unable to hold any control in Congress.

The reason we have stereotypes of politicians as lying, greasy, corrupt used car salesmen is because their incentives align with those qualities.

I am exclusively discussing the _is_, not the _ought_ (which is where I would agree with you)

by runarberg1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I was stating an opinion, not a fact, and I was interpreting history according to that opinion. That is I am arguing for a certain historical framework from which I judge historical moments.

I also don‘t think mine is a widely unpopular opinion either. That scholars of democracy and human rights agree that a democracy should not be able to vote them selves into a dictatorship, that human rights are worth something more than what can be ousted by a popular demand. So I don’t think this is an unreasonable historical framework, from which I judge the actors of this history of.