Bless you for telling it like it is.

Why don't people ever remember that it was Congress that went ballistic over 'transferring Gitmo detainees to US soil'?

Really, the so called 'progressives' keep slipping their cogs on Obama...

No, Obama and Holder aren't at fault here.

What's at fault is a party, which, in order to save our precious rights, deems ones they don't like to be expendable.

We as a nation will never get over Little Boots's and his parties 8 year fiasco.
NEVER!

Leadership?

I blame both Congress and "progressives" who are willing to go protest for that Manning character, but never showed up in DC for terror trials, Health Care Reform or basically any issue except gay rights (who did a great job on the activism)

Sorry Steve -- Obama is President. Can't blame congress for everything. At some point, you stand up.

Sorry, folks, but he had a Democratic majority in both houses and could have told the scared little Dems to suck it up and do the right thing. I keep thinking about LBJ whipping the votes for the Civil Rights Act in 64. Johnson acted with the fierce audacity of now.

@ Lifelong Dem: Sorry, folks, but he had a Democratic majority in both houses and could have told the scared little Dems to suck it up and do the right thing.

He did tell them to suck it up and do the right thing. They didn't do it. In fact, they refused to pay for it. And that was that.

@ September: I think that's a good point. Obviously Manning is a more sympathetic character... but that's precisely it, isn't it, that in the USA even unsympathetic characters deserve due process and fair treatment?

Yeah if Obama had just shouted louder, Congress would just go back in time and change the fact that they voted to prohibit "the use of defense funding 'to construct or modify a facility within the United States to house detainees transferred from the Guantanamo detention facility' or 'to transfer, release or assist in the transfer or release of Guantanamo detainees to or within the United States.'"

And the winner is...Osama bin Laden, by a TKO.
If Osama could be happier, it would be that there was a civil war going on within the Homeland of the U.S.A. By all indications, we are about to launch such a war. The level of insanity within The Homeland is beyond belief.

Slightly OT, when the President gives his weekly address, it is followed-up with a Republican response that is filled with lies about what the President said and what is the state of the union. Why is there not an immediate rebuttal to the Republican response, even if no one will hear it? There must be a record of the lies and it must be immediate. It may require some work, but there must be documentation of the lies so that at some time during the campaign it can be raised in response to the additional lies that will be spoken. And, if the Democrats lie, then they must be held to account, as well. This is one time when bipartisanship is called for.

People will wonder how it was George W. Bush could do exactly as he fucking pleased despite what any lawmaking body wanted him to do. Is Obama in the same office? Doesn't look like it. I don't think it was so much Bush running roughshod over any attempt to rein him in that people objected to so much as his constantly choosing what was good for him and bad for America. A little stepping up to do the right thing wouldn't come amiss with the people who got Obama elected. Instead, he appears absolutely prissy with the "my-hands-are-tied-there's-nothing-I-can-do" bit. Bush found ways around obstacles, and people will wonder why Obama can't. And they won't be satisfied with, "because it's the law", because the law is supposed to serve the people.

Your position is that the President WANTED to do the right thing and the GOP leaders forced him to do the wrong thing. That's fair but at what point does this President actually decide to use the power of his office and actually DO the right thing in spite of the absurd opposition from the GOP?

"He happens to be right."

That and $2.75 will get you a cup of coffee.

This is yet another example of the WH failing to lead. It may well be that the Congress is the source of the problem. But to accept that while ignoring the failure of the WH to advocate for their position publicly, and to hold their opponents (from either party) accountable is the root of the problem.

For some reason the President is 100% allergic to accountability. That, unfortunately, will lead to the continuation, rather than the halt of, the nation's decline as an effective society.

Let me get this straight.

Congress passes a law saying we can't imprison Gitmo inmates here.......so that means we must use the military commission system to even try the guy?

Doesn't sound like the two are strongly linked -- after all, what's stopping us from detaining him at a military base near a civilian courtroom in the United States? Sure doesn't sound like Congress could stop that under the existing legal structure. And that would have the side benefit of not being an inexcusable break from Candidate Obama's rhetoric in 2008.

I dunno Steve -- really looks like you're just carrying water on this one. If Bush proved anything, it's that a "cunning" Executive can find ways to stop Congress from messing with his agenda.

Too bad all of the skilled politicians are on the other side of the aisle, I suppose.

When your child says, "He made me do it," do you just let it go? When a child is about to run into traffic, you grab her and if she cries, you let her cry, but you don't say, "OK, run in the traffic and see what happens." Sometimes you have to be an adult and place the children in Time Out until they recognize that you have their welfare in mind when you deny them their every whim.

I am not willing to have children tell me what is right for me because they can cry and get the attention of the ignorant.

Given the abuse KSM allegedly suffered at the hands of the CIA and DOD, it is probably impossible to legally convict the bastard under American law. This is all Cheney and his lust for revenge.

I'm so tired of the "Obama should have been [LBJ/FDR]" meme, both because it ignores the actual facts of what happened under those administrations, and the facts of this one.

Seriously folks, when Obama said "We" and "Us" and all those other things about the work ahead of our country, what part of that did you take to mean "I'll take care of it all, you nice progressives just sit back and relax now that the black guy got elected"?

Republicans fear-monger; the press internalizes and amplifies their narrative; Congressional Dems get scared and fold like a tent; press criticizes the Dems for capitulating. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Let's not spare the city officials where Holder wanted to hold the trial. This trial was a go until all three prospective cities threw tantrums.

That's fair but at what point does this President actually decide to use the power of his office and actually DO the right thing in spite of the absurd opposition from the GOP?

At the point that he assumes dictatorial powers.

I keep thinking about LBJ whipping the votes for the Civil Rights Act in 64. Johnson acted with the fierce audacity of now.

I'm pretty sure that Johnson had socially liberal Northeast Republicans to work with. He didn't have to secure each and every vote in his caucus.

And the winner is...Osama bin Laden, by a TKO- st john

-bin Laden won along, long time ago, somewhere around the time the Patriot Act was passed.

Maybe Time's Man of the Year will turn out to be "pastor" Jones, if he accomplishes what Obama can't. I speak, of course, of getting us out of Iraq/Afghanistan.

People will wonder how it was George W. Bush could do exactly as he fucking pleased despite what any lawmaking body wanted him to do.

Republican politicians back Republican presidents. Democratic politicians do not back Democratic presidents. That's the difference. The Republicans have decided that they hang together come hell or high water. The Democrats scurry in all directions on every issue, and, typically, are rewarded for it; there's no easier way to become a Beltway star than to be a Democrat who thinks the Democratic president is fucking up. See Lieberman, Joe; see also Nunn, Sam.

Even today, Holder wants to do the right thing, and so does President Obama.

While Benen's main argument about Congress is correct, about whether Holder and Obama want to do the right thing I remain unconvinced that this is true!

If The Obomination had wanted to do the right thing, he would not have started off his term in office by telling Holder not to investigate the criminalities of the Bush administration.

Certainly Congress is to blame, but Obama didn't fight them or even make much of a case. Sometimes he acts like he's still a junior senator with little influence over legislative power struggles.

Just speculating, but it looks like Holder and Obama were just looking for an excuse. "Sorry, our hands are tied. We really wanted to do the right thing. We really did."

So what's the meat of the assertion that "Congress won't let them"?

"Congress passed legislation barring the use of military funds to transfer any more Guantanamo detainees onto United States soil — even for trials."

That's it? That is so weak. The US can't use other (non-military) funds to transfer him for trial? The NYT article says that previous excuses about the onerous costs of security were proven largely unfounded in previous civilian trials.

This sounds so weak I can't believe Mr. Benen tries to pass it off with a straight face.

It's sad to see self-proclaimed leftists making desperate excuses for a Reagan-light candidate.
But this being the U.S., which is even further right than any other democratic nation, I can sometimes see the need for the lesser evil.
But if you always settle for that, well, you're still settling for evil.

Barrick Arnold said: "Congress passes a law saying we can't imprison Gitmo inmates here.......so that means we must use the military commission system to even try the guy? Doesn't sound like the two are strongly linked"

Looks funny to me too.

I'm a little confused about the whole "Congress tied our hands" defense. When Congress tells the Executive that it can't do something it wants to do, then the Executive does it anyway. Sometimes the Executive makes little noises about Constitutional authority, etc, while doing what it wants (even though Congress said No) and sometimes the Executive does it quietly, but when the Executive wants to do something, nothing stops it. This applies to just about all of the Administrations that I can remember, although I will admit that it's been getting worse.

So when an Executive says "I can't do it because Congress won't let me" I really don't take them seriously. If the Executive really wanted to, it would.

Again, this trial was a go until city officials from all 3 prospective sites threw tantrums, which gave the Right's fear-mongering legitimacy.

@ JTM: When Congress tells the Executive that it can't do something it wants to do, then the Executive does it anyway.

Are you thinking of something in particular? The debate over Congress's role in Libya, maybe? I'm not sure "the executive does it anyway" is such a well-established practice, but, convince me.

I just want to know; how did Bush get away with everything he did? Where are the Democrats again? This is the ruse of bi-partisanship, this is the product of a failed doctrine/mandate/approach/whateverthefuckyouwanttotitleit. The blame lies directly where it should, on the President for being a gawd damned pussy.

@ Barrick Arnold: what's stopping us from detaining him at a military base near a civilian courtroom in the United States?

Interesting idea. Are there rules governing where people awaiting federal trial can be held? I presume that there are, but I am not even close to being a lawyer.

re Holmes...

...which gave the Right's fear-mongering legitimacy.

NO! It may have given the Right political cover, but it did not give their fear-mongering legitimacy!

Where there is a will, there is a way! Where there is an Obominational lack of will, there is no way!

I ask again, is there anything that Obama is willing to stand up and fight for?

@ Trollop:

how did Bush get away with everything he did?

He had 100% support from elected Republicans. Obama doesn't have 100% support from elected Democrats. No Democratic president ever commands that level of loyalty. That's the difference. It doesn't matter if the president is the ballsiest, roughest toughest hombre in the West or a giant wuss -- Democrats don't obey their party's presidents the way Republicans do.

(And, as a corollary, many Democrats feel like they benefit from backing _Republican_ presidents. There are a lot of non-liberal Democrats who genuinely don't support the things liberal Democrats support. It's not that hard to understand.)

@ SadOldVet: He fought on this. Holder still says he's right. He just lost the fight. Standing up and fighting doesn't mean standing up and winning, you realize.

OMG. Could Barack Obama be any more WEAK? His own party denies him the funds to transfer KSM to the U.S. and Obama throws up his hands. "Woe is me! What can I do?"

When did they fight. When did they try to educate America. When have they ever tried to educate America on what was right.

See tax cuts for the rich.

"Even today, Holder wants to do the right thing, and so does President Obama".

Rubbish.

This president is the mirror opposite of his predecessor. He is intelligent, but possesses little political courage.

Bush was/is a reprehensible piece of work, but never lacked the guts when attempting to implement his (invariably) contemptible agenda. He was always prepared to fight.

Mr. Obama consistently seeks refuge from the implications of his own rhetoric. He reflexively cites others as bearing ultimate responsibility for his own political inadequacies. He leans on the corrupt pillars constructed by Bush and Cheney like a drunk on a lamp post.

That's not why voters swept him and his party into power in 2008. It goes a long way in explaining what happened in 2010. And anyone who can't envision his defeat in 2012 had better begin to wise up.

["If The Obomination had wanted to do the right thing, he would not have started off his term in office by telling Holder not to investigate the criminalities of the Bush administration."]

Yes, because that is exactly the same situation as the current case under discussion. And, of course, you are being absolutely accurate about what Obama did or did not do, what he could or could not do, and what would or would not have been the correct thing.

I'm being sarcastic, can you tell?

Oh, and one other note: stupid nicknames are Dubya-level childishness. Just FYI. (Seriously, "Obamination"? Make me laugh and gag at the same time, why don't you?)

====

["Certainly Congress is to blame, but Obama didn't fight them or even make much of a case. Sometimes he acts like he's still a junior senator with little influence over legislative power struggles."]

Oh give me a break. I am sick and tired of people rewriting history like this. "Obama didn't fight for it!" *YES HE DID*. If you didn't notice him making that case, then you have not been paying attention for the past three years. He made the case, and Congress stabbed him in the back by refusing to do it. That is the truth, period.

====

["That is so weak. The US can't use other (non-military) funds to transfer him for trial?"]

Guantanamo is a military outpost, and the prisoners there are in military custody. So it would take military action to move them, which requires military funding. This is not difficult to understand.

There's plenty of room for criticism of the administration, but those slamming Obama for "breaking his word" on this are blaming the wrong end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

True, we nee to blam the Democrats, especially Blue Dogs, for being pussies and caving in to the Republican freakout.

And where was the Progressive filibuster and Senate Holds when this was going down.

Can't anyone on our side play this game?

Am I dreaming, or didn't Holder actually announce the trial would be held in NY? That announcement led to an absolute freak out by NY law enforcement officials, congresspersons(Pub and Dem), and every republican in the country. Hell, read Schumer's statement after today's announcement, where he is almost bragging about it not being held in NY.

No one wanted the trial in their city. Obama and Holder were alone on this.

Ultimately, the blame lies with the ignorant cowards that make up our electorate. We shit our collective pants every time something happens, and fall for everything the tough talking bullshit artists known as Hawks are selling in both parties.

Torture? Meh.
Invade Iraq? Meh.
Ineffective military tribunals? Meh.

We get the government we deserve.

Can a sitting of the U.S. Supreme Court not be convened at Guantanamo? It certainly wouldn't be the economical way, but is there something in the law that says American courts have no jurisdiction outside the Continental U.S. provided the venue is U.S. property? They could try him aboard a U.S. warship anchored in Guantanamo Bay. I don't think the law says it has to be a military court.

Steve, would you give fair warning when you're linking to a NY Times article, please? Accessing an article through links probably count as one of the 20 free pieces against those of us who have chosen not to subscribe.

Thanks

re Shade Tail...

As you and Steve do not seem to appreciate my usage of the term The Obomination (like in abomination), perhaps I should use a different reference for him.

How about The Capitulator-In-Chief?

Maybe The Cavern, which is a term for a really big CAVE.

I am open to suggestions.

Where there is a will, there is a way. Obama has not show a hell of a lot of will!

While I will be supporting Obama next year, I find it regretable that the choice will be between the DLC/DINO/repuke-lite Obama and a wacked out 100% corporately owned TeaTard Rethugnican.

For your enlightenment, every morning I thank my god that McCrap is not the president and I thank my god twice that Billary Clinton is not the president. I do not thank my god that Obama is.

"Republicans fear-monger; the press internalizes and amplifies their narrative; Congressional Dems get scared and fold like a tent; press criticizes the Dems for capitulating. Wash, rinse, repeat."

Holmes nailed it.

SadOldVet, would you please shut the fuck up and go away?

I can tolerate (but disagree with) your relentless negativity, I can tolerate (but disagree with) your constantly putting the blame for everything you don't like on Obama. But when you use a slur (Obamination) made up by the nuttiest of Republican wingnuts, then you are no longer contributing anything useful to the conversation.

P.S. my previous post was written as soon as I got to this thread and read SadOldVet's first comment. His follow-ups do not make me any more sympathetic. In particular, his post at 4:22 and his use of the term "Billary Clinton" make me wonder if he hasn't been a concern troll all along. Although I don't really think this is likely, it seems possible and his use of the similar slur against McCain doesn't convince me otherwise. It cetainly shows a level of immaturity that does not allow for any meaningful contribution to the discussion.

Yo, CDW on April 4, 2011 at 4:22 PM:

Accessing the NYT via a link from blogs and other electronic publishing facilities Does Not Count against your 20 free articles. Check the policy as posted at NYT.

@CDW--When you hover your cursor over a link, doesn't your browser show you the URL down at the bottom of the window?

CDW, confirming what David says at 5:27, from personal experience, not form the policy angle. I exhausted my 20 freebies on Saturday and couldn't even log on yesterday; was told I had to shell out to continue reading (I'm not gonna; am waiting for the unprepared -- on purpose? -- SOBs to recognise my hard-copy, Monday/Friday subscription). But I was able to follow all Steve's links, no sweat.

And I also do what Swift advises -- hover the cursor over a link and look at the bottom bar of the window to see what it is. That's how I've always been able to "detect" the poopie-doodie troll without actually taking a sewer shower.

Ouch - problem post at 359

@Shade Tail, Holmes: Excellent points, both of you. And it's a relief to see that at least both of you were awake and paying attention (and obviously remember) that both Obama and Holder tried to move heaven and Earth to get KSM up to NYC for trial.

But NYC officials and Congress, both Dems and Repubs, threw the spikes down in the road and ground the whole plan to a halt.

All of this was documented...and yet, the s**t is still thrown at Obama and Holder. Some of the comments here blaming both men are so lacking in knowledge of the law and recent news that it's enough to make me weep.

I need a drink.

Just read the whole thread. More haters than I've seen here in a while.

Set one up for me, will ya Marc?

Pragmatism. It's a bitch.

We would not want the Masters of the Universe to be even slightly diverted and inconvenienced from doing God's Work by the trial of a man who masterminded the slaughter of 3000 of their friends and colleagues, would we? They are too important for that.

Look, obviously going back on yet another campaign promise is not President Obama's fault. It's not as though he has some way -- such as a veto pen -- to influence Congressional legislation. It's not as though at the beginning of the week his Administration testified that it will ignore Congressional war resolutions, but at the end its hands are tied by Congress.

Anyone who denies this is SO kicked out of the veal pen.

@chi res: I'll make it a double. 8-)