Obama's latest response to Paris: Shut down Gitmo in violation of law he signed

Nothing says you're serious about America's security quite like bringing hordes of potential jihadists to your own shores and settling them in neighborhoods, which is why Barack Obama is so determined to accept thousands of Syrian refugees with no way of knowing their degree of radicalization. But why stop there? You take 1,000 Syrian refugees and you might only get 50 who are inclined to mass murder Americans going about their everyday lives. Why not import some people that you know are terrorists? And where do you find those people? Guantanamo Bay, of course. It's been Obama's wet dream since the day he took office to shut down Gitmo and bring any remaining detainees to the U.S. where they can undergo criminal trials in U.S. courts with high-priced lawyers and full constitutional protections - none of which they are entitled to as enemy combatants, but all of which Obama wants to give them anyway.

And if U.S. civilian prosecutors fail to convict them of crimes committed half a world away because evidence that will satisfy a jury is a little hard to come by under such circumstances? Well you know Obama. Always quick on the draw to deport those who aren't supposed to be here. Anyway, he's been blocked from doing this for seven years because the defense authorization bills he keeps getting from Congress contain very specific language forbidding his use of Treasury money to bring Gitmo detainees to the U.S. Now he's got just over a year to go in his presidency and he still hasn't kept his promise to his left-wing base to shut down Gitmo. What to do? The classic Obama solution, of course. Just ignore the law:

Yet the Pentagon may soon announce a plan to transfer the remaining 107 dangerous combatants that no other country will accept to a domestic facility such as Fort Leavenworth or the Colorado supermax. Amid Mr. Obama’s many executive rewrites on carbon, ObamaCare and labor this flouting of the law would be the worst. Mr. Obama’s legal surrogates including former White House counsel Gregory Craig now argue that Congress’s spending restrictions are unconstitutional. They claim the executive has exclusive Article II powers as Commander in Chief over the tactical conduct of war and diplomacy, including the custody of detainees. But control over wartime prisoners is divided between the President and legislature. The Constitution vests Congress with the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water,” and not even the most zealous unitary executive theorists read the Captures Clause out of Article I. Congress cannot micromanage military operations, but it has a constitutional role in regulating them. . . .

---

Allowing the detainees to set foot on American soil will also reopen the Pandora’s box of civil-liberties litigation that could impair the war on terror. The Supreme Court has deferred to the political branches since the 2008 Boumediene decision that extended habeas corpus to the foreign fighters at Gitmo. The Justices could decide detainees are entitled to more or all of the same constitutional rights as U.S. citizens. Then there are the familiar problems of treating terrorists as garden-variety criminals. How will judges deal with rules against hearsay evidence, or obtained through coercion, or on the battlefield? What about Miranda rights? Some of the worst detainees may be impossible to convict in civilian courts due to the rules of evidence. Will they then have to be released? You might think that in the aftermath of Paris, Obama would at least become somewhat circumspect about a course of action like this. But if you thought that, it would show you haven't really been paying attention to how Obama operates. His primary reaction to Paris has been annoyance that people now expect him to take the fight against terrorism seriously. He knows what he's doing! Strategic patience. Leading from behind. All you people who want to "pop off" (yep, his words) and talk about what he should be doing instead are really irritating, and he's going to show you. So not only is he going to keep maintain political constraints on U.S. forces who could have taken out Raqqa and taken back Sinjar months ago, he's going to double down by going ahead and shutting down Gitmo - suddenly claiming the same law he's abided by for seven years is unconstitutional. And I guess he needs to do this now because Paris shows how important it is to . . . release terrorists as soon as possible? It doesn't make any sense to me either. At least if you try to fit it into any sort of rational policy framework. If you look at it, however, through the lens of Obama's ideological vanity, it makes perfect sense. What upset liberals the most about 9/11 was that it became so difficult for the left to advance it's agenda of appeasement and weakness. Obama has obviously decided he is not going to let Paris have the same effect. Not only will he not change course, he's going to go even more aggressively in the direction he's already headed. Refuse to fight. Release terrorists. And break the law to do it if that's what it takes. This is some determined enemy we're fighting. And if you're not sure if I was referring there to ISIS or Obama, well. that should tell you something.