This is what political scientists call "green lanternism". That's the phrase they use to make fun of people like you, i.e., people who insist that leaders can break institutional constraints by sheer force of will whenever they please. American government is complex and has a great many more veto points than peer governments. This complexity is annoying, so there's a natural tendency to just wish it all away and assert that the President can do whatever he wants.
(such as threatening to resign
Is this a joke? Do you not understand that Obama resigning is the best possible outcome for the majority of the House and almost a majority of the Senate? You can't credibly threaten someone by offering to do something they desperately want you to do. You understand that, right?
if congress won't bend on this or playing hardball in return on every other subject
The Senate has voted 98-0 against transferring Gitmo detainees to the US. I don't think they'd vote so strongly against Hitler. Congressmen have decided that having Gitmo detainees in the US is political suicide. Whether they're wrong about that is irrelevant.
Thank you for not making this personal, it is appreciated.
There are options, Obama chose to pursue none of those.
Obama resigning about a particular subject would definitely have consequences that would help the opposition but it would also send an extremely strong message that this president will not be co-opted into doing the wrong thing. As it stands he's as guilty as the rest, 'my hands are tied' does not work any more here than 'dog ate my homework' worked in school.
The senate voted 98:0 against because they don't want to be part and parcel of the aftermath of giving these people the minimum level of rights that they should be afforded.
Guantanamo is simply a concentration camp and the US is running it pretending that because it is outside of its borders inmates have no rights. The rest of world is looking on and not doing much about it but you can be sure that this turns attitudes against the US the world over and that the long term costs of this will far outweigh the short term political fall-out of dealing with the problem.
There are options, Obama chose to pursue none of those.
Of course there are options. The President could simply have ordered the military to start executing members of opposition leaders' families until they complied. He's the commander in chief, right?
Simply having options is not enough. We need options that are legal and likely to work. You have not demonstrated the existence of any of those options. When you tried to come up with some, you failed badly.
So, what are the feasible legal options that the President has? Can you name any?
Obama resigning about a particular subject would definitely have consequences that would help the opposition
No, that's not the issue here. The problem is that you can't threaten someone by offering to do something they want. That's not an effective way to change their behavior. It has nothing to do with helping the opposition; at a much more basic level, your proposed solution doesn't work.
but it would also send an extremely strong message that this president will not be co-opted into doing the wrong thing.
Let's say Obama resigns. Congress throws a party and does nothing about Gitmo. How does that help anyone at Gitmo? Or is resigning just a perfect expression of moral superiority?
If you believe congress would throw a party by forcing out the sitting democratically elected president then you're not very much in touch with reality, it would be a first in history and it would send some pretty significant shockwaves through the electorate. It would be the equivalent of a king abdicating elsewhere and it would make it very clear that there are lines that will not be crossed.
> The President could simply have ordered the military to start executing members of opposition leaders' families until they complied. He's the commander in chief, right?
It reiterates the spin that freeing concentration camp victims equals closing the camp, and reiterates the very peculiar idea that the guy at the top of the org chart is not in charge, or the people beneath him are in rebellion
We need options that are legal and likely to work.
The prison is illegal, or at the very least extra-legal. Obama promised to shut it down, and reneged on that promise. Please do continue to make excuses for him, but don't try to pretend Obama cares at all about his campaign promises, international law, or shutting down Guantanamo bay. He has shown no interest in any of those things.
I mean, I think Gitmo is monstrously unjust. But there are lots of injustices that are perfectly legal. I also think how the US treats its many many prisoners is monstrously unjust.
United Nations Convention Against Torture (torture itself, and rendition - refoulement)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Geneva convention
US Constitution - which is apparently now only applicable at the government's discretion
I'm afraid I don't subscribe to the sophistry which claims those detained are 'enemy combatants' to which no law applies simply because of a suspicion without charges or evidence, or that waterboarding is not torture. More important than the arguable illegality or (at best) extra-legality of the camp though, is the enduring damage it does to the reputation of the US throughout the world.
He might not be able to succeed in closing gitmo, but there are many things he could try if he had a strong resolve. He could veto everything until it was closed. He could hold daily speeches, and organize rallies. He could write public letters. He could wear a close gitmo t-shirt. He could make sure they at least have decent living conditions.
This is what political scientists call "green lanternism". That's the phrase they use to make fun of people like you, i.e., people who insist that leaders can break institutional constraints by sheer force of will whenever they please. American government is complex and has a great many more veto points than peer governments. This complexity is annoying, so there's a natural tendency to just wish it all away and assert that the President can do whatever he wants.
(such as threatening to resign
Is this a joke? Do you not understand that Obama resigning is the best possible outcome for the majority of the House and almost a majority of the Senate? You can't credibly threaten someone by offering to do something they desperately want you to do. You understand that, right?
if congress won't bend on this or playing hardball in return on every other subject
The Senate has voted 98-0 against transferring Gitmo detainees to the US. I don't think they'd vote so strongly against Hitler. Congressmen have decided that having Gitmo detainees in the US is political suicide. Whether they're wrong about that is irrelevant.