Allen B. West

Obama has no enumerated power to release GITMO prisoners, but here we go again!

Getty Images

Sure seems we’ve come to a point where the rule of law means little to the Obama administration — or the oath taken to faithfully execute our laws.

With that in mind, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, at times referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war, in the following wording: “[The Congress shall have Power…] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

I searched Article II to see if there was anything to contradict these enumerated powers bestowed upon the U.S. Congress — and found nothing. Now, I can immediately draw your attention to President Obama’s ill-conceived venture into Libya — which we have addressed several times, most recently here discussing the involvement of ISIS there — and where was the “humanitarian crisis? I could also alert you to the fact that we are deploying troops back into Iraq, but there has been no declaration from Congress on war — and we are dropping bombs and folks are shooting — a basic definition of war, as far as I know.

Advertisement - story continues below

Related Stories

Congrats Mr. President, you just...New poll exposes voters' BIGGEST election fear...What my home state of Georgia is now doing to CHRISTIANS is downright TERRIFYING

But it is the last words that are the topic of this missive — and will continue to be: “make rules concerning captures on land and water” — that power is invested in the Congress. Currently, it appears everything this executive branch doesn’t care to abide by falls into the category of “prosecutorial discretion.” We shall see if the progressive socialists and media accomplices will agree with that when there’s a Republican in the White House…

And so while y’all were out Christmas shopping, we got yet another violation of the Constitution by President Obama. But here is the point: how can we have a focus on policies doing what is right per the rule of law, when one side refuses to respect and regard the rule of law? Case in point: rules concerning captures.

As Fox News reports, “The U.S. government said early Sunday that it had transferred six detainees held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for over 12 years to Uruguay for resettlement as refugees” And when did Islamic terrorists who fought against our men and women become “refugees?”

All six men had been detained as suspected militants with ties to al-Qaida, but had never been charged – and therein lies the problem. This is not a law enforcement issue, they are unlawful enemy combatants captured during a combat operation.

Fox says, “a Pentagon statement on Sunday identified the men as four Syrians, a Tunisian and a Palestinian. They are the first Guantanamo Bay prisoners to be sent to South America. They had been cleared for release since at least 2010 but they could not be sent home — if they were so safe, then why would their own Countries not want them back — and languished as the U.S. struggled to find countries willing to take them. Among those transferred is 43-year-old Syrian Abu Wa’el Dhiab, who was on a long-term hunger strike at Guantanamo to protest his confinement. He was at the center of a legal battle in U.S. courts over the military’s force-feeding of prisoners who refuse to eat.”

What a catch-22 for our military. If the prisoners are allowed to starve, they are guilty of human rights violations. But if the prisoners are forcibly fed, they are subject to lawsuits from lawyers who share Hillary Clinton’s perspective on empathy.

Let me reiterate a simple point. The president of the United States does not have the power to release these “captures” and they are not entitled to any constitutional rights or legal proceedings – as a matter of fact, the Geneva convention states that non-uniformed, non-state belligerents are only entitled to food and shelter — so why a legal battle for feeding this guy?

Slowly but surely, Barack Obama is unconstitutionally shutting down GITMO — while we are distracted. And let us all remember that the rate of recidivism for these released “detainees” — unlawful enemy combatants is the correct definition – is around 30 percent.

Also, those five senior Taliban leaders who were exchanged for U.S. Army SGT Bowe Bergdahl (a deserter about whose location we know nothing or the status of the completed investigation) shall be free to return to Afghanistan from Qatar in 2015 — just a few weeks away!

And Uruguay? If you know your history, it was to Uruguay that many former Nazis fled post World War II.

Fox says “the other Syrians sent to Uruguay on Saturday were identified by the Pentagon as Ali Husain Shaaban, 32; Ahmed Adnan Ajuri, 37; and Abdelahdi Faraj, 39. Also released were Palestinian prisoner Mohammed Abdullah Taha Mattan, 35, and 49-year-old Adel bin Muhammad El Ouerghi of Tunisia. “We are very grateful to Uruguay for this important humanitarian action, and to President Mujica for his strong leadership in providing a home for individuals who cannot return to their own countries,” U.S. State Department envoy Clifford Sloan said.”

Mr. Sloan why are these cheeky fellas not allowed to return to their own countries? Could it be that their own countries recognize them as Islamic terrorists and would take the proper action against them – similar to the woman in Abu Dhabi who stabbed to death 47-year-old American Ibolya Ryan and is facing the death penalty in UAE? I’m quite perplexed about a “policy” that calls for releasing the enemy (while the enemy is still fighting us) to countries not of their origin where they are reclassified as “refugees.” Is this good policy or just dangerous politics affecting our long-term national security? You be the judge.

Fox writes, “Obama pledged to close the prison upon taking office but was blocked by Congress, which banned sending prisoners to the U.S. for any reason, including trial, and placed restrictions on sending them abroad.”

Let’s be clear here, Barack Obama simply does not possess the constitutional authority or power to shut down GITMO. Therefore he wasn’t blocked by Congress, it was Congress acting within its prescribed constitutional power.

You see, the problem in America is that we are becoming oblivious to the rule of law and totally devoid of any understanding regarding what it states. As a result, we have a demagogue who can use the bully pulpit — supported by a complicit media — to advance ideas antithetical to our Constitutional Republic, i.e. a “fundamental transformation.”

Don’t forget the admissions of one Jonathan Gruber regarding the American people and why that enabled the passing of Obamacare done in complete violation of standard legislative process and procedure — after all “we have to pass the bill in order to find out what’s in it.” Then again, there may be some folks reading this post who have no idea who Jonathan Gruber is — or have ever read the U.S. Constitution for that matter.

On September 17, 1787 after the Constitutional Convention, a Mrs. Powell asked Benjamin Franklin what sort of government America now had. Franklin laid down a challenge, “a Republic if you can keep it.”

A Republic requires an informed electorate. So please wake up and realize that President Obama has no enumerated authority to continue to release unlawful enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay. As a matter of fact, he has little power or authority to do much of what he has and continues to do.

Congrats Mr. President, you just...

Congrats Mr. President, you just...

New poll exposes voters' BIGGEST election fear...

New poll exposes voters' BIGGEST election fear...