> The president can be on the news every night making this an issue.

This is why the legal technicalities are irrelevant. The President has the ultimate bully pulpit, and it sure ain't getting used on Gitmo.

If the prisoners are ever released without being charged or tried (which won't happen because there's no evidence), they can each file a civil suit against the U.S. Government, each worth potentially hundreds of millions. I think this plays a role as well.

And if they are never released, then it can't happen?

Please don't tell me that it's a reasonable (legally or ethically) argument for keeping them imprisoned for decades.

It's the equivalent of keeping the neighbor's daughter in your basement because letting her out would get you into so much trouble.

Gitmo is already shockingly illegal or dangerously unethical; I don't see any interest by the US government to end it and take some of the heat for that.

As an American I've come the same conclusion. But it is a cowardly conclusion. We need to take our medicine and correct the wrong-doings of Gitmo. I don't really care if it costs a couple of hundred million dollars, that's chump change compared to the federal budget.

If a guy like Nixon can get a pardon so that the country can move forward, then we can certainly do the same for whatever ahats are culpable for setting up Gitmo in the first place. Pardon the military and politicians responsible for their misguided patriotism and then start treating these unfortunate souls like humans again as one small step towards making the US live up to its lofty ideals again.

The United States federal government cannot be sued unless it elects to allow the suit. This is not a real threat.

Look up "sovereign immunity".

Using the bully pulpit costs political capital, and nobody in the President's party wants him to waste political capital on Gitmo rather than healthcare, the economy, etc.

Something like a quarter of Americans also think the President is a crypto-Muslim. In the Wall Street Journal, today, for UN ambassador John Bolton and Bush Admin. legal adviser John Yoo are arguing that the administration signed up to a UN treaty intended to curb the global arms trade is really a cover for destroying the 2nd amendment and confiscating Americans' guns.

I am, frankly, surprised that that nobody in the House has offered articles of impeachment so far. (checks) Well almost, but it died q uiet death in the House Judiciary committee: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107:

This is one of those cases where only Nixon can go to China.

Impeachment is surely warranted for:

1. Assassination American citizens without trial (drone program)

2. War in Libya without congressional approval.

While I agree with you, can you think of a US president that hasn't committed an impeachable offence? We almost expect them (along with prime ministers, premiers, etc) to do rotten things, once in power. They are rarely held accountable for their crimes.

#1, maybe. For #2, I'd say the majority of presidents of the past 50 years undertaken military action without approval of Congress.

Private money from where? Which account does that get drawn on?

Are you saying that the president should have authority to order spending of non-government money?

He started a war on libya without congress approval, right?

No. That was not a war.

care to explain what would you call it?