Medea Benjamin's subsequent appearance on Democracy Now! produced an interesting colloquy:

No, I believe you are incorrect. The first time that the Pres gave an executive order to close gitmo, the reason it failed was, the Republicans claimed they would not approve MONEY to do the transfering to the States, and the transferring to the other country. NOW, Yeman is demanding $100M do accept their's back. Congress must approve the money!!

Brad and fellow commenters, please sign this petition and ask your friends and family to sign also:

http://my.firedoglake.co...-white-house-for-a-beer/

Thanks for adding the Democracy Now info, too.

Without furnishing a link, PBerg @2 claims that Obama cannot release the Guantanamo detainees because Republicans will not approve the funds needed to transfer them to the U.S. and because "Yemen is demanding $100M to accept theirs back."

PBerg conveniently forgets that back in 2009, Democrats held significant majorities in both Houses of Congress. As revealed by Josh Rogin, "back in 2009, the White House dropped the ball on closing the controversial military prison by failing to come up with a plan in time, refusing to help House Democrats who were fighting for its closure, and then abandoning the plan altogether and blaming Republicans."

The problem is not lack of funds, but a Congressional ban on transferring prisoners to the U.S.

The 86 who have been cleared for release, 56 of whom are from Yemen, are not rotting in Guantanamo jail cells because of a lack of Congressional funds, but because, in 2010, Obama imposed a moratorium on their repatriation to Yemen "due to reports that an al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen was behind a failed attempt to blow up a U.S. airplane on Christmas Day 2009."

I've found nothing on-line to support PBerg's claim that "Yemen is demanding $100M" in order for those cleared detainees to be returned. Such a position would be at odds with Yemen's demand for their return.

The questions Medea was shouting at the president should have been asked months ago by the 4th estate. But, that would require them to be a professional and engaged press corp.

One of the things I've long been curious about is what makes people think/believe/support ideas that lack continuity, that they are so at odds with their stated beliefs.

Such ponderings are a preoccupation that can be triggered anywhere on the political belief map as there is what I would call magic thinking everywhere you look(I'd include the mirror, too).

For me Glenn Beck and Barack Obama are brothers in the sense that for both it's easy to wonder, how does he maintain that belief system? How does he make sense of all the nonsense he speaks?

In Obama's case I suspect he's a good man, with good intentions who has been comprehensively brainwashed by the insulated power-base bubble(and the inhabitants therein)in which he has chosen to dwell.

But the disconnect from his words, the beliefs that should logically follow from his words, and his actions is staggering.

Medea Benjamin on the other hand is heroic(at least in her political actions that I know of). Words, thoughts, and actions full of integrity and consistency.

From Reuters Friday:
Lifting the ban does not mean transfers to Yemen will immediately take place. Current law requires the Defense Department to certify for each transferred prisoner that the destination country is not a state sponsor of terrorism and would take action to make sure the individual would not threaten the United States.

Unless those provisions are removed or expire, they would have to be followed. No prisoners have been certified yet so it is not known how long the process takes.

StumpTownHero said @ 7:

From Reuters Friday...

In this thread, you pasted the same quote, but said it was from AP. Which one is it?

In either case, as you continue to make excuses for the President in several different threads at once, as far as I know, Yemen is not "a state sponsor of terrorism". If they are, that would be kinda awkward, since they are an ally of ours, and work with the U.S. to allow drone strikes against (supposed) terrorists in their country.

If they are "a state sponsor of terrorism", then I guess the U.S. will have to invade the U.S., since we are allies with "a state sponsor of terrorism" which, under the Bush/Obama doctrine, makes us a terrorist state as well.

So, that is not holding up the release of the hostages Yemeni prisoners at Guantanamo who were cleared for release by the Government as long ago as 2009, after they were found, way back then, to pose no threat to the U.S.

(And they were scheduled for release until the Christmas Day underpants bomber in 2009 led to a moratorium on the release of those prisoners.)

So what's your excuse for Obama not doing the right thing (and otherwise misdirecting the American people about it) now?

I suspected that Medea might show up on DN after her performance at Obomber's speech, and Amy did not disappoint. Amy Goodman is one of the very few real journalists working in this country today at a national level. You would never catch her palling around with the elite at the press corp dinner. It is the job of the press to be a pain in the ass, not a bunch of ass clowns.

Disgraceful. Revolting. A shocking disdain for the Democratic President who apparently is just too nice a guy for a showdown with one loudmouth.

Her "threatening to scream" if forcibly removed is just creepy.

What was the point of the repetition anyways?
To force them to toss her out guaranteeing fawning media coverage by certain political shows
and blogs?

OF COURSE - Medea has already scored Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Amy Goodman, John Fugelsang and of course Thommm Hartman as suckers for her ploy.

Irwin,
Yeah, cuz in our greatest of all countries it's so very easy to get an audience with those in the upper echelons of power. Uh huh. And if by some miracle they did give you ten minutes, you wouldn't need more than that anyway cuz they are so very responsive, listen to our concerns, and then act, gosh darnit. Uh huh. Uh huh. And it's not like if you just do everything in the normally prescribed, dictated way, as those in power would like, it's not like they're not doing everything they can to seriously, conscientiously address any number of completely urgent situations. Uh huh. Uh huh. Uh huh.

Yeah, civil disobedience. If history shows us anything, it's that those committing civil disobedience have not helped one iota. Uh huh. Uh huh. Uh huh. Uh huh.

Attaway to be a champion of the overlords. We desperately need people like you heroically defending the status quo and all it stands for.

Thanks for nuthin'.

Navi Pillay, the UN's top human rights official called U.S. drone policy "profoundly disturbing" and urged that, under its international obligations, the U.S. is obligated to close Guantánamo.

@David: The President should have plenty of time to talk to concerned Senators and Congressmen, and other VIPs, since absolutely nothing will be allowed through the House and Senate except the bare minimum budget resolutions until a change is made. Not even recess appointments thanks to SCOTUS.

Except for naming post offices of course.

Irwin @13,

We're not on the same page here. Not having the same conversation. I must sleep.

I HATE DEMOCRACY BECAUSE MAKE PEOPLE ACT WITHOUT LAW

@ seng gelombang...
Without democracy, you would be hard-pressed to post anywhere about what you "HATE". Think about it and maybe next time stay on topic.