Obama calls for halt to Gitmo prosecutions.

[Biggles]

What the title says:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html#cnnSTCText

Any thoughts?

[Konovalov]

It's an exercise in buying time in order to figure out exactly what to do with the mess that is Guantanamo Bay.

[Skybird]

He said he would close it, so no surprise. A legal vacuum, a spot of shame on the American flag. Time to clean it.

On the question of who should take those prisoners who could not be sent back to their countries without needing to fear torture and mistreatement, there are two scenarios.

Either the prisoner in question is innocent and harmless (and we have had quiet some of these now), then nothing speaks against the US taking him in, if he is innocent or harmless, if he wants that. After all, america has a debt to such a person.

If he is considered dangerous, again the US should take him, for I see no reason why it should be acceptable for protesting, opposing european states to take such a person and take the risk, and the US getting rid of the risk and problem for free.

I don't buy this negotiating of what countries take what prisoners. The US started it, so they have to take them, period. Only those persons who are innocent and have the wish not to stay in the country whose hijacked "hospitality" they have enjoyed over the past years, should be given the choice to go to a european country, if they wish that. Problematic cases America has to find a solution for by itself, taking the efforts and risks itself, too, becasue it is responsible for the status quo and has created the mess. I do not accept prisoners with risks being exported from America to Europe. Also, after up to seven years without legal proceedings, such people either are brought to court right now on the basis of valid civil law codes, or released. There was opportunity and time enough to charge and sentence (or release) them.

[Biggles]

He said he would close it, so no surprise.

True that, but this soon? I didn't expect anything from him for the next week or so. At least nothing of such an interest. (for me).

[Onkel Neal]

What the title says:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html#cnnSTCText

Any thoughts?

Send them to Germany. First class, of course.

[Biggles]

What the title says:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html#cnnSTCText

Any thoughts?

Send them to Germany. First class, of course.

Or, uh, prisons on american soil?

[Enigma]

As far as I know, this is a fairly standard thing to do during a transition. ....

[breadcatcher101]

Send them to Iraq and let them try them in their courts.

[SteamWake]

He said he would close it, so no surprise.

No supprise either that he has also backed off this statement.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/01/11/2009-01-11_gitmos_a_nogo_says_presidentelect_barack.html

[Skybird]

What the title says:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html#cnnSTCText

Any thoughts?

Send them to Germany. First class, of course.
Keep them yourself. You messed it up, you clean it, you pay for it. And you bring your legal issues back in order. Why should Germany give you the cheap exit ticket?

[nikimcbee]

Outsource the work to Russia.:up: They are skilled in dealing with these kind of political issues. When these guys get off the plane in Moscow, they'll all be wearing "Vote Kasparov, time for change" t-shirts.

Problem solved in 10 minutes. Just think, they won't even need to go through customs.:up:

[baggygreen]

Here's what irks me about this little situation - how could people detained for fighting the great satan et al possibly be at risk when they return home? at risk from whom? the people doing the torturing and killing (with a rare exception here and there) are their own mates...:doh:

[Skybird]

Consider a prisoner to be a terrorist indeed. Imagine the fairy queen said so. Imagine him to be Saudi. Imagine to hand him over to the Saudis.

Not that I care for him, in this example. Just answering your question. Saudi terrorism and Saudi terrorism - are not the same. Saudis pay for Saudi terrorism only if it is not directed against their own Saudi government, but infidel nations. Else they execute such terrorists. But different to Gitmo, they neither need seven years to find out about a prisoner, nor does it take them so long to bring him to court and get him sentenced.

[Onkel Neal]

Outsource the work to Russia.:up: They are skilled in dealing with these kind of political issues. When these guys get off the plane in Moscow, they'll all be wearing "Vote Kasparov, time for change" t-shirts.

Problem solved in 10 minutes. Just think, they won't even need to go through customs.:up:

haha, that works on so many levels! :rotfl:

[Stealth Hunter]

He said he would close it, so no surprise.

No supprise either that he has also backed off this statement.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/01/11/2009-01-11_gitmos_a_nogo_says_presidentelect_barack.html

I didn't see anything in there that said he wouldn't close the facility...:hmm:

[fatty]

Keep them yourself. You messed it up, you clean it, you pay for it. And you bring your legal issues back in order. Why should Germany give you the cheap exit ticket?

This is good. But what is best in life?

[Biggles]

He said he would close it, so no surprise.

No supprise either that he has also backed off this statement.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/01/11/2009-01-11_gitmos_a_nogo_says_presidentelect_barack.html

I didn't see anything in there that said he wouldn't close the facility...:hmm:

I guess it meant that anyone who thought that it'll be closed by tomorrow will be let down. Now, is there anybody who thought that it'd go that quickly?

[Fish]

I thought you're innocent untill you are convicted in the USA?
Am I wrong? Seems some of you have them convicted without being in court. :-?

[Stealth Hunter]

I thought you're innocent untill you are convicted in the USA?
Am I wrong? Seems some of you have them convicted without being in court. :-?

Not anymore, thanks to the Patriot Act.

One Nation, Under Surveillance.

[Aramike]

What the title says:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html#cnnSTCText

Any thoughts?

Send them to Germany. First class, of course.
Keep them yourself. You messed it up, you clean it, you pay for it. And you bring your legal issues back in order. Why should Germany give you the cheap exit ticket?What mess? All I see are leftists who don't like how something is done.

Heh, imagine Obama's credibility if someone detained there was released, then perpetuated a terrorist act. You think he doesn't know that?

Sure, Gitmo may close ... only to replaced by something similar.

[Stealth Hunter]

What the title says:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html#cnnSTCText

Any thoughts?

Send them to Germany. First class, of course.
Keep them yourself. You messed it up, you clean it, you pay for it. And you bring your legal issues back in order. Why should Germany give you the cheap exit ticket?What mess? All I see are leftists who don't like how something is done.

Heh, imagine Obama's credibility if someone detained there was released, then perpetuated a terrorist act. You think he doesn't know that?

Sure, Gitmo may close ... only to replaced by something similar.

And you know 100% a similar detention center will be created?:88)

[Aramike]

What the title says:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html#cnnSTCText

Any thoughts?

Send them to Germany. First class, of course.
Keep them yourself. You messed it up, you clean it, you pay for it. And you bring your legal issues back in order. Why should Germany give you the cheap exit ticket?What mess? All I see are leftists who don't like how something is done.

Heh, imagine Obama's credibility if someone detained there was released, then perpetuated a terrorist act. You think he doesn't know that?

Sure, Gitmo may close ... only to replaced by something similar.

And you know 100% a similar detention center will be created?:88)Did I say there would be?

Nope.

You don't need a similar detention center to be created to hold prisoners in similar conditions.

[Stealth Hunter]

What the title says:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html#cnnSTCText

Any thoughts?

Send them to Germany. First class, of course.
Keep them yourself. You messed it up, you clean it, you pay for it. And you bring your legal issues back in order. Why should Germany give you the cheap exit ticket?What mess? All I see are leftists who don't like how something is done.

Heh, imagine Obama's credibility if someone detained there was released, then perpetuated a terrorist act. You think he doesn't know that?

Sure, Gitmo may close ... only to replaced by something similar.

And you know 100% a similar detention center will be created?:88)Did I say there would be?

Nope.

. . . only to replaced by something similar.

[Zachstar]

Gitmo will be closed. It has done nothing but given the ones accused dream conditions while they wait for trial.

Granted due to the high number of innocents such is required but to see videos of terrorists getting conditions that would make a middle class worker jealous is just silly. They get to watch Arabic TV in HD, Fancy dinners, plenty of goodies. ETC...

Yes there are times where it is bad there but overall its just a dream home for terrorists and they need to be gotten the hell out and tried in the court of law SOON.

[SteamWake]

Gitmo will be closed. It has done nothing but given the ones accused dream conditions while they wait for trial..

Nah... they missed out on that whole virgin thing :rotfl:

[UnderseaLcpl]

I thought you're innocent untill you are convicted in the USA?
Am I wrong? Seems some of you have them convicted without being in court.

In most cases, you're completely correct. However, those protections are not guaranteed to non-U.S. citizens, nor prisoners of war, and certainly not to non-uniformed combatants, which even the Geneva Convention does not protect.

The controversey surrounding Guantanamo is purely political and has nothing to do with the treatment of the prisoners.

Pretty much every account of Gitmo "torture" that I have ever seen can best be described as extremely mild. Sure, some of it it may have been humiliating, but it's nothing compared to what your own armed forces recruits go through on a daily basis. It may suck to be stacked, naked, in a human pyramid, but try being crammed into a toilet stall with 19 other naked, male recruits for taking too long too shower. And believe me, they can all fit in there.
Perhaps the prisoners see the Quran flushed down a toilet. I'm not a Muslim, so that would be a ridiculous form of torture for me, but maybe it is roughly equivalent to being told that your girlfriend called while you were at PT to tell you that she left you for someone else(which turned out to be a lie), or being told that your grandfather died nearly 3 weeks after the fact, and then sent to the gas chamber (true, in this instance). I'm pretty damn sure that no Gitmo prisoners were forced to sing the Marines' Hymn while doing pushups in CS gas.

Considering how our own troops are treated, I'd say that the Gitmo prisoners got off pretty light.

Having actually handled enemy POW's, I can assure you that the directives for their capture and interrogation are quite lenient. They certainly don't involve starvation, beating, and beheading, unlike some people's procedures.

If anyone ever becomes a POW, pray to whatever you hold sacred that you become a U.S. POW, because even in Guantanamo you'll get better treatment than you would almost anywhere else.

To reiterate, this move is purely political. Most likely, Obama will simply shuffle the prisoners somewhere less publicized, or defuse the controversey via some other means. Guantanamo was intended to be a nail in Bush's coffin and has succeeded spectacularly despite any kind of common sense.

Of course, some choose to believe that "two wrongs do not make a right", and these people generally are not soldiers and have little to no respect for the value of military intelligence, especially in a counter-insurgency operation.

[Sea Demon]

As far as I know, this is a fairly standard thing to do during a transition. ....

In terms of his dealings with national security, the man's first day in office was not spent ensuring our people in the military have adequate funding, or whatever they need to ensure success of their mission. Instead his first day in office was spent fighting for rights of our enemy combatants at Gitmo. He decided to use his first day to misuse the executive order to protect enemies of this country. That is not a standard thing any President has ever done.

[Zachstar]

As far as I know, this is a fairly standard thing to do during a transition. ....
In terms of his dealings with national security, the man's first day in office was not spent ensuring our people in the military have adequate funding, or whatever they need to ensure success of their mission. Instead his first day in office was spent fighting for rights of our enemy combatants at Gitmo. He decided to use his first day to misuse the executive order to protect enemies of this country. That is not a standard thing any President has ever done.

Take that junk to freeperville. It's just laughable here.

That excuse to keep gitmo open died years ago. Get new material.

[Zachstar]

BTW what is far more relevant to this is the ending of torture. (Yes it is torture. Those who have done it in simulations have terrors for months afterwards after lasting but a few seconds)

The ending of "Enhanced Interrogation" will go a long way to renewing respect for the USA.

[Sea Demon]

As far as I know, this is a fairly standard thing to do during a transition. ....
In terms of his dealings with national security, the man's first day in office was not spent ensuring our people in the military have adequate funding, or whatever they need to ensure success of their mission. Instead his first day in office was spent fighting for rights of our enemy combatants at Gitmo. He decided to use his first day to misuse the executive order to protect enemies of this country. That is not a standard thing any President has ever done.

Take that junk to freeperville. It's just laughable here.

That excuse to keep gitmo open died years ago. Get new material.

Sadly enough, only a Democrat wouldn't be able to figure out the negative consequences of releasing enemy combatants while at war against them. Most of these people were found in Afghanistan armed to the teeth, fighting alongside Taliban wackos against our soldiers. This will indeed increase the chances of another attack against our interests, or more coalition soldiers dead at the hands of these psychos. But I'm sure none of that is important to you. Like Mr. Obama seemingly, you see no dangers.

You're more worried about how we treat them than what dangers they pose to us. And you give primary concern as to what some of the whiny Europeans think of us, rather than what we should do to ensure our own security. I guess we should get used to the old "sweep it under the rug" policy. Change and Hope???? Yeah...change back to the 90's. And only hope for the enmy terrorist combatants. In regards to the relevance of the material, National Security is never an old or obsolete concept. And there are many well reasoned arguments to keep Gitmo open, and there are virtually no good arguments to close it other than the usual "we'll be more respected by the whiners of the world" nonsense. Unfortunately, you guys on the left never seem to get it. Nor do any of you seem to be students of history. I am saddened if the results of this lead to more U.S. casualties. I'm worried because this single action is likely to lead to more danger.

[Enigma]

Sadly enough, only a Democrat wouldn't be able to figure out the negative consequences of releasing enemy combatants while at war against them. Most of these people were found in Afghanistan armed to the teeth, fighting alongside Taliban wackos against our soldiers. This will indeed increase the chances of another attack against our interests, or more coalition soldiers dead at the hands of these psychos. But I'm sure none of that is important to you. Like Mr. Obama seemingly, you see no dangers.

You're more worried about how we treat them than what dangers they pose to us. And you give primary concern as to what some of the whiny Europeans think of us, rather than what we should do to ensure our own security. I guess we should get used to the old "sweep it under the rug" policy. Change and Hope???? Yeah...change back to the 90's. And only hope for the enmy terrorist combatants. In regards to the relevance of the material, National Security is never an old or obsolete concept. And there are many well reasoned arguments to keep Gitmo open, and there are virtually no good arguments to close it other than the usual "we'll be more respected by the whiners of the world" nonsense. Unfortunately, you guys on the left never seem to get it. Nor do any of you seem to be students of history. I am saddened if the results of this lead to more U.S. casualties. I'm worried because this single action is likely to lead to more danger.

I give your rebuttal a D-. :lol:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

One thing I've noticed is that Obama has begun making decisions that would have taken months or even years for others to make. That doesnt make them good decisions per se, but it shows me that he is at least committed to taking action.

[Morts]

Sadly enough, only a Democrat wouldn't be able to figure out the negative consequences of releasing enemy combatants while at war against them.
every one of your arguments seems to only contain "its always the democrats, democrats are stupid, only a democrat, durrrr..we're right your stupid"

[UnderseaLcpl]

One thing I've noticed is that Obama has begun making decisions that would have taken months or even years for others to make. That doesnt make them good decisions per se, but it shows me that he is at least committed to taking action.

Which is a decided disadvantage if you want Washington to stop doing things.:hmm:

But I see your point.:yep:

[Sea Demon]

every one of your arguments seems to only contain "its always the democrats, democrats are stupid, only a democrat, durrrr..we're right your stupid"
Oh, if only it was so easy Morts. Obama's first move was to stop the trials of accused Islamic terrorists and to move to close Gitmo. Most of these psychos were found on the battlefields of Afghanistan fighting alongside the Taliban. At this very moment, intelligence experts are warning us that the Islamic fundies want to hit us hard under a new president, possibly as some sort of new "test" of resolve. What sort of message is being sent to these Islamic terrorists? Is it possible that this will be seen as a signal that Barack Obama will be soft on terrorism? I think so.

And unfortunately, it is a historical precedent that a Democrat executive is soft on terrorism, and usually notches down national secureity as a priority. As you can see above there are those who deny it, but words and deeds of past Democrat Presidents and the actions of this current one are a matter of record. The Obama drones simply won't be able to escape it.

[Enigma]

Oh, if only it was so easy Morts. Obama's first move was to stop the trials of accused Islamic terrorists and to move to close Gitmo. Most of these psychos were found on the battlefields of Afghanistan fighting alongside the Taliban. At this very moment, intelligence experts are warning us that the Islamic fundies want to hit us hard under a new president, possibly as some sort of new "test" of resolve. What sort of message is being sent to these Islamic terrorists? Is it possible that this will be seen as a signal that Barack Obama will be soft on terrorism? I think so.

And unfortunately, it is a historical precedent that a Democrat executive is soft on terrorism, and usually notches down national secureity as a priority. As you can see above there are those who deny it, but words and deeds of past Democrat Presidents and the actions of this current one are a matter of record. The Obama drones simply won't be able to escape it.

Was Bush "soft on terrorism" when he wanted to close Gitmo? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/08/politics/main1596464.shtml) Or does that only apply to democrats who want to close Gitmo?

Also, Can you tell me how many detainees there are at Gitmo?
Can you tell me how many have been formally charged?

Because the answer to these questions, inconvenient as it may be for you, completely debunk this entire post.

[Sea Demon]

Was Bush "soft on terrorism" when he wanted to close Gitmo? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/08/politics/main1596464.shtml) Or does that only apply to democrats who want to close Gitmo?

Also, Can you tell me how many detainees there are at Gitmo?
Can you tell me how many have been formally charged?

Because the answer to these questions, inconvenient as it may be for you, completely debunk this entire post.

Nope. Bush has been consistent in his actions against terrorism. And his record of no further attacks is a matter of record for the nation. And as far as I know, Mr. Bush never closed Gitmo or signed any executive orders to move in that direction. Looks like his response there was simple appeasement to a whiner in words with no real effect. Mr. Obama on the other hand is going forward very quickly. With real executive orders. The real danger here that you can't see is that he's closing this facility with no policy in place to deal with these people. There are 240 detainees currently. And these people were not exactly picked up in the candy store on the corner. And I'm concerned with the message he's sending to terrorists worldwide. As difficult that is for you, your "insight" here simply rings hollow. What you can't escape is the fact that Mr. Obama's first day in office was spent looking out for the rights of enemy combatants. Not ensuring our own people have the resources necessary to succeed in their mission.

[Tchocky]

And these people were not exactly picked up in the candy store on the corner.
Lots of them were bought at the corner shop, though.

[Sea Demon]

Anyway it's funny how people praise Bush for his record against terrorism when in fact the worst terrorist attack on the US was carried while he was in office :doh:
If Mr. Bush's predecessor (yet another Democrat) had done his job, and not have taken the "sweep it under the rug" approach to the few terrorist attacks on his watch, 9/11 most likely would never have happened.

[Enigma]

Everything bad that happened while Republicans were in office is the fault of Democrats. Got it. :rotfl:

By the way, I can't help but notice you hadn't answered my questions....:hmm:

[Enigma]

P.S "Bin Laden determined to strike in USA"

Sound familiar? Conveniently forgotten? I imagine so....

[Sea Demon]

Everything bad that happened while Republicans were in office is the fault of Democrats. Got it. :rotfl:

By the way, I can't help but notice you hadn't answered my questions....:hmm:

Poor little Enigma. :nope: Yes, I answered you and then some. How many detainees? answered. Formally charged? Don't know and don't care. These people were not exactly sitting in terror camps in Afghanistan on a Taliban picnic. You simply can't address the issue of why your hero has decided to use his first day to defend the rights of enemy combatants rather than use the first day to ensure our people have what they need to fight these terrorists and win. In regards to your first point, Mr. Bush responded to the attacks on 9/11 and has kept the nation safe from another attack since. All the while the left and Democrats have fought him the entire way. That is the fault of the Democrats. And yes, If Mr. Clinton had done his job, 9/11 probably would not have happened. That's as obvious as gravity beneath your feet.

[Tchocky]

Where's gravity?

THERE IT IS

[Fish]

Sadly enough, only a Democrat wouldn't be able to figure out the negative consequences of releasing enemy combatants while at war against them.
every one of your arguments seems to only contain "its always the democrats, democrats are stupid, only a democrat, durrrr..we're right your stupid"
Exactly, and the rest of the world, especially europ, are just commie whiners. :yep:

[Aramike]

What the title says:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html#cnnSTCText

Any thoughts?

Send them to Germany. First class, of course.
Keep them yourself. You messed it up, you clean it, you pay for it. And you bring your legal issues back in order. Why should Germany give you the cheap exit ticket?What mess? All I see are leftists who don't like how something is done.

Heh, imagine Obama's credibility if someone detained there was released, then perpetuated a terrorist act. You think he doesn't know that?

Sure, Gitmo may close ... only to replaced by something similar.

And you know 100% a similar detention center will be created?:88)Did I say there would be?

Nope.

. . . only to replaced by something similar.Not that I should have to tell you this, but "something similar" is very broad. Doesn't mean a dentention center will be created. :doh:

[Zachstar]

Anyway it's funny how people praise Bush for his record against terrorism when in fact the worst terrorist attack on the US was carried while he was in office :doh:
If Mr. Bush's predecessor (yet another Democrat) had done his job, and not have taken the "sweep it under the rug" approach to the few terrorist attacks on his watch, 9/11 most likely would never have happened.
Bull. It's the ole, Clinton's Fault trick that repubs love to use when Bush is under political fire.

Every Single One of these Anti-Terror policies were reactionary. Bush had a year to enact whatever he wanted to "Protect Us" And that would not have done a damn thing.

I like how the new fear tactic the freeps use. That Obama making all these decisions will lead to Osama (Even tho he is nothing but a PR image now) or some other wackjob to attack america. Almost to the point where they hope it will happen. (And don't tell me some of the deeper right wing wackos don't)

Like I said, Get new material. And no the Bear reference went out a decade ago.

In case you have not noticed. We are the laughing stock of the world. What good would they get from hitting us? It would unite the world against them again. They've won in Iraq, They will wait patiently for decades if they have to but the moment we are finally out of that hellhole they will get oggles of money from China and Iran for their oil assets.

Want to defeat them? Get us the HELL out of this dependance on their oil. That is the only way. Not gitmo, Not constant war, not Patriot act 2.

[Sea Demon]

Bull. It's the ole, Clinton's Fault trick that repubs love to use when Bush is under political fire.

Every Single One of these Anti-Terror policies were reactionary. Bush had a year to enact whatever he wanted to "Protect Us" And that would not have done a damn thing.

I like how the new fear tactic the freeps use. That Obama making all these decisions will lead to Osama (Even tho he is nothing but a PR image now) or some other wackjob to attack america. Almost to the point where they hope it will happen. (And don't tell me some of the deeper right wing wackos don't)

Like I said, Get new material. And no the Bear reference went out a decade ago.

In case you have not noticed. We are the laughing stock of the world. What good would they get from hitting us? It would unite the world against them again. They've won in Iraq, They will wait patiently for decades if they have to but the moment we are finally out of that hellhole they will get oggles of money from China and Iran for their oil assets.

Want to defeat them? Get us the HELL out of this dependance on their oil. That is the only way. Not gitmo, Not constant war, not Patriot act 2.

This is the one that really strikes the nerve of you guys. Because you know it's true. I know you don't realize it, or you have just conveniently forgotten how many terrorist attacks occured during Clinton's reign. And the unfocused and impotent responses to each occurence. It's really too bad Clinton did not pursue terrorism as the threat that it is. Ultimately the threat was able to build up to the point that the WTC was destroyed on 9/11. During the Clinton era, the terrorist element struck the WTC as well in 1993. People died there and many were injured. Yes, Mr. Clinton was derelict in his duty. And the culmination of Clinton's policies of appeasement ended on October 12, 2000 with the USS Cole attack. The terrorist element was stronger and bolder after the end of 8 years of virtually impotent responses to their vile acts. Nothing you can do to alleviate that fact. It is a matter of historical record. No amount of liberal "faith" can remove it. It is what it is. But I do enjoy the spin you provide. But that's all it is.....excuses and spin. Typical.

The material is all relevant to today. So no "new material" is required. And the facts are inescapable for you. In terms of being a laughing stock....I thought we were loved now that the annointed "One" has been elected. What happened Zach? On a more serious note, when it comes to our national security, opinions of other nations mean squat to me. Good or bad. I like cooperation and mutual trust among allied nations. But our national security concerns should not seek approval from the whiners before we carry out whatever we need to, to ensure the peace and security of our people. Obviously, our newly elected government currently gives more priority to seeking approval from other nations prior to acting in defense of this country, national security comes after that. Been there, done that. Unfortunately that does nothing to truly secure our people's lives or interests, and proves you pay no attention to historical precedents.

They've won in Iraq,

I've heard of liberal revisionist history, but this is beyond the scope of reality. :lol: Last time I checked we've pretty much routed every single terrorist element in Iraq. We control everything but one tiny area. Iraq is now a self governing nation as well. The focus now goes to Afghanistan.

What good would they get from hitting us? It would unite the world against them again.

Sometimes I think libs just say things that sound nice and pretty, but don't truly understand anything that they say. They've hit us multiple times in the 90's. And are waiting to do it again. Your problem is you want a unified world that sings Kumbaya that doesn't act against terrorist threats, rather than a focused nation that responds to threats despite opinions of the whiners. It does absolutely no good to have the Eurolefties love us if we're allowing our people to be targeted in heinous terrorist acts, and for allowing threats to be built. This is why I say modern day liberals in power, especially in a time of war, is a dangerous prospect.

[Stealth Hunter]

What the title says:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html#cnnSTCText

Any thoughts?

Send them to Germany. First class, of course.
Keep them yourself. You messed it up, you clean it, you pay for it. And you bring your legal issues back in order. Why should Germany give you the cheap exit ticket?What mess? All I see are leftists who don't like how something is done.

Heh, imagine Obama's credibility if someone detained there was released, then perpetuated a terrorist act. You think he doesn't know that?

Sure, Gitmo may close ... only to replaced by something similar.

And you know 100% a similar detention center will be created?:88)Did I say there would be?

Nope.

. . . only to replaced by something similar.Not that I should have to tell you this, but "something similar" is very broad. Doesn't mean a dentention center will be created. :doh:

. . . only to [B] replaced . . .

[magic452]

We could just put them on a strict Peanut Butter diet. :rotfl::rotfl:

[Zachstar]

Oh geez SeaDemon seriously Free Republic is that way.

You think for one moment that "government" over there loves us? Adores us? Would never sell us out to make money? You got to be out of your right wing mind to think that.

We lost because we did not find weapons of mass destruction. If a pure form of win or lose is all you want. But you know what? Now that us "Liberals" (Even tho I am actually a progressive tho that may be too difficult for the deep right to understand) are in charge we can ignore your "Insight" just like you relished doing to us for the past 2 terms.


How about you mosey on over to freeperville and prepare your speeches about how Obama leaving Iraq caused them to Join Iran and form alliances with other bad guys and even china. And for good measure be sure to throw in "It is still all Clinton's fault" Hell throw Carter in for good measure.

[baggygreen]

How about you mosey on over to freeperville and prepare your speeches about how Obama leaving Iraq caused them to Join Iran and form alliances with other bad guys and even china. And for good measure be sure to throw in "It is still all Clinton's fault" Hell throw Carter in for good measure.God I hope that doesn't happen. I posted the fear of it a couple of years ago, but still i hope that doesnt happen. It'd get very messy very quickly. You reckon Israel would sit idly by while Iran's revolutionary Guards shift right to the western Iraqi border?:dead: bloody hell

[Zachstar]

It is going to happen. That is why we were in Iraq for so long.

We wont know the extent of the Cluster**** of shifting the balance of power over there until the day oil skyrockets on news that they will gain goods from China in exchange for lots of their oil.

And I aint talking about green tea or chopsticks. I am talking fighters, Diesels, even SAMS.

And what about Israel? They just had the 2nd major Cluster**** in less than 5 years. Their influence is now severely weakened. They will not tango with Iraq if Iran AND China has it's back.

Granted it is FAR more likely they make a deal with Iran before such an extensive deal with China. Yet, Do not think for a moment that they will be "Friends" They are in it for the money and the "Way out" once we get off the tit of oil.

That is why there is no such thing as "Liberating" a country anymore. They know troops will stick around for a decade. Maybe 2 these days until they make it unpopular enough to shoo us out. Then they are free to make any kind of agreements they want. Because the chances of the US invading Iraq AGAIN will be about as much as Russia invading again.

It is all about the money and we can't pay these thugs in their .gov enough to love the stars and stripes and respect us. They got what they wanted.

[baggygreen]

Yeh, I dunno about israel's influence dropping following gaza.

From what I understood they didnt stuff up too badly this time, from a strictly military perspective. I got no doubt that lebanon was a much needed wakeup call for them tho. Will China back the ME states for long? after all, following russias precedent in georgia, china can head over to siberia, which is ethnically more chinese anyway, and make use of their resources. How far are they from this?

You're right though, Iran and Iraq will soon unite under a shi'a banner and scare the ****e outta the lower gulf states.

[baggygreen]

Yeh, I dunno about israel's influence dropping following gaza.

From what I understood they didnt stuff up too badly this time, from a strictly military perspective. I got no doubt that lebanon was a much needed wakeup call for them tho. Will China back the ME states for long? after all, following russias precedent in georgia, china can head over to siberia, which is ethnically more chinese anyway, and make use of their resources. How far are they from this?

You're right though, Iran and Iraq will soon unite under a shi'a banner and scare the ****e outta the lower gulf states. It is

[baggygreen]

Yeh, I dunno about israel's influence dropping following gaza.

From what I understood they didnt stuff up too badly this time, from a strictly military perspective. I got no doubt that lebanon was a much needed wakeup call for them tho. Will China back the ME states for long? after all, following russias precedent in georgia, china can head over to siberia, which is ethnically more chinese anyway, and make use of their resources. How far are they from this?

You're right though, Iran and Iraq will soon unite under a shi'a banner and scare the ****e outta the lower gulf states. It

[baggygreen]

Yeh, I dunno about israel's influence dropping following gaza.

From what I understood they didnt stuff up too badly this time, from a strictly military perspective. I got no doubt that lebanon was a much needed wakeup call for them tho. Will China back the ME states for long? after all, following russias precedent in georgia, china can head over to siberia, which is ethnically more chinese anyway, and make use of their resources. How far are they from this?

You're right though, Iran and Iraq will soon unite under a shi'a banner and scare the ****e outta the lower gulf states. It is very troubling..

[Stealth Hunter]

Everything bad that happened while Republicans were in office is the fault of Democrats. Got it. :rotfl:

By the way, I can't help but notice you hadn't answered my questions....:hmm:

These people were not exactly sitting in terror camps in Afghanistan on a Taliban picnic.

Who said they were sitting in terrorist camps in the Middle East? A good portion were minding their own business in their own towns and villages. Only three were convicted of anything (David Hicks, the guy who gave material support to the 2001 terrorists, Salim Hamdan, Bin Laden's chauffeur, and Ali ah-Bahlul, who praised the attack on the USS Cole...), and there have been 775 people who have been to Gitmo (270 of which are still there; the rest have either been released due to either a lacking of evidence or sent to other countries for interrogation).

You simply can't address the issue of why your hero has decided to use his first day to defend the rights of enemy combatants rather than use the first day to ensure our people have what they need to fight these terrorists and win.

You fool, you can't beat/win against terrorism. So long as you've got a living human being, you'll have that one guy who takes on a political chaos doctrine. No matter how much we may all wish it, the unfortunate fact of life is you will always have those who choose terrorism.

In regards to your first point, Mr. Bush responded to the attacks on 9/11 and has kept the nation safe from another attack since.

By violating almost every right the Constitution guarantees us. Yes, it's quite important for the government to listen in on my phone calls, track my Internet records, place me on a watch list because of my name and origin, and just throw civility let alone my very inalienable rights out of the equation...

And this is where you give me the "Some sacrifices must be made" speech...

All the while the left and Democrats have fought him the entire way.

What do you expect? We devoted the majority of our Middle East invasion force to Iraq, not Afghanistan to pursue Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. We took down one of the few stable governments over there that opposed terrorism but was ruled by an oppressive leader WHICH OUR GOVERNMENT PUT IN CHARGE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

That is the fault of the Democrats.

Oh please, spare me this song. It's getting quite repetitive.

The situation we are in now is not the fault solely of the Democrats as you claim, and at the same time it was not solely the fault of the Republicans. Still, Bush was president for the last 8 years, and Congress had a Republican majority from 1995 to 2007 and during the second half of Clinton's first term lasting until his resignation (except for that one incident with the flipping during the 107th Congress).

And yes, If Mr. Clinton had done his job, 9/11 probably would not have happened.

Maybe if the Republican-controlled Congress had gone with more of Clinton's proposals, he would have been able to accomplish more...

By the way, you know for a fact it probably would not have happened?

That's as obvious as gravity beneath your feet.

And you know this how? Please, I'd love to know. Do you by chance have a crystal ball that tells you what would have been?

[Aramike]

What the title says:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html#cnnSTCText

Any thoughts?

Send them to Germany. First class, of course.
Keep them yourself. You messed it up, you clean it, you pay for it. And you bring your legal issues back in order. Why should Germany give you the cheap exit ticket?What mess? All I see are leftists who don't like how something is done.

Heh, imagine Obama's credibility if someone detained there was released, then perpetuated a terrorist act. You think he doesn't know that?

Sure, Gitmo may close ... only to replaced by something similar.

And you know 100% a similar detention center will be created?:88)Did I say there would be?

Nope.

. . . only to replaced by something similar.Not that I should have to tell you this, but "something similar" is very broad. Doesn't mean a dentention center will be created. :doh:

. . . only to [B] replaced . . .Dude, I know what I wrote and what I meant by it. Perhaps you found some kind of ambiguity within the statement that gave you an obviously sought-after chance to make yet another weak argument, but I have since clarified MY STATEMENT. Clearly you can't intellectually stand up to the statement as it was intended, because you insist upon merely debating semantics AFTER any "ambiguity" (which, quite frankly, is of your own design) has been cleared up.

Now, do you wish to debate the point I was making all along or would you prefer to continue prattling on with your absurd interpretation of what you THOUGHT I meant, after I cleared up the ambiguity that you created within your own mind?

[Aramike]

Oh, and I just HAVE to respond to this:By violating almost every right the Constitution guarantees us. Yes, it's quite important for the government to listen in on my phone calls, track my Internet records, place me on a watch list because of my name and origin, and just throw civility let alone my very inalienable rights out of the equation...

And this is where you give me the "Some sacrifices must be made" speech...Complete and utter hogwash.

"...almost every right..."? Have you ever READ the Constitution? I'm pretty sure that the Patriot Act applies to very few of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. In fact, here's a link to the Bill of Rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights. The only ammendment really effected by the Patroit Act is ... oh, wait ... NONE.

People complain about the Fourth Ammendment, but choose to conveniently ignore the word "unreasonable" contained within.

I've always get a kick out of people who cite the Constitution without actually being aware of what's within... :|\\

In any case, the bottom line isn't any "sacrifices have to be made" garbage. I haven't made any personal sacrifices since the Patriot Act, and I doubt anyone here has.

Honestly, I believe that it's just an extension of the "hate Bush" vitriol that spawns people to make very loose arguments based solely upon "principle" regardless of pragmatism or common sense.

[Konovalov]

You simply can't address the issue of why your hero has decided to use his first day to defend the rights of enemy combatants rather than use the first day to ensure our people have what they need to fight these terrorists and win.
Back home in Australia we have a saying being "give everyone a fair go". The impresson I get is that you aren't giving the bloke a fair go. That bloke by the way is President Obama. Your President assuming that you are a US citizen.

It doesn't look like to me that President Obama is going soft on Al Qaeda from this breaking news today (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/23/pakistan.missile/index.html).

[SteamWake]

Hey .. uhhh.. Im just saying..

Guantanomo detainee resurfaces : http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/mideast/detainee.1-414168.php

[SteamWake]

So the best way of dealing with the situation is to put them back on the streets?

By the way when Obama was asked what he would do with the prisonors he dident seem to have an answer other than "were comming up with a plan".

[Sea Demon]

"Who said they were sitting in terrorist camps in the Middle East?" ...........and so on and so forth....



You wasted I don't know how much time on spin and excuses. Your rebuttal is nothing more than that. ;)

Back home in Australia we have a saying being "give everyone a fair go". The impresson I get is that you aren't giving the bloke a fair go. That bloke by the way is President Obama. Your President assuming that you are a US citizen.

It doesn't look like to me that President Obama is going soft on Al Qaeda from this breaking news today (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/23/pakistan.missile/index.html).

Yep. Like I said before, some of the continuity will continue. The silence from the Obama drone voters is funny though. Does this strike make Obama a "War Criminal" in their eyes? And people wonder why I consider liberals to be fools. I'm glad that so far, we haven't changed policy in any major way regarding Afghanistan. Hopefully, Mr. Obama will maintain course, Like Mr. Bush did in Iraq. Of course Obama's kinda shooting himself in the foot if his Gitmo closure policies lead to releasing people who were found on the battlefields of Afghanistan in the first place. If they decide to go back and rejoin the fight, and coalition troops die at their hands, Mr. Obama will be solely responsible, and he should be heavily rebuked for that naive policy.

Yes, I am a U.S. citizen and former USAF veteran(Enlisted then Officer). I don't know what you determine to be a "fair go". But I don't think that I nor any other concerned U.S. citizen should not speak out against bad policy, just to give your version of a "fair go" to Obama. That's plain crazy. Ain't gonna happen. Suck it up, Obama worshipper. I don't mean you personally, I'm speaking generally to the drones. But you should have shown up in 2001 and talked to the idiot liberals that chose not to give Mr. Bush a "fair go", because their nut Gore didn't win and they felt repudiated. There has already been demonstrated a huge difference in how we handle ourselves vs. Obama, versus how those bottom-feeding liberal skunks handle themselves. So far I haven't seen any conservatives with "Obama=Hitler" signs yet. Although with the airstrike you linked to above, you'd think Code Pink and other liberals mental giants would. Shouldn't they?

[Skybird]

Guilt needs top be proven. and not at the end of all time, but within a reasonable timeframe. If you can't, you have to release the guy. that is basic minimum standard for any legal system.

For gitmo, essentialy diffamation that never needed to be proven in it's claims was enough to turn somebody into a high-security prisoner. That is common practice in a policestate or a dictatorship, and often the state is the one casting the diffamation to get rid of somebody without needing evidence. Is the US a policestate and dictatorship?

But the really most sickening argument pro Gitmo, reduced to it's simpliest mechanisim, goes like this:

"Why is he sitting in Gitmo?"
"Because he is a terrorist."
"Has it been proven?"
"No, but they know it."
"How do they know?"
"Why would he be brought to Gitmo if he were not a terrorist?"

And how often have argumentations like this (that make ridicule of any logic in laws) been posted in this forum! Time and again.

[mookiemookie]

Who said they were going to be released ? I guess they will be treated like any supposedly dangerous criminals, held in high security prisons until they can get a fair trial. If they're innocent but that there's serious concern for their security in their country of origin then it would be only fair for the US to give them the right to stay and integrate them, instead of keeping them in jail unjustly until some foreign country that has nothing to do with their arrest accepts to give them shelter.

You hit the nail on the head. The hawks like to create this false choice where the only two options are 1) keeping them locked up in Gitmo indefinately and 2) Letting them go scot free.

That is not what the reality of the situation is.

Giving an accused a fair trial is a basic human right going back to the Magna Carta. If these people are indeed unrepentant terrorists, then it should be a slam dunk case for any prosecutor. What does it say about your faith in our justice system if you deny someone the right to a trial?

[Onkel Neal]

According to reports I've listened to on CNN, one reason the govt wants to avoid putting them on trial is because of the interrogation methods used to get vital info out of them, that's sure to come out in the trial. Say you have a known terrorist, someone high up in the Al Queda network, how do you get him to talk without making him "uncomfortable"?

[mookiemookie]

Say you have a known terrorist, someone high up in the Al Queda network, how do you get him to talk without making him "uncomfortable"?

The guy that got Zarqawi says:

"We turned several hard cases, including some foreign fighters, by using our new techniques. A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, 'I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate.'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[Onkel Neal]

Ok, so powered donuts and a full body massage is the way to go? :rotfl:

I taught the members of my unit a new methodology -- one based on building rapport with suspects, showing cultural understanding and using good old-fashioned brainpower to tease out information.

Ok, if it works, fine with me.

Our new interrogation methods led to one of the war's biggest breakthroughs: We convinced one of Zarqawi's associates to give up the al-Qaeda in Iraq leader's location. On June 8, 2006, U.S. warplanes dropped two 500-pound bombs on a house where Zarqawi was meeting with other insurgent leaders

Oops! Someone still got messed up. ;)

[Aramike]

Guilt needs top be proven. and not at the end of all time, but within a reasonable timeframe. If you can't, you have to release the guy. that is basic minimum standard for any legal system. Yes, guilt must be proven, I agree. What I disagree with is the assumption many on the left make that guilt can only be proven in a civilian court of law using guidelines set aside for citizens.

Let's say I've got a photo of a guy firing an AK-47 at a target at some terrorist camp. I don't need a freakin' civilian court to tell me that the photo is indeed proof that the guy is a terrorist.

The civilian court system in the US often forces us to attempt to refute the irrefutable in order to ensure the integrity of the system. With terrorism, we often don't have time for such a rigmarole. Instead, the integrity of the system is ensured by the promise of poor results for keeping the wrong people detained.

Sure, the system is imperfect. But so is the civilian judicial system. The guilty get off the hook all the time, while occassionally an innocent person languishes in prison.

With the choice between two clearly imperfect systems, I choose the one which promises the best results of keeping our country safe.

[mookiemookie]

Ok, so powered donuts and a full body massage is the way to go? :rotfl:

If it were Ben and Jerrys ice cream and the masseuse was a redheaded chick, I may sign up for al Qaeda. :rotfl:

[mookiemookie]

With the choice between two clearly imperfect systems, I choose the one which promises the best results of keeping our country safe.

I choose sticking to our values and principles of justice. As Jon Stewart on the Daily Show said: "If you don't stick to your values when they're being tested, they're not values. They're hobbies."

[Skybird]

Guilt needs top be proven. and not at the end of all time, but within a reasonable timeframe. If you can't, you have to release the guy. that is basic minimum standard for any legal system. Yes, guilt must be proven, I agree. What I disagree with is the assumption many on the left make that guilt can only be proven in a civilian court of law using guidelines set aside for citizens.

Let's say I've got a photo of a guy firing an AK-47 at a target at some terrorist camp. I don't need a freakin' civilian court to tell me that the photo is indeed proof that the guy is a terrorist.

The civilian court system in the US often forces us to attempt to refute the irrefutable in order to ensure the integrity of the system. With terrorism, we often don't have time for such a rigmarole. Instead, the integrity of the system is ensured by the promise of poor results for keeping the wrong people detained.

Sure, the system is imperfect. But so is the civilian judicial system. The guilty get off the hook all the time, while occassionally an innocent person languishes in prison.

With the choice between two clearly imperfect systems, I choose the one which promises the best results of keeping our country safe.
In germany we have had our experience with sa lgal system that was not object to any checks and balances and publicly legitimised counter-control. It was a desaster and saw Justitia going to a suicidal orgy. All on the basis of evidences and laws - both of which nobody was allowed to re-check.

[Aramike]

Guilt needs top be proven. and not at the end of all time, but within a reasonable timeframe. If you can't, you have to release the guy. that is basic minimum standard for any legal system. Yes, guilt must be proven, I agree. What I disagree with is the assumption many on the left make that guilt can only be proven in a civilian court of law using guidelines set aside for citizens.

Let's say I've got a photo of a guy firing an AK-47 at a target at some terrorist camp. I don't need a freakin' civilian court to tell me that the photo is indeed proof that the guy is a terrorist.

The civilian court system in the US often forces us to attempt to refute the irrefutable in order to ensure the integrity of the system. With terrorism, we often don't have time for such a rigmarole. Instead, the integrity of the system is ensured by the promise of poor results for keeping the wrong people detained.

Sure, the system is imperfect. But so is the civilian judicial system. The guilty get off the hook all the time, while occassionally an innocent person languishes in prison.

With the choice between two clearly imperfect systems, I choose the one which promises the best results of keeping our country safe.
In germany we have had our experience with sa lgal system that was not object to any checks and balances and publicly legitimised counter-control. It was a desaster and saw Justitia going to a suicidal orgy. All on the basis of evidences and laws - both of which nobody was allowed to re-check.We're talking about an extremely limited application, here - with a different, RESULTS-oriented system of checks and balances. I don't see how this could possibly result in any disaster.I choose sticking to our values and principles of justice. As Jon Stewart on the Daily Show said: "If you don't stick to your values when they're being tested, they're not values. They're hobbies."This is the kind of broad statement liberals love to scream from the mountaintops.

What are, exactly, our "values" and "priciples of justice"?

The Preamble of the US CONSTITUTION specifically mentions "provide for the common defense".

That's a value too, right?

What if a terrorist, whom we have PROOF of being a terrorist, gets off the hook due to some precedural issue? Doesn't that compromise our value of justice that you're so concerned about? Does it not also compromise our value of common defense?

Moving on, what are our "principles of justice"? Constitutionally, our principles of justice apply only to US citizens or to crimes committed in the United States by other citizens. The military has the only judicial system to deal with crimes committed against the US outside of the United States. There are indeed extradiction treaties, but those don't apply to these cases.

I contend that we aren't abandoning our principles of justice at all. In fact, our "principles of justice" weren't designed to deal with this situation.

[Zachstar]

According to reports I've listened to on CNN, one reason the govt wants to avoid putting them on trial is because of the interrogation methods used to get vital info out of them, that's sure to come out in the trial. Say you have a known terrorist, someone high up in the Al Queda network, how do you get him to talk without making him "uncomfortable"?

If that is true it has nothing to do with this administration and any accusations will relate to the last.

If they had "Enhanced Interrogation" They get out scot free and you can thank the ones who came up with that if they go join some radical movement.

[Sea Demon]

If that is true it has nothing to do with this administration and any accusations will relate to the last.

If they had "Enhanced Interrogation" They get out scot free and you can thank the ones who came up with that if they go join some radical movement.
If the policy continues under this new administration, then this new Obama administration is culpable and responsible for any sources and methods used to gain any useful intelligence. If Obama truly does close Gitmo, and some of these vermin are set free, and they proceed to rejoin the fight in Afghanistan, with American deaths as a result, it will all fall on Mr. Obama. And Obama should be heavily rebuked for the naive policy which put terrorists back in circulation. There will be no freebies, do-overs or repudiations of responsibility for Obama and his administration. None. As President it now falls completely on him.

[Sea Demon]

So how come you're not all over Bush since a guy who was released from Gitmo is now the head of an Al Qaeda cell, + the handful of ex Gitmo inmate who either blew themselves up in Iraq or Afghanistan or are currently fighting ?
I actually am. And there are two other released detainees who recently showed up in Jihadist videos. The Bush Administration should never have listened to the lib critics over Gitmo. And Bush is absolutely at fault for it. As such, I'm shocked by Obama's naive plans to outright close Gitmo due to emotional pleas from his drones....errr voters. Bush never went that far despite the pressure from the whiners. And he has only given mild lip service to an eventual closure with no specifics. I believe as an attempt to shut the left up as no real policy ever came about. And absolutely no thought to any executive order which would endanger our troops outright. And no executive order to move these radicals to criminal show trials here Like the Obama administration is moving us towards.

The evidence shows that when these people are released from Gitmo, there's a good chance that they will return to their nasty little ways. The earlier released jihadists should at least get the new administration rethinking their own new pie-in-the-sky policy. But apparently it has no effect on them. The fact that they're full speed ahead in the opposite direction shows that they do not learn from historical precedents of recent. Even the Bush administration changed policy to changing conditions when things showed a different approach was needed. Don't know what's happening in the halls of the White House now.....but it looks alot like they're putting politics ahead of national security again. Am I surprised? No.

With the previous post I was just indicating that Obama will now be solely at fault for not using appropriate sources and methods to gain intelligence to safeguard against terrorist acts now. He will be solely responsible if more Jihadists are put into circulation with his new policy. And with the historical precedent of evidence showing released detainees returning to their jihadist ways, the hammer will fall harder on those who do not learn the lesson.

[Morts]

So how come you're not all over Bush since a guy who was released from Gitmo is now the head of an Al Qaeda cell, + the handful of ex Gitmo inmate who either blew themselves up in Iraq or Afghanistan or are currently fighting ?
because he realeased them over some mistake a democrat made in the office:rotfl:

[Stealth Hunter]

"Who said they were sitting in terrorist camps in the Middle East?" ...........and so on and so forth....



You wasted I don't know how much time on spin and excuses. Your rebuttal is nothing more than that. ;)

Like your posts littering this thread that push the nonsensical agenda that all this is entirely the fault of the Democratic party? Look, if you don't want to admit that right-wing Conservative Republicans also got us into this mess, that's fine with me. It's not anything new with you.

It's always funny when people make a statement like Sea Demon's "You wasted I don't know how much time on spin and excuses", yet they never do try to rebuke or admit to the facts. It's like they think that sort of statement will just make a person's point magically disappear into thin air.:roll:

[Kapt Z]

It's an exercise in buying time in order to figure out exactly what to do with the mess that is Guantanamo Bay.

That's about sums it up.

[Happy Times]

I dont want any prisoners here.
I was happy that the Finnish security police recently openly warned about taking muslim refugees and imigrants at all in the country.
Im not tiptoeing around this subject, i can say i want it to stop.

[Aramike]

"Who said they were sitting in terrorist camps in the Middle East?" ...........and so on and so forth....



You wasted I don't know how much time on spin and excuses. Your rebuttal is nothing more than that. ;)

Like your posts littering this thread that push the nonsensical agenda that all this is entirely the fault of the Democratic party? Look, if you don't want to admit that right-wing Conservative Republicans also got us into this mess, that's fine with me. It's not anything new with you.

It's always funny when people make a statement like Sea Demon's "You wasted I don't know how much time on spin and excuses", yet they never do try to rebuke or admit to the facts. It's like they think that sort of statement will just make a person's point magically disappear into thin air.:roll:It is indeed not entirely the fault of the Democratic party.

But did it ever occur to you that the Democrats never take responsibility for ANY of it? In fact, they never take responsibility for ANYTHING bad that happens!

What you're doing is calling someone to the mat for the same thing that your party has done, non-stop, for the last 8 years.

Leftist hypocrisy at its finest.

[Sea Demon]

"Who said they were sitting in terrorist camps in the Middle East?" ...........and so on and so forth....



You wasted I don't know how much time on spin and excuses. Your rebuttal is nothing more than that. ;)

Like your posts littering this thread that push the nonsensical agenda that all this is entirely the fault of the Democratic party? Look, if you don't want to admit that right-wing Conservative Republicans also got us into this mess, that's fine with me. It's not anything new with you.

It's always funny when people make a statement like Sea Demon's "You wasted I don't know how much time on spin and excuses", yet they never do try to rebuke or admit to the facts. It's like they think that sort of statement will just make a person's point magically disappear into thin air.:roll:It is indeed not entirely the fault of the Democratic party.

But did it ever occur to you that the Democrats never take responsibility for ANY of it? In fact, they never take responsibility for ANYTHING bad that happens!

What you're doing is calling someone to the mat for the same thing that your party has done, non-stop, for the last 8 years.

Leftist hypocrisy at its finest.

Thank you Aramike. Stealth Hunter is simply one of the Obama drones. He talks loud, and yet says nothing. And yes, these people don't know accountability or responsibility if it bit em' on the rump. Republicans have indeed messed up, and have misstepped on policy. While Mr. Bush has not exactly handled everything perfectly, I do believe it's quite obvious that Mr. Clinton pretty much mishandled terrorism for 8 years and left Mr. Bush with quite a mess there. It actually took a Republican to actually respond appropriately, or at least, someone with a national security focus as the objective. Modern Democrats never have this focus. They're too busy trying to please the whiners here and across the pond. Had Clinton actually done his job, and tackled the terrorism issue with more clarity and focus, 9/11 may not have happened. Any thinking person can see that. A drone cannot see it. Don't expect them to.

This is why Mr. Obama's new policy here is of great concern. Are we headed back to the "sweep it under the rug" policies of the 90's to make whiners happy? Setting forth a new policy, by executive order (with no congressional approval), which could lead to freedom for many of these Jihadists held at Gitmo make me think we are. And at the very least, I'm more worried about what message this is sending to international terror groups. Obama is indicating that he will be softer on terrorist acts, our readiness to respond will decrease, there will be less clarity on the issue of what defines terrorism, and we're not going to take terrorism seriously anymore. Obama's first full day was spent softening up our approach to terrorist detainees. Not ensuring the U.S. military has what they need to succeed in their mission. Just what message does that send over to international terror organizations?

[Morts]

if Obama is really as bad as you say, why is he the President ? Ignorant democrats ? you're gonna have to come up with something better this time:rotfl:

[Skybird]

Europe should only accept those prisoners who by all understanding indeed are harmless and beyond doubt, and cannot return to their original places and that do not wish to depend on America's hospitality any longer, after the Gitmo experience. the ones wanting to stay in america and the ones being a risk, America has to accept itself, for it is responsible for it all.

[Digital_Trucker]

if Obama is really as bad as you say, why is he the President ? Ignorant democrats ? you're gonna have to come up with something better this time:rotfl:
Because almost 53% of the voting population voted for him, that's why. Including millions of first time voters who voted for his rhetoric (or his race) rather than what he really stands for (which we don't know yet because he hasn't really done anything except issue some executive orders with no plans on how to carry them out and give his first formal public TV interview on an Arabic cable TV channel http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28869185/ ). Does that explain it well enough, or do you need some more help understanding?

Edit : Oops, almost forgot the part about how a republican didn't stand a snowballs chance in Hades of getting elected after the last 8 years. The democrats could have put Howdy Doody up there and gotten him elected (puppet reference intended).

[Enigma]

I'm sorry, did you just pretend to know the psyche of the 20 Million odd first time voters?

:rotfl::rotfl::roll:

[Digital_Trucker]

I'm sorry, did you just pretend to know the psyche of the 20 Million odd first time voters?

:rotfl::rotfl::roll:
You know, you could direct that at yourself also. You have no idea what those 20 million odd first time voters were thinking. You can only judge by what you see. From personal experience and well documented examples of some of the Obama supporters total lack of knowledge regarding what the man said he stood for.

From a friend of latino descent : "I just can't vote for an old guy who can't raise his arms above his shoulders and holds his hands so weird."

From a black friend of mine : "I just can't vote for the white guy this time."

I'm sure you don't want to see or hear any of the video or audio regarding the matter again.

You can laugh and roll your eyes all you want to, but there is plenty of evidence that many of those new voters were totally clueless. You also can't deny that many voters will blame the party of the sitting President for everything that is done (quite a few by the opposing party's Congress or Senate).

Oh, I forgot to mention the totally ghastly amount of money spent to get him elected, too, but that doesn't matter either, does it?

Here's a prime example for you. Here in my home state the Senate race between the Republican and Democrat was so close they had to have a run-off. Yet, when the run-off vote was counted, the Republican won by 14%. Lets see, when all these new voters are at the polls pressing the Democrat button to elect Obama, everything's close, but when those new voters don't bother to show up for the run-off, it's a clear Republican win. What does that say about the new voters? They either don't really care (or know) what each parties candidate stands for, or they're too lazy to get out for the run-off.

If you'll bother to look at the demographics of the election you'll get a little idea how a person can feel the way I do about the reasons so many new voters voted for Obama, but that's probably a bit too much to ask, so go ahead and assume that I don't have a clue regarding the matter. It is only my opinion, after all.

[Digital_Trucker]

Well then it just shows that you have clueless friends, I think it tells more about you than about Obama's victory :lol:
Nah, actually, the majority of my friends have a clue. These two were the best examples of some of the warped opinions I've heard folks use to explain who they were going to vote for. I also have friends and relatives who voted for him for logical (to them, at least) reasons that were a lot sounder than my examples.

Besides, my point wasn't entirely about my friends warped opinions. I tried to point out other evidence to support my opinion.

Edit : Why he was elected really doesn't mean much now, anyway. He was elected and we all have to live with it (like it or not).

[Tchocky]

Oh, I forgot to mention the totally ghastly amount of money spent to get him elected, too, but that doesn't matter either, does it?
What difference does that make?

[Aramike]

Oh, I forgot to mention the totally ghastly amount of money spent to get him elected, too, but that doesn't matter either, does it?
What difference does that make?No difference, really. I just find it odd that the left can freely spend so much money to gain power but believe that charity should be legislated...

[Digital_Trucker]

Actually, the amount of money spent by the Obama campaign points out exactly what's wrong with our election system (if not our political system in general). Money is everything, especially when there is little or no accounting of where it came from and what was asked for in return for it.

[Enigma]

McCain has been a Senator for what, 20+ years? You think money can buy that kind of exposure to the voting public? C'mon.....

I didn't for a second say there weren't misguided voters. They exist on both sides, in no thanks to "conservative" radio, ****ty mass media reporting form every major outlet, and peoples inability to let go of party and indulge in propaganda. If we're giving silly examples, think of the woman who McCain had to correct after she told him that Obama was a Muslim. I was simply remarking that for you to say the young/first time vote was totally misguided is, well, totally misguided. Not to mention kind of "You damn kids get off my lawn"ish.

[Enigma]

---Having said that, I DO agree that there is a big problem with they way we elect our officials, and campaign money. I agree. I just don't agree that money played any role in Obama's win. You can hardly blame him for receiving more donations than the next guy....

[Digital_Trucker]

@ Enigma I can certainly agree that there was "cluelessness" and partisanship on both sides. If the demographics that I've seen are correct (a large if), then an argument could be made that money did indeed play a part in the election, but, given the fact that the election is over, it's not worth arguing (which I wish I had remembered before I posted my response to the original question). I basically wished to point out that bad Presidents do, indeed, get elected for all the wrong reasons (plenty of examples on both sides).

As far as blaming the candidate because they received more contributions than the other, no blame can be placed on the candidate (unless they did something shady to facilitate those contributions). The problem lies in the system, IMO.