SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Former USS Cole commander slams Obama on Guantanamo

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Former USS Cole commander slams Obama on Guantanamo (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=148008)

Former USS Cole commander slams Obama on Guantanamo

http://dailyme.com/story/2009013000007502/

And so do I. This is a shameful act and is purely political. Somebody in Washington needs to tell Mr. Obama that this didn't play too well with the American people. Nor does this spending "stimulus" bill for that matter.......

Quote:

MIAMI _ The former commander of the USS Cole, the American war ship that was struck by a suicide boat in Yemeni waters more than eight years ago, on Thursday slammed President Barack Obama's orders to close the Guantanamo detention center and reassess the prisoners being held there. "We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights and legal advocacy groups," retired U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kurt Lippold said in a telephone interview. "We should consider what is best for the American people, which is not to jeopardize those who are fighting the war on terror _ or even more adversely impact the families who have already suffered losses as a result of the war."

Lippold was responding to the decision by a U.S. military judge in Guantanamo to reject a request by Pentagon lawyers to delay next week's scheduled arraignment of Abd el-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi Arabian who is charged with helping orchestrate the October 2000 suicide bombing of the Cole. The bombing killed 17 U.S. sailors.
In his ruling, the judge, Army Col. James Pohl, said a delay in Nashiri's arraignment would deny the public's interest in a speedy trial. He also said nothing that took place at the arraignment would prevent the Obama administration from deciding to deal with Nashiri in a forum other than the military commission now set to hear his case.
Soon after becoming president, Obama ordered the Pentagon to request delays in all trials pending at Guantanamo for 120 days so that his administration could study the cases against each of the 250 or so men held as suspected terrorists and decide how to proceed in each case. Obama and his appointee to be the Pentagon's top legal officer have said they favor trials in civilian courts for terrorism suspects, if possible.
Other military judges granted the delay, including in the case of five men charged with plotting the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. Family members of the 9/11 victims who were in Guantanamo to witness proceedings in that case expressed outrage at the decision.
On Thursday, Lippold called Pohl's decision "a victory for the 17 families of the sailors who lost their lives on the USS Cole over eight years ago."
The decision, however, stunned officials at the Department of Defense and White House, which had just begun to grapple with Obama's order to freeze the war court and empty the detention center within a year.
"The Department of Defense is currently reviewing Judge Pohl's ruling," said Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon. "We will be in compliance with the president's orders regarding Guantanamo."
Nashiri's Pentagon-appointed defense lawyer, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Stephen Reyes, said the prosecutor could still dismiss the charges against his client to comply with the president's request for a freeze. The charges could later be reinstated.
"The only way they can give effect to the president's order is by dismissing the charges," Reyes said. But Lippold also denounced suggestions that the Pentagon official who oversees the Guantanamo legal cases, Susan J. Crawford, could withdraw the charges, without prejudice, which would allow them to be reinstituted later, should the administration want.

3 Words,..."Yep Sucks Don't it".. Ok maby 4 words, (Stupid is as stupid dose) :down:

to favor due process = a political maneuver/supporting terrorists rights. :doh::nope:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita..._detainees.htm

"terrorists' rights" Bush speak for Bush followers to justify torture, surveillance and detention and to demonize anyone who opposes those policies as being "soft on Terrorism" or even "pro-Terrorist." It's pure garbage. Meanwhile, hundreds of detainees have been released from Gitmo after 3-6 years of detention and charged with nothing. But don;t let that get in your way.....I know how inconvenient facts can be. :arrgh!:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma

Are you capable of making an argument without using the word "Bush"?

Suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, perhaps?

You want to have a discussion about Gitmo without mentioning Bush? :haha: Wouldn't that be convenient.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma

You want to have a discussion about Gitmo without mentioning Bush? :haha: Wouldn't that be convenient.

Umm, not about being convenient. It's about sticking to the substance of the discussion and not the characters surrounding it.

Funny that I'd have to explain this to you. I'd bet I could have a substantive discussion the merits of policies pertaining to Gitmo and not mention, Bush, Obama, Santa Claus, Papa Smurf, Michael Vick, Abe Lincoln, the Greenbay Packers, or anyone else.

Heh, what's even funnier is that your original post didn't even mention Bush in relation to Gitmo - rather, it was in relation to "Bush Speak" and "Bush followers".

Oh, wait, I'm sorry - didn't mean to interject here with original thoughts...

Beware when fighting monsters you don't become one yourself.

Quote:

We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights

Yeah, that's too difficult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Quote:

We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights

Yeah, that's too difficult.

I think the author meant human rights groups and legal advocacy groups.

That's what I get for skim-reading *klonk*

Still disagree with him on Gitmo, keeping it the way it was made things more dangerous for US citizens and soldiers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Quote:

We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights

Yeah, that's too difficult.

I think the author meant human rights groups and legal advocacy groups.

I thought America was a human rights and legal advocacy group? Then again, maybe Ms Crabtree was brainwashing our 4th grade class after all!:hmmm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapt Z

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Quote:

We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights

Yeah, that's too difficult.

I think the author meant human rights groups and legal advocacy groups.

I thought America was a human rights and legal advocacy group? Then again, maybe Ms Crabtree was brainwashing our 4th grade class after all!:hmmm:

Well props to the beautiful Miss Crabtree but there's a big difference between a nation and a small group of self appointed watchdogs.

After all if I were to form a group and call it, say, the Democratic Party Advocacy Group (DPAG) would that mean the Democrats ought to do what I demand?

If so my first orders to them are to:

A. Stop sucking
B. Kick out all the commies, socialists and tree huggers
C. Start working for the betterment of the entire country instead of just themselves

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapt Z

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Quote:

We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights

Yeah, that's too difficult.

I think the author meant human rights groups and legal advocacy groups.

I thought America was a human rights and legal advocacy group? Then again, maybe Ms Crabtree was brainwashing our 4th grade class after all!:hmmm:

Well props to the beautiful Miss Crabtree but there's a big difference between a nation and a small group of self appointed watchdogs.

Actually you are right. America already has a self appointed watchdog.

The Supreme Court.

And she needs all the help she can get.:salute:

Quote:

"We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights and legal advocacy groups,"

While true unfortunatly that is exactly how policy is being determined.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Quote:

"We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights and legal advocacy groups,"

While true unfortunatly that is exactly how policy is being determined.

Well, I suppose it IS better than making policy decision based on fear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapt Z

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Quote:

"We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights and legal advocacy groups,"

While true unfortunatly that is exactly how policy is being determined.

Well, I suppose it IS better than making policy decision based on fear.

Fear is irrelevant unless it is being used as a tool :hmmm:

No by far the bigest motivator is votes and apeasment to constituants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapt Z

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Quote:

"We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights and legal advocacy groups,"

While true unfortunatly that is exactly how policy is being determined.

Well, I suppose it IS better than making policy decision based on fear.

This is an odd mischaraterization used quite frequently by politicians in order to advocate themselves as "hopeful" and "optimistic".

Almost ALL policy decisions are based upon fear.

Why change something if you're not afraid of what will happen if you don't?

Heh, this entire stimulous package is being passed based upon the premise of the fear of what would happen if we don't do anything...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapt Z

[
Well, I suppose it IS better than making policy decision based on fear.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration is basing this on political considerations. And the former commander of the USS Cole has called him on it. He's right, and it will not ensure the security of the American people. The people in Gitmo weren't picked up at Disneyland. Most of them were holding AK's in the back-areas of Afghanistan hanging out with Taliban. Gitmo is where they belong for the duration of the conflict.

Gitmo as a policy was not made out of fear, it was a policy made on the common sense handling of enemy combatants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapt Z

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Quote:

"We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights and legal advocacy groups,"

While true unfortunatly that is exactly how policy is being determined.

Well, I suppose it IS better than making policy decision based on fear.

Fear is a natural response to perceived threats, that's true. But there is fear and then there is FEAR.

fear makes you put on a seatbelt, hold your kid's hand in traffic, know how to swim, spend $$$$ in an attempt to fix your economy.....

FEAR makes you willing give away your rights(and your neighbor's), imprison people for life with no evidence, use torture, betray the very ideals your country supposedly stood for, do things your great, great, great, grandchildren will be puzzeled and horrified by....

If as Americans, by being Americans, it means we have to fight the war on terror with one arm and both legs tied behind our backs, so be it. Better that, than to do things that make people think we forgot who we are.

Gitmo is one of those things....

What does the US even need the Guantanamo for, they can just send the (mostly innocent) people they captured to whatever foreign country that does their torturing for them. Outsourcing, word of the day.