I presume to continue imprisonment indefinitely with probable release. The innocent must be acquitted, and the military must continue their detainment. The eventual release is logical. The delay is not.

A nation of real freedom at work here, put people in jail and hold them for as long as they want.

Sounds like king of england around 1776.

A nation of real freedom at work here, put people in jail and hold them for as long as they want.
Sounds like king of england around 1776.
#2 | Posted by moneywar at 2009-07-08 03:24 AM

It's the entire "possible threat" labels that've been slapped around willy-nilly. Without the irrational name-calling, and pending a clear background they obviously should be released. Even prior criminals should be given the benefit of evidence of their guilt. Terrorists and career criminals probably cannot be released without reconditioning.

President Obama was speaking about "free trade" with Russia and my balls shrank. But in general I felt positive regarding his enthusiasm for Russian prosperity and hope for their future. The trade will put them on an even field with China, which is a great idea to leverage our monetary value. Global solidarity means everyone at the table, everyone gets a fair share towards our collective future, and we are that pie so to speak. Generally there are so many things that require time to correct, and our economy cannot afford mistaking no trade as anything like future investment. By releasing unreasonably held individuals to their nations of origin we can observe a true solidarity with all people enamored of that noble ideal. Plus, we could piss off Israel which is always double-plus goodly.

Some pretty disturbing stuff in that article.

Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department's chief lawyer, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that releasing a detainee who has been tried and found not guilty was a policy decision that officials would make based on their estimate of whether the prisoner posed a future threat.

A prisoner who is judged not guilty is then subject to "policy" decisions as to whether or not they're released. Nice.

Why not just skip the bullshit and just detain them without trial?

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration argues that the legal basis for indefinite detention of aliens it considers dangerous is separate from war-crimes prosecutions. Officials say that the laws of war allow indefinite detention to prevent aliens from committing warlike acts in future, while prosecution by military commission aims to punish them for war crimes committed in the past.

Given that once you lock someone up for years for no reason they'll more than likely commit "warlike acts in the future," we've left ourselves no other choice than to resort to indefinite detention. We've created for ourselves a nice little catch 22 with this one.

Vice Adm. Bruce MacDonald, giving his independent opinion as the Navy's judge advocate general, testified that the standard should be whether a statement was "reliable," rather than whether it was coerced.

Did this guy think about this before he said it? How exactly does one get a reliable coerced confession?

I'm not usually one for slippery slope type arguments, but this sort of legal reasoning absolutely deserves consideration in that light.

"Vice Adm. Bruce MacDonald, giving his independent opinion as the Navy's judge advocate general, testified that the standard should be whether a statement was "reliable," rather than whether it was coerced."

Did this guy think about this before he said it? How exactly does one get a reliable coerced confession?
I'm not usually one for slippery slope type arguments, but this sort of legal reasoning absolutely deserves consideration in that light.
#4 | Posted by jpw at 2009-07-08 05:19 AM

Apparently, that is what he does believe.

This is a lonely thread. How many posts would we have seen by now, had it been posted a year ago?
Gobama!

This is a lonely thread. How many posts would we have seen by now, had it been posted a year ago?
Gobama!

#6 | Posted by rightisright

Maybe because it isn't news. Obama said months ago when he first proposed closing Gitmo that there were some detainees who were so dangerous that they likely wouldn't be released no matter what.

Sounds a lot like the Bush policy. Was that something he said during the campaign? Or did he get an education after the fact, once he became privy to some of the same information Bush was looking at every day?

So confusing keeping up with this great man. It helps that I'm cynical, and think he just makes up reality as he goes along.

8 posts now.

BUT......... He promised.

BUT......... He promised.

#9 | Posted by Sniper

No, he didn't.

A nation of real freedom at work here, put people in jail and hold them for as long as they want.

Sounds like king of england around 1776.

#2 | Posted by moneywar at 2009

holy shit batman

did anyone else get deja vu here..

whoa..

and I am somewhat critical of the LIAR IN CHIEF and the stanking bastard called obama
but fair is fair

this is an issue that the RIGHT thing IS to flip from the campaign and while its not enough to stop worrying about his economic tsuames coming almost daily...I must salute him on this one.
BUT is it some sort of plot....

(cue the x files music)

"We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people," the president said.

This is a crack up.

So Obama said he would end the war....HE EXPANDS it.

So Obama says he would close down GITMO. Nah...

So Obama says he would give them Lawyers....well....we will sort of...but we won't let them go.,

HOPE AND CHANGE IS WORKING!

SUCKERS!

LOL

I just have 1 question for the libs.

"When will you idiots admit this guy sucks?"

This guy is horrible.

Restore habeas corpus rights for "enemy combatants"
"The right of habeas corpus allows prisoners to ask a court to determine whether they are being lawfully imprisoned. Recently, this right has been denied to those deemed enemy combatants. Barack Obama strongly supports bipartisan efforts to restore habeas rights. He firmly believes that those who pose a danger to this country should be swiftly tried and brought to justice, but those who do not should have sufficient due process to ensure that we are not wrongfully denying them their liberty."

YES he did.
>>

"So Obama said he would end the war....HE EXPANDS it."

He said he'd end the war in Iraq. He has not expanded it. He said we needed to refocus assets to get the job done in Afghanistan. He has done so.

"So Obama says he would close down GITMO. Nah..."

Did he say he'd do that in 1 day? No, he said he'd close it. And he's directed it be closed by next year. Just a few days ago it was reported that is on track.

"So Obama says he would give them lawyers....well....we will sort of...but we won't let them go.,"

He never said he'd give them access to the justice system. He never said he'd let them all go, as previously linked.

But feel free to keep making it up as you go along.

There are no real liberals in power or corporate media. Not one.

YES he did.
>>

#14 | Posted by Sniper

I think that's been sufficiently rebutted, but here's another...

But the president-elect said on January 11, on ABC's This Week , that he wants "a process that adheres to [the] rule of law [but] doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up." He also said that "many" detainees who "may be very dangerous" present special problems because "some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true." And Eric Holder testified on Thursday, during the Senate confirmation hearing on his nomination to be attorney general, that "I don't think . . . we can release" people known to be dangerous. (National Journal)

Nice to see that the libbies represented by the likes of SanAntonio have no problem with the perpetuation of the Bush policy. Amazing what having the big (D) after your name does to their sentiments.

"Amazing what having the big (D) after your name does to their sentiments."

Why? It awoke you to the dangers of deficits.

since I gave obama credit for this..lets give some credit to dan and SA'

you HAVE to admit that these two are masters at "SPIN" arent they...
I mean come on..you have to admire that..everybody's good at something.....

SanAton are you just a total moron?

Obama expanded the war. It was already BUSH's policy to withdraw from Iraq, WTF are you talking about? Obama is simply doing exactly the same thing..

You don't see that?

Obama said he would close down gitmo right away. Its funny how you libs change your mind all the time to suit your arguments. OF COURSE gitmo will close eventually. The way it works with you libs is everything is open ended.

Obama lied. Its real simple.

Obama said he would have them all tried in the USA previously. He changed his mind on this real fast because of public polls.

Feel free to bend and make up facts all you want, everyone on here that can follow the facts as they happen in the past knows Obama FUCKED UP on ALL 3 counts.

History will judge him for what I have spoken as the truth, because that is what really happened.

You fucktard lib dumbpile of shit.

"Obama expanded the war."

How has Obama expanded the war in Iraq?

"Obama said he would close down gitmo right away."

No, he didn't.

"Obama said he would have them all tried in the USA previously."

Already addressed.

Kuma - your infantile name calling reveals who the real "dumbpile of shit" really is.

Go back cave now Kuma.

you HAVE to admit that these two are masters at "SPIN" arent they...
I mean come on..you have to admire that..everybody's good at something.....

#20 | Posted by afkabl2

So in other words, you have no logical rebuttal. (As usual)

When did Obama say he would close Gitmo right away? I don't remember that. Maybe I forgot. You got a link?

Bush's policy to withdraw from Iraq? When? And expanding what war? Again, Obama said all along that he would take the war to Afghanistan. So is it balanced, or will it be? One can argue about the wisdom of going to Afghanistan, but increase presence in one place and decrease it in another, that shouldn't be an expansion unless of course the increase is greater than the decrease. Which it might be right now.

Oh, well.

They 'MIGHT NOT' be let go.....

Then again, they MIGHT BE.

he wants "a process that adheres to [the] rule of law [but] doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up."

That's a complete contradiction, hence the whole controversy.

He is advocating 2 things that are mutually exclusive.

In the end, that is exactly why he is doing nothing - he's in the same quandry as Bush was in.

That doesn't change the fact that he broke his promise - one of the few promises I am glad that he broke.

"In the end, that is exactly why he is doing nothing..."

Not actually true. Some of the detainees have already been brought to trial. However, the acknowledgment that there is a small percentage of them who are just too horrendous to risk releasing does not constitute "a lie".

However, the acknowledgment that there is a small percentage of them who are just too horrendous to risk releasing does not constitute "a lie".

He's saying that he's going to apply the rule of law, except for these guys over here.

Spin it any way you wish, but it's a contradiction to his stated position.

I love it how liberals ignore things that happened because its not convenient to their arguments.

Obama has not expanded the war? So he didn't ever do anything in Pakistan right? Nothing?

Here is from a LEFTIST SITE. The left is turning on Obama, he expanded the war.

However, the acknowledgment that there is a small percentage of them who are just too horrendous to risk releasing does not constitute "a lie".

The argument and campaign from the left was they were ALL entitled to their day in court or be released. Something Bush was accused of not doing with some of the detainees. I know it was campaign rhetoric, but is it not fair to bring up the quandry when Obama changes his stance?

"Of course, the libs will never admit he failed, and failed miserably."

I'd have to have believed he meant it when he said it to consider it a failure.

"Obama has not expanded the war? So he didn't ever do anything in Pakistan right? Nothing?"

That is part of the Afghan operation, not Iraq. He said throughout his campaign he would refocus on where we should have been focusing all along.

Try again.

"Not only did he say he would issue an order to close it in the FIRST WEEK of his office"

He said he would issue the order, not close the facility. He has issued the order.

Try again.

"Bush didn't already have plans to end war and leave?"

I didn't say he didn't, but what does that have to do with Obama? By the way, Bush's abrupt about face can mostly be credited to Bob Gates who came in and kicked his ass until he got off the "stay the course" broken record.

Try again.

Where are these people today?

if he is found innocent our Constitution says HE SHOULD BE SET FREE.
Posted by celisary at 2008-07-21 03:57 PM

If you have no such evidence let them go.
Posted by dethspud at 2009-06-07 11:44 PM

if the goverment cant charge them with crimes then they should be released.
Posted by 503jc69 at 2007-08-09 04:16 PM

We should either try these people and hold them there or, if we can't make a case, send them back where we got them. Gitmo is a waste of money and a human rights violation.
Posted by rcade at 2009-05-21 11:45 AM

Kuma - you have definitely proven you are too stupid and rude to be taken as a serious poster.

So in other words, you have no logical rebuttal. (As usual)

#23 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-07-08

yep..........uh......DUH......
thets rat...not one thing I can say after you get through............

silly

Closing the prison has been one of Obama's signature issues since he was a candidate. On January 20, 2009, the day he was sworn in, he directed prosecutors to file a motion to suspend legal proceedings against the suspected terrorists held at the facility. Two days later, the administration issued an executive order to review the disposition of the prisoners and ordered that the facility be shut down within a year.

His year isn't up yed but it doesn't look good.

Kuma - you have definitely proven you are too stupid and rude to be taken as a serious poster.

#35 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

UH OH>..about half of the liberal posters here are nervous about your requirements here....

but IM sure that 'serious poster' term is left for just people you agree with..........

If the democrats said the sky is BLACK, you would be on board.

#34 | Posted by Kuma at 2009

BEST example of double standard here is the 'party of no' charge when I have given proof SEVERAL times that at least for the dems in the houston area. they are the 'party of yes' when it comes to doing obama's bidding.........

so which is worse?????

AND AGAIN...the most important 5 words MAYBE even in the entire country

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW"

"His year isn't up yed but it doesn't look good."

In related news:

"Yea, Vinny, the scoreboard says it's almost halftime, and it's 0-0...so I think we can call this game for the visitors...what'd'ya say?"

Bibble,
question for you on the copyright law thread.

yep..........uh......DUH......
thets rat...not one thing I can say after you get through............

silly

#36 | Posted by afkabl2

So still no intelligent comment or rebuttal, just your hick act?

"Yea, Vinny, the scoreboard says it's almost halftime, and it's 0-0...so I think we can call this game for the visitors...what'd'ya say?"

#40 | Posted by Danforth

When he's down 50 to 0 you make the call.

On January 20, 2009, the day he was sworn in, he directed prosecutors to file a motion to suspend legal proceedings against the suspected terrorists held at the facility. Two days later, the administration issued an executive order to review the disposition of the prisoners and ordered that the facility be shut down within a year.

His year isn't up yed but it doesn't look good.

#37 | Posted by Sniper

Careful - you've contradicted Kuma and you WILL pay the price.

How can you talk about this stuff at a time like this? Don't you know the King of Pop is dead?!!??!??! Hulkamaniacs everywhere are still in mourning.

HULKAMANIA FOREVER

When he's down 50 to 0 you make the call.

#43 | Posted by Sniper

Let us know if that happens.

-hick act?

Act?

i'm shocked.

Looks like post #33 is going to be ignored. I wonder why.

Looks like post #33 is going to be ignored. I wonder why.

#49 | Posted by crispee_oc

I guess when they're around they can answer for themselves.

Looks like post #33 is going to be ignored. I wonder why.

#49 | Posted by crispee_oc

I guess when they're around they can answer for themselves.

Sorry San. You were in the same boat. You may not have been one of the captains, but you were definitly part of the crew. Not one person from here left of center felt any different during the campaign season. The only difference is Bush was the one shitting on the Constitution and the Geneva Convention. Have yet to see Obama being accused of the same thing.

If they need tried then do so or release them.
Posted by moneywar at 2008-12-01 09:05 PM

Sorry, but it's un-American to imprison a man based on what he might do. Try them or let them go. You want a banana republic, I recommend Honduras.
Posted by Zed at 2008-12-01 09:40 PM

If they are innocent let them Go. This is a moral and ethical stain upon the very Fabric of this grand Nation.
Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-06-08 01:40 PM

Have yet to see Obama being accused of the same thing.
#51 | Posted by crispee_oc

Its the same thing.

Signed,
Hagbard "liberal's liberal" Celine

Does that help?

Go back to sucking Obama's huge penis. There is plenty of room for all you traitors.

#34 | Posted by Kuma at 2009-07-08 01:52 PM

Kuma hate black man. Black man have huge BLACK penis. Kuma Penus very small. Kuma penis very white. Kuma penis all shrivel. Kuma can't get huge black penis out of dreams!

Kuma

Have yet to see Obama being accused of the same thing.
#51 | Posted by crispee_oc

Its the same thing.

Signed,
Hagbard "liberal's liberal" Celine

Does that help?

#53 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-07-08 02:39 PM
Doesn't help me. I always thought you had class. Regardless of your politcal leanings.

On topic- This the result of being at WAR. Obama is trying to end the WAR in Iraq so we can concentrate on ENDING the WAR in Afghanistan.

All Bush wanted to do was EXPAND the war. You can thank the NEVER-ENDING WAR (on Terror)!

At least THOSE DAYS ARE GONE.

The prisoner of war is one of the many problems that BUSH created by not thinking it through. Heck of a job you done there BushCo!

So, now Obama and his Party of Hope is left to clean up after the Bush and his Party of NOPE.

The issues surrounding closing GITMO and returning detainees to their lives is very complex. We are talking about NONCITIZENS here and ones who may return to the "battlefield". Easy to criticize Obama's attempts to solve the problems but not so easy to come up with solutions.

Huh NOPERS? So what do YOU propose? Blame all the "liberals" for Bush's fuckups?

Well, anyway, at least JOE's search engine works well.

I always thought you had class. Regardless of your politcal leanings.
#55 | Posted by crispee_oc

LOL... punk. :)

So, now Obama and his Party of Hope is left to clean up after the Bush and his Party of NOPE.

The issues surrounding closing GITMO and returning detainees to their lives is very complex. We are talking about NONCITIZENS here and ones who may return to the "battlefield".

Did they not know about these same issues when they campaigned on fixing them?

Easy to criticize Obama's attempts to solve the problems but not so easy to come up with solutions.

The ones who criticized are the ones with no solutions. Yet promised they would be different than Bush. Reminds me of a Get Smart epsisode where Max tells a joke and nobody laughs. But when Zigfreid tells the same joke the room erupts.

I always thought you had class. Regardless of your politcal leanings.
#55 | Posted by crispee_oc

LOL... punk. :)

#57 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-07-08 02:55 PM

Sorry Hag. Should I change that to all third? LOL

Sorry Hag. Should I change that to all third? LOL
#59 | Posted by crispee_oc

Nah... we're good.

Didn't Obama say this practice was unjust when Bush was president? Didn't all the liberal Democrats condemn Bush for this practice?

Why is Obama able to get away with this? Why isn't the media all over him like they were Bush?

Just shows the hypocrisy of the media and the Democrat party. Where is the CHANGE?

Where is the CHANGE?
#61 | Posted by utastaff

That's what the hope is for.

Are Cookfish and his panel of Neotards here, then suggesting that detainees should never be released? I see no ideas for what to do about it. Perhaps as the "war on terror" continues we'll just have to annex the entire island of Cuba to house detainees. Would that satisfy the circle-jerk roundtable?

#26 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2009-05-21 11:14 AM

We live in a nation of laws, Rex. The presumption of innocence, habeas corpus, the right to an attorney and the right to a trial are cornerstones of our system of justice.

If you are offended by these things, there are countries that would be more to your liking, such as North Korea or Myanmar.

#48 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-21 11:57 AM

So if you're holding on to the notion that we're just detaining people without charge until the war is over, I challenge you to define the terms of victory for this war.

#75 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-21 12:14 PM

Except, every felon got his day and court and was found guilty. The Bush/Cheney Gestapo just picked up every arab off the corner and threw him in a Gitmo, no habeas corpus, no Geneva rights. These men were treated worse than pigs even if a few of them were. Bush transformed the US into the very thing it once stood in opposition of - a tyrannical menace to the world.

To compare felons to detainees is what is illogical. Seems your gears were stripped long ago.

#88 | Posted by Repugnant at 2009-05-21 12:20 PM

This is fun, Joe.

Where all dese libbies at?

This is fun, Joe.

Where all dese libbies at?

Twittering each other. "I didn't say that." "Did you say that?"

This thread has become quite hilarious.

Larry is the only one who was pissed at Obama about this - and he's been absent for about a month now.

hahahahahaahahahahaha

'i didn't say that." did you say that?"

Larry is the only one who was pissed at Obama about this.
#68 | Posted by JeffJ

Yeah, the cognitive dissonnance had his head spinning. I almost felt bad for him.

So if you're holding on to the notion that we're just detaining people without charge until the war is over, I challenge you to define the terms of victory for this war.

#75 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-21 12:14 PM

FF! and hypocrite flag, too! Where's the anger at those nasty Obamites for doing this illegal action? Oh, I forgot - two months passed, so now it's different somehow. Ha!

funny how us 'conservatives' are glad that obama is taking this stance, but the hypocritical irony is just too obvious and funny. barry is actually approaching this thing (gitmo) pretty intelligently, so much so that he's pissing off his base... the ones that just don't get it.

then you got the spinsters like sanman, who really don't see how similar barry's gitmo policies are too bush's. Or they see it, just won't admit it. because the messiah can do no wrong.

what would have happened if obama stated this policy during the primaries? can you say 'madam president'?

republicans are going to have to learn how to appease their base without really adhering to the base's extreme viewpoints, if they want to win another election.

BUT......... He promised.

#9 | Posted by Sniper

No, he didn't.

#10 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Reading Sandie's posts is like watching a mutt chase it's tail lately

(Yawn) And yes Sandie I did read your subsequent strained excuses

then you got the spinsters like sanman, who really don't see how similar barry's gitmo policies are too bush's. Or they see it, just won't admit it. because the messiah can do no wrong.

#72 | Posted by Yodar013 at 2009-07-08 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag (X) Hit Nail on the Head!

Reading Sandie's posts is like watching a mutt chase it's tail lately

(Yawn) And yes Sandie I did read your subsequent strained excuses

#74 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch

Ah, but did you read the quotes of what he actually said, or is it just easier for you to suck up to Sniper because it fits your agenda better?

I know its quicker to just make stuff up than to do research, so I don't expect much from you anyway.

Sanan, from your view of the world, how many of your own polyps do you see?

barry is actually approaching this thing (gitmo) pretty intelligently

#72 | Posted by Yodar013

Oddly enough, that's what I've been saying here. But everyone seems more interested in trying to score some imaginary points here by lumping every left-leaning poster together into some monolithic body.

Sanan, from your view of the world, how many of your own polyps do you see?

#78 | Posted by cookfish

Good old Cookie! Nothing really intelligent to add to a conversation, but always ready to wag his tail and wiggle excitedly trying to curry favor with the bigger dogs.

But everyone seems more interested in trying to score some imaginary points here by lumping every left-leaning poster together into some monolithic body.

Here? On Drudge? Lumping every poster leaning together? I am outraged.

Sincerely,
danni

-the bigger dogs

Cookie loves him some Pekingese!

San An

Leave Britney Alone!

#83 | Posted by Corky

LOL!

when the war was over, that they would be released to those countries. That's different than holding people indefinitely until we achieve victory in our war against a vague concept.

#80 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-21 12:17 PM | Reply

By releasing unreasonably held individuals to their nations of origin we can observe a true solidarity with all people enamored of that noble ideal.

the big problem is those wonderful nations of origins want nothing to do with them and the ones that will take them back have some not so noble ideas of what to do with them.

Since Republicans will undoubtedly return to power someday, it would be nice to clean out the stupid before that happens. Bush and Cheney made the party embrace all kinds of dumb policies like these extraconstitutional prisons. Y'all need to recognize that the Bush years are over. You don't have to defend every incredibly stupid decision his administration made.

#157 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-21 01:04 PM

ummmmm if they are guilty of trying to kill our troops prove it in a Court of Law and then put em in Prison like any other criminal. From what I understand of the Military Commissions is it's a Kangaroo Court guaranteeing guilt no matter what. As for cost not My fault Not My responsibility. call it a waste of money. Charge them try them in a federal Court and if guilty fine incarcerate them. if Not guilty free them.

Larry

Larry

#204 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-05-21 08:03 PM |

I think RiR is pushing another addition to the FLAG choices. LOL

The Bush Administration is quaking with fear. Some of these people will be found INNOCENT.
Posted by Zed at 2006-06-30 08:31 AM

Some (here on this site too) say, "They're Muslims. They're gonna kill us if we don't imprison them (guilty or not)".
Amazing
Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008-06-16 09:47 PM

Give them a trial. Is that so hard? Is that so anti-american?
The banality of evil strike again.
Posted by Alexandrite at 2009-01-12 09:35 PM

This is America. People aren't supposed to be held for years without a trial of some kind no matter who they are....or in this case, weren't.
Disgusting!
Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008-06-16 03:54 PM

How does anyone on the right assume the rest are guilty as charged unless they're granted hearings and trials?
Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008-06-16 04:13 PM

-Corky, your average mutt isn't going to even touch you

'S OK. You have the field all to yourself... well, you and Lar.

Guantanamo is THE perfect example of why individuals need RIGHTS....many of those held there did nothing yet were held, without charge, without attorneys for years. A national disgrace even if we do have a problem with terrorists.
Posted by danni at 2009-01-13 03:05 PM

Whether these individuals are US citizens or not they should be treated by the same standards as our citizens.
If a case can be made that they have committed a terrorist act then try them, convict them, and punish them.
If no case can be made then release them. They should not be convicted based on their beliefs or our interpretation of their beliefs. They should only be tried for their actions.
We are supposed to be Americans and uphold certain standards. Two of the most important, to me, are innocent until proven guilty and free speech.
Posted by Cowboy at 2009-01-13 03:27 PM

So you all are posting all these quotes calling for detainees to get trials.

They are getting trials, so what is your point?

rCade, dethspud, Moneywar, Zed, LarryMohr, 503jc69, celisary, Whatsleft, Repugnant, Americanunitard, Danni, Cowboy

HELLO?

"They are getting trials, so what is your point"

Well the presumption would be that after the trial, they'd either be sentenced or released.

Or were lefties just calling for trials and hoping they'd be detained forever even when found innocent?

Of course, the libs will never admit he failed, and failed miserably.

Even with the link.

Bush didn't already have plans to end war and leave? SURE LIBS SURE...BUSHES OWN WORDS:

"It [also] lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq," Bush said. "This withdrawal will take place in two stages."

www.defenselink.mil

You liberals are just plain stupid. You really are.

There are some links you fucktards. I laugh in your face.

WOW, you all have 0 comeback to this....all the facts just snuffed out your worthless existence.

Kuma

#29 | Posted by Kuma at 2009-07-08 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

I really couldn;t give a shit abut GITMO in the least, but hey, it sure made for a GREAT wedge issue that cost you clowns TOTAL CONTROL.

Great stuff indeed!!

p.s. Since when do you define failure as winning the House, Senate & White House?

I can't speak for any of the others. But what I see is that detainees who were being denied trials under the previous administration are getting them now. Most will likely be convicted and imprisoned. Some may be released in other countries. And there are a few who simply cannot be released no matter what, for legitimate national security reasons.

I'm willing to accept the premise that some of these guys are that bad. I would have accepted that from Bush as well. It isn't a perfect scenario, but it is realistic. If extra-legal methods are required to protect the country, fine. But they should be legitimate and kept to a minimum... and there should be some form of oversight to prevent abuse.

"I can't speak for any of the others"

You already did in #94. If you no longer plan on doing so, then STFU.

why is it we can't find any countries in the world to take these innocence souls?

barry is actually approaching this thing (gitmo) pretty intelligently

#72 | Posted by Yodar013

True. But not what he was saying during the campagin. Can you say 'flip-flop'? I'll bet you can because you libs have accused every rep of that.

I really don't understand people like Common Sense.

So what EXACTLY are you saying? EXACTLY.

You are saying, you want democrat control, total control, filibuster proof?

In that case, what you are saying, exactly, is that you WANT to pay more taxes, YOU WANT less quality of health care, YOU WANT less individual choices, YOU WANT illegal aliens to become citizens, YOU WANT guns to be banned as much as legally possible, YOU WANT the highest deficit spending in the history of the USA.

So you are arguing ALL of that is good? Because that is EXACTLY what you are saying.

You want to pay more money to the government and receive less for it? Do you actually understand that is the case? OR do you still believe the government has everyone's best interest at heart?

Tell us all what you believe.

Kuma

You already did in #94. If you no longer plan on doing so, then STFU.

#99 | Posted by JOE

I didn't speak for anyone in #94. I asked a question. You're full of shit, as usual.

Your post was clearly an argument on behalf of all the douchebags I'm quoting who are nowhere to be found. As usual, your mouth is so securely fastened to Obama's scrotum that oxygen is being cut off from your brain.

"Your post was clearly an argument on behalf of..."

Sure it was. We'll add clairvoyance to your list of failures. I don't know why I keep forgetting you are incapable of carrying on a civil conversation. Once a little punk, always a little punk, I guess.

"In fact, if you were to put SanAn, Doc, and Danforth together"

Aw...there goes the little Missus, trying to get me into every post. Isn't she sweet?

Whatever. If you want to pretend that the only thing people wanted were trials if it meant those found innocent would be detained anyways, have fun with that. Sounds pretty fucking stupid to anyone with a brain.

If you want to pretend that the only thing people wanted were trials if it meant those found innocent would be detained anyways, have fun with that. Sounds pretty fucking stupid to anyone with a brain.

#107 | Posted by JOE

You might be right if I had "pretended" anything. But since you obviously either didn't read anything I said, or, more likely, you just immediately shifted into strawman mode, I'm sure you didn't notice that I spoke only for myself, and expressed my point of view on the subject.

And, I managed to do it without a single ad hominem, unlike you and your twin sister Cookie.

"You might be right if I had "pretended" anything."

How can your post that said:

So you all are posting all these quotes calling for detainees to get trials.

They are getting trials, so what is your point?

And more bullshit from the bullshitter.

Let's flesh out your post, Pretender. You asked what my point was as I showed that people were calling for detainee trials, and they were "getting trials" (yet potentially still being detained when found innocent per this article). Asking "what is your point" suggested that I had no point - i.e. that "getting trials" was all the people calling for trials wanted, and that those same people would not care whether those found innocent were actually let go.

Please explain how this is not a rational interpretation of your post, Pretender.

So it's okay to keep someone detained indefinitely if The Messiah deems him to be unworthy of release, but not if W does.

I get it.

Asking "what is your point" suggested that I had no point - i.e. that "getting trials" was all the people calling for trials wanted, and that those same people would not care whether those found innocent were actually let go.

Please explain how this is not a rational interpretation of your post, Pretender.

#108 | Posted by JOE

You are thick as the proverbial brick, junior.

Asking "what is your point" is a question asking for clarification. And, you actually went on to provide that clarification in your next post. I then posted my personal opinion on the issue in response.

What the hell is the matter with you that you have to act like such a petulant child all the time?

Promises are tough to keep when they are not based upon fact. The 2008 elections was all about the "evil Bush admin" and while W did plenty to cause criticism, he was not/is not guilty of the majority of crap the left concocted about him. It was the guilty till proven innocent where people kept throwing it against the wall to see what would stick.

Obama ran as the anti-Bush -- and now his promises are disintegrating. FISA, defecits, Gitmo, trials, lobbyists, patisanship, Islamic denial, no new taxes (they keep coming, VAT on the way). He is a pure politician.

How can any sane person with a degree of integrity deny what has happened in ONLY 6 MONTHS? Please, explain why but do not deny what is taking place. I get the idea many people on this site have spouses that come home not wearing underwear ... guess they forgot to put it on this morning?

Gitmo open and prisoners still held indefinitely. Iraq war rages on. Even after he pledged a complete draw down of troops now he says up to 50,000 will remain indefinitely. Afghanistan war increases in size and number of American deaths. No transparency in government. Corporate America (over a trillion to the banks, $200 billion alone to AIG, tens of billions to the auto companies) still gets a giant leg-up on the American people (only $70 billion went to help homeowners) in terms of support. Obama spends $25,000 of taxpayer money just to take his wife on a date in New York while millions of Americans struggle to put food on the table. Obama promises to stop waste in government spending yet watches as Pelosi and Reid pour billions in pork spending in the Stimulus Bill. Obama pledged to help gays yet supports Don't Ask Don't Tell and is against Gay Marriage.

Why not just kill these people being held, it is no less of a violation than what we are currently doing.

barry is actually approaching this thing (gitmo) pretty intelligently

#72 | Posted by Yodar013

Oddly enough, that's what I've been saying here. But everyone seems more interested in trying to score some imaginary points here by lumping every left-leaning poster together into some monolithic body.

#77 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

the outrage/clamor from the 'conservatives' (i '' it because i don't like labels, i debate against all sides), is because there was so much shit being thrown at bush when essentially he was doing the same thing barry is doing now. notice how i'm able to commend barry for these actions, and you can to, but you (or many liberals) were unable to look at the situation under bush with the same objective reasoning. the 'i hate bush' or 'bush can do no good' kept clouding the judgement of liberals in this country and kept them from looking at situations in a logical fashion. 'CLOSE GITMO NOW!' was the chant, but then when it came down to the actual part of closing it down, nobody knew wtf to do. including the messiah! which is understandable, its a catch 22 (which many libs have said was created by bush) yea well unless ur really that oblivious, the attacks against american interests throughout the 90's and 2001 were not created by bush. and this asymmetrical (4gen) warfare is new to all of us. there is no easy way to combat it, and unfortunately some of these nuts can never be let go. imho. and in barry's humble opinion. and don't give me that crap that we are created more enemies by locking up the 100 or so REAL bad guys indefinitely, the majority of the muslim world despises the radicals, similar to the majority of christians despising the kkk.

and i don't understand why so many other 'liberals' hid from this thread, do they not hold their opinions regardless of which idiot politician is holding likewise opinions? i mean, either come out and say F U obama for taking this stance (as many of you did when bush took it) or RECANT. you can't have it both ways.

aside from his spending money like a gold digger let loose on 5th ave with an unlimited amount of chinese credit cards, i'm pretty happy with the current potus. as i was with the last, aside from his going at it alone attitude like some fucking sly actor taking on the burmese army solo.

I applaud the administration for their position in connection with this. I do, however, note their hypocrisy in villifying Bush and turning around and adopting basically the Bush policy.

Bush f-ing number 2.

Where's the outrage? Where are all the people who were so outraged at W? Could it be that W was r-r-r-right?

Where's the outrage? Where are all the people who were so outraged at W? Could it be that W was r-r-r-right?

No bush was not right and neither is the piece of panzy crap obama.

Where's the outrage?

"We're deeply concerned, ok?"

--DR Left

Where's the outrage? Where are all the people who were so outraged at W? Could it be that W was r-r-r-right?

W was wrong. W created this mess in the first place. Now Obama's taken over the responsibility for this incredible mess. It's like you've missed every SCOTUS ruling against the Bush Admin on this subject.

Where's the outrage? Where are all the people who were so outraged at W? Could it be that W was r-r-r-right?

No bush was not right and neither is the piece of panzy crap obama.

#120 | Posted by moneywar

-ironic that you call him a panzy crap... whatever that is. only because i think it shows balls of steal for barry to be able to look at the issue objectively, and confidently make the right decision regardless of his base screaming their heads off WITH NO OTHER IDEAS! other than....:

'W was wrong. W created this mess in the first place. Now Obama's taken over the responsibility for this incredible mess. It's like you've missed every SCOTUS ruling against the Bush Admin on this subject.'

#122 | Posted by YAV

-so according to yav, bush created this mess and now barry is taking over responsibility. funny (well it was funny, now its just tired and pathetic) how yav offers no alternative solution to the current issue at hand, NOR does he suggest an alternative to the 'mess' that bush 'created' by picking off specific nutcases on the ground in afghanistan/waziristan/
pakistan.

got any alternatives yav? to the past 'mess' or the current one??? I DIND"T THINK SO.

its one thing to bitch and moan about a specific decision made or being made while having an alternative that you can arguably show is better..... but to simply bitch and moan without any ideas of your own is just pathetic. its similar with the way people bitch and moan about capitalism even though its clearly the best form of economic growth/prosperity..... (and i'm fine with you saying that capitalism is the worst form of an economy/society.... as long as you include: ASSIDE FROM ALL THE REST.)

meanwhile...

Accused of returning to terrorism, former Gitmo detainee a respected Afghan politician

A former Guantanamo Bay detainee who was named by the Pentagon as one of 74 former captives who returned to terrorism after being released has done no such thing.

Instead, he has returned to doing what he was really doing before being picked up by US forces and shuttled off to Gitmo for six years: Working as a politician, a tribal elder representing Afghanistan's Kunar province.

From the source within your source:

'According to Defense Department documents from Wakil's Combatant Status Review Board hearing at Guantanamo, the United States charged that Wakil helped members of al Qaida escape from Kunar into neighboring Pakistan. The U.S. also charged that he obtained weapons that were used in a rocket attack on the main military base in Kunar.'

I'm not saying that i believe either side..... just thought i'd present the whole case....

W was wrong. W created this mess in the first place. Now Obama's taken over the responsibility for this incredible mess. It's like you've missed every SCOTUS ruling against the Bush Admin on this subject.

#122 | POSTED BY YAV AT 2009-07-10 08:22 AM | REPLY | FLAG

Hold up. How is it that Bush created a "mess" regarding Guantanamo that cannot be remedied by Obama if he truly believed his rhetoric on this issue. You mean Bush ran the planes into the Towers?

These fucks in Guantanamo are terrorists that either need to be locked up or on the street. Bush decided they should be locked up. If BO thinks they should be on the street, he needs to waive his magic wand to make it happen.

While Bush created messes, you cannot blame him for BO's inability to make what you consider to be the right decision.

You folks on the right aren't making much sense. We have a history of dealing with Prisoners of War. What messed this up is a series of fups by the Bush Admin seeing to "redo" things and "stop swatting at flies." He rewrote the way Military Tribunals were conducted, and, as I referenced, even SCOTUS wouldn't put up with it. He implemented a program of "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" that are now commonly understood as torture. This has created an entire class of Gitmo detainees that can't be tried.

Now you want ME to offer a solution? Now that's what the Right is famous for. Creating shitstorms, ruining the Economy, and then having to have the Democrats come in and fix the mess you and your petulant "leaders" wrought.

He also said he was not going to raise taxes on anyone making less the a quarter mil. Talk about a pathological liar. He's going to be a one term president when he would have served us better be a "no term" president.

Obama is soo pathetic along with the democratic congress.

So my simple question is, when do the rights given us by the constitution as citizens of the United States apply to non citizens of the world, detained in a military operation in a country not ours? I say give them back to the country of orgin, weather they like it or not just make sure to stuff a rag in the hole in their heads from the single bullet it would take to end the dabate. Let god sort them out.

"give them back to the country of orgin, weather they like it or not just make sure to stuff a rag in the hole in their heads from the single bullet it would take to end the dabate. Let god sort them out."

Are you hoping other countries do this to Americans as well, or do you prefer to pretend we all live in a vacuum?