[vladekad]

Would you mind telling us when the Obama administration starts?

Thanks in advance.

It actually started on January 20, 2009 in case you missed the breaking news. You're welcome.

[mealiusarses]

It actually started on January 20, 2009 in case you missed the breaking news. You're welcome.

Naaa... that can't be right.

He promised to the close GITMO... he has not done so.

You just said that Congress is (somehow) keeping GITMO open. Clearly then Obama has not begun his time in office.

[Kdgjhytiy]

Naaa... that can't be right.

He promised to the close GITMO... he has not done so.

You just said that Congress is (somehow) keeping GITMO open. Clearly then Obama has not begun his time in office.

Would you care to make a fact based argument?

[alanamosteller]

Oh nonsense...that's exactly what Congress did, e.g.,

Senate Democrats reject funding for Guantánamo closure | World news | guardian.co.uk (bolding added)

I cite the actual bill and you cite a news article as though that somehow trumps it.

The bill says what it says, and that's what Congress actually did. (That being said, the quotes in the linked news article still only refer to release not transfer.) Congress did nothing to impede transfer until December 2010. Individual Congressmen giving hysterical quotes is not a "block" on the administration.

...

It's a broken promise but not one he is chargeable with given Congressional resistance. Disagree with the latter half of that statement, obviously. If Mr. Obama becomes apoplectic when individual Congressmen make hysterical quotes, he should not have run for the Presidency. It's certainly not an excuse for inaction.

[Sipewrio]

I wonder how many dipshit libs voted for Obama because he lied about his intent to close Gitmo. I know three. Anyone else?

[diutuartina]

I cite the actual bill and you cite a news article as though that somehow trumps it.

The bill says what it says, and that's what Congress actually did. (That being said, the quotes in the linked news article still only refer to release not transfer.) Congress did nothing to impede transfer until December 2010. Individual Congressmen giving hysterical quotes is not a "block" on the administration.

Sure it does because it put the bill into its proper context where it showed Congress did more than just that bill that was only a vehicle for what they did, explained their full actions and statements and intentions for what they were doing, etc, by their own words. They didn't want them on US soil, period, and offered lame hysterical false pretexts for it. You were around for those times and should recall the banter. I also pointed out why the lame pretexts were bunk.

And it certainly did impede him...you know damn well he can't responsibly move them with Congress deliberately denying funds to do so where he has no place to put them responsibly consistent with their security detail needs, i.e., SuperMax level.

Disagree with the latter half of that statement, obviously. If Mr. Obama becomes apoplectic when individual Congressmen make hysterical quotes, he should not have run for the Presidency. It's certainly not an excuse for inaction.

He didn't become apoplectic about it. Congress impeded his desire to relocate them deliberately. Congressional opposition often occurs when a POTUS wishes to do something. They are not dictators that can do what they wish. Given the opposition then and now, if he wishes to proceed, he must do military tribunals at Gitmo and that's what he's going to do as a result.

[Dertrioz]

Canada has pretty much the same problems as the US or any other judicial system in democratic republics, e.g.,

Top judge snared in corruption probe

Canada scores a bit better on the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) but that measures on public perceptions...it's not necessarily factual. As long as people run something where human flaws intersect with power, such problems will exist to some degree. For example, it certainly has loads of corruption and ethics problems in its international business dealings.

Good points... hmmm... Maybe Norway and Finland are less corrupt.

Granted, I realize that measuring actual corruption rather than perceived corruption can be difficult.

[Flefebleaft]

I wonder how many dipshit libs voted for Obama because he lied about his intent to close Gitmo. I know three. Anyone else?

The same could be said for conservatives that believed Bush wouldn't nation build.

[wgX44EEn]

I wonder how many dipshit libs voted for Obama because he lied about his intent to close Gitmo. I know three. Anyone else?

My views are mixed on the spectrums, but for me, I deemed the issue an uncontested one because both said they would close it. If any lib voted for Obama on that promise, they weren't paying attention to the other candidate and giving him a fair shake and hearing on his views.

March 27, 2008 - 5:59AM
John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has called for the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison for alleged terrorist detainees.

"I believe we should close Guantanamo," McCain said in a foreign policy address in Los Angeles, where he argued that the United States cannot go it alone in the world and must respect the views of valued allies.

"Our great power does not mean that we can do whatever we want, whenever we want," said McCain, 71. . . . http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/us...s/23gitmo.html

. . .

PELLEY: Would you close Guantanamo Bay?

MCCAIN: Yes. I would close Guantanamo Bay. And I would move those prisoners to Fort Leavenworth. And I would proceed with the tribunals.

PELLEY: Why? What's wrong with the way it was handled?

MCCAIN: Guantanamo Bay has become an image throughout the world which has hurt our reputation. Whether we deserve it or not, the reality is Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib have harmed our reputation in the world, thereby harming our ability to win the psychological part of the war against radical Islamic extremism.

. . . Transcript Excerpt: Sen. John McCain - 60 Minutes - CBS News

They both tried to do this following the election as POTUS and Congressman respectively, but Congressional opposition has now directed that they be either held in Gitmo or not at all in legal limbo.

[arcaniagainee]

Good points... hmmm... Maybe Norway and Finland are less corrupt.

Granted, I realize that measuring actual corruption rather than perceived corruption can be difficult.

A great percent goes on because the public is unaware because they don't have the knowledge, expertise or interest to spot it. Sometimes it's also an ostrich thing along with a false pride/vanity/arrogance thing, especially when it comes to doing bad things in other nations or pretending one's shit doesn't stink. For example, I've linked this video before when I've seen some Canadians who like to take the piss out of Americans on 'principles' who pretend they're saintly types in international affairs, which is hardly the case, e.g.,

YouTube - Guatemalan police & army perform illegal evictions Jan 2007
YouTube - Skye Resources Limited Mining in Guatemala

or remind them on military matters about their awful behaviour in Somalia in 1993, e.g.,:

Somalia Affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

when talking smack about Abu Ghraib with a holier than thou approach, I remind them of that stuff. Or how they did the Japanese-Canadians worse in WWII with not only detention camps but also even seizing, i.e., stealing, their properties, etc. There's lots of shame along with fame for the 'good nations.' Nobody's perfect.

[Edisesyethisp]

Would you care to make a fact based argument?

The fact based argument is that the Kool Aide drinkers double themselves in half to make excuses for why things are not Obama's fault. Come next year, if you buy into that crap, it will be like he never took office.

I just never saw you as one of those folks. Until today.

[VogsHoock]

The fact based argument is that the Kool Aide drinkers double themselves in half to make excuses for why things are not Obama's fault. Come next year, if you buy into that crap, it will be like he never took office.

I just never saw you as one of those folks. Until today.

Oh horseshit. What I said is fact and quoted with links for it. It's common knowledge. What's horseshit is your attempts to spin this shit for partisan purposes, e.g., your post here at No.14 that you tried to make into its own redundant thread for partisan purposes that got moved here into this existing thread where it belongs:

Apology = an admission of guilt.

By now you've all heard the news: Obama has reversed his two-year-old order halting new military charges against detainees at GITMO... allowing, once again, military tribunals to precede.

He lied.
It was always only crap fed to the wacky left
It was always only something to try and get elected on.
He hopes you forgive and forget... at least by Nov. 2012

He soiled the reputations of two good men... good men that made hard choices, for his own political benefit and only for his own political benefit.

You cheered him on.

He lied
You voted for him

You going to do it again? If you wish to discuss the issue properly with facts, start doing so. That includes any criticisms based on facts. If you wish to waste time inventing and contriving partisan nonsense, however, that's all you're doing and adds nothing to proper discussion of the topic. Now, if you're up for making a fact based argument, I'm all for it.

[pinawinekolad]

A great percent goes on because the public is unaware because they don't have the knowledge, expertise or interest to spot it. Sometimes it's also an ostrich thing along with a false pride/vanity/arrogance thing, especially when it comes to doing bad things in other nations or pretending one's shit doesn't stink. For example, I've linked this video before when I've seen some Canadians who like to take the piss out of Americans on 'principles' who pretend their are saintly types in international affairs, which is hardly the case, e.g.,

YouTube - Guatemalan police & army perform illegal evictions Jan 2007
YouTube - Skye Resources Limited Mining in Guatemala

or remind them on military matters about their awful behaviour in Somalia in 1993, e.g.,:

Somalia Affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

when talking smack about Abu Ghraib with a holier than thou approach, I remind them of that stuff. Or how they did the Japanese-Canadians worse in WWII with not only detention camps but also even seizing, i.e., stealing, their properties, etc. There's lots of shame along with fame for the 'good nations.' Nobody's perfect.

Nice... Very good points. The only things that came to my mind when it comes to Canadian misdeeds involved how they treated their natives compared to us (worse in many respects) and how they essentially made it possible for Pakistan to become a nuclear power.

[sisuarmalmicy]

If you wish to discuss the issue properly with facts, start doing so. That includes any criticisms based on facts. If you wish to waste time inventing and contriving partisan nonsense, however, that's all you're doing and adds nothing to proper discussion of the topic. Now, if you're up for making a fact based argument, I'm all for it.

Naaa... you've done a nice job of showing just why the left is without any redeeming moral position.

It's all about the power.

[Tuqofiw]

Naaa... you've done a nice job of showing just why the left is without any redeeming moral position.

It's all about the power.

Oh indeed...you mean like these redeeming moral positions on the right...



Damn, he deserved his promotion to the Senate from the GOP base...how could anyone argue with such morals...

I'm hardly representative of 'the left'...I like reasoned answers to reasoned discourse and that makes my decisions whether the answer is considered 'left,' 'right' or 'moderate.' My comments towards the most of the Congressional Democrats as well as Congressional Republicans on this subject on this thread are equally unflattering because IMO they deserve the scorn.

Then again, that was self-evident in my posts. You're just being an extremely poor advocate for conservatives by arguing bullshit in blind loyalty like a good Party House Negro which just makes you a sheep fit for shearing by the GOP Master. Instead of just giving your arse over on a plate for serving, maybe you might want to actually think for yourself and hold all politicians accountable for what they do and come to your own conclusions on things for the sake for your own welfare and that of the nation...you know, the stuff that ought to be important to you and the nation and the point of having elected representatives.

[hechicxxrr]

The usual chorus of lib Obama defenders sure seem to be avoiding this thread...

[Jeaxatoem]

One of the biggest reasons why Gitmo is staying open is because the public rejected having suspects released into open society.

Even though we've detained several people without evidence for several years now, the public seems to be convinced that all these people are guilty without a trial.

It's kind of sad, really. So, it might be a failure of Obama's administration by keeping Gitmo open, but it's also a failure of the public to respect the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."

Detainments shouldn't be indefinite. There should be a limit imposed on this practice, so that the prosecution has an incentive to actually hold a trial for a suspect. Otherwise, what need is there for a trial, if you can just keep someone imprisoned for an indefinite time?

The whole problem with that bullshit is that they are not criminal suspects in the first place. They are accused of no crime. They are captured enemy combatants.

[Hsmrcahr]

Mh.

Like everytime a decision is made, I wondered where it came from. And so I began reading...

(NYT - Administration Prepares to Lift Ban...)


(NYT - Obama Signs Bill That May Hinder...)


I can't deny that his last decision will keep the prison open for a long time, and I actually observe that the recent decisions made, in January, already took that direction. It is certain that the administration's strategy to close it would have taken a lot more time anyway but I also can't deny this possibility, that the bill signed at the beginning of January 2011 could be linked to this new decision. It made the strategy harder, so even if the strategy wasn't sound to begin with, to the least it precipitated the decision.
Anyway, whatever the cause it's an admittance of failure. A chance that the foreign medias may not care... too busy with civil wars and revolutions.

Amazing how those of you outside the US, know more about what's happening than many of the cons on the forum. Thanks for putting this up, saves me the time.

[thushioli]

The whole problem with that bullshit is that they are not criminal suspects in the first place. They are accused of no crime. They are captured enemy combatants.

I'm actually glad you opened the door to this topic because IMO the US government has failed to consistently categorise these detainees at all and in manners I find troubling from a fairness and strategic standpoint.

Since the Bush Admin and into the Obama Admin--and I mean not only the Admins themselves but all the full government itself such as Congress, both party machines, the agencies, etc, have treated these detainees as either criminals or illegal combatants however they have seen fit in a haphazard and convenient manner.

For example, we've done civil proceeding criminal trials for AQ people long before 9.11, never mind afterwards (Zacarias Moussaoui, the blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, Ahmed Ghailani, Richard Reid, etc). On the other hand, we've done military tribunals for others (Omar Khadr, etc) at Gitmo, under the 'illegal combatant' concept. They are either murdering civilian criminals or illegal combatants but not both. Yet, the government has consistently kept the classification deliberately confused and acted in full convenience in how they've been handling them on a case-by-case basis. It's insincere and improper IMO.

As for myself, I've long reached the conclusion that they should be properly classified as common criminals who ought to face the death penalty or life without parole in a SuperMax prison for mass murder and other top rated felonies. I've likewise called for the application and/or enactment of criminal laws that make mere membership in that movement to be a capital offence or life without parole offence. I don't care what role one has in it...if one joins it, then they are on the hook for all it does given each member knows what it does.

'Unlawful combatants' have been generally and traditionally categorised as spies and saboteurs violating rules of engagement in bona fide wars and insurgencies. Men caught in non-uniformed spy status like Nathan Hale of the American rebels and Major John Andre of the British during the American Revolutionary War were 'unlawful combatants.' The German non-uniformed saboteurs who were Abwehr (German military intelligence) agents and were landed by U-boat in the US during WWII to conduct sabotage operations were 'unlawful combatants.'

The German saboteurs and spies like John Andre were performing acts requested by and on behalf of their nation against another during a state of declared war between them. Their missions were legitimate military objectives in nature; they just weren't in uniform as required, which made them illegal combatants. The rules of war require that combatants be properly identified so the war can be conducted with regard as to who is a civilian and who is a combatant. Without that rule, it would be wild chaos with civilians being indiscriminately killed, harassed, etc, given the inability to identify who is a combatant.

As for AQ, however, they are simply notorious criminals IMO. They are not part of an organised 'war' in any traditional sense. To me, they are like the the old 'night riders' of the KKK or an international drug gang like MS-13 or the Zetas, etc.

Moreover, that any asshole can choose at any time to 'join AQ' like one joins a 'Twelve Step programme' and hop on a plane and attempt to blow it up like Richard Reid, a scumbag violent prison convict who decided to become a Muslim radical and blow up a plane consistent with his criminal propensities to be deemed an 'illegal combatant' is absurd IMO.

They don't deserve the honour and distinction of being deemed an 'illegal combatant' as if they are bona fide warriors in a war. The likes of John Andre, Nathan Hale, Mata Hari, etc, would turn in their graves being associated with the likes of these shitbags. They're just mass murdering criminal terrorists and ought to be declared as such.

Insofar as strategy is concerned, calling them such also bequeaths them a higher status than they deserve and elevates any shitbag who wishes to be inspired by AQ and commit violent acts akin to wanton and depraved criminality rather than recognised war conduct to warrior status. Is this asshole a 'warrior'?



Authorities Make Arrest in Alleged Plot to Blow Up Military Recruitment Center
Published December 08, 2010
| FoxNews.com

A man was arrested Wednesday for plotting to blow up a military recruitment center in the Baltimore area, authorities said.

Antonio Martinez, a Muslim convert who called himself Muhammed Hussain, was arrested and is expected to appear later Wednesday in federal court, Fox News confirms.

Martinez, a U.S. citizen, was caught in a sting operation as he tried to detonate a phony bomb at an Armed Forces recruiting station in Catonsville, just outside Baltimore, officials said.

. . . Authorities Make Arrest in Alleged Plot to Blow Up Military Recruitment Center - FoxNews.com

To me, he's just a malignant violent scumbag and deserves to be treated as such. To give him or his likes any military recognition or be placed in the more honoured position of spies and saboteurs in bona fide war conflicts is giving undue status to AQ and such people that they do not deserve.

[Lhiistyssdds]

The whole problem with that bullshit is that they are not criminal suspects in the first place. They are accused of no crime. They are captured enemy combatants.

Yup. But even enemy combatants shouldn't be held indefinitely.

In previous armed conflicts when enemy combatants were taken prisoner, there was a clearly defined end of hostilities, at which point, or shortly there after, the enemy combatants were released back to their native countries.

This conflict, being urban guerrilla, terrorist or asymmetric warfare, doesn't really fit the existing models, as the beginning and end are 'fuzzy' in time. Which one of the al-Qaeda attacks was the onset of hostilities?

Al-Qaeda and it's leadership has been characterized as very long term in planning, execution and determination, and that they are prepared for a multi-generational conflict. I guess in this case, it means that some of their minions will have to suffer.

I certainly don't want to release some of these very bad people only to find them shooting at our troops on the battle field again.