It's so predictable that pgabriel would make an insighful post that cuts through the rhetoric and BS to lay the blame where it belongs?
While this guy must be executed, I'm just kind of disappointed that the furor of 9/11 has subsided enough for your politicians to lie on your behalf in order for them to be able to collude against your wishes.
you mean how Obama lied in 2008, and is now colluding with the forces of evil chimpymchitlerburton? apology... Spoiler accpeted
I love how this clown of a person/poster keeps putting up garbage on Clutchfans. Do you watch the Rockets, ever? I'm sure you will reply with a "yes," but I highly doubt you could name the roster without Google around. Go post on FoxNews or something. You'll have more people agreeing with you and the dozens of threads you create in a given week.
do you? back in 2009 you said i was stupid and just b****ing to b**** when i criticized obama for keeping gitmo open. you said that since he had only been in office for 6 months that we were not allowed to criticize him. its now been two years, so can we criticize him yet? OBAMA HAS ONLY BEEN IN OFFICE TWO YEARS - GIVE HIM TIME!!! GESSH - SOME OF YOU PEOPLE ARE SO UNREASONABLE - YOU ACTUALLY EXPECT HIM TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES! THAT IS JUST TOTALLY UNREASONABLE AND SILLY - YOU ARE JUST b****ING TO b****! OBAMA IS DOING THE BEST HE CAN AND ITS A DIFFICULT JOB IN CASE YOU HAVE NOT NOTICED! ITS ONLY BEEN TWO YEARS!!! ITS STUPID TO COMPLAIN THAT HE HASNT CLOSED IT YET!
i wasnt the one going around calling others stupid for expecting obama to follow through on his campaign promises. serious question - are we allowed to criticize obama on gitmo yet? its been 2 years.
joseph The person to blame are the idiots in Congress (The moron republicans who act like these are supervillains rather than ordinary prisoners - and the democratic senators who are stupid enough to have been bullied by those idiots) who have effectively blocked prisoner transfers. On the other hand the population there has quietly been reduced by about a 1/4 since he entered office, presumably by both trials, including the one in January in NYC that nobody noticed, and by repatriation. perhaps the problem basically goes away by itself.
I was wondering why Obama has changed his stance on Guantanamo. Is it possible that as President, he has gotten access to information that made him change his mind? Guantanamo and the status of its prisoners without due process rights just seems so wrong to me from the outset. It is hard to imagine something that would justify its existence.
i think there are complicated legal issues that will allow some of these guys to walk if tried in civilian courts. its a mess. i have no problem with letting some go if that has to be the case, and i won't deny that obama doesn't want to get looked at as soft on terror.
Yes and no, there's definitely evidence that would have been excluded (THANKS BUSH FOR TORTURE!) that would lessen the chances of conviction, but the government's success rate in these cases is still extremely high, so if you're dropping the odds from 99.9% conviction to 98%, what's the difference? Ultimately though it's irrelevant as theirs enough military/national security law (outside of tribunals) that allows them to hold them anyway. Basically, they're not going anywhere, conviction or not....The primary issue is where to keep them. There's pretty much no rational basis for saying that they couldn't be absorbed into the massive federal prison-industrial complex, like thousands of terrorists before them, but who ever let rationality get in the way of a r****ded political rant of the Becks and Boehners of the universe?
what about our democratic president who has also been stupid enough to have been bullied by those idiots? you can blame the republicans all you want, but this is now obama's policy. he is the one advocating for and signing it into law. i guess like the bush supporters, you dont believe that the buck stops with the president? rather, its everyone elses fault. and its not that he is standing idly by and doing nothing - he is actively codifying the bush policies of indefinite detention, military tribunals and housing "terrorists" at gitmo. all things that candidate obama opposed. the fact remains that president obama is not following through on what candidate obama promised wrt gitmo and indefinite detention. he is actually doing the exact opposite of what he said he would do. it is yet another case of him acting more like bush and the neocons. when i pointed all this out back in 2009 i was told that obama had only been in office less than a year and that he needed more time and that it was stupid to criticize him for going back on his campaign promise. well, it has now been two years. are we allowed to point out that he lied yet?
I hate to break it to you joseph but being "bullied" in this case means that you can't act when Congress makes it illegal for you to do so. see, e.g. Reagan in Iran Contra, for a counterexample. Just like how Obama can't unilaterally end the ban on gays in the military, he can't unilaterally transfer prisoners (because congress has banned using funds for that purpose).
you can spin it all you want samuel, but the fact remains that gitmo, military commissions and indefinite detention are now the official policies of the obama administration. president obama is doing the exact opposite of what candidate obama said he was going to do. and again, it is not like bho is sitting around doing nothing - he is actively taking measures to solidify these bush-era policies which he campaigned against. just like how he expanded bush's warrantless wiretapping program after he promised to end it. or how he fought to prevent the release of millions of bush-era emails after promising more transparency. or how he promised to have no lobbyists or people with ethical issues in his administration. ill also point out that when england was going to throw out a case against a suspected terrorist b/c the evidence was gained under torture the obama administration threatened to withhold intel of future terrorist plots. did congress force them to do that too? as pointed out in the greenwald article, you obama apologists do not have a leg to stand on here.
joseph - other than acting with illegality, as transferring them from the Guantanamo site to the US has now been determined to be, by congressional edict, for better or worse, what, precisely do you propose that the President of the UNited States do? P.S. for my own edification - what is the highest level of education you have obtained? Out of pure curiosity as to who makes up the gold standard gang, of course.
