ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
You dont have Habeus Corpus in the military
And here I thought you said you were in once
And nothing should be secret? Well allrighty then. Lets just publish the nuclear launch codes on the internet
Julian Assange Lie
- Thread starter walshy21
- Start date
And here I thought you said you were in once
And nothing should be secret? Well allrighty then. Lets just publish the nuclear launch codes on the internet
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I am fully aware that the military has no fucking respect for human rights. That is why Gitmo is open. You're clearly cheering about it. You seem to want this abuse to extend to international rendition. All Hail emperor Obama? I'm not exaggerating, you're cheering for tyranny.
You know what? Post the fucking launch codes. Let's see a hacker launch our nukes remotely, I'm dubious of this idea that secret launch codes can be worth the time of day to anyone with no access to Norad. Let's see someone impersonate the president over the phone with a general and kick off nuke war.
What a retarded fucking example. You would be better off with your regular tactics of calling your detractors racists.
Just to make it clear, I'm decrying a tyrant with unlimited powers and no respect for human rights, and you think kill lists are due process.
The obama cult of personality has a loyal acolyte in you.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Ron paul lost get over it
Doer
Well-Known Member
All this simpering nastalgia. You would think these folks were like Adian the Vampire. Fought in the Revolution. They seems to think they know when this country once had greatness. Freedom is soul of the Nation. BULLSHIT.
We got along with slaves and women could not vote. Men were bible thumping nose punchers over God Damn you!!!, wife rapers and slave beaters. Family feuds went on for years and if you didn't dictate with the point of the gun you were being dictated to.
Oh, the wonderful good old days. You wanted to know what was happening in the great State of Carolina or the Great State Maine, you sent a ship. Inland gangs of wild heathers everywhere.
Or maybe it means the 20s when they outlawed ganga.
Or the early 40s where all militia were brought under arms and millions we lost to conflict.
Or maybe the 50s. Rows and rows of ticky tacky, all the same, with Indoor Plumbing.
To me it is a sick kind of worship the past, weepy sentimentality for a time that never really existed. This show was fucked up from the get go. And it still is. Just happens to be a lot better right now than a lot of places in the fuked up and wonderful world.
A person can die you know without ever having seen a rose, much less smelled one.
It needs more blessing counting if it actually did survive the conflict in Iraq. Hey, wait. We don't even have wars any more.
That's an improvement. Just Conflicts. Much better. It is really the most peaceful time on earth, ever. We just are free enough, finally, to insist on Knowing. And bingo, the information age is here.
But, who can handle the truth? And who, if anyone know the entire story?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You really must rethink your views when they are the same as Doer.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Gitmo is open because Obama reneged on his promise to close it. The things he promised and reneged on is a long and disappointing list.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
He believes he is doing the right thing, he is being tried by the military and very courageously owning his decision. To assume he is a traitor is to exalt the infallibility of the hierarchy above him. He truly believes he had the opportunity to take it upon himself to do something good and he is being punished.
I agree with him. Fuck the fucking fucks and the whole fucking system they have fucking established to fuck us all.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Obama was read his rights. The Inauguration? No, right after that, his first brief as Commander. He certainly did not have to close it and he didn't.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Nice amnesia. Seems congress blocked the transfer of detainees. There is a vacant prison in Illinois waiting for them right now.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;oC837oh98_Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC837oh98_Y[/video]
Hail to the Chief bro.
Hail to the Chief bro.
Rak on Tur'
Active Member
Years ago I would of told you that your crazy. But watching how rigged our system has become makes me sick. I remember the first trail by a anonymous jury, sold as public safety. Then I watched my grandsons friend tried in federal court in the same fashion. We only have ourselves to blame, the voters never hold candidates accountable, or give them a total pass based on party lines.
I respect the private for standing by his convictions. I'm rooting for the underdog on this one.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
If we are lucky he will get shot
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Today President Obama signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012. The bill contains a provision added by Republicans which prohibits the use of any Federal funds to transfer Guantanamo prisoners either to the United States or in some circumstances to foreign countries. On January 22, 2009, President Obama fulfilled one of his campaign promises when he signed an Executive Order directing the closure of the Guantanamo prison facility. Since then the Republicans have blocked every attempt to fund the process of closing it. At the same time, the conservatives have consistently claimed that the President failed, or some even call it lied, about his promise to close the base.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/why-do-the-republicans-keep-blocking-the-closure-of-guantanamo/question-2356453/?link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s
In his signing statement, the President said in part:
In this bill, the Congress has once again included provisions that would bar the use of appropriated funds for transfers of Guantanamo detainees into the United States (section 8119 of Division A), as well as transfers to the custody or effective control of foreign countries unless specified conditions are met (section 8120 of Division A). These provisions are similar to others found in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. My Administration has repeatedly communicated my objections to these provisions, including my view that they could, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. In approving this bill, I reiterate the objections my Administration has raised regarding these provisions, my intent to interpret and apply them in a manner that avoids constitutional conflicts, and the promise that my Administration will continue to work towards their repeal.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/why-do-the-republicans-keep-blocking-the-closure-of-guantanamo/question-2356453/?link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s
In his signing statement, the President said in part:
In this bill, the Congress has once again included provisions that would bar the use of appropriated funds for transfers of Guantanamo detainees into the United States (section 8119 of Division A), as well as transfers to the custody or effective control of foreign countries unless specified conditions are met (section 8120 of Division A). These provisions are similar to others found in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. My Administration has repeatedly communicated my objections to these provisions, including my view that they could, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. In approving this bill, I reiterate the objections my Administration has raised regarding these provisions, my intent to interpret and apply them in a manner that avoids constitutional conflicts, and the promise that my Administration will continue to work towards their repeal.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
The commander in chief of the military actually commands the military, dumb ass.
He could have closed Gitmo anytime.
He could have closed Gitmo anytime.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
The challenge in closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay is not actually the detention facility itself. The problem is the 166 detainees, each of whom has to be moved somewhere else. A basic premise of Gitmo, after all, was that these are people would be kept in perpetual limbo. Each detainee can leave that limbo through one of four different routes: a civilian trial, a military tribunal, a foreign country’s prison system or freedom.
Sounds simple enough, right? Except that the first two routes – civilian trial or military tribunal – were blocked by Congress, which passed legislation barring the federal government from funding trials for Guantanamo detainees or buying a prison in the U.S. to house them.
The third route, to send the detainees to a foreign country’s prison system, is only legal if the U.S. can be sure that the detainees will not be tortured there. Given some of the countries from which the detainees originate, this is not always an easy guarantee to make. And there have been doubts about foreign governments’ ability to appropriately safeguard the detainees. A 2008 Washington Post article portrayed Yemeni officials struggling to convince their U.S. counterparts that they could safely accommodate prisoners from Guantanamo, while U.S. officials worried that they might be released.
The fourth route, freedom, actually already applies to 86 of the 166 detainees. The U.S. government believes they can be safely released back into the world, but it has nowhere to send them. For many of these individuals, their home country will not take them or might torture them, meaning the U.S. has to find an entirely different country to release them to.
There’s been a great deal of political attention to this last category. Recent congressional legislation allows the Pentagon to get a special “waiver” allowing it to ship detainees to third countries, but only if a senior administration official pledges that the receiving country can guarantee that the detainee will never take up (or, in some cases, return to) terrorism against the U.S. Given that a recent study estimated that between 16 and 27 percent of released Gitmo detainees have participated in terrorism since leaving the facility, it’s hard to imagine any top political officials betting their careers on newly released detainees never returning to extremism. Whether the significant political risk of using these waivers is a bug of the program or a feature, the effect is the same, and in January the Obama administration effectively shut down the State Department office dedicated to closing Guantanamo.
So what can Obama do? He can lobby Congress, as he hinted he would do at Tuesday’s news conference, perhaps to change the legislation blocking the U.S. from trying Guantanamo detainees or keeping them on U.S. soil. He can work with Yemen; a majority of the detainees are Yemeni, and their home country, which has been beset by political turmoil for the past two years, says it’s working on a $11 million facility to house and rehabilitate former Gitmo detainees. Perhaps Yemen could be better prepared to accept former detainees and to give them enough good options that they won’t want to turn to extremism. Obama could also work with Congress to loosen the politically unpalatable process for releasing detainees, or he could go ahead and release them anyway, although that would require finding countries to accept them.
No single step is likely to find a home for each and every one of the 166 remaining detainees. But hoping for the problem to just go away doesn’t work, either. “I think for a lot of Americans, the notion is out of sight, out of mind,” Obama said Tuesday. “I’m going to go back at it because I think it’s important.”
Sounds simple enough, right? Except that the first two routes – civilian trial or military tribunal – were blocked by Congress, which passed legislation barring the federal government from funding trials for Guantanamo detainees or buying a prison in the U.S. to house them.
The third route, to send the detainees to a foreign country’s prison system, is only legal if the U.S. can be sure that the detainees will not be tortured there. Given some of the countries from which the detainees originate, this is not always an easy guarantee to make. And there have been doubts about foreign governments’ ability to appropriately safeguard the detainees. A 2008 Washington Post article portrayed Yemeni officials struggling to convince their U.S. counterparts that they could safely accommodate prisoners from Guantanamo, while U.S. officials worried that they might be released.
The fourth route, freedom, actually already applies to 86 of the 166 detainees. The U.S. government believes they can be safely released back into the world, but it has nowhere to send them. For many of these individuals, their home country will not take them or might torture them, meaning the U.S. has to find an entirely different country to release them to.
There’s been a great deal of political attention to this last category. Recent congressional legislation allows the Pentagon to get a special “waiver” allowing it to ship detainees to third countries, but only if a senior administration official pledges that the receiving country can guarantee that the detainee will never take up (or, in some cases, return to) terrorism against the U.S. Given that a recent study estimated that between 16 and 27 percent of released Gitmo detainees have participated in terrorism since leaving the facility, it’s hard to imagine any top political officials betting their careers on newly released detainees never returning to extremism. Whether the significant political risk of using these waivers is a bug of the program or a feature, the effect is the same, and in January the Obama administration effectively shut down the State Department office dedicated to closing Guantanamo.
So what can Obama do? He can lobby Congress, as he hinted he would do at Tuesday’s news conference, perhaps to change the legislation blocking the U.S. from trying Guantanamo detainees or keeping them on U.S. soil. He can work with Yemen; a majority of the detainees are Yemeni, and their home country, which has been beset by political turmoil for the past two years, says it’s working on a $11 million facility to house and rehabilitate former Gitmo detainees. Perhaps Yemen could be better prepared to accept former detainees and to give them enough good options that they won’t want to turn to extremism. Obama could also work with Congress to loosen the politically unpalatable process for releasing detainees, or he could go ahead and release them anyway, although that would require finding countries to accept them.
No single step is likely to find a home for each and every one of the 166 remaining detainees. But hoping for the problem to just go away doesn’t work, either. “I think for a lot of Americans, the notion is out of sight, out of mind,” Obama said Tuesday. “I’m going to go back at it because I think it’s important.”
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
In response to the Obama administration’s renewed efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, Senate Republicans introduced legislation on Wednesday that would codify the detention facility as the primary location for current and future detainees.
“Attorney General Holder and President Obama: Guantanamo Bay is not going to close,” Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said at a press conference introducing the bill. “I respect Holder, but let me say categorically there is no pathway forward when it comes to closing Guantanamo in the foreseeable future.”
“Attorney General Holder and President Obama: Guantanamo Bay is not going to close,” Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said at a press conference introducing the bill. “I respect Holder, but let me say categorically there is no pathway forward when it comes to closing Guantanamo in the foreseeable future.”
desert dude
Well-Known Member
The poor president's hands are tied. He just needs more power. That's the solution to this problem, more power.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
How about just giving him the authorization and money to close GITMO.
They already have a prison lined up in Illinois and are willing to let them go or put them on trial in a civilian court
By Lynn Sweet on December 17, 2010 9:52 AM| 1 Comment WASHINGTON--
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) on Friday threatened to place a "hold' on the Defense Appropriation bill if it includes a provision to allow the transfer of detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba military prison to the United States. Under Senate rules, any Senator can stall a piece of legislation--and the freshman Kirk is flexing his new senate muscle for the first time.
The issue flared up earlier this year when the Obama administration moved to buy an underused state prison in Thomson, Ill. in part to use to house Guantanamo detainees. As a House member from Illinois--until he was sworn into the Senate on Nov. 29--Kirk opposed any transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S.
Closing Guantanmo was a central Obama pledge that the president has not been able to keep--a promise made during his campaign on his first day in office. Congress needs to give permission for any transfer of a Guantanamo prisoner to the U.S.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Cool copy paste.
The reason why you're such a parrot when it comes to repeating what you're fed about Obama is that you lack the ability to form a coherent thought of your own.
So you think it should be ok to just keep them in limbo?
The story is complete shit by the way, there are 779 (among the very leak at the center of this thread) cables pertaining to this very subject which paint a different picture. The White House wanted to torture some of the detainees to extract int. That is why Obama extended protection to those water boarding agents. This is verifiable by the way and google will show plenty of results. The cables do however support part of the narrative. Both Senate and House vigorously aided Obama by giving him an excuse to renege on his promise to close Gitmo.
The reason why you're such a parrot when it comes to repeating what you're fed about Obama is that you lack the ability to form a coherent thought of your own.
So you think it should be ok to just keep them in limbo?
The story is complete shit by the way, there are 779 (among the very leak at the center of this thread) cables pertaining to this very subject which paint a different picture. The White House wanted to torture some of the detainees to extract int. That is why Obama extended protection to those water boarding agents. This is verifiable by the way and google will show plenty of results. The cables do however support part of the narrative. Both Senate and House vigorously aided Obama by giving him an excuse to renege on his promise to close Gitmo.