Welcome to PatsFans.com

Obama Loves Gitmo

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by IcyPatriot, Mar 7, 2011.

  1. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,101
    Likes Received:
    469
    Ratings:
    +1,035 / 9 / -19

    #87 Jersey

    Wow what a difference 2 years make ... oh well hating Gitmo helped get him elected.

    GOP Praises Obama's Decision to Bring Back Military Tribunals at Guantanamo Bay - FoxNews.com

    Last edited: Mar 7, 2011
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,756
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +359 / 11 / -27

    Not sure anyone loves Gitmo, but the Republicans blocked his efforts to close it and pretty much blocked his efforts for civilian trials.. what is he supposed to do, ignore the need to get something done???

    This stuff will not go away, it is better to do something than nothing... it was a bad idea from the onset, and will not go away.
  3. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,830
    Likes Received:
    106
    Ratings:
    +227 / 8 / -13




    What a load, the pubs weren't in a position to block anything during his first term. Matter of fact he could close Gitmo without any action by congress.


    As to the trials, it was predicted they would fail. The big objection to the KSM trial in Manhattan was led by the 2 dem senators.
  4. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,756
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +359 / 11 / -27

    The Republicans and all their lemmings made the most noise, and led the uprising.. remember the brou ha ha when there was a suggestion that they move it to the vacant facility in Illinois???

    What would be a viable choice for these detainees?? No one will answer that question, just criticize.

    There was an effort to try some of them in NY, however there was a subsequent reconsideration after Rep. King made the most noise as well as the associated security costs.. the Dems followed suit, due to the public opinion associated with this trial.

    We have become the countries in the mideast that we are currently opposing, indeterminate detentions without due process... are they prisoners?? Are they Prisoners of War?? Are they detainees pending trial?? What is their legal status??

    Our inability to resolve this democratically on the world stage is shameful..
  5. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,558
    Likes Received:
    70
    Ratings:
    +218 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    Where have we seen that before? Wait, I know!

    Obama criticizes Cheney's approach to terrorism in '60 Minutes' interview - Los Angeles Times
    Now that's what I call "sustainable development". It apparently is suddenly sustainable. :p

    Indeterminate detentions without due process is SOP in those countries. Not just for unlawful enemy combatants, but for anyone that catches their eye.

    The detainees are unlawful enemy combatants. In order to be a prisoner of war they would have to have been in uniform and operating as part of an identifiable military force. Part of the problem here is that terrorists are non-state actors. There is no state with whom we can negotiate their release or work out terms for an end to hostilities. If there was an identifiable entity with whom we were waging war and they had been in uniform, they would be POWs. The due process for a POW is to keep them in detention (subject to Geneva protections) until hostilities have ended so that you don't send someone right back to the battlefield to try to kill your soldiers. Because terrorists have not followed these rules they are not afforded that status. It would be foolish to do so (in my opinion) as it would remove any incentive for a potential adversary (i.e. an organized military) to play by those same rules.

    The difficulty with civilian trials is that you are dealing with a battlefield environment. You can't send a CSI team to gather forensic evidence while bullets are flying around. Furthermore, it would create the need for soldiers to leave the battlefield and testify. That would be not only unworkable but would jeopardize their personal security (reveal their identities).

    So we have a quandry...one that neither Bush nor Obama have been able to figure out. Both apparently settled on military tribunals.

    Where the argument comes is from the liberties that were apparently taken with the definition of "battlefield". There are or have been detainees who were picked up from their home using the argument that essentially the whole world is a battlefield in the War on Terror. I haven't read whether people who fit that description are a particular focus (i.e. to resolve their status quickly) for the new administration or not so I am not sure if that has changed.

    How do you feel about simply killing suspected terrorists with drone attacks as opposed to capturing and detaining them? That appears to be the direction of the new admin. What due process is involved there?

    What's your solution?
  6. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,756
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +359 / 11 / -27

    Do not agree with the whole drone thing either, as there is too much collateral damage(women and children)...

    The issue here is that Guantanamo was not a well thought out decision, and there was no planning involved.. Bush could not get much done, and neither can Obama..

    Without regard Obama does not seem to have much choice, and at least there is some direction.. these folks cannot just languish in limbo for an indefinite period of time.
  7. Nikolai

    Nikolai Football Atheist PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,111
    Likes Received:
    301
    Ratings:
    +626 / 1 / -1

    #54 Jersey

    Sorry, can't backtrack on this one. It's time to face the facts. Before he was elected, he wasn't privy to the information he has now about what is being done at Gitmo. All he knew before was that bad stuff happened. Now, he's probably seeing some of the other reports coming out that probably tell him it's not worth it to close because 1) there is a question of what to do with the remaining detainees AND/OR 2) there is actually usable intelligence coming out that is above the media's pay grade/clearance level and isn't getting reported.
  8. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    All moot arguements for the existentence of Gitmo. Not even touching on why we find it acceptable to have a base in Cuba....It is against the law of the land to hold anyone without charge. Obama and everyone else who perpetuates this fraudulent and offensive practice is in violation of the Constitution and every other so-called virtue of "American justice". Obama is perpetuating and therefor, committing a war crime. Period. If you're going to suspend the Constitution, just do it and get it over with. Obama sucks.

    And all you rumpswabs who make excuses for this are full of sh!t. It was wrong when bush did it and it still is.
  9. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,617
    Likes Received:
    141
    Ratings:
    +375 / 3 / -15

    Clearly solid rationale based upon the moral high-ground that is (supposedly) the foundation of our nation...or at least on paper, it is.

    I'll admit, I don't know what "the right thing to do" is regarding Gitmo. I do know this...if I had to do something immoral or illegal to protect the lives of my family members, I'd do it in a heart-beat and carry no remorse over that decision.

    I'm not sure if this rationale applies to Gitmo or not, but I'm just putting it out there for discussion. If releasing these men resulted in an the deaths of Americans, should that risk be taken? Who would have blood on their hands and would the American people be ok with, "hey, we had to let them go and take the chance because that's what America stands for"

    Tough one Wistah...very tough.

    So the question then becomes, how can the United States prevent terrorist attacks upon Americans? Would you be ok with an American Mossad-like force? Are you ok with the Israel's Mossad?

    "rumpswabs"....not sure if I'm insulted or not, but I like that term Wistah!
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2011
  10. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    True. All the more reason he should have said "f*** the GOP" and did whatever the hell he wanted. You know, like the previous badministration.

    This man's constant reaching across the aisle continues to screw him over and over again.
  11. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,558
    Likes Received:
    70
    Ratings:
    +218 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    Does the U.S. Constitution apply to everyone on the planet? That should make the next election rather interesting. Do you think the Indian or the Chinese candidate will win?
  12. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,558
    Likes Received:
    70
    Ratings:
    +218 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    Who says they are without charge? They are charged with being unlawful enemy combatants? Ping me the next time you hear about arraignment hearings for POW's.

    Rights are linked to responsibilities.
  13. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    It is clearly spelled out who can run for president. It is also clear that the protections of the Constitution apply to everyone as it makes no distinction between citizens and non citizens when it comes to the protections listed under the Bill of Rights or any other protections under US law. Certainly, these protections apply to anyone on US soil, which the Feds wrongly claim as the status of Gitmo. The military exists solely for the preservation and defense of the Constitution. Therefor, it is not a leap to say that anyone under their jurisdiction and arrest is entitled to the rights granted under the Constitution.

    You can't have it both ways.
  14. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    What the hell does that mean?

    Here. I found some links for you since you're too lazy or prejudiced to look it up yourself.

    Justice Department Considers Criminal Charges Against Guantanamo Detainee - washingtonpost.com

    8+ Years in Gitmo Without Charges: Detainee Dies of ‘Exercise’ -- News from Antiwar.com

    On June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives were entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution.[98][99][100][101] Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, described the SCR Tribunals as "an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus" although "both the DTA and the SCRT process remain intact."[102]

    On October 21, 2008, United States district court Judge Richard J. Leon ordered the release of the five Algerians held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the continued detention of a sixth, Belkacem Bensayah. The Court ruled: "To allow enemy combatancy to rest on so thin a reed would be inconsistent with this court's obligation; the court must and will grant their petitions and order their release. This is a unique case. Few if any others will be factually like it. Nobody should be lulled into a false sense that all of the... cases will look like this one."[103][104][105][106]


    Now you try.
  15. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,830
    Likes Received:
    106
    Ratings:
    +227 / 8 / -13




    The only place Obama has reached out to is the pockets of taxpayers.


    He became aware of the reality of these terrorist and then did the same thing Bush did.
  16. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,617
    Likes Received:
    141
    Ratings:
    +375 / 3 / -15

    Bump....

    Wistah, would love to read your opinion on the above.
  17. Nikolai

    Nikolai Football Atheist PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,111
    Likes Received:
    301
    Ratings:
    +626 / 1 / -1

    #54 Jersey

    Oh, I'm not even getting into that just yet, but I am explaining why I think Obama backtracked, why Pelosi changed her tune, etc.

    Though I like my intelligence, I am uncomfortable with the illegality of what is going on at Gitmo. If they are POWs, they must be held in accordance with Geneva Conventions. If they are going to be charged, then charge them, which will then begin the legal process under which this country allegedly operates. This "middle ground" DOES amount to suspension of the Constitution, not unlike what happened in Mubarak's Egypt during their "war on terror". The difference is that what we're seeing here is selective application of the suspension of the Constitution. It's obvious why that is a big problem.

    By the way, we DO NOT need to operate something like Gitmo to get the intel we need. We just don't. However, that doesn't stop a bunch of old time gators from swaying the thinking of Cold War dinosaurs and armchair generals in Washington into thinking that we do (see my first post about the reports Obama is probably reading). We have extensive experience in Iraq that directly contradicts the rationale for having something like Gitmo.
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2011
  18. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,099
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +509 / 6 / -2

    Not for nothing, but doesn't that show how naive, inexperienced, and ill prepared this guy was to be president? If people here on this board (yes I am patting myself on the back right now) knew this about Gitmo, then how could he not?


    I'm ok with the existence of Gitmo, but I do understand why some people aren't. I also don't think the Constitution, or the Geneva convention applies to terrorists, or enemy combatants. That being said, I've said from day one that you can't incarcerate people indefinately without some form of due process. Rounding people up and holding them forever is flat wrong. The issue is complicated, but to me, either these prisoners are put to trial, or they should be released.
  19. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,558
    Likes Received:
    70
    Ratings:
    +218 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    So you think they are eligible for protections that apply to anyone on U.S. soil but disagree with Gitmo being called U.S. soil? :confused:
  20. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    I'd break the law to protect my family- I might even do it to protect a stranger. That's different. The government cannot do things that endanger the lives of my family though. Our foreign policy regarding the ME endangers all of us, IMO. Despite what the government tells us, it is still wrong to murder the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghans because a few Saudis killed 2000 Americans. They want you to be afraid so they can continue the wrong-headed policy. I know soldiers who come home from Iraq and say "There are many over there who want to kill us. I've seen them." To which I say, "No ****. Any idea why that is?" They say "They hate our freedom". It's at that point I realize they are completely sold on the myth.

    You prevent violent terrorism by securing the borders and ports and not fugging with other countries like they are animals. Read Washington't farewell address.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>