Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 224
  1. #16
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    13,722

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    Anybody that’s been married to the same women for more than 20 years knows what detention, torture and the lack of habeas corpus really is...

  2. #17
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,492

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    Quote Originally Posted by tucker View Post
    Anybody that’s been married to the same women for more than 20 years knows what detention, torture and the lack of habeas corpus really is...
    Typical... the one who has a choice of "women" argues its torture first.

  3. #18
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    13,722

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Typical... the one who has a choice of "women" argues its torture first.


  4. #19
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,255

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    THE CONSTITUTION IS BEING SRED..... oh wait..... I almost forgot... hopenchange. It's (D)ifferent now.

    We'll just add this it to the growing list of policies the left, "centrists" and the complicit MSM... exorated GW for that Bamma will get a pass on.

    WaPo confirms return of military commissions

    Give the Obama administration credit for being quick studies in at least one area. For the second successive week, the White House has leaked their plans on a Friday night to restart military commissions for Gitmo detainees rather than their original stated plan of using federal courts to try them like normal criminals. This time, they’ve spread the love to the Washington Post after giving the New York Times first crack at the story, but it’s almost exactly the same, right down to the money quote:

    The Obama administration is preparing to revive the system of military commissions established at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, under new rules that would offer terrorism suspects greater legal protections, government officials said.

    The rules would block the use of evidence obtained from coercive interrogations, tighten the admissibility of hearsay testimony and allow detainees greater freedom to choose their attorneys, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

    The military commissions have allowed the trial of terrorism suspects in a setting that favors the government and protects classified information, but they were sharply criticized during the administration of President George W. Bush. “By any measure, our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure,” then-candidate Barack Obama said in June 2008. …
    The Obama administration’s plan to reinstate the commissions with modifications reflects the fear that some cases would fail in federal courts or in standard military legal settings.

    “It looks a lot more difficult now than it did on Jan. 20,” said one government official.
    Hmm. In the NYT story, the quote was:

    The more they look at it,” said one official, “the more commissions don’t look as bad as they did on Jan. 20.”
    Seems like Barack Obama has some trouble saying, “We goofed,” or at least trouble saying it during a normal news cycle.

    In fact, the White House is still looking to spin this. One of the changes under consideration is moving the commissions to the US rather than holding them at Gitmo. What possible difference would that make? The military commissions will still get run by the military. Holding them into the US would make them into media circuses and bring terrorists into the US, entirely to give Obama some PR cover on keeping the commission system in place — the same commission system authorized by Congress, twice.

    Maybe this week, a few members of the White House press corps will ask about this, rather than let it slide after the weekend news cycle.
    Governeing is teh hard. As mentioned in the story... another Friday night news release. The morning instructions are working well...





    What will the news be filled with this weekend.. will the Bammites hold hands and go for a walk? Or perhaps he and the gaffe-o-matic will go out for burgers again... Either way, I'm sure what the resulting coverage will look like...

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  5. #20
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,492

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    This plan to close Guantanamo is looking more and more like a big mistake.

    What strikes me as interesting (read: foolish, insane, full of dung, etc.) is that the people who called for an end game to the war in Iraq (an outlandish expectation, seeing as the events in war are impossible to predict) are apparently not only happy with no end game here, but happy with no plan at all.

    Its nuts.

  6. #21
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,255

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    This plan to close Guantanamo is looking more and more like a big mistake.

    What strikes me as interesting (read: foolish, insane, full of dung, etc.) is that the people who called for an end game to the war in Iraq (an outlandish expectation, seeing as the events in war are impossible to predict) are apparently not only happy with no end game here, but happy with no plan at all.

    Its nuts.
    Seems to be a common trend among the bammites... call for an end to something with absolutely no "plan B". Like the calls to end coal and oil based energy... with no viable replacment. I swear these moonbats will not be happy until we're all living in mud huts. Well.. us common folk anyway. The annointed royalty will still be able to sport $500 kicks to cover their yeti feet while they dole handouts to us poor serfs..



    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  7. #22
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,255

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    Why it seems like just yesterday...

    Remarks of Senator Obama: The War We Need to Win
    Washington, DC | August 01, 2007


    . . .
    I also will reject a legal framework that does not work. There has been only one conviction at Guantanamo. It was for a guilty plea on material support for terrorism. The sentence was 9 months. There has not been one conviction of a terrorist act. I have faith in America's courts, and I have faith in our JAGs. As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists.

    .
    .
    .
    Another Day; Another Obama Flip-Flop: Military Commissions

    Less than twenty-four hours since the Obama Administration flip-flopped its position on releasing torture photos (and breached its agreement with the ACLU), the Obama Administration flip-flopped once again. This time it occurred on the issue of military tribunals at Gitmo. You remember Gitmo, the same place Obama told us a while back he was intent on closing down. Nope. Still open for business, and likely to stay open as long as the wars Obama escalated in Afghanistan and expanded to Pakistan continue. That means a long, long, long time from now folks.


    Just caught part of Gibby trying to explain how Bamma's Military Comissions are different and not to be confused with the ones GW and Congress already agreed on... that he promised to reject.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  8. #23
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,255

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    Oh my: Jim Webb flip-flops, now opposes closing Guantanamo

    To be more precise: He now opposes closing it anytime soon but naturally is A-OK with closing it at some murky, distant time in the future. Which, as far as I can tell, means he holds the same position on it as George W. Bush or •••• Cheney. Moe Lane thinks this is poll-driven but I’m more inclined to believe that someone with a national security background like Webb’s knew all along that it was a bad idea to close it and was simply giving The One political cover until there was a fig leaf available to let him flip-flop. The announcement of the new military commissions are that fig leaf, allowing him to pretend that all the alleged defects in Bush’s approach have been cured and therefore Gitmo’s no longer a problem, so a flip-floppin’ we go. The more intriguing question is whether he’s undercutting Obama by doing this or actually secretly helping him out. Superficially it’s a headache for the White House to have a prominent Democratic senator disagreeing with them on Sunday morning TV, but given the respect Webb commands, this gives The One plenty of new political cover to do some flip-flopping himself. Time to put the nutroots on suicide watch?

    Sorry to give you this in two clips but you need to watch both (especially the second) to get the full flavor of just how sharp a reversal this is. The first vid focuses on Webb’s opposition to another Obama policy — namely, releasing the 17 Uighurs detained at Gitmo into the United States because they’re no longer a threat except, of course, that they very much are. But then, we already knew that. Click the image to watch.

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  9. #24
    Joined
    Feb 2003
    Location
    SC
    Age
    63
    Posts
    314

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    The left's original plan for gitmo was most likely the following.

    Close gitmo.
    Turn all prisoners lose.
    Issue them a public apology to them. Explaining how evil America is.
    Give them monetary compesation.

    But the public wouldn't like this plan.

    So we will flip flop instead.
    Dr. Seuss for 2011:I do not like this Uncle Sam, I do not like his health care scam. I do not like these dirty crooks, or how they lie and cook the books. I do not like when Congress steals, I do not like their secret deals. I do not like ex-speaker Nan, I do not like this 'YES WE CAN'..I do not like this spending spree, I'm smart, I know that nothing's free. I do not like their smug replies, when I complain about their lies. I do not like this kind of hope. I do not like it. Nope, nope, nope!

  10. #25
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,255

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    ^^^ The reality is they had no plan. Making campaign promises is easy... following through is a darn sight tougher. Lessons Bamma might know had he any executive experience.

    Instead we'll get to sit back and watch him continue policies he demonized the GWB administration for. The fun part is watching the MSM and many among his legions of kool aid drinkers try to justify his actions or simply turn a blind eye.

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  11. #26
    Joined
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Arizona's White Mountains
    Age
    71
    Posts
    3,610

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    We could dump them in Detroit. Make them homesick for Gitmo.
    FRH
    If more sane people were armed the crazy ones would get off fewer shots.

    Win 7 Premium SP1 / MX 15 KDE / MEPIS 11

  12. #27
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,492

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    Senator Feinstein at the Senate podium: Yes, we have maximum security prisons in California eminently capable of holding these people as well, and from which people — trust me — do not escape. So I believe that this has really been an exercise in fear-baiting. I hope it’s not going to be successful.
    Note to Diane: The governator has promised to release 60,000 prisoners if the tax props fail, and they failed, so we ain't got no money, honey, but we might have the room.

    Sidenote: The argument that we can hold these people stateside without fear of escape, when and how did that become an issue in the first place? Its not like these people are escaping from Gitmo.

  13. #28
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,255

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    From his own party.. no plan = no monay. For a guy who ran on shutting down club Gitmo, he sure seems woefully unprepared to take on any of the exact same issues GWB had with those very same detainees. Their countries don't want them back.. and we don't want them here.

    Nov 2008



    Yes.. you said repeatedly you'd close gitmo. You stated it was:

    "part and parcel to regaining our moral stature in the world"
    That you showed up for work without a plan to do so says a lot about how much real thought was behind your campaign promises.

    Democrats Won’t Fund Gitmo Closing

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  14. #29
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,255

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    Democratic Controlled Senate Votes 90-6 Against Bringing Gitmo Detainees To US

    I blame the Republicans.

    In a major rebuke to President Barack Obama, the Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to block the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States and denied the administration the millions it sought to close the prison.

    ...Obama is scheduled to give a major address Thursday outlining in more detail his plans for Guantanamo, but it's already clear that Congress has little appetite for bringing detainees to U.S. soil, even if the inmates would be held in maximum-security prisons.
    Meanwhile the AP still has a story (now up on Drudge) saying no one is talking about releasing terrorists on the streets of the US, even thought that's not true.

    It seems someone should tell that to FBI Director Robert Mueller.

    He told a House hearing today that they could radicalize others, even if held in U.S. high-security prisons. And he said if any detainees with terror training are ultimately ordered released, then it would present a challenge to the FBI to keep close tabs on them, either with physical surveillance or wiretaps.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  15. #30
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,255

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    And Then There Was Only Guantánamo . . .

    With the Democratic no-go on Guantánamo (I'll leave it to the better informed to ascertain the degree that the Democratic Congress came to the rescue of an embarrassed Obama administration and cut off funding for the shutdown to allow him an out with the now familiar excuse of "they did it — not me, who keeps promises"), I think we now have come to the end to the five-year left-wing attack theme of Bush "shredding the Constitution."

    Except for the introduction of euphemisms and a few new ballyhooed but largely meaningless protocols, there is no longer a Bush-did-it argument. The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq, Afghanistan — and now Guantánamo — are officially no longer part of the demonic Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld nexus, but apparently collective legitimate anti-terrorism measures designed to thwart killers, and by agreement, after years of observance, of great utility in keeping us safe the last eight years.

    Add in the Holder statements about Guantánamo in the 2002 interview, the Pelosi/Rockefeller/et al. waterboarding briefings, the need to consider torture in past statements by senators such as Schumer, and I think historians will now look back at these "dark years" as largely a collective, bipartisan effort.

    All of which leaves us a final musing: If so, what was the hysteria of 2001-2008 about other than simple politics?

    I doubt we get any more movies about ongoing renditions, redactions, any more Checkpoint-like novels, any more waterboarding skits and reenactments, any more late-night comedians doing their Bush tapped, intercepted, tortured, renditioned, tribunaled poor suspect X routines.

    And I guess as well that the good old days of supposedly flushed Korans in Guantánamo and Omar the poor liberationist renditioned to Cairo are over. We are now in the age of a sober and judicious President Obama who circumspectly, if reluctantly and in anguish at the high cost, does what is necessary to keep us safe.

    And we won't see a brave young liberal senator, Obama-like, barnstorming the Iowa precincts blasting a presidency for trampling our values with the shame of Guantánamo, wiretaps, intercepts, renditions, military tribunals, Predators, Iraq, etc. That motif just dissolved — or rather, it never really existed.

    It short, all the fury, the vicious slander, the self-righteous outbursts, the impassioned speeches from the floor, the "I accuse" op-eds by the usual moralistic pundits — all that turned out to be solely about politics, nothing more.


    &

    Reid: Let’s close Gitmo, but let’s keep detainees out of U.S. prisons too

    Via STACLU, a bold attempt to convince the public that it’s he, not pathetic liar Nancy Pelosi, who’s actually the most embarrassing Democratic leader in Congress. Go for the gold, Dingy:

    QUESTION: On funding the closing of Guantanamo Bay.

    REID: Well, the decision to close Guantanamo was a right one.

    I agree with President Bush. I agree with John McCain . I agree with Barack Obama . Guantanamo makes us less save…

    QUESTION: If the United States — if the United States thinks that these people should be held, why shouldn’t they be held in the United States? Why shouldn’t the U.S. take those risks, the attendant risk of holding them, since it’s the one that says they should be held?

    REID: I think there’s a general feeling, as I’ve already said, that the American people, and certainly the Senate, overwhelmingly doesn’t want terrorists to be released in the United States. And I think we’re going to stick with that.

    QUESTION: What about in imprisoned in the United States?

    REID: If you’re…

    (CROSSTALK)

    REID: If people are — if terrorists are released in the United States, part of what we don’t want is them be put in prisons in the United States. We don’t want them around the United States…

    QUESTION: No one’s talking about releasing them. We’re talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States.

    REID: Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.

    QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? I mean (OFF-MIKE).

    REID: I can’t — I can’t — I can’t make it any more clear than the statement I have given to you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.
    Politico politely describes the notion of closing the prison without anywhere to put the prisoners as “contradictory.” I can imagine three ways that it might not be: (1) Reid thinks Obama’s going to convince foreign countries to take all 240 prisoners off our hands, including Khaled Sheikh Mohammed; (2) Reid actually likes the idea of housing them in prisons on U.S. territory outside the continental United States, just not at Gitmo, in which case it’s full speed ahead on construction in American Samoa or wherever; (3) Reid has no idea from moment to moment what’s coming out his mouth. Read this AP piece and see for yourself what the correct answer is. And to think, this man’s reelection bid is in trouble.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •