Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 224
  1. #61
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,331

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    Gitmo Transparency

    In recent weeks, European nations have come forward to say they are considering taking, or will take, some Gitmo detainees. Since January, Europe has only accepted a handful of detainees under special circumstances. The Obama administration wants Europe to take more, but the European nations have been less than helpful. It appears that is beginning to change, as more and more reports indicate that some European nations are considering accepting a handful of detainees each.

    But there is something curious about these reports. The detainees in question are infrequently, if ever, named.

    So, we learn that Ireland is considering taking two Uzbeks. Which ones? We don't know. There are at least four Uzbeks left at Gitmo from which to choose, and press reports don't name them.

    Portugal may take two or three detainees, but the government has yet to say "which countries they might be from or whether they would be treated as prisoners in Portugal as well."

    Italy has agreed to take at least three Tunisians detained at Gitmo, but we are not sure which ones because they have not been named in press accounts either. President Obama trumpeted the agreement with Italy after his meeting with Prime Minister Berlusconi earlier this month.

    "This is not just talk, Italy has agreed to accept three specific detainees," Obama said. But as Agence France Presse noted, "There were no immediate details on the identity of the detainees."

    Perhaps somewhere in the media ether the names of all these detainees who are either being considered for transfer, or are already scheduled to be transferred to Europe, have been spelled out. But I have not seen them, and I have looked.

    That is curious, no? You would think the most transparent administration in history would want people to know the names of the detainees it is transferring. Right?

    Or maybe we will just have to wait for another late Friday announcement that is intended to avoid the news cycle.
    "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


  2. #62
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,657

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    Roll back.
    In yet another sign of political perfidy, the White House of President George W. Bush has drafted a presidential executive order that would allow that double-dealing Republican chief executive to hold suspected terrorist detainees indefinitely.

    According to the president's intentions, such suspects could be detained for long periods of time, virtually indefinitely. Is this really what the nation voted for last November?

    Oh, wait. No. According to an exclusive Washington Post/Pro Publica report this afternoon, it's the refreshing new Democratic administration of Barack Obama that's now preparing this new executive order to hold certain terrorist suspects indefinitely.

    This is an obviously inspiring sign of the new style of leadership the Democrat promised and is finally bringing to the White House. And it shows the kind of powerful political pragmatism with which the ex-senator from Illinois approaches this job at such a crucial and globally turbulent time.

    According to the Post report, the 44th president is now starting to think that closure of the internationally-reviled Guantanamo Bay detention facility, which Obama announced with so much fanfare on his first day in office last winter, may be impossible to actually accomplish before the one-year deadline he set for himself before actually planning where else to put these prisoners

    In other words, fanfare aside, status quo ante. Democrat or Republican, same deal. Ex-Vice President •••• Cheney will be so pleased that the Obama-Biden folks finally accepted his advice to protect national security.

    Another sign, finally, of real change after eight long years of the very same thing.

    -- Andrew Malcolm
    latimesblog
    The mentioned Washington Post article.
    Three months into the Justice Department's reviews, several officials involved said they have found themselves agreeing with conclusions reached years earlier by the Bush administration: As many as 90 detainees cannot be charged or released.
    Imagine that.

    Hey Obama supporters... he's been blowin' smoke up your arse.

  3. #63
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    14,806

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    AP sources: Gov't delays terror policy reports

    By DEVLIN BARRETT Associated Press Writer The Associated Press
    Monday, July 20, 2009 9:23 PM EDT


    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration on Monday pushed back its own deadline for devising new anti-terrorism policies.

    The decision had been expected, as presidentially appointed task forces have failed to meet a six-month schedule for making policy recommendations on how terror suspects should be interrogated, held in custody or handed over to other countries.

    Senior administration officials said Monday that the report on detention will be delayed six months and the report on interrogation and transfer policy will be delayed two months.

    The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the issue on the record.

    As the administration quietly acknowledged the delay, a task force sent Attorney General Eric Holder and Defense Secretary Robert Gates a preliminary report summarizing their legal goals for handling terror suspects in the future.

    "Where appropriate, prosecution of those responsible must occur as soon as possible, whether in federal court or before a military commission," according to the five-page memo on detention policy sent to the White House.

    "Justice cannot be done, however, unless those who are accused of crimes are proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that affords them a full and fair opportunity to contest the charges against them," the memo concludes.

    The Obama administration has reached the halfway mark in its self-imposed goal to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility by January 2010.

    Six months after President Barack Obama signed the closure order, fewer than 20 of about 245 inmates have been transferred out of the U.S. military base in Cuba. Currently, there are 229 detainees at Guantanamo, and the administration, by its own clock, has six months more to remove them.

    Government lawyers are reviewing each case individually and have so far finished the reviews of more than half of the detainees.

    More than 50 suspects have been cleared for transfer to other countries. A senior administration official has said the Justice Department is considering prosecuting about 30 others in federal courts, and another 30 or so could face trial by military commissions. A final group will be held indefinitely without charge, subject to occasional judicial review, the administration has said.


    http://www.mediacomtoday.com/news/re...ARSDCCLM_UNEWS

    Well I’ll be darned! I do believe the mustard is starting to come off the hot dog.

    It seems to me the president is having a string of bad luck in his overall leadership of the country.

    pssttt… You don’t suppose he’s starting to pay the price for irresponsible policies and bad decisions, do ya.

  4. #64
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,331

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    Quote Originally Posted by tucker View Post
    Well Iíll be darned! I do believe the mustard is starting to come off the hot dog.

    It seems to me the president is having a string of bad luck in his overall leadership of the country.

    psstttÖ You donít suppose heís starting to pay the price for irresponsible policies and bad decisions, do ya.
    It's almost as if he had no executive experience whatsoever.
    "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. #65
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    14,806

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    It's almost as if he had no executive experience whatsoever.


    Like I’ve said before Obama’s main socialist political agenda is to push as far left as he can and as quickly as he can. He is starting to see friendly fire as his own party is starting to dispute his far, far left agenda. It’s really starting to look like Obama may be a one term wonder just like Carter. The scary thing is I don’t think he cares. He’s willing to give up a second term if he can pass his healthcare plan and cap-n-tax along with what ever other little pieces of socialist legislation he can manage to sneak in.

    Let’s just hope the elections in 2010 & 2012 aren’t rigged. If you don’t think that could happen in the good ole USA you had better think again.

    He is a hardcore socialist extremist and he has been all of his adult life, IMHO.
    Last edited by tucker; 07-21-2009 at 08:14 PM.

  6. #66
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    9,940

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    Quote Originally Posted by tucker View Post
    Well Iíll be darned! I do believe the mustard is starting to come off the hot dog.

    It seems to me the president is having a string of bad luck in his overall leadership of the country.

    psstttÖ You donít suppose heís starting to pay the price for irresponsible policies and bad decisions, do ya.
    Well, things in Iraq seem to be going down the sh!t tube.......
    "Walk Heavy, Stand Tall, Carry a Big Stick"
    Daily Driver - ASUS Z170-AR i7 6700, 16G RAM - Liquid Cooled
    Print/File Server - ASUS A7V880 XP-3200 Barton
    System Specifications

  7. #67
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    14,806

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveW View Post
    Well, things in Iraq seem to be going down the sh!t tube.......


    It really does look like things are starting to heat up in Iraq again. The thing is itís not a big surprise the commanders in the field and at the pentagon knew it was coming when they pulled US forces out of the cities. Itís really going to be interesting to see how the Obama administration reacts if the action gets extremely hot. Even more importantly to see how the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people react and how we react to their reaction, if that makes sense.

    I think the next 6 months is going to be critical in determining the final outcome in Iraq. It sure would be an unforgivable shame if we let all of the blood, sweat and tears from our troops go for not. I tell ya if the government lets this thing slip into another disaster like the Vietnam War I will disown our government and openly push for rebellion, be it by voice or by violence. I saw over 58,000 die because of the inept criminal actions of our politicians and Iíll be god damned if I'll see it happen again.


    /end rant

  8. #68
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    9,940

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    The gutless turd on Pennsylvania avenue is Jimmy Carter revisited as far as I'm concerned with regard to his foreign poliy and defense decisions.

    Carter killed the B-1, gutted NASA, and was a real limp d!ck in the middle east.

    Here's one of Obama's current blunders on the F-22 program.

    F-22 fighters for Japan ; Could actually help avoid a worse arms race

    July 21, 2009
    The Washington Times
    By Richard D. Fisher Jr.
    July 19, 2009

    If Japan's long-standing effort to acquire the Lockheed-Martin F- 22 Raptor fifth-generation superfighter falls victim to Washington power politics, the United States may inadvertently encourage an Asian arms race over which it may have little control.

    It is fortunate for the United States that in what may be the last year a deal is possible, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye and his supporters have decided to lead an effort to reverse a 1998 law barring foreign sale of the F-22.
    Through Mr. Inouye's efforts Japan now knows a slightly degraded export model of the Raptor may take five years to develop and cost about $290 million a plane for about 40, compared to the estimated $150 million the U.S. Air Force pays.

    Japan's long-standing quest to obtain the F-22, however, may be shot down amid the intense political struggle over the F-22s very future. President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have made termination of F-22 production at 187 planes a symbolic goal of their effort to cut defense spending and reorient U.S. military strategy. This has been challenged recently by the House Armed Services Committee, which approved the production of 12 more Raptors, and a Senate committee that approved production of seven more. However, the administration immediately threatened a veto, and the F-22's opponents are working hard to ensure that production ends in 2011 as currently planned.

    After 2011, the F-22's costs will grow significantly, so Japan and its U.S. supporters have little time to nail down a deal. However, some U.S. officials have long doubted that Japan can afford to pay for the F-22, which is why the George W. Bush and Obama administrations have not seriously promoted the F-22 for Japan. Mr. Gates reportedly favors selling Tokyo the smaller, somewhat less capable and less expensive Lockheed-MartinF-35 Lighting II.

    While Japan may also purchase the F-35, there are two important reasons Washington should fully support Japan's goal to acquire the F-22. First, the F-22 will be the only combat aircraft capable of countering China's expected fifth-generation fighters. Second, selling Japan the Raptor may become a critical nonnuclear means for Washington to help Japan deter a China on its way to becoming a military superpower by the 2020s. If Washington cannot provide decisive nonnuclear means to deter China, Japan may more quickly consider decisive deterrents such as missiles and nuclear weapons.

    Though the Chinese government says next to nothing and the U.S. government says very little, what is known about China's fifth- generation fighter program is disturbing. Both of China's fighter manufacturers, the Shenyang and Chengdu Aircraft corporations, are competing to build a heavy fifth-generation fighter, and there are serious indicators China may be working on a medium-weight fifth- generation fighter similar to the F-35. China can be expected to put a fifth-generation fighter on its future aircraft carriers, and it can be expected to build more than 187.

    Furthermore, China's development of anti-access capabilities such as anti-ship ballistic missiles, its buildup of nuclear-missile and anti-missile capabilities and space-warfare weapons will increasingly undermine U.S. strategic guarantees for Japan. China's development of long-range anti-air and surface-to-air missiles also threatens the electronic support aircraft critical to the "networked" U.S. air-warfare paradigm, meaning that jet fighters could quickly lose force-multiplying radar aircraft, tankers and communication satellites. As such, Japan is correct to prefer the F- 22, which reportedly can fly 300 to 400 mph faster and two miles higher than the F-35 - an aircraft optimized for attack, not air- superiority missions.

    If Japan is serious about the F-22 and its military security, it will have to pay for both. But if Washington is serious about sustaining a strategic alliance, it should sell the Raptor to Japan and be prepared to do more as China's military looms larger.
    "Walk Heavy, Stand Tall, Carry a Big Stick"
    Daily Driver - ASUS Z170-AR i7 6700, 16G RAM - Liquid Cooled
    Print/File Server - ASUS A7V880 XP-3200 Barton
    System Specifications

  9. #69
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    14,806

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    ^^^ Iíve also heard theyíre about ready to kill the Top Gun training program.

    They found out the hard way during the Vietnam War with the F4 that close range dog fighting skills were still needed no matter how advanced/good the technology. Thatís why they started the Top Program. The training saved a lot of pilots during the Vietnam War and in every war since then.

    The people who make the decisions have a memory about as long as my peter. They seem to make the same frigging mistakes over and over again.

  10. #70
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    9,940

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    Interestingly, there hasn't been much chatter about closing Gitmo lately. The last word was the big O waffling about it.

    To think this was his big campaign mantra......
    "Walk Heavy, Stand Tall, Carry a Big Stick"
    Daily Driver - ASUS Z170-AR i7 6700, 16G RAM - Liquid Cooled
    Print/File Server - ASUS A7V880 XP-3200 Barton
    System Specifications

  11. #71
    Joined
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Vvardenfell
    Age
    56
    Posts
    10,836

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    Quote Originally Posted by tucker View Post
    ^^^ I’ve also heard they’re about ready to kill the Top Gun training program.

    They found out the hard way during the Vietnam War with the F4 that close range dog fighting skills were still needed no matter how advanced/good the technology. That’s why they started the Top Program. The training saved a lot of pilots during the Vietnam War and in every war since then.


    Because in those days there was no AWACS and missiles were rubbish. Neither is now true - most planes nowadays will be shot down by a missile-armed plane (or even drone) that is a hundred miles away. It is entirely possible that some dogfighting will still take place, but with lower-tech planes, not the all-singing, all-dancing F22s of this world for instance. Some dogfighting skills yes, but not a a be-all and end-all.


    M

  12. #72
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,979

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    I went to the RAF Fairford airshow last weekend and saw some pretty fancy flying. A French AF pilot in a Rafale was my pick of the bunch.

    A German Eurofighter literally dripping fuel from a wing tank into 3 metal buckets didn't inspire me with much confidence though.

    Picture added:

    Last edited by Enmore; 07-23-2009 at 07:51 PM.

  13. #73
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    9,940

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    Quote Originally Posted by Meridian View Post
    Because in those days there was no AWACS and missiles were rubbish. Neither is now true - most planes nowadays will be shot down by a missile-armed plane (or even drone) that is a hundred miles away. It is entirely possible that some dogfighting will still take place, but with lower-tech planes, not the all-singing, all-dancing F22s of this world for instance. Some dogfighting skills yes, but not a a be-all and end-all.


    M
    The F-22's will be the one's 100 miles out smoking everything in the sky, all the while undetected.
    "Walk Heavy, Stand Tall, Carry a Big Stick"
    Daily Driver - ASUS Z170-AR i7 6700, 16G RAM - Liquid Cooled
    Print/File Server - ASUS A7V880 XP-3200 Barton
    System Specifications

  14. #74
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    14,806

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    Quote Originally Posted by Meridian View Post
    Because in those days there was no AWACS and missiles were rubbish. Neither is now true - most planes nowadays will be shot down by a missile-armed plane (or even drone) that is a hundred miles away. It is entirely possible that some dogfighting will still take place, but with lower-tech planes, not the all-singing, all-dancing F22s of this world for instance. Some dogfighting skills yes, but not a a be-all and end-all.


    M


    I donít care how good the technology is when you stop training the pilots the technology is useless. It takes 100s of hours of training and simulation to make a good fighter pilot. They must train for all typesí scenarios because war is not a predictable thing and equipment does fail.

    Anything short of that is irresponsible.

  15. #75
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    9,940

    Re: Shutting down Guantanamo Bay

    Quote Originally Posted by tucker View Post
    I don’t care how good the technology is when you stop training the pilots the technology is useless. It takes 100s of hours of training and simulation to make a good fighter pilot. They must train for all types’ scenarios because war is not a predictable thing and equipment does fail.

    Anything short of that is irresponsible.
    Do you think even the Drone pilots may need some training - Duh? And just perhaps to maximize the effectivity of the drones, take the brightest and the best of the drone pilots to additional specialized training to make them even badderassed.

    Dealing with some small mentality here. Time to egress from discussion. A drone might come get me.
    Last edited by SteveW; 07-23-2009 at 10:19 PM.
    "Walk Heavy, Stand Tall, Carry a Big Stick"
    Daily Driver - ASUS Z170-AR i7 6700, 16G RAM - Liquid Cooled
    Print/File Server - ASUS A7V880 XP-3200 Barton
    System Specifications

Posting Permissions

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