|
reply posted on 28-9-2009 @ 04:18 AM by xpert11
|
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
Since American politicians can't get any unpopular decisions away and done with early on in there term of office because they or there comrades face
re election every two years . Thanks to the Health Care flame out Obama and co don't have enough political capital to be making such a call right now
. The only way I could see Obama doing it is if he was to dump the detainees in a deeply Republican Congressional district where most of the voters
were never going to vote for him or the dems anyway .
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 28-9-2009 @ 08:48 AM by jdub297
|
reply to post by xpert11
Thanks to the Health Care flame out Obama and co don't have enough political capital to be making such a call right now . The only way I
could see Obama doing it is if he was to dump the detainees in a deeply Republican Congressional district where most of the voters were never going to
vote for him or the dems anyway .
His foreign placement options are pretty well limited too, now.
What most people don't realize is that he never meant to do what he said, and knew it couldn't be done when he said it.
We've seen any number of his campaign "promises" turned into "Executive Orders" that have been equally ignored.
What a joke. Except I'm not laughing.
jw
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 28-9-2009 @ 10:54 AM by sos37
|
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
Really BH? Or is it that maybe now that Obama is on the inside he now realizes that when he was campaigning he didn't know what the hell he was
talking about - which is more likely the answer.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-10-2009 @ 01:04 AM by conspiracyrus
|
Ahh what ever happened to change... relatively same cabinet... friend of the working an? ouldnt endorse earmarks.... Obama was thru promise 5 in his
first week
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 7-10-2009 @ 09:30 AM by jdub297
|
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-10-2009 @ 09:29 PM by conspiracyrus
|
reply to post by jdub297
Ahh i agree with you on plenty of levels ... well done... tho dont take my word for it ... i advise the stupid to stick to stupid
just to let you know that was a compliment... i convolute things once and a while but what i meant to say was ... yes you are right
[edit on 7-10-2009 by conspiracyrus]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-10-2009 @ 09:42 PM by Mailman
|
I am sorry I didnt read every reply. I am hoping sombody can answer a question for me.
If I can go to prison for vacationing in Cuba, how can the government legally operate a max security prison? Does the Cuban governnent already have
some facilities at gitmo, or is the whole compound contructed and operated by the US government?
How are they above the same embargo laws they are enforcing?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-10-2009 @ 10:07 PM by jdub297
|
reply to post by Mailman
The US began leasing land there for "naval coaling and seagoing operations" more than 100 years ago.
The lease, on its terms, can only be cancelled "by mutual agreemnt" of the US and Cuba.
The US considers the base necessary to maintain an "American presence" in Cuba. Since the revolution in 1959, Cuban leaders have considered the
base "an occupation" of their territory.
Both sides agree that Cuba cannot take it back by force, so the lease goes on.
jw
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-10-2009 @ 10:10 PM by conspiracyrus
|
reply to post by Mailman
Terrorism suspects who have committed an abstract crime according to the US standards go to Guantanamo. No cuban prisoners (unless they've committed
a convoluted terrorist threat) will end up in Gitmo... its a legal version of extraordinary rendition so that the public thinks that that is the worst
that happens... kinda like water boarding
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-10-2009 @ 10:12 PM by conspiracyrus
|
reply to post by jdub297
man you are always one step ahead of me... grr! good job th o im happy people understand whats going on
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 09:05 AM by jdub297
|
reply to post by conspiracyrus
Not really, though. I think your answer really answered the hidden question about "why are we even doing this in the first place?"
I wouldn't worry, there's gonna be more about gitmo when heads start to roll. It won't just go away.
jw
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 18-11-2009 @ 07:42 AM by Ferris.Bueller.II
|
Further confirmation on this broken promise. Another one bites the dust!
Obama admits Guantanamo won't close by Jan.
deadline
BEIJING -- President Obama directly acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay will not close by the
January deadline he set, but he said he hoped to still achieve that goal sometime next year.
Obama refused, however, to set a new deadline.
In an interview in the Chinese capital with Major Garrett of Fox News , Obama claimed he was "not disappointed" that the Guantanamo deadline had
slipped, saying he "knew this was going to be hard."
Guess he's been putting too much attention into destroying the economy and creating jobs in fictional Congressional districts.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 18-11-2009 @ 12:25 PM by centurion1211
|
Anyone that thinks having civilian trials in New York is a good idea should read the following. Don't shoot the messenger, just read the article
(for a change):
article
Are we at war – or not?
For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a
presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?
Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies –
that he may not be guilty.
And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill
his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.
When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot
Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in
an attack as acceptable collateral damage.
Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.
We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?
Many valid comments/questions in this article, with no answers - valid or otherwise - coming from the administration.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 18-11-2009 @ 07:15 PM by ModernAcademia
|
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 18-11-2009 @ 07:15 PM by ModernAcademia
|
|
copyright & usage
|
|
