It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NDAA Hypocrisy in retrospect: Obama's old promise to close Guantanamo Bay.

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:45 AM

While it's still hazy as to whether Obama has officially signed the NDAA or not, or whether he will fulfill his promise to veto it; I'm just digging up some of his old rhetoric and promises that helped to get him into office in the first place.

Of course we should be used to politicians saying one thing before an election and then enacting policy that is contrary, or in outright opposition to the ideals they expressed to appeal to the masses. So why did we think Barack Obama would be any different?

posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 08:21 AM
reply to post by vardlokkur

Guantanamo Bay isnt closing. sometime last summer I realized this when my husband was offered a job working on the ugrades and expansions of that facilities. He didnt take it because at the time he HAD a job. He works in Military housing construction. For the past 22 years we have been traveling around the united states every year to year and a half we moved to a new state new military base new job. We was in montana last year when he was offered the job. It started in march of this year. I ersonally know of one person working there, he is a Superintendant. They are builing officers quarters, 170, and expanding the detention center itself. One of the reasons he did not take this job is because all workers had to stay on the island had to eat from their chow hall, had to live in their quarters they can not go into cuba or leave the island until they get their once every 6 months leave to come back to the states for 3 weeks. The pay was deffinately higher, anyhow it isnt going to close and if anyone thinks it will they are wrong.

posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:45 PM
reply to post by lbndhr

Well everyone knows that it won't be closing. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of his policy over the last 2-3 years. He mentioned closing Guantanamo, actually, he PROMISED, to close Guantanamo.

Now he is supposedly signing a bill that will allow the government to basically kidnap people, send them to Guantanamo, or a facility like it, and hold them for an indeterminate amount of time.

posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 06:30 PM
reply to post by vardlokkur

Have you been following the fight to close that facility?

First, the administration wanted to send some Chinese muslim's to Virginia. What happened? Republican representative Frank Wolf faxed the president and the media,

The American people cannot afford to simply take your word that these detainees, who were captured training in terrorist camps, are not a threat if released into our communities.

Second, and more damning evidence than just a 'broken promise', the DoJ found that it could only effectively prosecute 36 of over 140 detainees!

Third, the senate voted 90-6 to oppose closure of the facility...which would cost $80 million. According to the senate minority leader Mitch McConnel (republican) on the senate floor:

Americans don’t want some of the most dangerous men alive coming here.

Mind you, the very next day, former vice president Cheney took it upon himself to go after the president;

I think the president will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.

Fourth, the month after the senate voted against closing the facility, congress banned funding of the transfer of detainees to the United States...unless they were going to be prosecuted.

Fifth, the administration wanted to buy an Illinois state prison to transfer detainees there. Guess what happened? Again, Frank Wolf disagrees:

The money is not in our budget, and we will not put that money in our budget … because then they would move detainees up from Guantanamo Bay.

Obama tries to do the right thing, bring suspects to trial. Republican senator Lindsay Graham says 'no' by barring the administration from prosecuting Khalid Sheik Mohammad and four of his co-defendents in federal court. The senator's amendment won out in a vote of 55-45.

The administration was going to try to prosecute KSM in New York City, a few blocks from Ground Zero. The NYPD said it would cost over $200 million in security, the right wing media blew a gasket at the prospect of having a 9/11 suspect so close to Ground Zero. The effort died.

The administration got a chance to actually try a 'terrorist' in late 2010. Ahmed Ghailani received a life sentence, not for murder, but for damage to US government property. The right-wing media threw a fit over his near acquittal.

A few months later, congress again made another move, barring the president from bringing any detainees to the United States. Even for prosecution.

Here we are now, December 2011, with the NDAA codifying the administrations new stance on indefinent detention and KSM facing military tribunal at Gitmo.

It's incredibly frustrating. The guy I voted for getting shot down left and right, while barely putting up a fight. I don't like the president, not because I don't agree with his policy proposals or because he promised me one thing and delivered another...but because he doesn't fight when he needs to. Then again, some of you believe he's King Obama, throwing his will upon the American people relentlessly.

Obama's not Bush. Bush never bowed to minority opposition.

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:03 AM
reply to post by links234

Your stance is based off the assumption that there is a clear distinction between partisan groups. Based on prolonged observation I find it hard to believe, and am of the personal opinion that it is a well crafted illusion.

He has yet to use his veto powers in support of civil liberties. If he does veto the NDAA I will be inclined to re-think my standing concerning conspiracy and government. But as far as I can tell, his foreign policy has been appalling regarding Libya, Syria, and now Iran; and he has not reigned in this ultra-paranoid mindset that exists in Washington that requires these TSA checkpoints and a huge federal government.

Not sure where I stand on the Tea-Party and Ron Paul, I was in favor of them until recently.. But considering the phenomenal progress they've been making in the polls it almost seems to good to be true. I almost fear them more in the Obama administration, because under their philosophy of minimal government the economy may free-fall due to lack of government jobs and the abandonment of public welfare.

But like I said, I take the highly suspicious perspective that no politician can be trusted. Finding a politician who has followed through with campaign promises is an impossibility. Time will tell I suppose, and I honestly hope you are right and we are experiencing necessary delays on the way UP.

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 04:18 PM
reply to post by vardlokkur

I'm only defending the guy because he tried. He tried numerous times and never really fought for it. Mind you, most of his first administration has been fighting for the health care law, then the stimulus. Gitmo fell to the wayside and the administration caved at the first sight of opposition on the subject.

new topics

top topics

log in