• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Petraeus Endorses Obama's Plans To Close GITMO, End Torture

Who is talking about a "current direction?"
I am, and General Petraeus is.

I didn't see that in the premise of this thread.
That's because you were busily engaging in a game of "let's argue over process or plan" semantics. I already told you this.

How is this direction any different from the PREVIOUS administration?
He has commissioned his administration and the DOJ to actually develop a plan for closing GITMO down so he can make it happen.

The premise of the thread was clear; it maintains that Petreaus endorsed Obama’s PLAN to close Gitmo. There is no Obama PLAN and Petreaus did not endorse anything in his comments.
Here we go again. Yay...you win the word game. He endorsed Obama's direction and has endorsed that current state of the plan development.

Please indicate the exact quote where Petreaus is endorsing Obama’s plans.
General Patraeus said:
"With respect to Guantanamo," Petraeus added, "I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice -- I talked to the Attorney General the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary -- again, how to take that forward. But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."
What part of this premise do you NOT get?
I don't care what the thread author's premise was, I care what General Patraeus says. And he said it loud and clear. I'll leave you to your emotional struggle over the differences between the concept of a "plan", "planning", and "process." If you try hard enough, you might beat whoever it is you are fighting with.
 
So let me get this straight, Petraus is endorsing Obama's policy on Gitmo, which is essentially "do nothing".

alrighty then.

You clearly didn't read the article or are simply being totally dishonest. Obama's plan is not "do nothing." Your insinuation is without merit. As General Patraeus has clearly indicated there is a very intensive effort being undertaken to finalize plans to close GITMO responsibly.
 
I dunno in this case. The world is significantly different from the 50's, and the media coverage of world events is very different. Any attempt to remove him after he spoke in disagreement of the administration would cause a political firestorm that I doubt most presidents would want.

It's not an absolute untouchableness(is that a word), but it is pretty safe.

That would be a disaster for any administration, and not an action I would support. The military is subservient to the civilian leadership for good reason.

Here's the UCMJ article that would be used against an officer who spoke out against the President:

ART. 88 - CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

And of course, there's the old standby:

ART. 133.

Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct
 
That would be a disaster for any administration, and not an action I would support. The military is subservient to the civilian leadership for good reason.

Here's the UCMJ article that would be used against an officer who spoke out against the President:



And of course, there's the old standby:

Either would be a stretch in the current world. Disagreeing and contemptuous are two very different things.
 
No, because at the time, President Bush was his boss. Now he has a new boss. He basically has 3 choices here...rebel against the new boss quietly and retire, rebel openly and be retired, or do his job and publicly support his boss. He's doing exactly what's expected of any good officer.

Much like the maligned Colin Powell, who was labeled as a disloyal turncoat when he criticized his former boss in 2003. Powell was being a good "troop" even though he was then Secretary of State.
 
Either would be a stretch in the current world. Disagreeing and contemptuous are two very different things.

Not really, especially not when done publicly.
 
I've got to go with Moon on this one. Generals don't run against the CIC and survive for long. You just don't do it. Your job is to follow orders and soldier on. You can criticize when you ETS or you can accept the consequences.
 
I am somewhat comforted that Obama took time to actually study the problem before making sweeping changes. Sorry if that alienates the far left, but I think the far left is crazy, anyway, so i'm not really concerned about their feelings at this point in time.

So you think Obama is crazy?

He of the most left leaning voting record in his short time.
He with his buddies Wright and Ayers.
And his views of The Constitution:
YouTube - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

Care to rephrase?

.
 
your ilk accused him of treason, akin to that doggy mauling a child. you now want to say "good doggie" because he stopped pissing on your carpet?


Nice priorities. SO you admit the move on assholes labled an honorable man a traitor, simply because he did not tow the moveon agenda, but see no problem with now embracing whom they one called a traitor because he agreed with a policy that fits said agenda?
I never called him a traitor, therefore those people are not my ilk.

I don't agree with everything moveon.org says or does. Do you agree with everything swiftvets.com say?
 
Pity the headline is not the content.
He's not endorsing anything he's barely taking any position.
He in effect said nothing.

Learn to read.


Besides you lefties DESPISE him for being an American and a WINNER..
SO now you losers want to use him in order to validate the trash you elected.
Forget it..the left/Democrats use of this man has no credibility whatsoever.


Laughable from initial headline to attempted overall use.

First off, if I remember correctly the riech-wing didn't win the election which makes democrats the winners and you and yours, losers.

Second, so now you don't think Petraeous is such a winner because he's supporting Obama's policy? Nice turn about there, eh?
 
First off, if I remember correctly the riech-wing didn't win the election which makes democrats the winners and you and yours, losers.

Second, so now you don't think Petraeous is such a winner because he's supporting Obama's policy? Nice turn about there, eh?

hey do me a big favor don't use any refererance to the Nazi's when talking about the Republican Party or as a matter of fact any Political Party.

I'm sure you can find something else to use.
 
moveon.org no more represents the dem party than fox represents the repub party.

General petraeus is just the latest military leader to back yet another of obama's decisions. :2wave:
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
 
Triad said:
Pity the headline is not the content.
He's not endorsing anything he's barely taking any position.
He in effect said nothing.
He absolutely did take a position and his words reflect that. He supports the current planning that is taking place to close GITMO.

Learn to read.
Learn to breath through your nose.

Besides you lefties DESPISE him for being an American and a WINNER..
Why do you make stupid comments like this?
SO now you losers want to use him in order to validate the trash you elected.
Last time I checked, you were the loser in that fight. Maybe you didn't get the memo.
Forget it..the left/Democrats use of this man has no credibility whatsoever.
Nobody's using him. We are simply acknowledging his support of Obama's plan to close GITMO.
Laughable from initial headline to attempted overall use.
What's laughable is your extremist point of view. It's like a funny train wreck of despair and regret. wtf? :lol::(
 
hey do me a big favor don't use any refererance to the Nazi's when talking about the Republican Party or as a matter of fact any Political Party.

I'm sure you can find something else to use.

I agree. There is no call for that at all.
 
First off, if I remember correctly the riech-wing didn't win the election which makes democrats the winners and you and yours, losers.

Come on Slip, there is no call for that. You can very easily make your point without Nazi comparisons. Don't lower yourself to Triad's level and engage in ignorant and gross characterizations.
 
The reality is that at least he is trying. His original projections for pulling out may have been far too aggressive for the reality of the situation, but he is working towards that goal in earnest. And that is what is important. He's trying to get us out of there as quickly and responsibly as he can.

Nobody is making any case of importance over whether or not he actually makes his 18 month time line. No plan survives contact with the enemy.
 
I would like to point out to all of you who think we are going to have all of are Arm Service out of Iraq this will never happen. I point to the following Countrys

Germany,Japan,Italy all Country we are still in some 60+ years after the end of WWII.

Also one other small point it wasn't Mr. Obama who started the pull out it was Mr. Bush.
 
I would like to point out to all of you who think we are going to have all of are Arm Service out of Iraq this will never happen. I point to the following Countrys

Germany,Japan,Italy all Country we are still in some 60+ years after the end of WWII.

Also one other small point it wasn't Mr. Obama who started the pull out it was Mr. Bush.

Yes, but in all those countries now, our troops are not out patrolling the streets with weapons and vehicles, nor are they apprehending the population on the streets.

We have a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with those countries. We don't have one with Iraq or Afghanistan.
 
I would like to point out to all of you who think we are going to have all of are Arm Service out of Iraq this will never happen. I point to the following Countrys

Germany,Japan,Italy all Country we are still in some 60+ years after the end of WWII.

Also one other small point it wasn't Mr. Obama who started the pull out it was Mr. Bush.

WWII is a different ball of wax.
 
Yes, but in all those countries now, our troops are not out patrolling the streets with weapons and vehicles, nor are they apprehending the population on the streets.

We have a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with those countries. We don't have one with Iraq or Afghanistan.

We do, actually.

The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq") is a status of forces agreement (SOFA) approved by the Iraqi government in late 2008 between Iraq and the United States. It establishes that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, subject to possible further negotiations which could delay withdrawal and a referendum scheduled for mid-2009 in Iraq which may require U.S. forces to completely leave by the middle of 2010.[1][2] The pact requires criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and requires a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that are not related to combat.[3] U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces will be subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies may retain their immunity. If U.S. forces commit still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they will be subject to the still undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certifies the forces were off-duty.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Framework_Agreement"]Link[/ame]
 
Back
Top Bottom