• 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!

Obama, In A Blow To Closing Guantanamo, Signs Law

How so?

Where Pres. Obama's attempts to close Gitmo are concerned, his hands are tied because by law he has to follow the legal precedent that was set before him. Even as President, there is a limit to what he can do - or in the case of Gitmo and all the legal wranglings, undo. I believe he has tried to find other ways to bring about fair trials, i.e. trying cases in civilian courts even after allowing the JAG corps to intervene, but even then there are limits to what the defense attorneys can do, what evidence can and can't be presented despite some evidenciary rule changes in civilian courts.

So, while it's true Pres. Obama hasn't been able to keep this campaign promise, folks have to understand the reasons why he hasn't been able to do so and why by most accounts it appears he's doing the same things GW. Bush did - hold them indefinitely until he can ship them off to other countries to imprison them abroad or hold them under house arrest indefinitely. He really can't win on this one, but he's still trying to find a way to do the right thing. I just don't think he'll be able to until the war is over.

Really? I think all he has to do is the 'humane' thing and return them to the prison system in, say, Afghanistan, Iraq, or whatever country they were captured in. Im sure they would get MUCH better treatment there...
 
How so?

Where Pres. Obama's attempts to close Gitmo are concerned, his hands are tied because by law he has to follow the legal precedent that was set before him. Even as President, there is a limit to what he can do - or in the case of Gitmo and all the legal wranglings, undo. I believe he has tried to find other ways to bring about fair trials, i.e. trying cases in civilian courts even after allowing the JAG corps to intervene, but even then there are limits to what the defense attorneys can do, what evidence can and can't be presented despite some evidenciary rule changes in civilian courts.

So, while it's true Pres. Obama hasn't been able to keep this campaign promise, folks have to understand the reasons why he hasn't been able to do so and why by most accounts it appears he's doing the same things GW. Bush did - hold them indefinitely until he can ship them off to other countries to imprison them abroad or hold them under house arrest indefinitely. He really can't win on this one, but he's still trying to find a way to do the right thing. I just don't think he'll be able to until the war is over.
His hands are not tied at all. If he wants, he can tell those guarding the prisoners to leave and order them to leave the doors open.... if he believes closing it is as important as he claimed.

.
 
His hands are not tied at all. If he wants, he can tell those guarding the prisoners to leave and order them to leave the doors open.... if he believes closing it is as important as he claimed.

.

Oh damn!!!! Thats BRILLIANT! Drop a Deuce on Castro along the way as a payback for the boatlift...
 
Obama, in blow to closing Guantanamo, signs law - Yahoo! News



1. Closing Gitmo---another pipe dream pretty on the campaign stump but completely separated from practical realities.

2. It never made any sense, never had a chance.

3. Slammed shut by his own House in lame duck by a margin of 341 to 48.

4. Vamoosed by voice vote thru Reid's roundhouse.

5. As utterly unworkable as ending detention, ending rendition, prosecuting agents from Darth Cheney's CIA.

6. As quixotic a quest as reaching out to the leaders of Iran.

7. As unsustainable an enterprise as building a mosque to improve community relations at Ground Zero.

8. As ineffectual as suing the people of Arizona for doing the federal government's job, irresponsibly remiss for most of 30 years.

9. Remember Hasan, the Fort Hood hitman, who shouted "Allah Akbar" while assassinating 13 American servicemembers in their soldier's readiness center and wounding 30 others?

10. Why did the Pentagon report on the tragedy work so hard to whitewash the murderer's unambigous motives?

Fort Hood Report: No Mention of Islam, Hasan Not Named - TIME

11. Why did the White House try to move KSM to a civil courtroom in downtown Manhattan before the likes of Lance Ito?

12. The president's comprehensive posture pertaining to overseas contingency operations, ie, international terrorism, is replete with pie-in-the-sky caprice.

13. Effectual chief execs, in contrast, need be grounded in reality.

14. Five hundred and forty one congressmen and women from both parties grounded the chimerical commander in chief this week.

The Prof


It's easy for those scum office to kiss the asses of anti-war loons wanting GItmo closed for votes. But reality hits them(or its possible that they already knew) and they realize that in order to close Gitmo these inmates will have to be placed in prisons in the US. While anti-war nuts may make a significant portion of voters whom these scum in office try to buttkiss there are more people who do not want dangerous terrorist in their prisons possible recruiting future terrorist or the possibility that the lawyers of the terrorist will be used to spread vital information.
 
reading this thread, is like the twilight zone, watching the left make excuses for what they thought was one of Bush's worst crimes, now that thier guy is the "decider"... :lamo
 
where did all you folks go?


guantanamo-protest-washington-dc.jpg


blackwater-protesters-san-francisco.jpg

Blackwater Facts: Obama Got Blackwater Protection in Iraq & Afghanistan; Says 'Blackwater Is Getting a Bad Rap'


boulder_courthouse_guantanamo_protest_01-11-2008.jpg




It's amazing how time changes everything...... :lamo
 
Still pretending apples are tree frogs, Rev? :coffeepap
 
Still pretending apples are tree frogs, Rev? :coffeepap



Or that Gitmo and blackwater are...... wait for it.... gitmo and blackwater.....


It's sad to see the 2004 protestors, all dispersed now, all missing, the whining and crying over evil pmc's and GITMO all but gone, yet they remain... Tell me boo, why is it "free tibet" is no longer in vogue? :ssst:
 
Or that Gitmo and blackwater are...... wait for it.... gitmo and blackwater.....


It's sad to see the 2004 protestors, all dispersed now, all missing, the whining and crying over evil pmc's and GITMO all but gone, yet they remain... Tell me boo, why is it "free tibet" is no longer in vogue? :ssst:

Blackwater first. Back then, Blackwater was doing **** that brought them to forefront. Without their actions, few would ahve even known about them.

And, Obama did not create Gitmo, and did release some. He also has worked to close it. Congress has been the block to it closing, not to mention the illegal **** Bush did before Obama took over.

Apples to tree frogs.
 
Blackwater first. Back then, Blackwater was doing **** that brought them to forefront. Without their actions, few would ahve even known about them.

You actually don't know jack about blackwater.....

besides:

Sen. Barack Obama has not been a fan of private police like Blackwater in war zones, and some news outlets even reported that they were spurned for his trip last week to Afghanistan and Iraq. But Whispers confirms that Blackwater did handle the Democratic presidential candidate's security in Afghanistan and helped out in Iraq. What's more, Obama was overheard saying: "Blackwater is getting a bad rap." Since everything appeared to go swimmingly, maybe he will take firms like Blackwater out of his sights, the company's supporters hop

Your president disagrees with you.


And, Obama did not create Gitmo, and did release some. He also has worked to close it. Congress has been the block to it closing, not to mention the illegal **** Bush did before Obama took over.

Apples to tree frogs.


So it's cool now. GITMO is now cool. that's your argument? seriously? He "worked" and failed, he couldnt get a D congress to close it, so now it's cool?


:lamo


YOu dizzy yet?


more like one is an (R) the other a (D).....
 
You actually don't know jack about blackwater.....

So it's cool now. GITMO is now cool. that's your argument? seriously? He "worked" and failed, he couldnt get a D congress to close it, so now it's cool?
YOu dizzy yet?


more like one is an (R) the other a (D).....

Myopic hyperpartisans dont want to talk about Obama and the prioners held at...say...the Tor Jail or deciding terrorists really dont get constitutional rights after all.

And besides...Its all Bush's fault!!!

Pathetic.
 
You actually don't know jack about blackwater.....

besides:

Sen. Barack Obama has not been a fan of private police like Blackwater in war zones, and some news outlets even reported that they were spurned for his trip last week to Afghanistan and Iraq. But Whispers confirms that Blackwater did handle the Democratic presidential candidate's security in Afghanistan and helped out in Iraq. What's more, Obama was overheard saying: "Blackwater is getting a bad rap." Since everything appeared to go swimmingly, maybe he will take firms like Blackwater out of his sights, the company's supporters hop

Your president disagrees with you.





So it's cool now. GITMO is now cool. that's your argument? seriously? He "worked" and failed, he couldnt get a D congress to close it, so now it's cool?


:lamo


YOu dizzy yet?


more like one is an (R) the other a (D).....

Does the president really disagree with me? Or is that you once again not taking everything in to consideration.

And no one said Gitmo was cool. I still wanted it closed. but do I ignore congress and pretend they ahve not put up road blocks? Only the partisan woudl do that.
 
Does the president really disagree with me? Or is that you once again not taking everything in to consideration.

And no one said Gitmo was cool. I still wanted it closed. but do I ignore congress and pretend they ahve not put up road blocks? Only the partisan woudl do that.

BHO said one year and during that year Democrats controlled Congress. In fact the Democrats controlled it the following year as well.

Now its the fault of the new Congress? And still President Bush?

When does BHO start taking responsibility for his actions?
 
BHO said one year and during that year Democrats controlled Congress. In fact the Democrats controlled it the following year as well.

Now its the fault of the new Congress? And still President Bush?

When does BHO start taking responsibility for his actions?

And democrats share part of the blame. I did not say just republican copngress people. I said congress. Congress has blocked this. Obama has been working to close it. That is his responsibility to his promise. Both are responsibile for what they do. Presidents are not kings.
 
And democrats share part of the blame. I did not say just republican copngress people. I said congress. Congress has blocked this. Obama has been working to close it. That is his responsibility to his promise. Both are responsibile for what they do. Presidents are not kings.

But because the Democrats have controlled Congress since BHO was elected, shouldn't they take the entire responsibility? Why only "part of the blame"?

How are the Republicans responsible and why should they be supportive of BHO's election promises anyway? Shouldn't BHO have taken some possible disagreement into account rather than making promises he couldn't keep?
 
But because the Democrats have controlled Congress since BHO was elected, shouldn't they take the entire responsibility? Why only "part of the blame"?

How are the Republicans responsible and why should they be supportive of BHO's election promises anyway? Shouldn't BHO have taken some possible disagreement into account rather than making promises he couldn't keep?

No. All of congress. Republicans didn't just sit there and do nothing. They contributed not only to votes, but to the fear mongering and misinformation. All of congress shares blame.

Whether they, republicans, should or should not support Obama's promises is neither here nor there. the fact is they are part of the road block and should not be ignored to futher a political point, or in this case, a misrepresentation. Obama is, factually, working to keep his promise and has been.
 
republicans fear mongered and misinformed CHUCK SCHUMER and DIANNE FEINSTEIN and BARBARA BOXER and JOHN KERRY and DANIEL INOUYE and TOM HARKIN...

LOL!

what an idiot

obama, i mean
 
When he was running for president Barack Obama promised over and over and over again that he would close Gitmo, stop renditions, get rid of warrantless wiretaps and the Patriot Act, and stop torture. Instead of capturing prisoners Obama is killing them at night with pilotless drones.

He hasn't kept a single one of those promises. He's a liar. He made those promises without the intent of ever keeping them. We now see Obama signing legislation that makes it impossible for him to keep his promise. People who voted for him should be ashamed.

The politicians who don't break promises are the ones who deliver them in a symbolic form. I would be shocked if every politician you've supported has kept all their promises, and even more shocked if you were ashamed of yourself when/if they did not.
 
Last edited:
The politicians who don't break promises are the ones who deliver them in a symbolic form. I would be shocked if you ever voted (or would have voted, if you had the ability to do so) for a politician who kept all their promises, and even more shocked if you felt shame if they did not.

While you may wish to address this subject generally, we are compelled to focus on the specific case. Barack Obama. He did not use much symbolism. Obama simply promised all things to all people. And now he is suffering for it. Gitmo is simply evidence of this proposition.
 
While you may wish to address this subject generally, we are compelled to focus on the specific case. Barack Obama. He did not use much symbolism. Obama simply promised all things to all people. And now he is suffering for it. Gitmo is simply evidence of this proposition.

Moral authority takes credibility, and credibility requires consistency. That brings the generality into it. But for the sake of argument, we'll stick to Obama's case:

The only plausible way to interpret a promise in a shared power system is as a guarantee they will do their best, because the only way an individual politician can insure conformity with their word is to impose an autocracy. The need to preserve the republic supersedes the measures Obama would have to employ to keep his promise (dissolving Congress and assuming legislative control), so he is excused from breaking his word.
 
Last edited:
No. All of congress. Republicans didn't just sit there and do nothing. They contributed not only to votes, but to the fear mongering and misinformation. All of congress shares blame.

You mean that the Republicans misinformed the Democratic majority in both Houses? And made them afraid?

Maybe you judge the Democrats too harshly.

But only just.
Whether they, republicans, should or should not support Obama's promises is neither here nor there. the fact is they are part of the road block and should not be ignored to futher a political point, or in this case, a misrepresentation. Obama is, factually, working to keep his promise and has been.

It is not up to the Republican Party to honor the campaign promises of B. Obama. How could they be much pf a 'road block' when they were in the minority? By signing that agreement under discussion it seems he is actively not working at keeping his promise. Or is that just a smokescreen?
 
...The need to preserve the republic supersedes the measures Obama would have to employ to keep his promise (dissolving Congress and assuming legislative control), so he is excused from breaking his word.

Obama could release the detainees to Yemen and close Gitmo. Nothing more is required. Obama would take political heat, but he would be able to honor his solemn promise. There would be no dissolution of the Republic. And there is absolutely no excuse for Obama breaking his word, and there is no excuse for Obama apologists when he does break his word.
 
Does the president really disagree with me? Or is that you once again not taking everything in to consideration.

And no one said Gitmo was cool. I still wanted it closed. but do I ignore congress and pretend they ahve not put up road blocks? Only the partisan woudl do that.





Wait... So a d house a d senate and obMa can close gitmo. Me pointing out how silent you all are on it makes me the partisan?

What are you smoking hero. :lol:
 
So now we have the mindless partisan rhetoric that career politicians...people that were in congress and access to intel throughout the Clinton admin were suddenly 'hoodwinked' by Bush. That even though records PROVE leading democrats attending briefings not only involving the existence of GITMO but of the interrogation tacts used there, that later they can claim "golly...we never knew..." and their minions just lap it up. That the current president is smartt enough to recognize that playing with terrorists mean you have to treat them differently and has not only reversed his initial opinion about giving terrorists consitutional rights but has opened a black-ops GITMO at Bagram...

and the faithful liberals STILL blame Bush.

Lets grant that assertion. That equals ONE thing. There are some ****ing STUPID democrats in congress.
 
Back
Top Bottom