• 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

Grant said:
He didn't know any of this while he was campaigning for president, making all the promises, and despite being a law professor?

You're certainly cutting the man a lot of slack!
Click to expand...

I cut President Obama some slack here because he clearly wasn't privy to any of the daily security briefs former Pres. G. W. Bush received until he became President. Making campaign promises is fine while out on the stump; keeping them is different. Some promise Obama has been able to made good on; others aren't as easy as I'm sure he thought they would be. But until folks start really digging into the public records or reading more info about such things instead of relying on the day-to-day media snippets which don't always tell the full story on certain matters, you'll only rely on your partisan point of view.

Reading...it's fundamental.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Grant said:
I am not advocating that a politician lie. However, if he is unable to keep a certain promise, and the reason why outweights the potential good of keeping it, then a politician has just become a statesman, not a politician. Only "politicians" keep all promises regardless of the cost.
Click to expand...

I think any reasonable person can understand that circumstances may change that could effect a promise made, but the circumstances regarding Gitmo never changed at all after BHO was elected President. Instead the President continued to blame George Bush for Gitmo, and all other ills, when he should have remained silent and approached the American people forthrightly and with dignity on why he couldn't keep his promise(s).

Continuously blaming his predecessor for his foolish campaign promises only serves to make him look cheap, while the reputation of George Bush continues to rise.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
Notice you change from him to they. That's my point.
Click to expand...


Who does the buck stop with, was a common mantra with left wingers during the bush administration. Your hipocrisy is agaoin noted.



And if you had actually followed my arguments over the years, you would recall I said even then that it was easier to get in this mess than out of it. There's no magic wand to undo all the damage Bush did.
Click to expand...


Magic wand, hell, Obama hasn't even waived his pecker at the problem and you excuse him, the D congress, and the D house all for failing to act on the policies you want changed.

They failed you, yet you still defend them...


astounding.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not sure what that has to do with anything. :coffeepap
Click to expand...



in war, prisoners are captured. They don't want to, or they can't go home, drop em off in thier home countries. ie deport them and wash our hands of it....

Problem, well your problem anyway is solved.
 
Grant,

You have to understand what the circumstances were before you can pass judgement. Here again, it's real easy for us civilians/private citizens to complain that he hasn't closed Gitmo yet, but until you know what things his predecessor did to make that a difficult task - ON PURPOSE - you'll never know the challenges Pres. Obama faces in trying to close down Gitmo.

There's a reason Gitmo was selected; it remains a defacto U.S. held territory that since it's questionable acquisition remains outside the full scope of U.S law. As such, the Bush-Cheney administration kinda made up the rules for detainees there as they went along, but that has caused lots of problems the likes that most people don't know about. It's why I stated previously that, IMO, the only way Gitmo closes is when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan both come to an end.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
I was talking about US citizens, held for reasons other than terrorism or anything to do with tetrrorism. Murders, and other criminals, held away from the general population for a variety of reasons.

And sure, everyone wants to go free. And depending on their crime, it might be just to free some. If they were prisoners of war, and the war was over, or could reasonable be expected to be over at some point, then they could expect to be freed at sometime.

But, if they are criminals, then they need to be tried as criminals and justly imprisoned if guilty of crimes.

Bush messed this up early on. And now we have to deal with the consequences of that screw up.
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree. If they are prisoners of war, they should only be released, I guess, after the War on Terror concludes....?
 
tlmorg02 said:
I agree and disagree. If they are prisoners of war, they should only be released, I guess, after the War on Terror concludes....?
Click to expand...

That's the trouble with the concept of a war on terrorism. It's never ending, much like wars on poverty. As a concept, it's flawed. Terrorist are criminals, and guilty of crimes against humanity and should be treated as such, tired and sentenced accordingly, IMHO. But as I said, Bush messed that up.
 
SirPwn4lot said:
And... his justice department had been fighting the idea anyway.

His term has been largely similar to Bush's 2nd.
Click to expand...

bump Bush's Medicare expansion into his second term to mirror Obamacare, and you have a darn good point there.



anywho, good for Obama to recognize reality vis-a-vie Gitmo.
 
Objective Voice said:
I cut President Obama some slack here because he clearly wasn't privy to any of the daily security briefs former Pres. G. W. Bush received until he became President. Making campaign promises is fine while out on the stump; keeping them is different. Some promise Obama has been able to made good on; others aren't as easy as I'm sure he thought they would be. But until folks start really digging into the public records or reading more info about such things instead of relying on the day-to-day media snippets which don't always tell the full story on certain matters, you'll only rely on your partisan point of view.

Reading...it's fundamental.
Click to expand...

poor barry, how could he possibly have known

maybe JOHN KERRY should have TOLD him

or claire mccaskill, jim webb, daniel inouye, daniel akaka, barbara boxer, diane feinstein, patty murray, jay rockefeller, ron wyden, max baucus, bobby byrd, richard blumenthal, jeff bingaman, barbara mikulski, ben nelson, bill nelson, frank lautenberg, robert menendez, mark udall, joe lieberman, bob casey, sherrod brown, thomas carper, bernie sanders...

or any of the other FIFTY democrat senators who slam dunked the dummy in may of 09

Senate Votes To Block Funds For Guantanamo Closure

including HARRY REID, HILLARY CLINTON and TEDDY KENNEDY

because if the former junior senator from illinois didn't know how impossibly complicated this closure was gonna turn out to be...

well, he must have been awfully lonely
 
Objective Voice said:
Grant,

You have to understand what the circumstances were before you can pass judgement. Here again, it's real easy for us civilians/private citizens to complain that he hasn't closed Gitmo yet, but until you know what things his predecessor did to make that a difficult task - ON PURPOSE - you'll never know the challenges Pres. Obama faces in trying to close down Gitmo.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that but I wouldn't make a campaign promise unless i understood that, in this case, Gitmo could be closed. And as far as I can tell there have been no revelations on what Bush did, on purpose, to make it more difficult for BHO to carry put his promise.

There's a reason Gitmo was selected; it remains a defacto U.S. held territory that since it's questionable acquisition remains outside the full scope of U.S law. As such, the Bush-Cheney administration kinda made up the rules for detainees there as they went along, but that has caused lots of problems the likes that most people don't know about. It's why I stated previously that, IMO, the only way Gitmo closes is when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan both come to an end.
Click to expand...

All this information was available to candidate Obama when he was making those promises, or he could have learned them from members in the know, such as Nancy Pelosi. There are no legitimate excuses for him.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's the trouble with the concept of a war on terrorism. It's never ending, much like wars on poverty. As a concept, it's flawed. Terrorist are criminals, and guilty of crimes against humanity and should be treated as such, tired and sentenced accordingly, IMHO. But as I said, Bush messed that up.
Click to expand...

Do you oppose Obama's two escalations of the war in Afghanistan? I bet you don't because Obama is a leftist. That's the only reason you don't resist the war.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's the trouble with the concept of a war on terrorism. It's never ending, much like wars on poverty. As a concept, it's flawed. Terrorist are criminals, and guilty of crimes against humanity and should be treated as such, tired and sentenced accordingly, IMHO. But as I said, Bush messed that up.
Click to expand...

What's happening now, rather than having the hassle of Gitmo, is that they are just killing these terrorists where they find them. It's far easier that way and there is no bad publicity for President Obama either nationally or internationally. It's another version of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell program.

George Bush should have done the same thing and kept it out of the public view. People just want to be kept safe, they don't have to know the details of how.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's not about releasing all of them. It's about housing those we will keep. not to mention the barriers Bush created in properly trying them.

And until you actual understand the position of others, you will likely always be stuck in sterotype pretend land. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

There is no need to try or house these poor unfortunate detainees. All Obama has to do is release them to Yemen. That's all and he will have kept his solemn promise. But Obama doesn't care about the validity of his promises or he would keep them wouldn't he?
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
There is no need to try or house these poor unfortunate detainees. All Obama has to do is release them to Yemen. That's all and he will have kept his solemn promise. But Obama doesn't care about the validity of his promises or he would keep them wouldn't he?
Click to expand...

This would be true if Yeman could be certain to be just. Otherwise, no. It might meet the letter of his promise, but not the intent.
 
Grant said:
What's happening now, rather than having the hassle of Gitmo, is that they are just killing these terrorists where they find them. It's far easier that way and there is no bad publicity for President Obama either nationally or internationally. It's another version of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell program.

George Bush should have done the same thing and kept it out of the public view. People just want to be kept safe, they don't have to know the details of how.
Click to expand...

This does assume that everyone suspected is actually a terrorist. You know, no human error, guilty regardless of proof. And while I doubt your claim, it does beg the question as to whether you specifically care about right and wrong, good and evil, rule or law.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Do you oppose Obama's two escalations of the war in Afghanistan? I bet you don't because Obama is a leftist. That's the only reason you don't resist the war.
Click to expand...

Yes, and have said so. While Afghanistan was the proper place to focus, not Iraq, he misses what actually needs to be done. No nation building. Just concern ourselves with safety. A much smaller, more focused effort would be prefered.

that said, at least he is focused in the right country. That's a small improvement.
 
Boo Radley said:
This would be true if Yeman could be certain to be just.
Click to expand...

LOL!

like obama's concern is that yemen is gonna be TOO TOUGH on the detainees released

Nearly 20 percent of detainees released from Guantanamo Bay are believed to have returned to the battlefield, the White House said in a letter to House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi seen by AFP Tuesday.

The letter, from President Barack Obama's counterterrorism advisor John Brennan, acknowledges that the "intelligence community assesses that 20 percent of detainees transferred from Guantanamo are confirmed or suspected of recidivist activity."

Among detainees known to have returned to terrorism are some who joined Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a terror group based in Yemen that claimed responsibility for planning a failed Christmas Day terror attack on a US plane.
Click to expand...

AFP: Fifth of ex-Guantanamo detainees return to fight: White House

you don't know what you're talking about

it's probably cuz you talk too much, read too little and LINK, evidently, not at all

what an idiot

obama, i mean

talk to you tomorrow, boo
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Yes, and have said so. While Afghanistan was the proper place to focus, not Iraq, he misses what actually needs to be done. No nation building. Just concern ourselves with safety. A much smaller, more focused effort would be prefered.

that said, at least he is focused in the right country. That's a small improvement.
Click to expand...

Ok, but stupid Obama needs to vacate the Hindu Kush mui pronto.
 
The Prof said:
you don't know what you're talking about

"if yemAn could be certain to be just..."

LOL!
Click to expand...

Actually, you don't know.

A few questions:

If someone is released who is quilty, actually a terrorist, is this just or unjust?

Do we know if someone actually returned, or joined because of they unjust treatment?

You make leaps and don't really address what has been written. It's mildly annoying. I wish you would do a better job of understanding, even if it is understanding what you post.
 
LOL!

ask the gitmo detainees released by this white house who immediately assumed leadership positions with al qaeda in yemAn
 
The Prof said:
LOL!

ask the gitmo detainees released by this white house who immediately assumed leadership positions with al qaeda in yemAn
Click to expand...

I notice you can't answer the questions. Surprise. :coffeepap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom