• 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

LOL!

the PRESIDENT already answered you

Yesterday, Obama said he would halt for now transfers of Guantanamo inmates to Yemen as more details emerged of how a suspect accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight on Dec. 25 received training and support in the country.

“There is an ongoing security situation which we have been confronting for some time” in Yemen, Obama said yesterday after meeting with intelligence officials to discuss how the U.S. failed to bar bombing suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from the flight.

“We will not be transferring additional detainees back to Yemen at this time,” the president said yesterday.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters today that the administration stopped the transfers because of the “swift change in the security environment” in Yemen “over the last few weeks.” Gibbs said he was unaware of the 20 percent [of released detainees who have returned to combat] and how, if at all, it factored into the decision.
Click to expand...

More Ex-Detainees Resort to Terror, Officials Say (Update2) - Bloomberg

yet you look to ME to clear things up

LOL!

what an idiot

obama, i mean
 
What is the solution to Gitmo? As I have said, I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with the practice, yet reality suggests it is a necessary facility. If we bring them in-country, then they are to be tried, yet evidence against them threatens national security. If you return them, then they rejoin the fight. And what could Bush have even done differently? When captured, where should we have kept the prisoners?
 
tlmorg02 said:
What is the solution to Gitmo? As I have said, I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with the practice, yet reality suggests it is a necessary facility. If we bring them in-country, then they are to be tried, yet evidence against them threatens national security. If you return them, then they rejoin the fight. And what could Bush have even done differently? When captured, where should we have kept the prisoners?
Click to expand...

I don't believe that. I really don't. Many a tyrant has used that argument to wrongly hold people. The larger problem is that Bush violated the law so much with them, that those violations may cause a problem. But I suspect we could adjust if we had the will to do so.

And whether some (a small percentage on the whole) rejoin or whether they join for the first time (not really having been a part of it to begin with) is debatable. It is quite possible this Gitmo effort has added to the numbers overall. The truth is we really don't knwo for sure.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't believe that. I really don't. Many a tyrant has used that argument to wrongly hold people. The larger problem is that Bush violated the law so much with them, that those violations may cause a problem. But I suspect we could adjust if we had the will to do so.

And whether some (a small percentage on the whole) rejoin or whether they join for the first time (not really having been a part of it to begin with) is debatable. It is quite possible this Gitmo effort has added to the numbers overall. The truth is we really don't knwo for sure.
Click to expand...

No we don't know, and yes the situation was greatly mishandled. I could name a million different mistakes on the part of the Bush administration in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, this does nothing to alter the present reality of the situation. Thus my question of what other viable options does the President have currently that work better than retaining the Gitmo facility.
 
tlmorg02 said:
No we don't know, and yes the situation was greatly mishandled. I could name a million different mistakes on the part of the Bush administration in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, this does nothing to alter the present reality of the situation. Thus my question of what other viable options does the President have currently that work better than retaining the Gitmo facility.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is more difficult now, whihc is why it hasn't been done yet, that and the resistence. but, if we really do believe in having core values, we have to think rule of law is one of those. So, we do need to be open, and close a place that so represents a time when we ignored that rule of law. There is really no reason we couldn't move them here, try them in one manner or another, following some rule of law, and punish and release acordingly.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, it is more difficult now, whihc is why it hasn't been done yet, that and the resistence. but, if we really do believe in having core values, we have to think rule of law is one of those. So, we do need to be open, and close a place that so represents a time when we ignored that rule of law. There is really no reason we couldn't move them here, try them in one manner or another, following some rule of law, and punish and release acordingly.
Click to expand...

And on that I agree, however the administration that some do pose a viable national security threat if some information is revealed. Also, the main point is that Obama was faced with not funding the military if he sent this bill back. So ultimately one must place the blame at the feet of Congress.
 
yup, it's congress, alright

including FIFTY democrat senators like john kerry and teddy kennedy

drat that george w what's-his-name

he shoulda just sent the killers back to yemAn

oh, wait...

LOL!

if only barry were KING!
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

When we are at war, and indeed we are at war with Islamist terrorists, we are better off to trust our military than not.

We have done that in previous wars and while wrongs might have been done in WWI and WWII, as well as others, we did not worry so much about the guilt or innocence about the enemy. This concern is a very recent phenomenon, and one that will do the free world no good. The point in any war is to kill them before they kill you, and that rule should remain unchanged.

The fact is I do care about right and wrong, which is why I am 100% against terrorism and Islamism.

I trust the Canadian and American military, as well as the military of out allies, and believe they understand the difference between right and wrong. I do not trust politicians whose sense of right and wrong changes according to their political ambitions and public opinion polls..
 
Grant said:
When we are at war, and indeed we are at war with Islamist terrorists, we are better off to trust our military than not.

We have done that in previous wars and while wrongs might have been done in WWI and WWII, as well as others, we did not worry so much about the guilt or innocence about the enemy. This concern is a very recent phenomenon, and one that will do the free world no good. The point in any war is to kill them before they kill you, and that rule should remain unchanged.

The fact is I do care about right and wrong, which is why I am 100% against terrorism and Islamism.

I trust the Canadian and American military, as well as the military of out allies, and believe they understand the difference between right and wrong. I do not trust politicians whose sense of right and wrong changes according to their political ambitions and public opinion polls..
Click to expand...

The military has never be above the law. Nor have they ever opporated outside civilian controls, and with good reason. And while I accept we have done many a wrong during almost all wars, I reject excusing them. And the concern is not recent. Many were concerned during all those wars. Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughter House Five for example was criticism of something that took place in WWII.

And while you may not care about right and wrong, a good many people who have values, core values, that demand they do care about right and wrong. And it does not serve this country well to forget our values, to become more like what we denounce. It may be hard to try and do the right things in life, but very few things that hold value are easy.

Also, terrorism is a tactic. Nothing more. Hard to go to war against a tactic. Islam is a religion, and many practice that religion without being a problem to anyone. It makes no sense to go to war against a religion. We don't need any holy wars. You'll quickly find God is on neither side.

So, instead the human battle is always against radicals, agianst those who would do evil, who would harm innocent people. War, the kind where you bomb and invade and kill more innocent people will never really be as effective in this type of struggle as a smaller, more mobile, more specifc effort. In the end, we create more problems than we solve by being as reckless as we've been.

As for the military, a noble and honorable profession that provides a needed service, they will take wantever mission we give them, even a reckless and foolish one. And as the hammer of our nation, like with most hammers, many things look like a nail to a hammer. So, when you ask the military, they will more often than not see and provide a military solution. This is to be expected. It is part of why we shouldn't leave all decisions up to them. When we need to do surgery, we might rightly prefer a scalpel to a hammer.
 
Last edited:
Albert Di Salvo said:
Surrender and there will be no war. Commit suicide and no one can hurt you.
Click to expand...

Not sure how to take your comment. Iraq could surender and terrorism would go on. Afghanistan could surrender, and terrorism woudl go on. As could Pakistan. Iran. Palestine. No country could ever surrender and end terrorism. It is part of the folly of fighting a tactic, especially by invading a country.
 
khalid sheikh muhammad is a TACTIC---LOL!

obama ESCALATED his WAR vs the TACTICS in afghanistan

even tho the methodologies whose human BLOOD he seeks to shed are, by all accounts, mostly in pakistan

CIA: At most, 50-100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan - Political Punch

and TEDDY KENNEDY, JOHN KERRY, HILLARY CLINTON and the other 47 dem senators lack core values

because barack hussein isn't KING

LOL!

what an idiot

obama, i mean
 
Boo Radley said:
No. KSM is a person. He committed crmes. He is much more specific than either terrorism or Islam.
Click to expand...

KSM was the mastermind behind 9/11. Even the most dedicated leftist anti-war people acknowledge the attack on the Pentagon was not a crime, but an act of war.
 
Boo Radley said:
The military has never be above the law.
Click to expand...

You might have had a point had I ever claimed that the military is above the law, but I didn't.

Nor have they ever opporated outside civilian controls, and with good reason. And while I accept we have done many a wrong during almost all wars, I reject excusing them. And the concern is not recent. Many were concerned during all those wars. Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughter House Five for example was criticism of something that took place in WWII.
Click to expand...

This is getting silly now. Slaughterhouse Five was a science fiction novel, which seems an appropriate enough place for you to have developed your position on war, the military and who are the good guys and the bad.
And while you may not care about right and wrong, a good many people who have values, core values, that demand they do care about right and wrong. And it does not serve this country well to forget our values, to become more like what we denounce. It may be hard to try and do the right things in life, but very few things that hold value are easy.
Click to expand...

Each sentence you write seems to contain a whopper! I may not care about right and wrong?
Also, terrorism is a tactic. Nothing more. Hard to go to war against a tactic. Islam is a religion, and many practice that religion without being a problem to anyone. It makes no sense to go to war against a religion. We don't need any holy wars. You'll quickly find God is on neither side.
Click to expand...

We are not, as many have taken pains to say repeatedly and clearly, at war with a religion. If we were it would be a lot easier. We are at war with islamism. With terrorists working under the banner of Islam. Now if you believe that all terrorists are Muslims or that all Muslims are terrorists, then you might have a point, but few believe that to be the case.

So, instead the human battle is always against radicals, agianst those who would do evil, who would harm innocent people. War, the kind where you bomb and invade and kill more innocent people will never really be as effective in this type of struggle as a smaller, more mobile, more specifc effort. In the end, we create more problems than we solve by being as reckless as we've been.
Click to expand...

Attacking the United States on 9/11 was reckless, and consequences should not have been unexpected. But the behavior of religious fanatics has been notoriously unrelaiable, and they have been trained and encouraged to lie. I wouldn't give them the benefit of any doubts

As for the military, a noble and honorable profession that provides a needed service, they will take wantever mission we give them, even a reckless and foolish one. And as the hammer of our nation, like with most hammers, many things look like a nail to a hammer. So, when you ask the military, they will more often than not see and provide a military solution. This is to be expected. It is part of why we shouldn't leave all decisions up to them. When we need to do surgery, we might rightly prefer a scalpel to a hammer.
Click to expand...

The religious fanatics who have created this War On Terror are being attacked on several levels, as has been made clear by the previous administration and carried on by the present. I continue to support the military and trust that the built in safe guards will continue to serve the public interest well. I also trust them to know who is on the battlefield prepared to do them harm and commit public harm as well. That is their decision to make at the time and not later in a New York Courtroom.

They are killing a great deal more terrorists now, by the way, and that is how it should be. They attack the United States, and all the democracies, at their own peril.
 
Grant said:
You might have had a point had I ever claimed that the military is above the law, but I didn't.
Click to expand...

It speaks to my point. They don't opperate anyway they want. They are not only subject to civilian control, advancing civilian goals, but to rule of law. So, we cannot and should not simply say go, it's yours.


This is getting silly now. Slaughterhouse Five was a science fiction novel, which seems an appropriate enough place for you to have developed your position on war, the military and who are the good guys and the bad.
Click to expand...

Not sure I've stated who was good guys and bad guys, but if you don't know that the novel speaks to Dresden, you don't understand the novel.


Each sentence you write seems to contain a whopper! I may not care about right and wrong?
Click to expand...

Yes, may. No one who isn't a terrorist really supports terrorism. Islam, as I point out is a relgion, like any other. Being against a religion is kind of silly.

We are not, as many have taken pains to say repeatedly and clearly, at war with a religion. If we were it would be a lot easier. We are at war with islamism. With terrorists working under the banner of Islam. Now if you believe that all terrorists are Muslims or that all Muslims are terrorists, then you might have a point, but few believe that to be the case.
Click to expand...

You make no real distinction here. There is no country of Islam. No borders. No flag. No ruler, or ruling body, or anyone who can surrender Islam. yes, some terrorist are Islaminc, but they are not Islam. It's a fundamental flaw in your thinking. Many of the KKK are christian, so are many skin heads. But neither are Christianity.

Attacking the United States on 9/11 was reckless, and consequences should not have been unexpected. But the behavior of religious fanatics has been notoriously unrelaiable, and they have been trained and encouraged to lie. I wouldn't give them the benefit of any doubts
Click to expand...

Yes, itelligent consequences, directed at those specifically who were behind the act. Not just any country we thought we could use or abuse. And you should know that all kinds of groups of people exhibit unreliable behavior and lie.


The religious fanatics who have created this War On Terror are being attacked on several levels, as has been made clear by the previous administration and carried on by the present. I continue to support the military and trust that the built in safe guards will continue to serve the public interest well. I also trust them to know who is on the battlefield prepared to do them harm and commit public harm as well. That is their decision to make at the time and not later in a New York Courtroom.

They are killing a great deal more terrorists now, by the way, and that is how it should be. They attack the United States, and all the democracies, at their own peril.
Click to expand...

No, not near as much as you seem to believe. Our enemies actually benefitted greatly form the acts of the former administration. And how do you know who or what exactly they are talking. We know, as a fact, that some innocnet people were talken and abused, with at least two killed. As we've seen next to trials, no evidence, next to nothing on the vast majority, exactly how do you know, other than that blind trust you have?

Leaders should never have that kind of trust from us. We should always be skeptical, especially when we've seen them clearly less than honest and open, and knowing that they've made more than a few mistakes.
 
well, i'd SPELL it out for you

but that'd be RUNDANT

LOL!

what's significant is that obama sees

he must lack core values
 
From the yahoo source;
Obama has vowed to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which has drawn international condemnation for the treatment of detainees, but has met stiff resistance at home.
Click to expand...



Oh, and by the way, just whatever happened to all that "international condemnation" for guantanamo bay anyway? Have the europeans just stopped carping about it because they prefer an obama over a bush? Or....are the mainstream media just not reporting any more "international condemnation?" Just what the hell happened to all that "international condemnation"
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
It speaks to my point. They don't opperate anyway they want. They are not only subject to civilian control, advancing civilian goals, but to rule of law. So, we cannot and should not simply say go, it's yours.
Click to expand...

But no one is debating "your point". It is agreed by everyone that the military should not be above the law. Also no one has said "Go, it's yours".

Can you please explain why you are not using quotes but instead arguing points that were never raised? I cannot debate phantom arguments.
Not sure I've stated who was good guys and bad guys, but if you don't know that the novel speaks to Dresden, you don't understand the novel.
Click to expand...

If you want to debate Dresden then do so, but according to the facts and not a science fiction novel

Yes, may. No one who isn't a terrorist really supports terrorism. Islam, as I point out is a relgion, like any other. Being against a religion is kind of silly.
Click to expand...

You didn't need to point out either that Islam is a religion. I think pretty much every literate person in the world understands that. Why bother adding points that need not be made? And who is against Islam? Are you really reading the posts?

You make no real distinction here. There is no country of Islam. No borders. No flag. No ruler, or ruling body, or anyone who can surrender Islam. yes, some terrorist are Islaminc, but they are not Islam. It's a fundamental flaw in your thinking. Many of the KKK are christian, so are many skin heads. But neither are Christianity.
Click to expand...

There is no country called Islam, but there are certainly Islamic dominated countries. And those Islamic terrorists you referred to are the ones we are after.And of course the KKK and skinheads are not relevant too the discussion, nor are there countries where they dominate.

Yes, itelligent consequences, directed at those specifically who were behind the act. Not just any country we thought we could use or abuse. And you should know that all kinds of groups of people exhibit unreliable behavior and lie.
Click to expand...

Those who were behind the act, an act of war, were going to be tried in NYC to allow them a political platform and upset an entire city. This would made a helluva precedent. Terrorists have homes and support and we must attack them where they live. I hope you are not making the claim that it is only terrorists who attack and there are no support groups, or governments, behind them.

No, not near as much as you seem to believe. Our enemies actually benefitted greatly form the acts of the former administration.
Click to expand...

Really? How so?
And how do you know who or what exactly they are talking. We know, as a fact, that some innocnet people were talken and abused, with at least two killed. As we've seen next to trials, no evidence, next to nothing on the vast majority, exactly how do you know, other than that blind trust you have?
Click to expand...

Innocent people, if they are innocent, will always be killed in a war. Two is practically nothing compared with 9/11 and the hundreds of other terrorist acts directed against innocent and unwary people. Consider them occasionally. And my trust doesn't have to be blind.

Leaders should never have that kind of trust from us. We should always be skeptical, especially when we've seen them clearly less than honest and open, and knowing that they've made more than a few mistakes.
Click to expand...

We can chose who to treat with some skepticism. You chose the military and I choose terrorists. And as for honesty and openness, dishonesty is encouraged in Islam (Al quaeda) and also by those who train the terrorists.
Click to expand...
 
Dutch said:
From the yahoo source;



Oh, and by the way, just whatever happened to all that "international condemnation" for guantanamo bay anyway? Have the europeans just stopped carping about it because they prefer an obama over a bush? Or....are the mainstream media just not reporting any more "international condemnation?" Just what the hell happened to all that "international condemnation"
Click to expand...

More military was sent over to Afghanistan (30,000) yet few, if any, terrorists are arriving in Gitmo anymore.

It would seem apparent that instant justice is being meted out in the fields of war rather than allowing radical Islamists and the Left to use the terrorists as political propaganda against the Allies. The Bush Administration should have done the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom