• 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:
Boo Radley said:
But what affairs are those? Do you have any concrete information as to why Islamists are committing terrorist acts all over the world? Please keep in mind that it is not only the Americans and Western Europeans who have been subject to these attacks.

Or are they being deceptive in their motives as well?
Click to expand...

Like I said, all over the world there are different reasons in each specific case. Israel is important concerning us. Palistine cases a lot of grief and is part of the attack against us. And they are being no more deceptive concerning their reasoning for actions than we have been, in say, why we invaded Iraq.

This is not in any way a defense of their actions, or anyone's actions who use the tactic of terrorism. But let's not think this is new, or limited to one people, or any more deceptive than any other group who wants to convince people to act violently. Terrorism is wrong no matter who does it. Deception is less clear. There might be times when deception can be justified. And times when it can't be. And some areas inbetween.
Click to expand...
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
You claimed this was part of your training. I would like to see the corresponding evidence such as an FM manual that is was.
Click to expand...

Don't think I have a copy. And don't have any notes. But the conversation came up all the same. Sorry. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Policy? I suspect addressing all possible aspects is good policy. Which I think is why they addressed it. ;)
Click to expand...



either that, or the NCO gave his own opinion... If it's not in the rules or the manual, it's not military policy. Sorry d00d.
 
Boo Radley said:
Is in an option or not?
Click to expand...

Stop moving goal posts, you claimed it was the main focus of SERE, then claimed you were Trained on it, then you have reduced it to simple conversations....


It's apparent this argument is over.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Stop moving goal posts, you claimed it was the main focus of SERE, then claimed you were Trained on it, then you have reduced it to simple conversations....


It's apparent this argument is over.
Click to expand...

No. It isn't moiving the goal posts, but trying to get at it another way. Not only is deception part of the prisoner, but part of the interrogator. It is always part of the discussion. Not sure there needs to be a policy, but if it is an option, and it is, it has to be part of the training, policy or not.

And you always run when things don't go your way.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Stop moving goal posts, you claimed it was the main focus of SERE, then claimed you were Trained on it, then you have reduced it to simple conversations....


It's apparent this argument is over.
Click to expand...




requoted because you didn't add anything, why should I. :pimpdaddy:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Stop moving goal posts, you claimed it was the main focus of SERE, then claimed you were Trained on it, then you have reduced it to simple conversations....


It's apparent this argument is over.
Click to expand...


repeated to equal the value of the previous retort.
 
change you can choke on


 
today, monday, march 7:

President Obama on Monday ordered trials by military commission to resume at Guantánamo Bay.

The move signals another defeat for Obama, who pledged to close the terrorist detention facility in Cuba within one year of taking office.

In a fact sheet, the White House said Obama “remains committed” to closing the facility, but the president’s decision to lift the ban on military commissions signals the unlikelihood that Obama will successfully transfer all of the prisoners in Cuba.

Shortly after Obama came to office and announced his goal of closing the facility, the administration suspended new charges in military commissions in Cuba.

But on Monday, Obama directed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to “issue an order rescinding his prior suspension on the swearing and referring of new charges in the military commissions.”
Click to expand...

Obama to resume military commission trials for Guantánamo detainees - TheHill.com

embarrassed yet?
 
The Prof said:
today, monday, march 7:
President Obama on Monday ordered trials by military commission to resume at Guantánamo Bay.

The move signals another defeat for Obama, who pledged to close the terrorist detention facility in Cuba within one year of taking office.

In a fact sheet, the White House said Obama “remains committed” to closing the facility, but the president’s decision to lift the ban on military commissions signals the unlikelihood that Obama will successfully transfer all of the prisoners in Cuba.

Shortly after Obama came to office and announced his goal of closing the facility, the administration suspended new charges in military commissions in Cuba.

But on Monday, Obama directed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to “issue an order rescinding his prior suspension on the swearing and referring of new charges in the military commissions.”
Click to expand...


Obama to resume military commission trials for Guantánamo detainees - TheHill.com

embarrassed yet?
Click to expand...

what a colossal **** up this President is.
 
America Held Hostage--Day 776

Gitmo still Open....Obama Policies Creating More Terrorists.....Liberal Outrage MIA--presumed to be in Hypocritical condition....thought to be hiding out with Democrat War Outrage.

.
.
.
.
 
liblady said:
um....wasn't it veto proof?
Click to expand...
Veto proof? I thought the USA President could always veto a bill. The legislature could then override his veto, if they had the votes. What makes a bill veto proof?

Am I mistaken on this aspect of the USA federal system?

.
 
TOJ said:
Veto proof? I thought the USA President could always veto a bill. The legislature could then override his veto, if they had the votes. What makes a bill veto proof?

Am I mistaken on this aspect of the USA federal system?

.
Click to expand...

Regular veto
When Congress is in session, the president may, within the 10-day period, exercise a regular veto by sending the unsigned bill back to the chamber of Congress from which it originated along with a veto message stating his reasons for rejecting it. Currently, the president must veto the bill in its entirety. He may not veto individual provisions of the bill while approving others. Rejecting individual provisions of a bill is called a "line-item" veto. In 1996, Congress passed a law granting President Clinton the power to issue line-item vetoes, only to have the Supreme Court declare it unconstitutional in 1998.

Bill becomes law without president's signature
When Congress is not adjourned, and the president fails to either sign or veto a bill sent to him by the end of the 10-day period, it becomes law without his signature.

The pocket veto
When Congress is adjourned, the president can reject a bill by simply refusing to sign it. This action is known as a "pocket veto," coming from the analogy of the president simply putting the bill in his pocket and forgetting about it. Unlike a regular veto, Congress has neither the opportunity or constitutional authority to override a pocket veto.
 
Whovian said:
Regular veto
When Congress is in session, the president may, within the 10-day period, exercise a regular veto by sending the unsigned bill back to the chamber of Congress from which it originated along with a veto message stating his reasons for rejecting it. Currently, the president must veto the bill in its entirety. He may not veto individual provisions of the bill while approving others. Rejecting individual provisions of a bill is called a "line-item" veto. In 1996, Congress passed a law granting President Clinton the power to issue line-item vetoes, only to have the Supreme Court declare it unconstitutional in 1998.

Bill becomes law without president's signature
When Congress is not adjourned, and the president fails to either sign or veto a bill sent to him by the end of the 10-day period, it becomes law without his signature.

The pocket veto
When Congress is adjourned, the president can reject a bill by simply refusing to sign it. This action is known as a "pocket veto," coming from the analogy of the president simply putting the bill in his pocket and forgetting about it. Unlike a regular veto, Congress has neither the opportunity or constitutional authority to override a pocket veto.
Click to expand...
I am aware of that but I don't see anything about a bill being veto proof. Liblady said the bill was veto proof.

.
 
Whovian said:
what a colossal **** up this President is.
Click to expand...

What a waste of 2 years. For those that actually feel sorry for the detainees (of which I am not one), that's two more years of pre-trial detention for no good reason.
 
There is another thread on this forum which asks when the US fell from greatness. I said, of course, when the country began allowing itself to be run by corporations. I must add to the list:

While I suppose this nation was never fully a moral one (with the whole slavery issue and what not), at least we kept up with the rest of the world's morality. We don't even do that anymore.

There is no reason that we are not able to try these people and imprison them when they are found guilty. There is no reason we cannot stop torturing. There is no reason that we need extraordinary rendition.

Obama has failed to end all of these things and I am greatly disappointed because of it. It sickens me that any of you can support torture, rendition, or jailing without trial.
 
Hoplite said:
I'm sad to see he probably wont be fulfilling this particular promise, but in all honesty I never expected it to be a realistic goal.

I was hoping it could be done and might pave the way to better relations with Cuba and a lifting of the ridiculous embargo.
Click to expand...

You know what a PROMISE is when made with no expectations of keeping it? A LIE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom