• 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 closing Guantanamo as he reshapes US policy

AuHtwoh64

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Messages
162
Reaction score
46
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Obama closing Guantanamo as he reshapes US policy - Yahoo! News
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer – 12:30 E.T.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama moved quickly to undo a contentious Bush administration national security program Thursday, ordering Guantanamo closed within a year and welcoming Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to help forge a new foreign policy strategy.

What will not be reported about this Presidential Exec Order is the exchange which took place when Obama was asked about the disposition of the present detainees (a seemingly very important detail) :

(- At this point Obama turns to White House Attorney Gregg Craig -)

Obama: By the way Gregg will there be a separate executive order with respect to how we are going to dispose of the detainees? Is that? Is that….. (muffled)

Gregg Craig: “A separate process….”
Obama: “We will be a setting up a process by whereby this will be taking place”

And that's pretty much how the whole thing went; With the President turning to Gregg Craig to fill him in those and other details, and then Obama repeating verbatim Craig's words. It's amazing how questions like this seem to have to be explained to the primary actor, the president. There's more; consult your C-SPAN video library for a replay a little later.

It reminds me a lot of the Governor in Blazing Saddles, whose chief of staff was bringing him a constant flow of documents to sign, and having to ask what they were all about.

...
 
Last edited:
Obama closing Guantanamo as he reshapes US policy - Yahoo! News
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer – 12:30 E.T.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama moved quickly to undo a contentious Bush administration national security program Thursday, ordering Guantanamo closed within a year and welcoming Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to help forge a new foreign policy strategy.

What will not be reported about this Presidential Exec Order is the exchange which took place when Obama was asked about the disposition of the present detainees (a seemingly very important detail) :

(- At this point Obama turns to White House Attorney Gregg Craig -)

Obama: By the way Gregg will there be a separate executive order with respect to how we are going to dispose of the detainees? Is that? Is that….. (muffled)

Gregg Craig: “A separate process….”
Obama: “We will be a setting up a process by whereby this will be taking place”

And that's pretty much how the whole thing went; With the President turning to Gregg Craig to fill him in those and other details, and then Obama repeating verbatim Craig's words. It's amazing how questions like this seem to have to be explained to the primary actor, the president. There's more; consult your C-SPAN video library for a replay a little later.

It reminds me a lot of the Governor in Blazing Saddles, whose chief of staff was bringing him a constant flow of documents to sign, and having to ask what they were all about.

...

His press secretary couldn't answer what they would do with Osama should we catch him. How would he be handled?

Where is this country going?
Who's at the wheel and when do we find out about how this Guantanamo thing is going to happen?

I mean, in the words of the loyal opposition, where is the plan to get us out?
 
Last edited:
His press secretary couldn't answer what they would do with Osama should we catch him. How would he be handled?

Where is this country going?
Who's at the wheel and when do we find out about how this Guantanamo thing is going to happen?

I mean, in the words of the loyal opposition, where is the plan to get us out?

But you wanted us there.
 
But you wanted us there.
Think if Bush did this with Cheney?
Think of the howling it would have generated.
Michael Moore would have used it in his docu-comedy, probably looping it.

Bush... ape.
Obama... Genius.
?
 
Last edited:
Think if Bush did this with Cheney?
Think of the howling it would have generated.
Michael Moore would have used it in his docu-comedy, probably looping it.

Bush... ape.
Obama... Genius.
?


Obama is very quick. He reads his executive orders very clearly, but seems unsure about what's in them up until that very moment. Gregg Craig is going to be the man behind the curtain. The president's press secretary, Gibbs, when asked questions at the 'presser' just after the signing of the executive orders, wasn't sure of the right answers and had to answer more than once "I'll have to ask Gregg [Craig] and get back to you on that.....(no mention of referring the questions to the President. but that would seem inappropriate and would seem to indicate poor communications so...)
 
Last edited:
Gitmo is not the problem. Democrats throwing bogus pity parties for Islamic terrorists captured in Afghanistan and misrepresenting them as having criminal rights under our Constitution is the problem.

What needs to change is whether Democrats are allowed anywhere near positions of power.
 
Well, I think the problem is partly of Bush's making. James Robbins at NRO today catpures nicely what I have been arguing and have thought:

In retrospect, the original sin of the detainee policy was the notion of "unlawful combatant" status, an ill-defined concept utilized to skirt various aspects of the Geneva Conventions regarding POWs. This was a fatal contradiction, since the Bush administration was put in the ungainly position of explaining why the prisoners of our war on terrorism were not "Prisoners of War." They came up with the designation "detainees," an unsatisfactory label that sounds more like the drunk drivers that police collect at a sobriety checkpoint rather than hard core killers taken on the battlefield. Personally, I think it would have been much more sensible to define the terrorists as mercenaries per Article 47 of Geneva Additional Protocol 1 which states, inter alia, "a mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war." That way the US could have worked within the Geneva framework yet achieved the same ends, making it that much harder for critics to charge they were acting illegally.

He also points out an ironic response to Obama promising to close Gitmo:
It is ironic that Obama's suspension of military commissions was hailed as a victory for due process, since the advent of the commissions was cheered for exactly the same reason.

LOL!! Such is politics, eh?

I think another part of the problem is that the Democrats have failed to present some alternative. It's fine by me that Obama is, errr, not shutting down Gitmo per se, but ending the detention of of WoT individuasls there. But what does he intend to do with them? How do Democrats, who demand civilian trials for these individuals, deal with the problems associated with such trials, protecting intelligence, recalling soldiers from the battlefield, insisting that soldiers behave more like cops on the beat while on the battlefield?? They refuse to answer these questions.
 
Well, at least Bush didn't put Arabs into camps like the Japanese in WWII.
 
Gitmo is not the problem. Democrats throwing bogus pity parties for Islamic terrorists captured in Afghanistan and misrepresenting them as having criminal rights under our Constitution is the problem.

What needs to change is whether Democrats are allowed anywhere near positions of power.
LOL. :(
After Carter came Reagan.
Assuming our New Defense Position.
defenseposture.jpg
 
Last edited:
Well, I think the problem is partly of Bush's making.

Sure, if Bush would've found a more effective legal maneuver around Democrats rooting for terrorists at every turn, it would've survived longer, but that hardly makes Democrats rooting for terrorists at every turn Bush's fault.
 
Obama closing Guantanamo as he reshapes US policy - Yahoo! News


So does this mean we DON'T have to take prisoners anymore?
 
Sure, if Bush would've found a more effective legal maneuver around Democrats rooting for terrorists at every turn, it would've survived longer, but that hardly makes Democrats rooting for terrorists at every turn Bush's fault.

Democrats are not rooting for terrorists. That is just stupid. Honestly. If that was the case, Obama would not be focusing more on Afghanistan where the TERRORISTS are.

Democrats simply root for human rights and Guantanamo Bay was a clerar violation of that, and if the UN had any balls they would have done something about it instead of waiting for a smart person to finally close it.
 
Democrats are not rooting for terrorists. That is just stupid. Honestly. If that was the case, Obama would not be focusing more on Afghanistan where the TERRORISTS are.

Democrats simply root for human rights and Guantanamo Bay was a clerar violation of that, and if the UN had any balls they would have done something about it instead of waiting for a smart person to finally close it.

How was Guantanamo a "clear human rigts violation"?

Water boarding?.........:roll:


Beats the **** out of having your head cut off for hadji tv.
 
Democrats are not rooting for terrorists. That is just stupid. Honestly. If that was the case, Obama would not be focusing more on Afghanistan where the TERRORISTS are.

Now that the central front in the War on Terror (Iraq-according to every participant from Osama bin Laden and General Petraeus) has been won, despite Democrats telling it was lost, trying to cut off funding at every turn, constantly misrepresenting it as a "quagmire," a hopeless "civil war," and comparing it to Vietnam, and repeatedly stabbing our troops in the back, yes, Obama is pretending to care about hunting Islamic terrorists (just as Clinton did) in Afghanistan, where the defeated remnants of al Qaida in Iraq have fled.

These are the same people who

-trashed the war in Afghanistan until it could be used to undermine the next war they voted for in Iraq,

-opposed the Patriot Act,

-opposed Gitmo,

-appeased North Korea as it went nuclear,

-retreated from Islamic terrorists in Somalia,

-betrayed our allies to install Iran's lunatic terrorist regime,

-allowed al Qaida to attack us with impunity for nearly eight years straight,

-repeatedly refused to capture or kill bin Laden,

-oppose profiling (even though virtually 100% of those who have attacked our planes all fit one distinct profile),

-allowed the 9/11 hijackers, identified as terrorist threats, on board our planes,

-tied the hands of the CIA, FBI, and police to discuss terrorist threats, etc.

It goes on and on. If they weren't rooting for terrorists; if it were mere stupidity leading them to repeatedly side with terrorists, common sense dictates that something they do would occasionally benefit the U.S. and not terrorists. "Stupid" is more like looking at mountains of evidence all pointing to the same thing and, like an O.J. juror, somehow managing to conclude the exact opposite, as you have-that it's all a coincidence. Me describing liberals as rooting for terrorists is just the natural consequence of me paying attention. Sorry you haven't been keeping up.

It is a matter of record that terrorist attacks thwarted over the last eight years would not have been prevented had Democrats gotten their way on things like the Patriot Act. But instead of conceding the point, liberals go on doing things like needlessly exposing the inner-workings of highly classified anti-terror programs on the front pages of major papers.

Who did Democrats rush in to protect when it became public that our troops were being targeted by Iranian forces inside Iraq? Not our troops. They rushed in to protect Iran. There's a reason that every rabid America-hating jihadist from Hamas leaders to Bin Laden himself keeps publicly endorsing Democrats for president.

Democrats simply root for human rights and Guantanamo Bay was a clerar violation of that,

Wrong again. Terrorists captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan being detained at Gitmo in no way violated anyone's human rights. That's a fact. Taking prisoners is a standard, legal, and widely accepted feature of war. Democrats feverishly trying to release terrorists from Gitmo has nothing to do with human rights. They do it for the same reason that their policies always advance the interests of terrorists-they root against America and for its enemies, every time, all the time.

Next BS smokescreen please. :2wave:

and if the UN had any balls they would have done something about it instead of waiting for a smart person to finally close it.

Only a liberal could manage to deduce that the release of our enemies-dozens of which have already been recaptured killing our troops on the battlefield-is anything other than the antithesis of smart.
 
Last edited:
Sure, if Bush would've found a more effective legal maneuver around Democrats rooting for terrorists at every turn, it would've survived longer, but that hardly makes Democrats rooting for terrorists at every turn Bush's fault.

:2rofll::2funny:

How can anyone post such utter nonsense! Now if you had pointed to a specific group of Democrats and how they actually and specifically rooted for terrorism maybe someone would believe you...but who can possibly believe that any American politician or legitimate group support terrorism? :rofl
 
:2rofll::2funny:

How can anyone post such utter nonsense! Now if you had pointed to a specific group of Democrats and how they actually and specifically rooted for terrorism maybe someone would believe you...but who can possibly believe that any American politician or legitimate group support terrorism? :rofl

"Rooted" or "supported" are not the best of words to use but several others are like "Turn a blind eye" or "pretend it didn't happen".
Supporting terrorist and sticking your head in the sand gives you the same effect. It gets people killed.
 
The conservative ideology is the terrorists wet dream. The conservative ideology has created more terrorists than the terrorists could ever hope for.

They love presidents like Bush and their supporters. They get more terrorists created with conservative ideology than liberal that is for sure.

Conservative ideology supports and creates terrorists.

There have been more terrorists recruited under Bush than any other President.

If you want to support terrorism, support Bush's old policies.
 
How can anyone post such utter nonsense! Now if you had pointed to a specific group of Democrats and how they actually and specifically rooted for terrorism maybe someone would believe you...but who can possibly believe that any American politician or legitimate group support terrorism? :rofl

The roughly 100% pro-terror voting record does not belong to some faction. It belongs to the Democratic Party. They've opposed every single thing this country has done to protect itself since 9/11. See post 14. Virtually 100% of their policies advance the interests of our enemies and compromise national defense. 100% is beyond coincidence.

They admit openly that they think America is too powerful and arrogant. It's not some giant leap to connect that with their constant resistance to national defense. Sorry you can't grasp it. :shrug:
 
Now that the central front in the War on Terror (Iraq-according to every participant from Osama bin Laden and General Petraeus) has been won, despite Democrats telling it was lost, trying to cut off funding at every turn, constantly misrepresenting it as a "quagmire," a hopeless "civil war," and comparing it to Vietnam, and repeatedly stabbing our troops in the back, yes, Obama is pretending to care about hunting Islamic terrorists (just as Clinton did) in Afghanistan, where the defeated remnants of al Qaida in Iraq have fled.

The Iraq war is lost. Thee is nothing we cna do now. Period. IF the Iraqia want to keep killing each other then there is nothing we can do to increase stability.

These are the same people who

-trashed the war in Afghanistan until it could be used to undermine the next war they voted for in Iraq,

The congress was lied to by Bush and his cronies to get the war i Iraq. In the beginning, before we invaded Iraq, Afghanitan was na unpopular war because nothing was being achieved except for civilian casualties.



-opposed the Patriot Act,
Damn straight we oppose the patriot act!
Its a clear violation of our civil rights outlined int he consititution. Its pretty much saying, "If you say the word Al-Qaeda, and the government hears you they can tap your phones and emails legally."

-opposed Gitmo,
American prisoners were repeatedly treated unhumainly. Waterboarding, torture. Humiliation, can be considered torture by some.

The world was taking a notice, hence the call for persecution on Bush and his cabinet for crimes agaisnt Humanity and war crimes.


-appeased North Korea as it went nuclear,

Noth Korea is the least of our problems, they know that if they even think of launching a nuclear missle at the US, South Korea, or another US ally, that they wold be annihalated before the missle even reached US soil.


-retreated from Islamic terrorists in Somalia,

Again, least of our worries. Many African conflicts do not leave the continent of Africa and most nations there are too poor too cause much national security problems for the US.



-betrayed our allies to install Iran's lunatic terrorist regime,
He was elected by the Iranian people. We elected Bush didn't we,if we knew he was gunna screw up this much we wouldn't have elected him. Same goes for Iran. And it was Reagan, a republican, who secretly gave them weapons to fight the Iraqis.



-allowed al Qaida to attack us with impunity for nearly eight years straight,
Thats WAR.


-repeatedly refused to capture or kill bin Laden,
Really. If that were the case then Obama would be withdrawing from Afghanistan as well as IRaq, not focusing more on the country where OSama is supposedly hiding out.
We would ave caught him years ago if Bush wasn't an idiot and invaded Iraq by LIEING.

-oppose profiling (even though virtually 100% of those who have attacked our planes all fit one distinct profile),
Ok, your muslim your not allowed to board a US plane. That looks real good for our Human Rights record. :roll:

-allowed the 9/11 hijackers, identified as terrorist threats, on board our planes,
That was a republican adminstation, and a CIA leader chosen by Bush, so thats on the republicans. Not the democrats.

-tied the hands of the CIA, FBI, and police to discuss terrorist threats, etc.
That sorta follows profiling so see above.


It goes on and on. If they weren't rooting for terrorists; if it were mere stupidity leading them to repeatedly side with terrorists, common sense dictates that something they do would occasionally benefit the U.S. and not terrorists. "Stupid" is more like looking at mountains of evidence all pointing to the same thing and, like an O.J. juror, somehow managing to conclude the exact opposite, as you have-that it's all a coincidence. Me describing liberals as rooting for terrorists is just the natural consequence of me paying attention. Sorry you haven't been keeping up.
You conservatives are still sour about the election and are just looking for some way to make the Democrats look bad in some way. Mostly by making up useless and putrageous rhetoric. For example, Democrats rooting for terrorists. Real plausible. Let me tell you.

It is a matter of record that terrorist attacks thwarted over the last eight years would not have been prevented had Democrats gotten their way on things like the Patriot Act.
What thwarted terror attacks?! That was the British, I know UK and US can be confusing sometimes.


But instead of conceding the point, liberals go on doing things like needlessly exposing the inner-workings of highly classified anti-terror programs on the front pages of major papers.
PRsidential Archives anwyay, it would be found out anyway, at least democrats are honest with their country, rather than make up things like, oh I don't know, Weapons of Mass Destruction, to invade a country.

Who did Democrats rush in to protect when it became public that our troops were being targeted by Iranian forces inside Iraq? Not our troops. They rushed in to protect Iran. There's a reason that every rabid America-hating jihadist from Hamas leaders to Bin Laden himself keeps publicly endorsing Democrats for president.
Did you ever think that maybe Osama is attempting to create another fornt for his AL-Qaeda to fight on? Maybe we can't believe every little thing somene says. And if you can get me proof that someone from Iran, sponsored by the government, was attacking US soldiers, then bring it here and show me.


Wrong again. Terrorists captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan being detained at Gitmo in no way violated anyone's human rights. That's a fact. Taking prisoners is a standard, legal, and widely accepted feature of war. Democrats feverishly trying to release terrorists from Gitmo has nothing to do with human rights. They do it for the same reason that their policies always advance the interests of terrorists-they root against America and for its enemies, every time, all the time.

I really am beggining to think you are academically challengd. For osmeoe to say that any American politician is rooting for terrorists and American enemy is just stupid. IT really is just plum stupid. Waterboarding, is viewed as torture by pretty much anyone other then the right-winged idiots.
When you make them get naked and humiliate them, that can be seen as a form of torture.

IF you dont think Waterboarding is torture, then go do it yourself and ocme bakc and tell me what you thought about it.



How was Guantanamo a "clear human rigts violation"?

Water boarding?.........:roll:


Beats the **** out of having your head cut off for hadji tv.

Well, we actually signed the Geneva convention, Al-Qaeda. The didn't, so Huamn rights don't apply to them. They don't think Women shoudl show their facesin public, so you can't even compare the two of them.
 
The conservative ideology is the terrorists wet dream.

Which is why they openly root for Democrats.

Way to think it through. :lol:

The conservative ideology has created more terrorists than the terrorists could ever hope for.

Fighting back does make us unpopular among those attacking us, sure. But Democrats spent eight years proving that cowering and groveling also creates terrorists, and emboldens them. Bush's way demoralizes and defeats them.

But you go ahead and stick with the failed policies of the past. It works to our advantage when liberals admit what they stand for. ;)

They love presidents like Bush and their supporters. They get more terrorists created with conservative ideology than liberal that is for sure.

That's funny, according to bin Laden, it was the Democrat retreat from Somalia that swelled his ranks and put al Qaida on the map.

Conservative ideology supports and creates terrorists.

Pot, meet kettle.

There have been more terrorists recruited under Bush than any other President.

Unless you count Clinton and Carter. :lol:

If you want to support terrorism, support Bush's old policies.

Actually, after eight years of emboldening and creating terrorists through retreat and surrender under Democrats, Bush's policy of actually lifting a finger to fight back has been kind of refreshing and new.
 
Last edited:
Well, we actually signed the Geneva convention, Al-Qaeda. The didn't, so Huamn rights don't apply to them.

Can you prove the US violated the GC? Is water boarding spelled out in the GC?
Where the POW's given food, shelter and clothing? Did the US provide copies of the Koran to Islamic POW's? Did the POW's receive medical treatment?


They don't think Women shoudl show their facesin public, so you can't even compare the two of them.
What in the world are you talking about?
 
The conservative ideology is the terrorists wet dream. The conservative ideology has created more terrorists than the terrorists could ever hope for.

They love presidents like Bush and their supporters. They get more terrorists created with conservative ideology than liberal that is for sure.

Conservative ideology supports and creates terrorists.

There have been more terrorists recruited under Bush than any other President.

If you want to support terrorism, support Bush's old policies.


If that was true the the Cater and Clinton years would have been peaceful.
We all know it wasn't.

With Islamic groups like that you don't need to do jack chit for them to hate you. To remain in power they will always need a Satan to rally against.
 
Can you prove the US violated the GC? Is water boarding spelled out in the GC?
Where the POW's given food, shelter and clothing? Did the US provide copies of the Koran to Islamic POW's? Did the POW's receive medical treatment?
Way to spin my words. Im saying they don't have to treat their prisoners humainly, but US prisoners have to be treated humainly. And, I don't thinkt he Geneva convention specifies any type of torture.


What in the world are you talking about?

The Taliban do not allow women in Afghanistan to show their face in public. They have to always wear a Burka. So we can't even compare them to the US.
 
The Iraq war is lost. Thee is nothing we cna do now. Period. IF the Iraqia want to keep killing each other then there is nothing we can do to increase stability.

I rest my case. Even victory cannot deter liberals from calling for surrender. I'm sorry, Ms. Fonda, but only Democrats can reverse course and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at this point.

The congress was lied to by Bush and his cronies to get the war i Iraq.

:liar

A flat out lie. Multiple bi-partisan investigations have debunked this falsehood. Try again.

In the beginning, before we invaded Iraq, Afghanitan was na unpopular war because nothing was being achieved except for civilian casualties.

Bin Laden couldn't have put it better. We're not killing terrorists, just pointlessly bombing civilians. Thank you for demonstrating my point about liberals being cheer-leaders for Islamic terrorists.

:applaud

Damn straight we oppose the patriot act!

Of course you did. It in no way violated the Constitution and saved countless American lives. It would only make sense for those rooting for the enemy to oppose any such legislation.

Its a clear violation of our civil rights outlined int he consititution. Its pretty much saying, "If you say the word Al-Qaeda, and the government hears you they can tap your phones and emails legally."

Actually, it's like saying, "The non-existent right of foreign terrorists to plot attacks against us over public airwaves in privacy is less important than the actual rights of Americans not to be mass murdered.

American prisoners were repeatedly treated unhumainly.

News stories perpetuating that smear were repeatedly exposed as frauds.

Waterboarding, torture. Humiliation, can be considered torture by some.

By those rooting for terrorists, sure. But to those of us who read and have thoughts, it is clear that none of these things meet the definition.

The world was taking a notice, hence the call for persecution on Bush and his cabinet for crimes agaisnt Humanity and war crimes.

:lol:

What a nauseating little follower. War crimes? For locking up terrorists caught trying to kill our troops? For interrogating our enemies like every other country on the planet? You're making Cindy Sheehan look smart. Please stop lowering the IQ of this thread with such asinine drivel.

We get it. You root for America's enemies. You are a Democrat. If I want to read more of your outrageously dishonest talking points I'll listen to a bin Laden tape.

:roll:
 
Last edited:
Way to spin my words. Im saying they don't have to treat their prisoners humainly, but US prisoners have to be treated humainly. And, I don't thinkt he Geneva convention specifies any type of torture.

Did the POW's in GB receive the treatment spelled out by the GC?
Yes or No?
 
Back
Top Bottom