• 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!

Petraeus Endorses Obama's Plans To Close GITMO, End Torture

What a laughable argument you attempt; but the TRUTH is that there really is no Obama "plan" as of this date to close Gitmo therefore, contrary to the false premise of the thread, Petreaus was not "endorsing" said non-existent plan because it does not currently exist.

Am I correct or not?

Well, having worked with GEN Petreaus, let me be VERY clear. He will not come out in support, even in a general way, on something that was haphazard and ill concieved.

So, either GEN PEtreaus is a complete idiot, or there is some kind of deliberate planning and decisin making process going on.

Again, how do you provide specific details about such things as facilities when the cases are still being adjudicated and we do not know how many will be rendered to trail, released, returned to their home countries, etc.?

Each of these prisoners will require his own plan, and only those who are retained in custody for trail will have general, centralized planning that you are demanding.

That these delineations are being made, mentioned in the press and in Obama's speech, is very much indicative of a deliberate planning process.

If you still don't think so? Well, I would say you are after something else at this point.
 
Well that right there highlights a fundamental difference in how the left and the right think about the treatment of our military heroes...

Woah there. I, and many of us on the left, found the add disgraceful. It is also the same kind of thing that Rush, Newt and Coulter say about those of us on the left, so spare me your outrage until you start to challenge what those say. Outrage only when it is convenient is incredibly phony.
 
I find the bolded part amusing; as if Obama will suffer political ramifications for not implementing the radical Left wings agenda. What are they going to do, fire him? Elect a Republican? :rofl

Obama's actions will define his Presidency and be the ultimate deciding factor if the American people choose to re-elect him for a second term. I don't see how this is hard to understand.
 
I womder:
How many of the liberals that slandered General Betray-us feel pretty stupid right now...?
 
What a laughable argument you attempt; but the TRUTH is that there really is no Obama "plan" as of this date to close Gitmo therefore, contrary to the false premise of the thread, Petreaus was not "endorsing" said non-existent plan because it does not currently exist.

Am I correct or not?

What Petraeus is endorsing is the idea that GITMO should be closed. Obama has the "plan" to close GITMO and even requested funds. What I have failed to see, which I see as a negative on Obama's part, is a detailed plan on HOW to close GITMO and what funds will specifically be needed. It's great to say "Gitmo should be closed and I need money to do it", but what is needed is exactly HOW gitmo should be closed and WHERE exactly funds will be needed and spent.

This is exactly why the Democrats in the senate denied is funding. Obama failed to provide a detailed plan of HOW and only continuously states WHY.
 
Last edited:
I womder:
How many of the liberals that slandered General Betray-us feel pretty stupid right now...?

I'm not sure you'll get an answer here. How many members on this board are members of MoveOn?
 
I womder:
How many of the liberals that slandered General Betray-us feel pretty stupid right now...?

The same number as that of those who thought Colin Powell was a war criminal.
 
Woah there. I, and many of us on the left, found the add disgraceful. It is also the same kind of thing that Rush, Newt and Coulter say about those of us on the left, so spare me your outrage until you start to challenge what those say. Outrage only when it is convenient is incredibly phony.

I'm not given to watching Rush or Coulter so I can't tell you what they say. I have great respect for Newt, however, and am not inclined to disagree with his well reasoned assessments as I tend to agree with him.
 
Well, having worked with GEN Petreaus, let me be VERY clear. He will not come out in support, even in a general way, on something that was haphazard and ill concieved.

So, either GEN PEtreaus is a complete idiot, or there is some kind of deliberate planning and decisin making process going on.

Again, how do you provide specific details about such things as facilities when the cases are still being adjudicated and we do not know how many will be rendered to trail, released, returned to their home countries, etc.?

Each of these prisoners will require his own plan, and only those who are retained in custody for trail will have general, centralized planning that you are demanding.

That these delineations are being made, mentioned in the press and in Obama's speech, is very much indicative of a deliberate planning process.

If you still don't think so? Well, I would say you are after something else at this point.

So you still do not see the difference in a "process" and a "plan?"

Again, the false premise of the thread was that Petreaus endorsed Obama's "plan" to close Gitmo. Yet nothing in the article provided suggested anything of the sort and as WE both agree there is NO plan, he could not possibly have endorsed it.

:2wave:
 
What Petraeus is endorsing is the idea that GITMO should be closed. Obama has the "plan" to close GITMO and even requested funds. What I have fialed to see, which I see as a negative on Obama's part, is a detailed plan on HOW to close GITMO and what funds will specifically be needed. It's great to say "Gitmo should be closed and I need money to do it", but what is needed is exactly HOW gitmo should be closed and WHERE exactly funds will be needed and spent.

This is exactly why the Democrats in the senate denied is funding. Obama failed to provide a detailed plan of HOW and only continuously states WHY.

You need funds to close something? Hmmm..

You might need funds to build a new facility? If we move them to a supermax .... umm, not a whole lot of additional construction costs there.

That also doesn't perclude the possibility of asking for the funds again when they can get into the eachs:

X are returning to Yemen
Y to Saudi Arabia
Z to a neutral country
A requires compensation because he was incacerated under false pretenses
B will be moved to supermax, and here are the charges they will face.

That is a process, at the end of which you get a detailed plan. However, as the plan firms up, in Washington, with political hacks more interested in embarassing their counter-parts across the aisle than in doing sound business for America, there are likely not going to be many leaks about how fare along said plan is until key leaders in Congress, and in effected states, are brought on board.

After all, if the govenor of say, Colorado goes ballistic at the idea of these prisoners being moved to his state, seeking alternate locations is a good idea.

Also, there are likely to be what we call courses of action in the planning process. There are many potential solutions, but as the pieces are vetted with those key leaders the process widdles itself down into the 'plan' which is at that point a decision.

You really think that the military planner at gitmo will ignore the Presidents orders to close gitmo? That they are not conducting any planning with the larger joint staff to fulfill the Commander in Chiefs directive?

If what you think is true, we have constitutional crisis on our hands.
 
You need funds to close something? Hmmm..

You might need funds to build a new facility? If we move them to a supermax .... umm, not a whole lot of additional construction costs there.

That also doesn't perclude the possibility of asking for the funds again when they can get into the eachs:

X are returning to Yemen
Y to Saudi Arabia
Z to a neutral country
A requires compensation because he was incacerated under false pretenses
B will be moved to supermax, and here are the charges they will face.

That is a process, at the end of which you get a detailed plan. However, as the plan firms up, in Washington, with political hacks more interested in embarassing their counter-parts across the aisle than in doing sound business for America, there are likely not going to be many leaks about how fare along said plan is until key leaders in Congress, and in effected states, are brought on board.

After all, if the govenor of say, Colorado goes ballistic at the idea of these prisoners being moved to his state, seeking alternate locations is a good idea.

Also, there are likely to be what we call courses of action in the planning process. There are many potential solutions, but as the pieces are vetted with those key leaders the process widdles itself down into the 'plan' which is at that point a decision.

You really think that the military planner at gitmo will ignore the Presidents orders to close gitmo? That they are not conducting any planning with the larger joint staff to fulfill the Commander in Chiefs directive?

If what you think is true, we have constitutional crisis on our hands.

Obama hasn't made any declaration to close Gitmo. He has only said it should be closed and requested funds to assist the closing. Which were denied by the Senate.

Yes you need funds to close something. It takes manpower and transportation costs to move the prisoners, equipment, and any other materials at the facility, and setup a permanent home for all these things else where.
 
Last edited:
How did a thread on Gitmo and Petraeus become a thread on MoveOn? Ah yes, our right wing friends need to change the subject to something they are more comfortable with.

Yes they have a serious need to change the subject off of the OP and shift the topic to Moveon.org.

I suggest they start a thread about that after they comment on the Four star Generals stance on agreeing with President Obama concering the closing of Gitmo and the reasons for it.

Perteaus was the "surge hero" just four months ago and deserves respect.

Does the right still support the troops and thier views?
 
Last edited:
You need funds to close something? Hmmm..

Yes you do. Demobilization of troops costs money. Relocation of prisoners costs money. Relocation of equipment costs money. Removal and disposal of equipment or supplies costs money.

Money that is line item approved for operational purchases is fairly specific in what it can be used for. There is some latitude in shifting a line item to another, but not in creating entire redeployment plans.
 
So you still do not see the difference in a "process" and a "plan?"

Again, the false premise of the thread was that Petreaus endorsed Obama's "plan" to close Gitmo. Yet nothing in the article provided suggested anything of the sort and as WE both agree there is NO plan, he could not possibly have endorsed it.

:2wave:

I think you are splitting hairs.

Plans at the level are not one page documents that are submitted on web sites for casual purusal.

What I can say is that there is definitely a plan in the works where most of the details are in place or GEN Petreaus would not have come out in support of the 'process' involving the closing of gitmo.

In fact, just like his brief to Congress, he came out in support of the 'process' for Iraq. If you think there is one document that GEN Petreaus and his staff wrote that moved the situation in Iraq along .... well, you are wrong.

Even a base order, is subject to review and revision as it is implimented. Plans change as the enemy votes by his response, as new opportunities open up or close, etc.

Is the 'plan' finalized? Probably not. Is there plan moving along to meet the Presidents intent and not create a constitutional crisis? Is GEN Petreaus, the military commander of the region where most of the prisoners are returning to involved in that process and is that involvement likely benficial?

Do you want a briefing from GEN Petreaus? I am sure you can head on down to CENTCOM HQ in Florida and ask. Good luck.
 
Yes you do. Demobilization of troops costs money. Relocation of prisoners costs money. Relocation of equipment costs money. Removal and disposal of equipment or supplies costs money.

Money that is line item approved for operational purchases is fairly specific in what it can be used for. There is some latitude in shifting a line item to another, but not in creating entire redeployment plans.

True. Logistics cost money, coming or going.
 
The plan was and is....... to close GITMO & end torture. The details of how, the actual nitty gritty details which have you all so rabid, hasn't been developed. I am pretty certain, given the detail of the other issues "planned" and executed by Obama, there will be a plan and soon.

Although there may not be a concrete plan, there is a plan of action that was outlined in the EO. Here you go, chew on this a while. Although I doubt you wanted any real debate, but rather just to divert attention from the fact that GITMO will be closed in spite of the vitriolic, PLANLESS, idea dessert of the lanscape trod by what passes for the right today. Man, you guys have as much gas as Limbaugh.

Anyway, here's the bare bones of the plan outlined in the EO and signed a few months ago:

Sec. 2. Findings.

(a) Over the past 7 years, approximately 800 individuals whom the Department of Defense has ever determined to be, or treated as, enemy combatants have been detained at Guantánamo. The Federal Government has moved more than 500 such detainees from Guantánamo, either by returning them to their home country or by releasing or transferring them to a third country. The Department of Defense has determined that a number of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo are eligible for such transfer or release.

(b) Some individuals currently detained at Guantánamo have been there for more than 6 years, and most have been detained for at least 4 years. In view of the significant concerns raised by these detentions, both within the United States and internationally, prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo and closure of the facilities in which they are detained would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice. Merely closing the facilities without promptly determining the appropriate disposition of the individuals detained would not adequately serve those interests. To the extent practicable, the prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals detained at Guantánamo should precede the closure of the detention facilities at Guantánamo.

(c) The individuals currently detained at Guantánamo have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Most of those individuals have filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal court challenging the lawfulness of their detention.

(d) It is in the interests of the United States that the executive branch undertake a prompt and thorough review of the factual and legal bases for the continued detention of all individuals currently held at Guantánamo, and of whether their continued detention is in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and in the interests of justice. The unusual circumstances associated with detentions at Guantánamo require a comprehensive interagency review.

(e) New diplomatic efforts may result in an appropriate disposition of a substantial number of individuals currently detained at Guantánamo.

(f) Some individuals currently detained at Guantánamo may have committed offenses for which they should be prosecuted. It is in the interests of the United States to review whether and how any such individuals can and should be prosecuted.

(g) It is in the interests of the United States that the executive branch conduct a prompt and thorough review of the circumstances of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo who have been charged with offenses before military commissions pursuant to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Public Law 109-366, as well as of the military commission process more generally.

Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.

Sec. 4. Immediate Review of All Guantánamo Detentions.

(a) Scope and Timing of Review. A review of the status of each individual currently detained at Guantánamo (Review) shall commence immediately.
(b) Review Participants. The Review shall be conducted with the full cooperation and participation of the following officials:

(1) the Attorney General, who shall coordinate the Review;

(2) the Secretary of Defense;

(3) the Secretary of State;

(4) the Secretary of Homeland Security;

(5) the Director of National Intelligence;

(6) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and

(7) other officers or full-time or permanent part-time employees of the United States, including employees with intelligence, counterterrorism, military, and legal expertise, as determined by the Attorney General, with the concurrence of the head of the department or agency concerned.

(c) Operation of Review. The duties of the Review participants shall include the following:

(1) Consolidation of Detainee Information. The Attorney General shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, and in coordination with the other Review participants, assemble all information in the possession of the Federal Government that pertains to any individual currently detained at Guantánamo
and that is relevant to determining the proper disposition of any such individual. All executive branch departments and agencies shall promptly comply with any request of the Attorney General to provide information in their possession or control pertaining to any such individual. The Attorney General may seek further information relevant to the Review from any source.

(2) Determination of Transfer. The Review shall determine, on a rolling basis and as promptly as possible with respect to the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo, whether it is possible to transfer or release the individuals consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and, if so, whether and how the Secretary of Defense may effect their transfer or release. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and, as appropriate, other Review participants shall work to effect promptly the release or transfer of all individuals for whom release or transfer is possible.

(3) Determination of Prosecution. In accordance with United States law, the cases of individuals detained at Guantánamo not approved for release or transfer shall be evaluated to determine whether the Federal Government should seek to prosecute the detained individuals for any offenses they may have committed, including whether it is feasible to prosecute such individuals before a court established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution, and the Review participants shall in turn take the necessary and appropriate steps based on such determinations.

(4) Determination of Other Disposition. With respect to any individuals currently detained at Guantánamo whose disposition is not achieved under paragraphs (2) or (3) of this subsection, the Review shall select lawful means, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, for the disposition of such individuals. The appropriate authorities shall promptly implement such dispositions.

(5) Consideration of Issues Relating to Transfer to the United States. The Review shall identify and consider legal, logistical, and security issues relating to the potential transfer of individuals currently detained at Guantánamo to facilities within the United States, and the Review participants shall work with the Congress on any legislation that may be appropriate.

Sec. 5. Diplomatic Efforts. The Secretary of State shall expeditiously pursue and direct such negotiations and diplomatic efforts with foreign governments as are necessary and appropriate to implement this order.

Sec. 6. Humane Standards of Confinement. No individual currently detained at Guantánamo shall be held in the custody or under the effective control of any officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or at a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, except in conformity with all applicable laws governing the conditions of such confinement, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The Secretary of Defense shall immediately undertake a review of the conditions of detention at Guantánamo to ensure full compliance with this directive. Such review shall be completed within 30 days and any necessary corrections shall be implemented immediately thereafter.

Sec. 7. Military Commissions. The Secretary of Defense shall immediately take steps sufficient to ensure that during the pendency of the Review described in section 4 of this order, no charges are sworn, or referred to a military commission under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Rules for Military Commissions, and that all proceedings of such military commissions to which charges have been referred but in which no judgment has been rendered, and all proceedings pending in the United States Court of Military Commission Review, are halted.
Sec. 8. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this order shall prejudice the authority of the Secretary of Defense to determine the disposition of any detainees not covered by this order.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.


BARACK OBAMA


THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 22, 2009.

I helpfully highlighted and bolded the part I know you're going to want to "debate" in such lucid style and grace that we'll all be eager to discuss it with you.
 
Sure.


uhm



NO PLAN.....



Hannibal%20I%20Love%20It%20When%20a%20Plan%20Comes%20Together%20A-Team_small.gif



That wasn't hard. And I did all the work. :lol:

So does that mean the you agree with the General decision to endorse OBama and do you support the recommendation coming from this troop?
 
Obama hasn't made any declaration to close Gitmo. He has only said it should be closed and requested funds to assist the closing. Which were denied by the Senate.

Yes you need funds to close something. It takes manpower and transportation costs to move the prisoners, equipment, and any other materials at the facility, and setup a permanent home for all these things else where.

ah, yeah, he did. It was one of the first thing he did. Military and civilian planners will still draw up plans, including costs, even if Congress doesn't initially approve funds.

I have seen more than a few supplemental battles .... having funding and making a plan that WILL require funds are two different things.

I suppose Obama could have use the early vote as an opportunity to throw a snit fit, bit I for one appreciate having a Pres. who was mature enough to move beyond that and continue with his intentions convinced that in the end, the right thing would be done.

Hmmm....little wonder GEN Petreaus and Obama get along so well.
 
True. Logistics cost money, coming or going.

Well, simply walking away from a building cost nothing. Leaving a facility in place for other use? That may cost money. The rest of the logistical costs are already being paid for and those costs are substantially trasferred, not increased, when the prisoners arrive at their destiniation.

Moving prisoners costs money, but the sums are likely small enough that they can be shifted within the petagon's own budget unless Congress explicitly denied the pentagon permission to do this.

When your budget is $600 billion, you have some slush to move around.

And, you can still go back and ask again when the time comes to begin moving the prisoners. Too easy. This is hardly the hurdel this is neing made into.
 
So does that mean the you agree with the General decision to endorse OBama and do you support the recommendation coming from this troop?




I disagree with this troop, and think it is premature to close Gitmo.


though I won't call him a traitor like some kooks did who now are sucking up to him....
 
So you still do not see the difference in a "process" and a "plan?"

Again, the false premise of the thread was that Petreaus endorsed Obama's "plan" to close Gitmo. Yet nothing in the article provided suggested anything of the sort and as WE both agree there is NO plan, he could not possibly have endorsed it.

:2wave:

You're being very dishonest yet again. General Petraeus is clearly endorsing Obama's decision to move forward with planning for the close of GITMO. He's obviously been brought into the loop on what's been accomplished thus far and he approves. You can attempt to spin this all you want, but it's not fooling anyone. You aren't making an actual argument, you're playing semantics (it's not yet a plan, it's it's a process not a plan) in order to avoid the real story here. And that is that General Petraeus is in agreement with President Obama about closing the camp. And that is a very good thing. That is an endorsement of the Presidents direction on the matter.

For the record, what Moveon.org did to General Petraeus was shameful. It was more than shameful, it was disgusting. But they don't represent all Democrats. They do absurd things in the name of the Democratic party and liberals but they in no way have every Democrats support. They like to pretend they do however.

I'm pleasantly surprised by his comments to say the least. Now, I want to see the administration actually close GITMO.
 
Back
Top Bottom