from Bushisms to Obamisms.

Damocles said:
Somebody please translate.
Click to expand...


I believe s/he is saying that the plan as s/he understands it is for Congress to create a system to allow for preventive detentions of individuals apprehended in the field of battle for an indefinite term as opposed to having the President brand such persons "enemy combatant" and shipping them off to GITMO without any oversight by the Congress.

At least that's how I read it.

The trouble with this is that Congress has already tried it with the military commissions act and the Supreme Court struck it down. The response is that the previous military commissions act stripped away habeus corpus rights and that's what the Court had a problem with (well, at least five members of the Court) and that a system that provides due process protections and a meaningful ability to challenge the detention (i.e. real habeas proceedings) would pass constitutional muster.
 
Taichiliberal said:
:rolleyes:The Shrub & company had control of all three branches of gov't...Congressional oversight wasn't their priority, as history has shown. And the 500 were kicked with no rhyme or reason.....with proper oversight and examination, they could have been spared years of interrogation and had their home lives spared. Yeah, we gain a lot of friends there.

Shrub & company HAD to have some support of Democrats in Congress to pass ANYTHING....and did....

Your boys fucked up royally, and you're either too dumb or stubborn to acknowledge it, so you talk a lot of BS. Obama is dealing with the mess left behind...if he screws up, he'll be held accountable by people like me.
Click to expand...

They were picked up on the battlefield, in active combat against the troops of the United States.....planting roadside bombs, driving cars with explosives, etc, etc, etc....
Our soldiers didn't just go into a town and pick them up for littering or spitting on the sidewalk.....
Have a little more respect for our troops and they jobs they are doing stopping terrorists....in spite of liberals...

And Obama now 'owns' the government, lock, stock and barrel...as no President before him.....he can quit Iraq and/or Afghanistan tomorrow.... have the troops home in 24 hours.
So ...you got a problem, see BO....
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
Ah, better.

I still fail to see why closing GITMO improves anything. One can change policy, use congressional oversight, allow people to verify treatment, give legal trials, etc. all without closing GITMO. This is one expensive and unnecessary cosmetic change.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Today I heard Gates say that Gitmo is the finest prison facility that we have, then go on to say, basically, that 'the name has been tainted and people have the impression that it is bad, so now we have to get rid of it'. This would mean that the prisoners would go to a lesser facility, so US citizens would be less safe.

I thought it was a general's/ politician's role to lead? Wouldn't a leader basically say 'some people have tainted the name, but that doesn't change the facts, so deal with it'?
 
Southern Man said:
Exactly. Today I heard Gates say that Gitmo is the finest prison facility that we have, then go on to say, basically, that 'the name has been tainted and people have the impression that it is bad, so now we have to get rid of it'. This would mean that the prisoners would go to a lesser facility, so US citizens would be less safe.

I thought it was a general's/ politician's role to lead? Wouldn't a leader basically say 'some people have tainted the name, but that doesn't change the facts, so deal with it'?
Click to expand...

Gitmo is a great facility. It is easily made very secure by the fact that we patrol the waters off Gitmo very heavily and the land between the facilities and the fence is one of the largest minefields in the world.

I don't think Gates said that transfering them to a stateside prison would mean they were in a less secure location. The interview I saw yesterday talked about the perfect record of the Super Maximum Security prison system.
 
WinterBorn said:
Gitmo is a great facility. It is easily made very secure by the fact that we patrol the waters off Gitmo very heavily and the land between the facilities and the fence is one of the largest minefields in the world.

I don't think Gates said that transfering them to a stateside prison would mean they were in a less secure location. The interview I saw yesterday talked about the perfect record of the Super Maximum Security prison system.
Click to expand...


The idea that this issue has anything to do with "security" is nonsense on stilts. I have absolutely no idea why the Republicans oppose closing GITMO other than the fact that Obama wants to do it (John McCain claimed to want to do it t). It seems that they just want to pick a fight they can win and win they have with the pussified Senate Democrats.

Detainees were never brought to GITMO because it was the safest place to keep them or because US prisons can't hold these supervillains with their superpowers. Instead, they were brought to GITMO because the Bush Administration thought that bringing them there would allow the Administration to do whatever the hell it wished with them for however the hell long it wanted and there was nothing anyone anywhere could do or say about it. GITMO was created to subvert the law.
 
WinterBorn said:
Gitmo is a great facility. It is easily made very secure by the fact that we patrol the waters off Gitmo very heavily and the land between the facilities and the fence is one of the largest minefields in the world.

I don't think Gates said that transfering them to a stateside prison would mean they were in a less secure location. The interview I saw yesterday talked about the perfect record of the Super Maximum Security prison system.
Click to expand...
That doesn't answer my question as to why get rid of a prison that is working well, simply because Democrats have defamed it.
 
Oh these cleaver little phrases they keep coming up with to entertain us and make us think it is something all new and improved.
 
I won't, like BAC said, it is illegal.

I won't let up on the WH until something is done about GITMO
 
Dungheap said:
The idea that this issue has anything to do with "security" is nonsense on stilts. I have absolutely no idea why the Republicans oppose closing GITMO other than the fact that Obama wants to do it (John McCain claimed to want to do it t). It seems that they just want to pick a fight they can win and win they have with the pussified Senate Democrats.

Detainees were never brought to GITMO because it was the safest place to keep them or because US prisons can't hold these supervillains with their superpowers. Instead, they were brought to GITMO because the Bush Administration thought that bringing them there would allow the Administration to do whatever the hell it wished with them for however the hell long it wanted and there was nothing anyone anywhere could do or say about it. GITMO was created to subvert the law.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am certain when the Guantanamo Bay facility was created in the late 1800's they had their eyes on subverting the law. I'll bet when FDR negotiated a permanent lease Guantanamo hee was just itching to use it for nefarious purposes. And we certainly broke every law in the book when we used the detainment center to temporarily house Haitian and Cuban refugees.:rolleyes:

While I do not condone torture in any manner as a means of gaining information, the fact is they could have put the detainees anywhere and still tortured them, etc. The detainment center is a good facility to use when dealing with enemy combatants. The fact that torture was used is an issue that should be addressed. But closing the facilities is plain fucking stupid. The "Gitmo" detention center serves a good purpose for the type of conflict we find ourselves embroiled in; just as long as we treat the detainees fairly and humanely.
 
Good Luck said:
Yes, I am certain when the Guantanamo Bay facility was created in the late 1800's they had their eyes on subverting the law. I'll bet when FDR negotiated a permanent lease Guantanamo hee was just itching to use it for nefarious purposes. And we certainly broke every law in the book when we used the detainment center to temporarily house Haitian and Cuban refugees.:rolleyes:

While I do not condone torture in any manner as a means of gaining information, the fact is they could have put the detainees anywhere and still tortured them, etc. The detainment center is a good facility to use when dealing with enemy combatants. The fact that torture was used is an issue that should be addressed. But closing the facilities is plain fucking stupid. The "Gitmo" detention center serves a good purpose for the type of conflict we find ourselves embroiled in; just as long as we treat the detainees fairly and humanely.
Click to expand...


1) I thought it reasonably clear that I was referring to the detention facility former known as Camp X-Ray and now known as Camp Delta.

2) The Haitian and Cuban refugees were taken to Guantanamo for similar reasons - to deny them rights that they otherwise would undeniably have on U.S. soil.

3) Look, you can pretend that the detainees were brought to Cuba for some reason other that the unique legal status of the naval facility, but it just plain isn't true. In fact, it's horseshit. But this is why I suppose you don't understand the argument against the detention facility at the naval base, because you fail to recognize the Bush Administration's argument for it in the first place.
 
Bravo is one step away from being Freedom.

How's that for doublespeak, but you know what I mean and I knew what you mean. Some have forgotten that we once had Congressional oversight on many things. Returning that is one step in the right direction, but he has to do better than that for me concerning GITMO.
 
Dungheap said:
1) I thought it reasonably clear that I was referring to the detention facility former known as Camp X-Ray and now known as Camp Delta.

2) The Haitian and Cuban refugees were taken to Guantanamo for similar reasons - to deny them rights that they otherwise would undeniably have on U.S. soil.

3) Look, you can pretend that the detainees were brought to Cuba for some reason other that the unique legal status of the naval facility, but it just plain isn't true. In fact, it's horseshit. But this is why I suppose you don't understand the argument against the detention facility at the naval base, because you fail to recognize the Bush Administration's argument for it in the first place.
Click to expand...
1) Since Camp Delta also existed well before the current situation, my response still stands - your claim of it being created for illegal purposes is ridiculous.

2) Only brain dead pimples think foreigners who are caught illegally entering into our country deserve anything more than to be held until they can be sent back where they came from.

3) You fail to recognize the situation for what it is. We have people who were captured as enemy combatants. The place for enemy combatants is a secure military detention facility, which Guantanamo fits to a T.

Yes, a significant number of people captured should not be there - they should have been properly processed before they were sent there. We have established procedures, going back to WWI and modified in WWII, for handling civilians captured in a combat zone.

OTOH, the majority of detainees DO belong there. They are functionally POWs, which is a whole lot better (for them) than treating them as non-uniformed enemy combatants (which is what they actually are.)

Again, I do not condone the types of interrogation that have been used against those people. I also do not understand why, nor condone, the fact that normal procedures for handling captured civilians were bypassed. But these lapses can bbe remedied without shutting down a facility that is otherwise doing what it was designed for.
 
froggie said:
Bravo is one step away from being Freedom.

How's that for doublespeak, but you know what I mean and I knew what you mean. Some have forgotten that we once had Congressional oversight on many things. Returning that is one step in the right direction, but he has to do better than that for me concerning GITMO.
Click to expand...
Explain to me why we should trust congressional oversight any more than presidential?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top