Guantanamo trials

SteveS
Posts
5600
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
WV US
Edited Date/Time 1/21/2012 6:47pm
Nobody talking about Obama's executive order to start the Guantanamo terrorist trials back up?

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
|
dcmx326
Posts
899
Joined
11/19/2010
Location
Washington, DC US
3/7/2011 4:35pm
Do you mean alleged terrorists?
flarider
Posts
25499
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
3/7/2011 4:46pm
Yeah, promise broken
Better than doing nothing though, and they should be put on trial, just can't hold people forever without a trial.
SteveS
Posts
5600
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
WV US
3/7/2011 9:48pm
You have to defend. Always defending.

Why not tell the truth. It was a lie to say he was going to close the prison there, it was impossible to do what he said as part of getting elected. The only course forward was what was already being done. But he had to make the political play to get the vote of the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd. Now that the furor over all that has died down in the face of new Middle East unrest and new oil price spikes, he can quietly put things at Guantanamo back on the track everyone knew was the only way possible. It was purely a political ploy to say Gitmo would be closed. But it delayed the trials of those people being "held forever" for two whole years instead of getting on with it--all because of a political ploy.
flarider
Posts
25499
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
3/8/2011 5:42am Edited Date/Time 3/8/2011 5:43am
SteveS wrote:
You have to defend. Always defending. Why not tell the truth. It was a lie to say he was going to close the prison there, it...
You have to defend. Always defending.

Why not tell the truth. It was a lie to say he was going to close the prison there, it was impossible to do what he said as part of getting elected. The only course forward was what was already being done. But he had to make the political play to get the vote of the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd. Now that the furor over all that has died down in the face of new Middle East unrest and new oil price spikes, he can quietly put things at Guantanamo back on the track everyone knew was the only way possible. It was purely a political ploy to say Gitmo would be closed. But it delayed the trials of those people being "held forever" for two whole years instead of getting on with it--all because of a political ploy.
What defending? I said he broke a promise.

Promise broken, lie, whatever....
IMO, "lie" would be if he never tried to do anything at all, which isn't the case here.
I'll go with "broken promise" because he failed to complete what he promised.

POTUS is not dictator, the administration got resistance at every turn at moving prisoners out, so much so they had funding yanked to transport GITMO prisoners.

As for your saying that he made an impossible promise; something is only impossible if no one ever tries. He tried, he failed, but at least someone tried.
I still believe you cannot detain humans without trial indefinitely. You have to bring people to trial, and a fair trial, not a kangaroo court.

The Shop

flarider
Posts
25499
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
3/8/2011 8:14am Edited Date/Time 3/8/2011 8:15am
How?
He tried to do something, got cock-blocked at every turn, so he had to do something else.
At least he's willing to put them on trial, Bush just wanted to lock them up without any due process
RocketLab
Posts
604
Joined
11/18/2009
Location
San Antonio, TX US
3/8/2011 8:33am
SteveS wrote:
You have to defend. Always defending. Why not tell the truth. It was a lie to say he was going to close the prison there, it...
You have to defend. Always defending.

Why not tell the truth. It was a lie to say he was going to close the prison there, it was impossible to do what he said as part of getting elected. The only course forward was what was already being done. But he had to make the political play to get the vote of the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd. Now that the furor over all that has died down in the face of new Middle East unrest and new oil price spikes, he can quietly put things at Guantanamo back on the track everyone knew was the only way possible. It was purely a political ploy to say Gitmo would be closed. But it delayed the trials of those people being "held forever" for two whole years instead of getting on with it--all because of a political ploy.
Not sure it was a lie, could be he found the crap that Bush got us involved with cannot be unraveled once he was privy to all the details. Having said that, I don't know why Republicans are not more happy with this President, as jtomasik said many of his policies are not that different from the Republican president before him.

Caters to Wall street - check
Keeps the wars going - check
Guantanamo - check

what else am I missing?
SteveS
Posts
5600
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
WV US
3/8/2011 8:45am
The thing I'm not happy with is that the campaign was based on promises that could never be fulfilled. This was not an issue of something that was thwarted. There was a very rational reason why the detainees were being handled the way they were. It really was the best way to deal with the problem. Now, after two years of delay due to this unfulfillable promise, we get an admission that the cries of anti-Bushism and the need to change everything weren't right, and they really were doing the best they could do with the problem before.

Catering to Wall Street? I was dubious of the previous administration's handling of that issue, and I certainly didn't agree with quadrupling down on it afterwards, and then giving them even more with the so-called healthcare bill.

Wars? I was all for gradual disinvolvement in Iraq as we had already started, with no fixed timetable--based on the changing situation. I was not for starting a new campaign in an untenable situation--Afghanistan. But the current president got himself elected on the backs of the anti-war types, even though he knew there was no way he could do what he was saying.
jtomasik
Posts
12898
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Golden, CO US
3/8/2011 8:52am
Out of control deficit spending, out of control national debt, no resolve to Iraq (we're still spending billions on not only military but private security), no resolve to Afghanistan, which is slipping back into the hands of the Taliban as well as having some of the worst casualty rates, no resolve to escalating medical costs...

His turds are barely shit. Both you righties and lefties remain ignorant, and it's why this country is tanking. Good job, moron.
jndmx
Posts
9672
Joined
1/20/2008
Location
South Kingston, RI US
3/8/2011 8:53am
This is a damned if you do damned if you don't kind of thing.

No one wants those terror suspects tried here in the US which is what they tried to do to move on closing down the Gitmo prison.
So if you can't try them here what other choice do you have except to resume trying them there?
RocketLab
Posts
604
Joined
11/18/2009
Location
San Antonio, TX US
3/8/2011 9:01am
SteveS - what was the rational reason behind handling the detainees the way we did?
SteveS
Posts
5600
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
WV US
3/8/2011 9:35am Edited Date/Time 3/8/2011 9:36am
RocketLab wrote:
SteveS - what was the rational reason behind handling the detainees the way we did?
They aren't regular criminals. They aren't regular soldiers. We don't want them here in the regular courts and regular jails. They were fighting us with terrorism, but also in a pitched battle against our troops and others. So handling it offshore was the only rational method, in special tribunals. Which is what we have returned to after a two year sojourn in pie-in-the-sky dreaming.
flarider
Posts
25499
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
3/8/2011 9:56am
RocketLab wrote:
SteveS - what was the rational reason behind handling the detainees the way we did?
SteveS wrote:
They aren't regular criminals. They aren't regular soldiers. We don't want them here in the regular courts and regular jails. They were fighting us with terrorism...
They aren't regular criminals. They aren't regular soldiers. We don't want them here in the regular courts and regular jails. They were fighting us with terrorism, but also in a pitched battle against our troops and others. So handling it offshore was the only rational method, in special tribunals. Which is what we have returned to after a two year sojourn in pie-in-the-sky dreaming.
If they aren't "regular criminals" and they aren't "regular soldiers," how do you justify a military trial over a civilian trial, if they are neither in your mind?
SteveS
Posts
5600
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
WV US
3/8/2011 10:03am
They are only not regular soldiers according to the Western world's Geneva Convention. In my mind, they believe themselves to be soldiers fighting a war. Hence it's appropriate to try them as such. Of course, if we totally took that idea to its fullest extent, they'd be POW's and we'd just detain them until the war was over.
coolhand
Posts
475
Joined
9/10/2006
Location
Atlanta, GA US
3/8/2011 11:06am
Place them on a remote island with (3) pigs, a box of 70s Hustler mags and 60 cases of Old Mill Lite...come back in a year and see how they are doing.
jndmx
Posts
9672
Joined
1/20/2008
Location
South Kingston, RI US
3/8/2011 11:15am
coolhand wrote:
Place them on a remote island with (3) pigs, a box of 70s Hustler mags and 60 cases of Old Mill Lite...come back in a year...
Place them on a remote island with (3) pigs, a box of 70s Hustler mags and 60 cases of Old Mill Lite...come back in a year and see how they are doing.
Load the island with hidden cameras and......Survivor; Bloodsport Island.

Sell off the commercial time and we would close the deficit gap in the first two weeks.
flarider
Posts
25499
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
3/8/2011 12:59pm
coolhand wrote:
Place them on a remote island with (3) pigs, a box of 70s Hustler mags and 60 cases of Old Mill Lite...come back in a year...
Place them on a remote island with (3) pigs, a box of 70s Hustler mags and 60 cases of Old Mill Lite...come back in a year and see how they are doing.
So let me ask a question, so what's the difference between your obvious smear of their religion and religious beliefs and someone saying similar of say, Christianity?

Why is it only Christians can smear other religions and beliefs, but other faiths or beliefs cannot do the same towards Christianity?
How does that make Christianity any better than them?
huck
Posts
17021
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Mountain Home, AR US
3/8/2011 1:28pm
coolhand wrote:
Place them on a remote island with (3) pigs, a box of 70s Hustler mags and 60 cases of Old Mill Lite...come back in a year...
Place them on a remote island with (3) pigs, a box of 70s Hustler mags and 60 cases of Old Mill Lite...come back in a year and see how they are doing.
flarider wrote:
So let me ask a question, so what's the difference between your obvious smear of their religion and religious beliefs and someone saying similar of say...
So let me ask a question, so what's the difference between your obvious smear of their religion and religious beliefs and someone saying similar of say, Christianity?

Why is it only Christians can smear other religions and beliefs, but other faiths or beliefs cannot do the same towards Christianity?
How does that make Christianity any better than them?
Hi Flarider, welcome to VitalMX. Take a look around the 'non-moto section' of this nice place... You will find PLENTY of threads where plenty are 'smearing' Christianity.

I suppose you missed them...
flarider
Posts
25499
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
3/8/2011 1:36pm
coolhand wrote:
Place them on a remote island with (3) pigs, a box of 70s Hustler mags and 60 cases of Old Mill Lite...come back in a year...
Place them on a remote island with (3) pigs, a box of 70s Hustler mags and 60 cases of Old Mill Lite...come back in a year and see how they are doing.
flarider wrote:
So let me ask a question, so what's the difference between your obvious smear of their religion and religious beliefs and someone saying similar of say...
So let me ask a question, so what's the difference between your obvious smear of their religion and religious beliefs and someone saying similar of say, Christianity?

Why is it only Christians can smear other religions and beliefs, but other faiths or beliefs cannot do the same towards Christianity?
How does that make Christianity any better than them?
huck wrote:
Hi Flarider, welcome to VitalMX. Take a look around the 'non-moto section' of this nice place... You will find PLENTY of threads where plenty are 'smearing'...
Hi Flarider, welcome to VitalMX. Take a look around the 'non-moto section' of this nice place... You will find PLENTY of threads where plenty are 'smearing' Christianity.

I suppose you missed them...
Can you answer the question, Huck?

How does that make Christianity any better than any other religion?
Why is it people get so defensive of Christianity, but seem to tolerate and accept smearing another religion?

WWJD?


.
SteveS
Posts
5600
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
WV US
3/8/2011 1:43pm
WWJD? He'd tell you he is the Way, the Truth, Life. No man comes to the Father but by him. (John 14:6)
flarider
Posts
25499
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
3/8/2011 1:49pm
SteveS wrote:
WWJD? He'd tell you he is the Way, the Truth, Life. No man comes to the Father but by him. (John 14:6)
So you're saying Jesus would talk shit about other religions?
SteveS
Posts
5600
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
WV US
3/8/2011 2:18pm
Just repeating what he already said.
huck
Posts
17021
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Mountain Home, AR US
3/8/2011 2:19pm
flarider wrote:
So let me ask a question, so what's the difference between your obvious smear of their religion and religious beliefs and someone saying similar of say...
So let me ask a question, so what's the difference between your obvious smear of their religion and religious beliefs and someone saying similar of say, Christianity?

Why is it only Christians can smear other religions and beliefs, but other faiths or beliefs cannot do the same towards Christianity?
How does that make Christianity any better than them?
huck wrote:
Hi Flarider, welcome to VitalMX. Take a look around the 'non-moto section' of this nice place... You will find PLENTY of threads where plenty are 'smearing'...
Hi Flarider, welcome to VitalMX. Take a look around the 'non-moto section' of this nice place... You will find PLENTY of threads where plenty are 'smearing' Christianity.

I suppose you missed them...
flarider wrote:
Can you answer the question, Huck? How does that make Christianity any better than any other religion? Why is it people get so defensive of Christianity...
Can you answer the question, Huck?

How does that make Christianity any better than any other religion?
Why is it people get so defensive of Christianity, but seem to tolerate and accept smearing another religion?

WWJD?


.
I don't judge other's religions. I am very comfortable with mine...It's not my place to judge.

My religion is better than the others, in my eyes.
RocketLab
Posts
604
Joined
11/18/2009
Location
San Antonio, TX US
3/8/2011 2:52pm
RocketLab wrote:
SteveS - what was the rational reason behind handling the detainees the way we did?
SteveS wrote:
They aren't regular criminals. They aren't regular soldiers. We don't want them here in the regular courts and regular jails. They were fighting us with terrorism...
They aren't regular criminals. They aren't regular soldiers. We don't want them here in the regular courts and regular jails. They were fighting us with terrorism, but also in a pitched battle against our troops and others. So handling it offshore was the only rational method, in special tribunals. Which is what we have returned to after a two year sojourn in pie-in-the-sky dreaming.
I've got mixed feelings on this. I see your point. We are not fighting a conventional army. On the other hand, we are allowing our government to pick up and detain people with no due process of law and no habeas corpus. How many were let go after years in detention and/or torture with a "oops sorry, never mind". It can be a slippery slope when you allow your government to act with impunity to detain people without constitutional protections. What happens next, investigations of certain religions, oh their trying that now.

On Oct. 17, 2006, President Bush signed a law suspending the right of habeas corpus to persons "determined by the United States" to be an "enemy combatant" in the Global War on Terror. President Bush's action drew severe criticism, mainly for the law's failure to specifically designate who in the United Stateswill determine who is and who is not an "enemy combatant."

"What, really, a time of shame this is..."
To President Bush's support for the law -- the Military Commissions Act of 2006 -- and its suspension of writs of habeas corpus, Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University stated, "What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values."
Sherwood
Posts
3690
Joined
5/12/2010
Location
US
3/8/2011 4:38pm
flarider wrote:
So let me ask a question, so what's the difference between your obvious smear of their religion and religious beliefs and someone saying similar of say...
So let me ask a question, so what's the difference between your obvious smear of their religion and religious beliefs and someone saying similar of say, Christianity?

Why is it only Christians can smear other religions and beliefs, but other faiths or beliefs cannot do the same towards Christianity?
How does that make Christianity any better than them?
huck wrote:
Hi Flarider, welcome to VitalMX. Take a look around the 'non-moto section' of this nice place... You will find PLENTY of threads where plenty are 'smearing'...
Hi Flarider, welcome to VitalMX. Take a look around the 'non-moto section' of this nice place... You will find PLENTY of threads where plenty are 'smearing' Christianity.

I suppose you missed them...
flarider wrote:
Can you answer the question, Huck? How does that make Christianity any better than any other religion? Why is it people get so defensive of Christianity...
Can you answer the question, Huck?

How does that make Christianity any better than any other religion?
Why is it people get so defensive of Christianity, but seem to tolerate and accept smearing another religion?

WWJD?


.
Why don't you get mad at people for bashing Christianity?
dcmx326
Posts
899
Joined
11/19/2010
Location
Washington, DC US
3/8/2011 4:42pm
SteveS wrote:
Just repeating what he already said.
No, you are repeating what others told you he said.
Sherwood
Posts
3690
Joined
5/12/2010
Location
US
3/8/2011 4:57pm
Using Daves definition of hypocrite....

Yeah...
flarider
Posts
25499
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
3/8/2011 5:08pm
Sherwood wrote:
Why don't you get mad at people for bashing Christianity?
Because I am not mad?
Because I was asking a question?
Sherwood
Posts
3690
Joined
5/12/2010
Location
US
3/8/2011 5:15pm
Sherwood wrote:
Why don't you get mad at people for bashing Christianity?
flarider wrote:
Because I am not mad?
Because I was asking a question?
Just an observation.
coolhand
Posts
475
Joined
9/10/2006
Location
Atlanta, GA US
3/8/2011 6:40pm
Dave, you are assuming that my statement was a smear on the religion of Islam , that would be incorrect. I spent a combined total of 16 years in the Middle East and can speak with certainty as to my statement and it’s validly. It is based on the study of human behavior, the essence of man. If you removed ten high profile Christian fundamentalist preachers and placed them into the exact environment the result would be the same. I stopped believing in Santa and the Bunny long ago.

Democracy don't rule the world, You'd better get that in your head; This world is ruled by violence, But I guess that's better left unsaid.
Bob Dylan

Post a reply to: Guantanamo trials

The Latest