Gitmo contains Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists.
Posted By: which will now come to USA. Thanks NoBama!.nm on 2009-01-13
In Reply to: I think it is wonderful and cannot happen - fast enough.
nm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Al Qaeda is in Iraq.. full of terrorists.We learn more
nm
That was not the question....Gitmo is a holding area for terrorists...
The Hanoi Hilton housed American soldiers. And yes, I think it is VERY important that a presidential candidate is a patriot, has integrity, strong in the face of unimaginable pressure, and puts his country even before himself. Yes, I think all those are VERY strong criteria for the Presidency. Obama has nothing in his resume to indicate that he is that patriotic, that UNself-serving, showed that he put his fellow prisoners above himself...and you compare that to a terrorist in Gitmo. Good grief. ??
You said you had no problem taking on the Taliban...
there is no evidence THEY had anything to do with 9-11 either. Iraq had as much to do with 9-11 as the Taliban did. Both countries had Al Qaeda training camps. Both harbored Al Qaeda operatives. Saddam Hussein funded all kinds of terror operations, including bounties to families of suicide bombers. It was proven that a member of the Sadam Feyadeen met with Mohammed Atta prior to 9-11. Of course, they could have been discussing the weather. Saddam harbored the man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer and his wheelchair off the Achille Lauro...he harbored Al Zarqawi. What more do you need? Him on one of the planes? Your arguments make no sense. Basically, bottom line...you do not care if your protests hurt the effort in Iraq and thereby the soldiers fighting there..and as to soldiers dying for something they did not believe in...the vast majority are not of that mind. If you watched anything but CNN and listened to anything but liberal spin you would see the interview after interview after interview where soldiers do affirm their mission and affirm their disappointment in lack of support of some Americans.
As to Cindy Sheehan's son...other members of her family, her husband included...have said numerous times on the record that Casey Sheehan believed in the effort, and would be appalled at what his mother was doing. We do not make those things up...just because the liberal press does not report it does not mean it does not happen...oh...but I guess in YOUR world, that is true. Because you just pooh-pooh it and say that means nothing to me. Why is it that liberals are so arrogant? Why is it ALL about you? I have tried and tried to wrap my mind around that and just can't. I cannot understand what it is that makes someone disregard the lives and the mission of our military in harm's way just so they can hold a sign and call attention to THEMselves. There is nothing noble about that. The noble ones are the ones in Iraq. How profoundly sad that you cannot see that...in one breath okay to fight the Taliban, in the other just throw Iraq and our boys and girls there to the dogs. How twisted is that...sigh. So...go on about your protesting. Only call a spade a spade. It is about YOU...and making yourself feel good. It is not, nor has it ever been, for anyone else.
What on earth does the Taliban in Pakistan....
getting stronger have to do with the war in Iraq? That has to do with the war in Afghanistan, which, by the way, Obama never said he would end, in fact, he wants to escalate, which he has. The war in Iraq was the one he vowed to put an end to...you don't remember the speech? "We do not belong there, we never belonged there, and when I am elected I will begin immediate withdrawal." Yeah..uh huh. Then he moved it out to 16 months. And he has moved it out again to 24 months. Your golden idol has clay feet, my friend. You are so blinded by the "light" you just can't see it, and I cannot decide if that is plain old denial or if you really are that naive. :-)
Bush could have snagged 100 Taliban but chose not to.
I wonder if the neocons will make a movie about this, and I wonder how many thank you notes Bush has received from terrorists in the last five years. :-(
U.S. Declines Taliban Funeral Target
Sep 13, 6:29 PM (ET)
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. military acknowledged Wednesday that it considered bombing a group of more than 100 Taliban insurgents in southern Afghanistan but decided not to after determining they were on the grounds of a cemetery.
The decision came to light after an NBC News correspondent's blog carried a photograph of the insurgents. Defense department officials first tried to block further publication of the photo, then struggled to explain what it depicted.
NBC News claimed U.S. Army officers wanted to attack the ceremony with missiles carried by an unmanned Predator drone but were prevented under rules of battlefield engagement that bar attacks on cemeteries.
In a statement released Wednesday, the U.S. military in Afghanistan said the picture - a grainy black-and-white photo taken in July - was given to a journalist to show that Taliban insurgents were congregating in large groups. The statement said U.S. forces considered attacking.
During the observation of the group over a significant period of time, it was determined that the group was located on the grounds of (the) cemetery and were likely conducting a funeral for Taliban insurgents killed in a coalition operation nearby earlier in the day, the statement said. A decision was made not to strike this group of insurgents at that specific location and time.
While not giving a reason for the decision, the military concluded the statement saying that while Taliban forces have killed innocent civilians during a funeral, coalition forces hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than their enemies.
The photo shows what NBC News says are 190 Taliban militants standing in several rows near a vehicle in an open area of land. Gunsight-like brackets were positioned over the group in the photo.
The photo appeared on NBC News correspondent Kerry Sanders' blog. Initially military officials called it an unauthorized release, but they later said it was given to the journalist.
NBC News had quoted one Army officer who was involved with the spy mission as saying we were so excited that the group had been spotted and was in the sights of a U.S. drone. But the network quoted the officer, who was not identified, as saying that frustration soon set in after the officers realized they couldn't bomb the funeral under the military's rules of engagement.
Defense Department officials have said repeatedly that while they try to be mindful of religious and cultural sensitivities, they make no promises that such sites can always be avoided in battle because militants often seek cover in those and other civilian sites.
Mosques and similar locations have become frequent sites of violence in the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they have often been targets of insurgents and sectarian fighting in Iraq.
Exposed: Prop. 8 part of 'Christian Taliban's' move to make Bible the law
The Protect Marriage Coalition, which led the fight to pass an anti-gay marriage initiative in California, is now suing to shield its financial records from public scrutiny.
The lawsuit claims that donors to Protect Marriage and a second group involved in the suit have received threatening phone calls and emails. It asks for existing donation lists to be removed from the California secretary of state's website and also seeks to have both plaintiffs and all similar groups be exempted in the future from ever having to file donation disclosure reports on this or any similar campaigns.
Although public access advocates believe this sweeping demand for donor anonymity has little chance of success, it does point up the secretive and even conspiratorial nature of much right-wing political activity in California.
Howard Ahmanson and Wayne C. Johnson
The man who more than any other has been associated with this kind of semi-covert activity over the past 25 years is reclusive billionaire Howard Ahmanson.
Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist, a devout follower of the late R.J. Rushdoony, who advocated the replacement of the U.S. Constitution with the most extreme precepts of the Old Testament, including the execution -- preferably by stoning -- of homosexuals, adulterers, witches, blasphemers, and disobedient children.
Ahmanson himself has stated, "My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives."
As absurd as this Reconstructionist agenda may seem, the success of Proposition 8 demonstrates the ability of what is sometimes called the "Christian Taliban" to pursue its covert objectives behind the screen of seemingly mainstream initiatives and candidates.
Ahmanson's role in promoting Proposition 8 has drawn a lot of attention, but he appears to serve primarily as the money man, leaving his associates to carry out the practical details. One name in particular stands out as Ahmanson's chief lieutenant: political consultant Wayne C. Johnson, whose Johnson Clark Associates (formerly Johnson & Associates) coordinated the Proposition 8 campaign.
Johnson has spent many years working for Ahmanson-funded causes -- such as the battle against a 2004 initiative to promote stem cell research -- and organizations, like the anti-spending California Taxpayer Protection Committee.
Johnson Clark has also operated PACs for many candidates supported by Ahmanson. It ran Rep. John Doolittle's leadership PAC, which became notorious for sending a 15% commission to Doolittle's wife out of every donation received. It currently runs the PAC for Rep. Tom McClintock, a strong Proposition 8 supporter who was narrowly elected last fall to succeed the scandal-plagued Doolittle.
Proposition 8
The series of events leading to the approval of Proposition 8 began in 2000 with the passage of Proposition 22, which defined marriage in California as being solely between one man and one woman -- but did so only as a matter of law and not as a constitutional amendment.
Proposition 22 was quickly challenged in court, leading to the creation by its supporters of the the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund. In 2003, Johnson Clark Associates registered the domain ProtectMarriage.com on behalf of that fund.
ProtectMarriage.com began campaigning in early 2005 for an initiative that would add its restrictive definition of marriage to the California constitution, but it failed to gather sufficient signatures and was terminated in September 2006.
In 2008, however, a reborn ProtectMarriage.com, flush with nearly a million dollars in funding from Howard Ahmanson and tens of millions from other doners, succeeding in getting Proposition 8 placed on the ballot and approved by 52% of the voters.
Proposition 8 is now California law -- at least for the moment, pending challenges to its constitutionality -- and ProtectMarriage.com has turned its attention to demanding that all 18,000 existing same-sex marriages be declared invalid.
The Ahmanson-Johnson Strategy
The partnership between Ahmanson and Johnson, however, did not begin in 2003 or even in 2000. It goes back to at least 1983, if not earlier, and has been a continuing factor in California politics for the last 25 years.
In a 1994 article on Christian Reconstructionism, Public Eye described Johnson's central role in an Ahmanson-financed attempt by the Christian Right to take control of the California state legislation. The strategy involved first pushing through a term limits initiative, which was accomplished in 1990, and then promoting its own candidates for the seats this opened up:
"The practical impact of term limits is to remove the advantage of incumbency ... which the extreme Christian Right is prepared to exploit. ... At a Reconstructionist conference in 1983, Johnson outlined an early version of the strategy we see operating in California today. ... The key for the Christian Right was to be able to: 1) remove or minimize the advantage of incumbency, and 2) create a disciplined voting bloc from which to run candidates in Republican primaries, where voter turn out was low and scarce resources could be put to maximum effect. ...
"Since the mid-1970s, the extreme Christian Right, under the tutelage of then-State Senator H. L Richardson, targeted open seats and would finance only challengers, not incumbents. By 1983, they were able to increase the number of what Johnson called 'reasonably decent guys' in the legislature from four to 27. At the Third Annual Northwest Conference for Reconstruction in 1983, Johnson stated that he believed they may achieve 'political hegemony. . .in this generation.'"
The mention of H. L. "Bill" Richardson as the originator of the Johnson-Ahmanson strategy is both eye-catching and significant. Richardson, a former John Birch Society member, was considered to be one of the most extreme right-wing politicians of his time. In 1975, he co-founded Gun Owners of America (GOA), an organization which is widely regarded as being well to the right of the National Rife Association.
Wayne Johnson began his political career in 1976 by working for Richardson -- and Johnson Clark Associates still operates a PAC for GOA's state affiliate, the Gun Owners of California Campaign Committee.
In 1992, Johnson and Ahmanson managed to help send a batch of conservative Republicans to Congress. Foremost among these was Richard Pombo, one of whose first acts after taking office was to introduce a resolution of commendation for the Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation.
In 2004, Johnson told an interviewer that Pombo's election was a high point of his political career. "There have been a lot of great moments, but Richard Pombo's 1992 upset victory in his first congressional primary has got to be near the top. The television stations didn't even have his name listed on their pre-programmed screens election night. Today, he's chairman of the House Resources Committee."
Two years after Johnson's enthusiastic declaration, Pombo was defeated by a Democratic challenger, following wide-ranging allegation of corruption, including being named as the Congressman who had received more donations from Jack Abramoff than any other.
The Anti-Homosexual Agenda
Although the Christian Right never achieved its original goal of taking over California state government -- which may be why Ahmanson and Johnson have turned their attention to passing socially conservative initiatives instead -- it has been far more successful in establishing dominance over that state's Republican Party.
In 1998, Mother Jones reported:
"First they packed the then-moderate California Republican Assembly (CRA), a mainstream caucus with a heavy hand in the state party's nominating process, with their Bible-minded colleagues. By 1990 they controlled the CRA, and since then the CRA's clout has helped the religious conservatives nominate and elect local candidates and—crucially—catapult true believers into state party leadership slots. ...
"From radical fringe to kingmakers in a decade — how did they do it? 'Basically, there's two places you have influence: one is in the nominating process in the primaries, where you can elect people in ideological agreement with your views, and the other is in the party structure,' says former CRA vice president John Stoos, a former gun lobbyist, member of the fundamentalist Christian Reconstructionist movement, and senior consultant to the State Assembly."
Stoos appears to come out of precisely the same background as Johnson and Ahmanson. He served as the executive director of Gun Owners of California and was also the chief of staff and a legislative advisor to Tom McClintock from 1998 until 2003, when he got into trouble for his over-the-top Reconstructionist sentiments.
In the Mother Jones interview, Stoos referred to Christian politicians as God's "vice-regents ... those who believe in the Lordship of Christ and the dominion mandate" and pointed to the repeal in the 1970's of laws against homosexual acts as an example of the need for rule by "biblical justice."
"The proof is in the pudding," Stoos told Mother Jones. "Since we lifted those laws, we've had the biggest epidemic in history."
To many who voted for it, Proposition 8 may have been no more than a nostalgic attempt to keep a changing world more like the way it used to be. But for Reconstructionists like Ahmanson, Johnson, and Stoos, it clearly represents something else -- a dramatic first step towards "the total integration of biblical law into our lives."
Afghanistan - war on Al Quaeda and Taliban; Iraqi FREEDOM - kill Saddam Hussein
Two different wars based on entirely different premises.........
Message from Al-Qaeda sm
Does anyone find this to be a heightened threat or "more of the same?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7737710.stm
Al Qaeda has beheaded
a British hostage. Edwin Dyer was abducted in January. His captors in Mali had threatened to kill him if Britain refused to release extremist preacher Abu Qatada from prison.
Qatada has been described in Spanish and British courts as a leading AL Qaeda figure in Europe.
So......still feel sorry for terrorists? Waterboarding is so much worse than having your head cut off, huh?
Do you know what al-Qaeda means in Arabic? sm
Al Qaeda is colloquial for I'm going to the toilet. A very common and widespread use of the word “Al-Qaeda” in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl. This name comes from the Arabic verb “Qa'ada” which mean “to sit”, pertinently, on the “Toilet Bowl”. In most Arabs homes there are two kinds of toilets: “Al-Qaeda” also called the Hamam Franji or foreign toilet, and Hamam Arabi or “Arab toilet” which is a hole in the ground. Lest we forget it, the potty used by small children is called Ma Qa'adia or Little Qaeda.
Hello, I am from The Toilet Seat and I am here armed with boxcutters to hijack your airplane and fly it into a building.
Al Qaeda did claim responsibility for 9-11 sm
and I believe they were. However, AL Qaeda was not in Iraq until we invaded. Rather, they were in the mountains of Afganistan and Pakistan. Invasion of Iraq gave them a venue to distract from where Islama Bin Ladin was and keep him safe.
You know something? I'll bet even al-Qaeda is laughing that
Let's think here for a minute. Do you think that terrorists are MORE frightened of the notion of "American torture" now, or LESS frightened? Do you think it is MORE difficult for them to recruit now, or LESS difficult?
There's this little 3-pound thing that most people carry around in their cranial compartments called a brain. If you manage to locate yours, try USING IT for a change.
Torture indeed!
Exactly. After Galloway spoke out they tied him to al Qaeda. sm
Of course, the man must be a terrorist sympathizer because he has the guts to tell it like it is. Just like they call you an antisemite when you say anything about Israel, conspiracy theorist and nut bag, etc., if you speak out against Bush. See the pattern?
Nice post...Al Qaeda would love to have that...
in their propaganda videos. Especially the bit about the terrorist USA who pre-emptively invaded a soverign nation which was no threat to them. It is stuff like that that encourages them to keep on coming. That little old bald guy whacking his shoe on the table was right those many years ago.
NO dream world here, Bush is one step better than Al Qaeda
He and Cheney are crooks. AL Qaeda are the bad guys but guess what, they aren't in Iraq? We were tricked into supporting a bogus self centered war for bush and cheney to make MONEY.
Missile attacks targeted Al Qaeda strongholds.
President Obama is targeting the terrorists who are responsible for 9/11 and who may be planning future terrorist attacks against the United States. That is what he said he would do before he was elected, and that is exactly what he has done during his first week in office. President Obama has already done more to keep our country safe in the past 4 days than Georgie Porgie did in the past 8 years.
Al Qaeda calls Obama a "house negro" harder to recruit
Bush made it easier for AL Qaeda and Obama is making it harder. That says a lot.
And were they sent to Gitmo?
*
And if they came to Gitmo...(sm)
and were innocent, believe me, after the blatent torture and mistreatment, I'm sure they will hate us as well. In other words, all Bush did by opening Gitmo and using torture was create a breeding ground for hate. But I guess that's Obamas fault too?
Gitmo is going down...yeah! (sm)
Does anyone know exactly what planet Bush is from? He seems to be in his own little world. It's times like this you wonder exactly how did such an idiot ever get elected. LOL
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#28629277
glad gitmo is
going down, but I really want Bush and Cheney to be tried for war crimes. This is a dilemma for Obama - we have many, many issues to work on, but to allow the atrocities to go unpunished does not sit well with me. Let's have some trials, Mr. Holter.
Gitmo Torture
This will undoubtably shake some things up. If the detainees' trials cannot proceed because the "enhanced interrogation techniques" authorized by the Bush administration have tainted the process so much that prosecutors cannot proceed in some of their cases, what happens now?
"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.
....
Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani's health led to her conclusion. "The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.
And a serious question from me about Gitmo
If it's closed, where will the terrorists go? Our regular jails that would not be able to handle them. Leave them free in our own country to terrorize? Home to their own country? Did you know that some countries do not want to accept them back?
Did you know that some of the terrorists that were freed and sent home were captured a second time trying to kill our troops?
Shall this country be subjected to suicide bombings because Gitmo is closed? I don't think so. I don't agree with prisoner torture BUT what do you think has been happening since WWII? It's okay for other countries to torture our servicemen and women, but not okay for us to do it?
It's a double standard.
Why did O shut down Gitmo? Bet it is not
nm
What do you think - GITMO idea
How about this - we remove the terrorist/prisons from GITMO and move them to other prisons throughout the country. Then send all the crooked politicians, bankers, and people who are receiving bail-outs and turning around and taking holiday's with the money and going to spa's, and not using the bail outs on what they are for, etc. - send them to GITMO. - just a suggestion.
The people who are in Gitmo
are there because they were turned in by their own people or their names were given during interrogation. Yes, there may be some who are innocent but aren't there also some people in prisons who were covicted and are innocent. That happens. This is war and in war....you can take no chances.
Did we not put Japanese people into concentration camps during war? Did we not drop a bomb on two Japanese cities and totally destroy them with the A-Bomb? I don't recall administrations going back against previous administrations for those actions. It was war......just like now. This is war. Terrorists have set off bombs at the WTC. They blew a hole in the USS Cole. They took down both WTC towers and hit the pentagon with one plane going down before making it to its destination, which was suspected to be the White House. They want to continue more attacks on us and you are worried about waterboarding a prisoner who might potentially know information that could save American lives. You would much rather let them go or not "torture" them and not find out any new intelligence to save Americans and stop potential attacks?
Didn't we ridicule Bush for not seeing 9/11 coming? There were warnings. We were up his butt for not putting the intelligence together and thwarting the attacks on that day. So when he turned around and decided to interrogate prisoners for more information, now you hate him for doing that too. You can't have it both ways people. Terrorists want us dead and they will continue to plot and execute their attacks on us. Will it not sink in until, God forbid, you or someone you love is killed by them? They have no compassion for us. I can guarantee you that they are laughing at us for our soft interrogation process. They think we are weak and now we have given them more fuel to get more people to join their cause by making CIA memos public as well as pictures. Obama has made our military and all Americans more unsafe with his stupid stunt.
If he continues to pursue this witch hunt, I hope to God it nails all the dems who didn't seem to have a problem with this in the past either and that includes Pelosi. If they are going to take down Bush and Cheney, they best nail the dems who didn't say anything and knew about it. If they are going down, they all better go down. I have lost any respect I had for Obama when he made this public. We are at war and these childish blame games are going to get more Americans killed. Shame on him!
The people who are in Gitmo
are there because they were turned in by their own people or their names were given during interrogation. Yes, there may be some who are innocent but aren't there also some people in prisons who were covicted and are innocent. That happens. This is war and in war....you can take no chances.
Did we not put Japanese people into concentration camps during war? Did we not drop a bomb on two Japanese cities and totally destroy them with the A-Bomb? I don't recall administrations going back against previous administrations for those actions. It was war......just like now. This is war. Terrorists have set off bombs at the WTC. They blew a hole in the USS Cole. They took down both WTC towers and hit the pentagon with one plane going down before making it to its destination, which was suspected to be the White House. They want to continue more attacks on us and you are worried about waterboarding a prisoner who might potentially know information that could save American lives. You would much rather let them go or not "torture" them and not find out any new intelligence to save Americans and stop potential attacks?
Didn't we ridicule Bush for not seeing 9/11 coming? There were warnings. We were up his butt for not putting the intelligence together and thwarting the attacks on that day. So when he turned around and decided to interrogate prisoners for more information, now you hate him for doing that too. You can't have it both ways people. Terrorists want us dead and they will continue to plot and execute their attacks on us. Will it not sink in until, God forbid, you or someone you love is killed by them? They have no compassion for us. I can guarantee you that they are laughing at us for our soft interrogation process. They think we are weak and now we have given them more fuel to get more people to join their cause by making CIA memos public as well as pictures. Obama has made our military and all Americans more unsafe with his stupid stunt.
If he continues to pursue this witch hunt, I hope to God it nails all the dems who didn't seem to have a problem with this in the past either and that includes Pelosi. If they are going to take down Bush and Cheney, they best nail the dems who didn't say anything and knew about it. If they are going down, they all better go down. I have lost any respect I had for Obama when he made this public. We are at war and these childish blame games are going to get more Americans killed. Shame on him!
Hey BB, what happened with O and Gitmo?
nm
The O is speaking right now about GITMO and
the photos, national security, and transfer of prisoners.
Thinking about Gitmo...
As a purely political move, Candidate Obama - who knew nothing about the real problems - promised to close Gitmo and signed that order on his first day in office.
1. Why close Gitmo? The main reason given is that Gitmo is a "rallying cry" for jihadists. I have not seen the slightest shred of evidence offered to support this mantra, which has become the poster child for the truism that if you repeat something often enough people will believe it.
2. Even if true, Obama does not explain why "The Shoe" (SHU = secure housing unit) in Michigan, for example, wll not simply become the new rallying cry, especially given that the Gitmo prisoners will find that conditions in a SHU are much more harsh than they had in Gitmo, which has been called "Club Fed".
3. The point is made that no one has escaped from "The Shoe". So what? No one has escaped from Gitmo either.
4. What Obama knows (because experts have told him) is that escaping is not the issue anyway. A prison on the American mainland is much more subject to an attack from the outside - such as an airplane being flown into it (some might remember the little incident on 9/11?) - than is the case with Gitmo. If the attack kills some of the terrorists housed there, they will simply be martyrs. The purpose of the attack would not be to break them out, but to destroy the prison and make a statement to the world about terrorist capabilities.
5. The town or city where the SHU is located will also make a lovely target for terrorists. Or, perhaps they'll murder some of the guards who live in the town. They do not have this capability with Gitmo.
There is no absolutely level on which closing Gitmo makes even the slightest bit of sense and most Americans know this. What this amounts to is nothing more or less than subjugating national security for purposes of shameful, irresponsible political grandstanding.
Impeach Obama now.
There is NOTHING to compare what has happened to anyone at Gitmo...
to what happened at the Hanoi Hilton. We do NOT torture anyone in that manner. Have you ever read what happened to McCain during that time? Have you seen pictures of what the man looked like when he came back??
Closing Gitmo is also a priority.
It will reduce the cost to the taxpayer of holding these suspects indefinitely and, more importantly, be a significant step in restoring our international standing. The only question will be whether or not the creation of a new court system to process these suspects come to pass.
This may surprise you, but most presidents multitask and can work on more than one issue a day. His administration will address your concerns too. Our domestic and international dilemmas must all be addressed. Although this is not important to you, it is to many who voted for him.
Good!!! They need to close Gitmo (sm)
You might want to also check out how many innocent people have been taken to Gitmo only to be tortured and killed. Nice example we're setting for the world huh? If any other country did that we would be screaming bloody murder. They not only need to bring the prisoners here and put them through a fair trial, but they also need to round up the ones responsible for Gitmo and add them to the list of criminals -- I say we start with Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush.
If that is what it takes to close Gitmo
I think you are the one that does not get it.
Because it's disgusting, Gitmo makes us look like
xx
I'm thrilled that he is closing Gitmo!
This is just the first step in undoing the damage that George Bush has done! Can't wait to see what President Obama will do next!
Gitmo was Bush's baby......
That pile of feces just exited the building - you get over it. The people held in Gitmo did not blow up the USS Cole. Christ.
All of it. Hello. Closing Gitmo is not the end of the story.
This subject has been exercise all morning long below. Care to speculate on just why there is a review of operations of Gitmo and what the intent is behind that review? You cannot exercise a debate on a subject where policy on the issue is YET TO BE DETERMINED.
The 4 guys let go from Gitmo to Bermuda
Boy, they have a really nice place complete with swimming pool. They are wearing Addidas sneakers, too.
They said they were never terrorists and that China was the worse interrogaters, not the U.S. They laughed when asked if they ever met Bin Laden.
They guys are really happy now that they are free and living in paradise.
Oh, sure, but O can close Gitmo without a plan.
nm
Yeah, and the closing of Gitmo could be disastrous.
nm
I'm thrilled at what Obama is doing with GITMO, are you kidding?
It's a human rights issue ya'll.
Yes, I suppose you've spoken with all of Gitmo
they have told you personally they are ALL INNOCENT......pure as the driven snow....
please stop regurgitating
And by the way, while you're so busy informing yourself, you need to check out old lady Pelosi.....she's about to take away Obama's power to make any presidential decisions.......you up to date on that one? And now, even the most butt head democrats are beginning to open their eyes to her!
Gitmo -- bringing this up top cause I'm just lazy and don't want to scroll.
Obama told George Stephanopoulos at ABC News:
"We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our Constitution."
I'm sorry, but those being held at Gitmo are not citizens of the United States; therefore, are not entitled to any protection under the Constitution. Why not say 'abide by the Geneva Convention'? Even then, how many of our POWs were treated as outlined in the Geneva Convention? Let's not forget, this is a war and these terrorists are POWs. President Bush sought to protect the citizens of this country whatever the cost. After the awful events of 9/11, it was his priority. The world needs to know if you target the U.S. there are consequences.
And I want to know where they are going to put these 250 or so terrorists? I live 50 miles from Fort Leavenworth and that's a little too close for comfort for me. I assume some will be released to return to their country where, of course, they will plot their next terrorist attack. While others will be housed in federal facilities like Leavenworth and then what? We sit them down for tea and crumpets and ask them nicely if they plan on blowing anything else up here in America?
How quickly Americans have forgotten the victims and families of 9/11!
That's true - Bush did want to close Gitmo -
but all of the countries screaming about how unfair the detainees were being treated wouldn't take any of them. I just pray that wherever Obama decides to send them, they don't get out and take revenge on us. I don't really care how bad that would look on Obama - it would not be good for America to have another attack, that's all I care about.
Actually, Bush SAID he wanted to close Gitmo...(sm)
but he rejected every proposal for closing it and DID nothing about it, claiming it would be too difficult. A president saying that something is too difficult isn't exactly reassuring BTW. Meanwhile, he made use of it, which completely contradicted his supposed intentions of closing it. You also really can't complain about other countries not wanting to take prisoners into their countries when we weren't willing to take them either, and they are OUR prisoners. I think actions speak louder than words.
What part of "I will close Gitmo" did you not hear
nm
Obama had every intention of closing Gitmo
I suppose he just didn't expect soldiers to speak up and out against the government. How dare they go up against the great and almighty Obama!
Now with all their voices speaking up, he has to figure out another way to get it done!
Berlusconi is ready to take 3 Tunisians from Gitmo to Italy..nm
nm
He feels O's date for Gitmo closure is bad idea
nm
5 top Gitmo detainees plead guilty, seek martyrdom
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/08/Gitmo_911_suspects_to_plead_guilty/UPI-68631228752620/
|
