That was not the question....Gitmo is a holding area for terrorists...
Posted By: sam on 2008-08-29
In Reply to: your criteria - valuevoter
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. ??
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
Gitmo contains Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists.
nm
In our area
a 3-year-old boy was smothered by his mother and buried on a playground. I'm pretty sure he wasn't a homosexual. People use the "homosexuals are murdered every day" ruse to garner sympathy for a certain group of people who are killing themselves every day because of the sexual acts they chose to engage in. A death is always a sad event, regardless of who it is. But some people choose to kill themselves...drugs, alcohol, homosexual acts. It is their choice.
Is ignorance your only area
rasberries
I'm sorry, that was not meant to be all. But in the area where I live sm
that is generally the case. I don't judge people by their age. I am 41 myself. My point was supposed to be that as time passes I think we are all becoming less prejudiced with each generation. I know for sure that not everyone over 40 is prejudiced and I apologize if that is how it came across. I think if you go back 50 years ago you would find a lot more racial prejudice than say 40 years ago, and even less 20, and less now. That was supposed to be my point, but I worded it poorly.
the polls to be open in my area
x
SP is a one-woman disaster area, but she'll
when it comes time for McC to start pointing fingers, the way some of the brighter pubs have already been doing.
In our area, all the "Handicapable" work programs are
subsidized through the state or private donors. The state is broke. They have already announced this is one of the areas of the budget that will be eliminated, along with the subsidized housing programs that provide the same people with independent or assisted living residences. The private corporate donors in our area are announcing layoffs by the thousands and have cut way back on community donations.
Ooops - my big mistake, sorry sam I replied in the wrong area
I meant to reply to the one right below this posted by holycrap.
Sorry for the mixup, after it was posted and I saw where I said to myself - Holycrap, I posted in the wrong area. HA HA HA. Sorry. That's what I get for trying to function on 4 hours of sleep last night and not enough coffee today.
I do believe Savage in this case, cuz announcements in the paper are the same way in my local area..
Where did I say anything else, I was just commenting on the announcement in the paper. GEESH.
Yeah, I really see the unemployed folks in my area clamoring for those meat- sm
packing and farm labor jobs....NOT. Look, let's pick our battles over illegals. I live in a rural area where primarily Mexican immigrants slave in the asparagus, hops, grape and onion fields from dawn to dusk, bent over and doing back-breaking work. You couldn't get the lazy American folks to come take those jobs in million years.
Listen/Request Alan Colmes radio show in your area.
See link.
I have been holding my tongue on that ...sm
It is interesting though. These were Bush, Reagan, Ford and Clinton appointees that made this decision (5-3). And I see where the right is upset, but to me it is pivotal that they followed the law and not beliefs and I'll tell you why.
Charles Lane, writer for the Washington Times wrote (see link below), *Brushing aside administration pleas not to second-guess the commander in chief during wartime, a five-justice majority ruled that the commissions, which were outlined by Bush in a military order on Nov. 13, 2001, ***were neither authorized by federal law nor required by military necessity, and ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions.*** As a result, no military commission can try Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the former aide to Osama bin Laden whose case was before the justices, or anyone else, unless the president does one of two things he has resisted doing for more than four years: operate the commissions by the rules of regular military courts-martial, or ask Congress for specific permission to proceed differently.*
Looking at it this way, *Bush* NOT the Supreme Court, has held this up for four years when he could have done the prior one or two things. No president can just willy nilly make up things as he goes without going through the proper channels. This case is no different. Checks and balances is taught in elementary nowadays. I predict as he ways he will, he will get with Congress and they will collectively make a decision on something that will bring the POWs to justice (wishful thinking).
Do I want to see bin Laden's assistant, or any other war criminals walk? No, especially not the perpetrators in the 9-11 attacks. That's something I do not want to see come of this decision, but we must respect our own democracy in seeking justice.
This is just my opinion of what I understand is going on with the decision. If anyone can shed some more light on it I'd appreciate it. Have a good holiday weekend!
I'm not holding my breath......sm
I'll believe Obama gives me a tax cut when it happens, as well as help out with my health insurance. Can't tell from his website how "exactly" that's going to happen. His website if filled with a whole lot of words that are meaningless to me. Sounds good, but I don't see a lot of substance there, just like when he was campaigning.
Not holding my breath, but I'll come back and tell you if either of those things happen.
Not a Republican even though I leaned towards McCain over Obama, since he's such an unknown (and still is), and I actually decided I couldn't vote for McCain either....so my vote went to neither of them.
Who's holding a gun to your head? Don't like him
Simple as pie. Why spend your life being angry and posting these pathetically juvenile insults? Nothing better to do?
What's holding Edwards back?
Still holding out that last desperate hope
DNC has proven this over and over and over and over and over again. Burden or proof is now on the Berg the Boob.
the world is holding their breath
After 9/11 would the United States really elect a black man named Barack Hussein Obama?
Right now on C-Span, they are holding hearings
for the auto bailout. It's just starting.
We're not holding our breath. Owning up
nm
James Montgomery, Esq. is holding a press
conference. Jesse Jackson, Jr. is "candidate #5" and he thinks Blagojevich should step aside and resign and let the Lt. Gov. take over. He states JJ, Jr. is qualified for the position.
He states JJ, Jr. is not guity of anything. He is not worried about any consequences of this except the media frenzy that is being created by this. If the meeting between the Gov. and JJ, Jr. was taped, they have no concern over it.
He (JJ, Jr.) will be speaking with the investigators on Friday or Monday. He will be holding a press conference in 15-16 minutes.
There is a picture of her in a bathing suit holding
a gun...does that count?
Holding people accountable and blaming
people are 2 different things. Blaming either party will get us nowhere. The situation is upon us and the blame game is only holding up the resolution.
Holding people accountable may help to prevent a similar situation in the future. Holding someone accountable means owning up to their part in the problem and making retribution to fix the problem. If someone went along with this and gained financially from it, then that person should be accountable - own up and pay up. If someone went along with this and gained politically, then that person should be accountable - own up and give up (your position).
I took serious offense to your comment because you didn't say it was directed to the politicians on the hill. You said as a general statement to all dems.
so quit talking and start doing -- what's holding you
nm
It isn't the Navy holding her child support
The federal government has rules concerning how much of someone's paycheck that you can garnish. I personally was in the Navy (in payroll of all things) and when I went through my divorce, the court ordered a whole $325 a month for 2 kids (both in daycare at $120/week/per kid). We were both discharged just prior to the divorce and he purposely took a job that paid $6 an hour, working 20 hours a week. The judge, out of the kindness of his heart, based the child support on him making $6/hr at 40 hours, not the 20 he was working. He was capable of making more, but wanted to tick me off. BUT, you cannot garnish more than 60% of ones wages and if back support is owed, not more than 65% with the 5% going to pay off the arreage.
There are certain things that you can take into consideration when they garnish your wages (most states make it mandatory now). In the military, they cannot include your food ration money, housing money, uniform money and whatever extras they have these days. They can only include your base salary. Being that military pay royally sucks, I can see where they are not handing over everything that is owed, especially if he is lower ranking.
I know it bites the big one and I feel for your daughter, being that I have been there, but she can get through it and be stronger for it. She needs to show her kids that she can hold her head up high and trudge on. I'll keep her in my prayers.
Thinking good thoughts and holding him up...:-) nm
nm
Not bickering. Holding feet to fire. Like GP...
and I agreed to. Have a good night!
If that's the case, I'm holding a bake sale.
If my sending money to Israel can help them buy bombs to nuke the Palestinians off the face of the planet, I'm cutting them a check right now.
KaBOOOOOOM!
Mazel tov!
I'm not predicting anything...just holding onto that new 4-letter word
YES WE CAN
Oh...forum domination. Someone holding your hands behind your back....
and preventing you from posting? Or don't you have a cause you care enough about TO post?
Yep...and today he is holding a town hall in France...
yukking it up with Europe as his own country circles the drain....pittiiiffullll.
Remember Bush holding hands with Prince Abdullah???
So as far as reading anything into Obama trying to get our nation back on the right track, thank God what was here before no longer around.
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.
|
