What do you think - GITMO idea
Posted By: Just a suggestion on 2009-02-08
In Reply to:
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.
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
He feels O's date for Gitmo closure is bad idea
nm
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
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
Gitmo contains Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists.
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!
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. ??
Berlusconi is ready to take 3 Tunisians from Gitmo to Italy..nm
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/
Slaughter of Foreigners in Yemen Bears Mark of Former Gitmo Detainee
The fate of three of nine foreigners abducted in Yemen last week is known — their bodies were found, shot execution style. The whereabouts of the other six — including three children under the age of 6 — remain a mystery.
But terrorism experts say their abductors and killers are almost certainly not a mystery. They say the crimes bear the mark of AL Qaeda, and they fear they are the handiwork of the international terror organization's No. 2 man in the Arabian Peninsula: Said Ali al-Shihri, an Islamic extremist who once was in American custody — but who was released from the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Link for full story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,527868,00.html
A better idea. SM
Make everyone register as many other sites do. That way, you have to keep the sam identity. As far as the rest, both sides are equally at fault. Using the "They" term and the "You" term are shallow. I doubt the board is under new management. You allegation that posters got special treatment is another delusion. But since you won't be responding to me, I guess I don't need to let that bother me.
You have know idea who or what *they* are. sm
I would not make such statements about something you know nothing about. You read a story, it said what you believed and you ran with it. My gosh, how do you ever learn anything? Do you think I judge all liberals by these people? Freepers are large contributors to charities. They have a race on now to get together donations for Katrina victims. They are huge supporters of the military. I have been going to their site for years and I have never seen anyone threaten to kill anyone. But it's something you want to believe and so you will. It's too darn bad. There are liberals who post there, too. But, of course, you don't know that.
First of all, you have no idea what I would do
Clinton wasn't my favorite president but I have never hated him with the vitriol that you on the left have hated Bush.
As far as Lurker's thoughts about Bush they are assertions and not proven fact and I for one think they are hogwash--not to mention grossly, grossly over exaggerated.
Is that enough of an answer for you? Probably not...nothing is ever enough for you all.
I think I get where you get this idea
It's because all the baseless charges against Bush have truly been baseless. Let's talk about the void-of-actual-fact USA Today article about the so-called NSA release of private information. That has pretty much been debunked and exposed as yet another attempt to cast doubt on Bush. There are numerous other examples, and let's not forget *Rathergate*
Just because liberal journalists have a vendetta for this president and aren't smart enough to get anymore than forged documents to back up their reports does not mean the press has given the president a free pass. They just suck as journalists. That's not Bush's fault.
You have no idea.
but you have illustrated many points made about you here very well. That isn't bashing, my dear, it's called truth.
Now that's an idea!!!
I'm all for that! She seems to be a real go-getter!!
I have no idea.
A friend of mine has been totally hot to trot on this story & has kept sending me stuff about it. I haven't for obvious reasons.
I was reluctant to even post that on this board. It's become so obnoxious here that I may as well be on one of the left-wing sites.
I've found a much more fun place to chat. Lots of conservatives and Libertarians, and much more interesting than this jazz over here.
I have no idea.........
Guess I was raised by *gasp* liberals............frankly, no-bah-dee's bidness, but it is disheartening to see gay couples who love each other who cannot make end-of-life decisions for each other or any of the other "benefits" that heterosexual couples take for granted.
Hey I have an idea for
Since he is going to make all these changes and what not, instead of starting new government programs, why doesn't he just take all the money he is getting for his campaigns and help out people who are losing their homes, jobs, etc? Kind of a "put your money where your mouth is" approach? Then he would really be "different" from other politicians and I bet anyone he helped or saw him helping others would vote for him and he wouldn't have to waste time campaigning and making ads...
Just a thought :-D
not a bad idea.
x
I'm not against the idea
of helping people who are helping themselves... regarding helping people with their loans because in turn it will help out the economy... this just seems to be the best suggestion I've heard so far but then again, I've not heard many. I will say this... I personally know someone who has multiple mortgages out on their home, in order to buy new vehicles, etc. not one cent put back into their home. Now I agree that people like that should not be helped, on the other hand, I also find it disgusting that anyone would lend them that money to begin with.
i had NO idea that was said
..
Here is an idea
Because there is a lot of voter fraud (no matter what side you believe there is fraud on) do you think a voting system like this would work and if not why.
First, you do away with electronic voting. Everything is paper ballots.
You have a regular sheet of paper divided in half (top and bottom). At the top you have the name of one candidate with the word democrat or republican underneath the name (all in huge letters for those who have a hard time reading), followed by a picture of him/her (for those who can only recognize the candidate by their photo), followed by a big huge box. Same for the other candidate on the bottom of the paper. The big huge box is for people to put an X, checkmark or scribble inside the box.
Then, before you vote you will be asked by the people at the voting booths if you understand how to vote, if not they explain that you can x, check or scribble inside the box next to the candidate you want to win. Each polling place gets only the exact number of ballots (pieces of paper) as there are people registered. Also well ahead of time you tell people if they need to register to vote they need to do so ahead of time at the DMV and nowhere else (to avoid fraud). If they wait and don't register they will not be qualified to vote and will have to wait til next election and that's just tough because they know the rules ahead of time.
At the end of the night after the polls close there is a large group of people from both sides, they open up the boxes, take out the ballots and count them and on a huge blackboard tally up the votes. There are a huge number of people from both sides watching, so there is no chance of fraud. At the end of counting their tally is then sent into the main headquarters, again with a lot of people watching/listening from both sides so there is no chance of fraud.
I've just often wondered that seeing as there is so much voter fraud and a lot of it with computers (college kids are able to hack into the system), why don't we go with paper ballots (and nothing with little hanging chads). This is a huge box so you know right away who they voted for.
What do you think? I can't figure out why there is voter fraud at each election and it never gets fixed. Also, would you be upset it you had to wait until 11/5 to find out the true winner of an election.
Also, I think if a county or state is found guilty of voter fraud all their votes should be tossed out, no matter whether it is on the republicans side or democrats. Rules should be noted ahead of time that if you are caught of voter fraud you will be treated like the children you act like and your privilage will be taken away and if there are any angry citizens they need to take it up with the people in charge of the voting system in their county. This should be a law and take effect that way people know way ahead of time the consequences of fraud or any mis-doings and there will be no option to appeal. You knew ahead of time and you pay the consequences if guilty.
Just frustrated with voter fraud every single election and there just has to be a way to put a stop to it. Your thoughts?
I had no idea
what the heck? I just went to that website. Is this just one wierdo's website who thinks that he is the messiah? Or are you saying to me that there are real people out there, ordinary, everyday people, who actually believe that he is sent from God? Because I watch the news all day long, was gonna vote for O, and I have never, ever seen anything like this here.
You have no idea what you are asking for
part of me hopes Obama wins just so you all can see him for what he really is.
If he wins there will be no more balance of power. We will have a liberal congress with a liberal president who elects liberal judges. But I guess that's what you want, huh? Lets forget family values, moral ways of life. If it's inconvenient, kill it. If you want to marry your dog, go ahead. Don't want to work? We'll take care of you.
|
