Obama creates "indefinite detention" in Guantanamo.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Zeal Ex Nihilo
Hope and change?

NOPE.jpg.

Robtard
And there goes Obama yet again bending over, spreading cheek and cum-farting over those who voted him in on given campaign promises.

Nephthys
Ha, 'cum-farting.'

This sounds like the stupidest political move in recent history. Wasn't outrage over Guantanamo like, one of the major things that outed Bush? Did Obama forget that he vowed 2 years ago to close Guantamano?

facepalm2

Darth Jello
This shit is why I'm surprised why every single so-called liberal and progressive isn't over at www.socialdemocratsusa.org

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Yes.

No.

PROTIP: Most liberals only care about issues when Republicans are in power.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Nephthys
Wasn't outrage over Guantanamo like, one of the major things that outed Bush? I think a two-term limit ousted Bush.

Darth Truculent
Would you like a terrorist in your local jail or prison recruiting and signing up potential suidide bombers? Go ahead . . . you'll care if they kill many of your fellow townsfolk. That's why Club Gitmo was created in the first place - to keep those bastards away from us.

Robtard
Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Would you like a terrorist in your local jail or prison recruiting and signing up potential suidide bombers? Go ahead . . . you'll care if they kill many of your fellow townsfolk. That's why Club Gitmo was created in the first place - to keep those bastards away from us.

This over looks a few things that are relevant:

1) It was a campaign promise. <--- these should be important to Obama voters

2) Any "terrorist" could be keep isolated in standard prisons away from would be jihadist recruits. In fact, if they weren't isolated, they'd likely be shanked.

3) Guantanamo has held/is holding people "indefinitely" who are in fact not terrorist and just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet since they're there and not here, they literally have no rights.

4) "Club Gitmo" was created so the US could do whatever they liked to suspects without having to abide by US laws. It has nothing to do with "keeping dem bastards away from us so we're safe." See #2, prisons do just fine.

Nephthys
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I think a two-term limit ousted Bush.

You silly americans and your limit to how much power a leader can hold. Thank God I live in a Monarchy.

Darth Truculent
Rob, unless they are thrown into the Super Max Prison in Colorada, then there is the possibilty of escape.

Osama has the power of persuation and some of the radical fighters do in Gitmo. It easy to manipulate certain people who are weak minded and frightened. That's why there are gangs in prison. Islam is one of the fatest religions growing in our prison system. Some of those people are in prison - very pissed off at the government and they want revenge. Potential recruits - sign up right here.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Nephthys
You silly americans and your limit to how much power a leader can hold. Thank God I live in a Monarchy. Hey I'm a Commonwealther. Jean Chretien had three terms and it was a glorious age.

Nephthys
Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Rob, unless they are thrown into the Super Max Prison in Colorada, then there is the possibilty of escape.

Osama has the power of persuation and some of the radical fighters do in Gitmo. It easy to manipulate certain people who are weak minded and frightened. That's why there are gangs in prison. Islam is one of the fatest religions growing in our prison system. Some of those people are in prison - very pissed off at the government and they want revenge. Potential recruits - sign up right here.

Well then create a prison just for convicted terrorists only make it legal and ethical. Is that such a hard thing to do?

Darth Truculent
Legal and ethical? That is a fallacy concerning the fact that they target civilians (terrorists). It's a good idea I'll admit (the prison), but exactly where would you build the prison?

Robtard
Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Rob, unless they are thrown into the Super Max Prison in Colorada, then there is the possibilty of escape.

Osama has the power of persuation and some of the radical fighters do in Gitmo. It easy to manipulate certain people who are weak minded and frightened. That's why there are gangs in prison. Islam is one of the fatest religions growing in our prison system. Some of those people are in prison - very pissed off at the government and they want revenge. Potential recruits - sign up right here.

There's the possibility of escape in Guantanamo too. If the fear of some possible terrorist escaping from a prison (who is in isolation no less) is that much of a concern, place a small military unit inside on a 24hr cycle to help guard. But really, the chance of someone escaping from solitary confinement is very slim.

Which is why isolation comes into play, if this "recruitment" concern is such a concern.

You know what's a bigger recruitment tool, locking up a bunch of young guys who didn't do anything wrong, giving them absolutely zero rights and placing them side-by-side with actual terrorist. ie Guantanamo.

Nephthys
No it isn't. Regular criminals target civilians and we still treat them legally and ethically. There is no difference.



Where do you build any prison?

Robtard
Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Legal and ethical? That is a fallacy concerning the fact that they target civilians (terrorists). It's a good idea I'll admit (the prison), but exactly where would you build the prison?

Some RED state, that's for sure.

Darth Truculent
Put joking aside . . . are you really sure they are "just in the wrong place at the wrong time?" and not innocent? I hardly consider firing a weapon at a NATO soldier 'innocent' so I do not feel any kind of smypathy for the enemy. My friend in the Rangers says that when an enemy insurgent or terrorist is captured, all they see is the most hatred in their eyes. So, if known terrorists were placed in prison next to your city would you feel safe?

inimalist
Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Would you like a terrorist in your local jail or prison recruiting and signing up potential suidide bombers? Go ahead . . . you'll care if they kill many of your fellow townsfolk. That's why Club Gitmo was created in the first place - to keep those bastards away from us.

you mean how you guys treated the 1992 WTC bombers, or Tim McVeigh, or the way every other Western nation treats terror suspects and those convicted?

ya, totally no way to deal with them roll eyes (sarcastic)

inimalist
Originally posted by Darth Truculent
So, if known terrorists were placed in prison next to your city would you feel safe?

less safe than being so near to rapists and murderers, who are far more likely to victimize me?

Nephthys
thumb up

Symmetric Chaos
So not entirely Obama's fault.

Robtard
Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Put joking aside . . . are you really sure they are "just in the wrong place at the wrong time?" and not innocent? I hardly consider firing a weapon at a NATO soldier 'innocent' so I do not feel any kind of smypathy for the enemy. My friend in the Rangers says that when an enemy insurgent or terrorist is captured, all they see is the most hatred in their eyes. So, if known terrorists were placed in prison next to your city would you feel safe?

Some of them, yes.

If someone you saw as an invader in your country captured you, how would you look at them?

I'm currently at work, in Larkspur Ca.; San Quentin is literally about 1 mile away from me right now. I'd be more concerned with the insane murderers escaping and coming over here than Abdula The Bomb Builder.

Robtard
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So not entirely Obama's fault.

Liberal.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So not entirely Obama's fault.

he did spend all of zero political capital to fight for its closure though

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
he did spend all of zero political capital to fight for its closure though

True. Has the administration given any statements about why they won't put the inmates in normal high security prisons?

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
True. Has the administration given any statements about why they won't put the inmates in normal high security prisons?

I havent seen anything official, but I'd assume it would be something like "we faced too much opposition from the American people, and we serve them" or some other cop out.

I'd be interested in what they would say about the contradiction between candidate obama and president obama on this (and, frankly, a number of other issues ), but I'm sure they would avoid saying anything too close to honest about how realpolitks work in Washington.

Darth Truculent
Lets for arguments sake, one of those prisoners came from Club Gitmo, knew how to make a dirty bomb and suceeded on detonating the weapon. How would it make you feel? Abdula the bomber may be more scary than you think.

inimalist
Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Lets for arguments sake, one of those prisoners came from Club Gitmo, knew how to make a dirty bomb and suceeded on detonating the weapon. How would it make you feel? Abdula the bomber may be more scary than you think.

why is he more worrisome than, say, a rapist?

Nephthys
Replace Abdula with an Arsonist and you have the same scenario. And yet they are put in the same cells as everyone else.

inimalist
Arsonist the bomber?

seems redundant...

Nephthys
He had really shitty parents.

Darth Truculent
Not to sound cruel but "one death is a tragedy. One million is a statistic." A terrorist's primary objective is to kill as many as he can before he himself is killed or captured. He does not discriminate between man, woman or child. He takes delight in killing. He believes in the 72 virgins in Heaven. Tell me, who would you be more afraid of? What if you had to guard a guy who praised the men who slaughtered 3,000 people on 9/11?

Sadly I have to go to work. Looking forward to continuing this discussion later.

inimalist
Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Not to sound cruel but "one death is a tragedy. One million is a statistic." A terrorist's primary objective is to kill as many as he can before he himself is killed or captured. He does not discriminate between man, woman or child. He takes delight in killing. He believes in the 72 virgins in Heaven. Tell me, who would you be more afraid of?
I don't see your point at all...

nobody made this argument for the 1992 WTC bombers

and if you really want, I can list the numerous other terrorism cases that America didn't feel it had to set up a special prision to deal with

my point is, prisions already do a good job of keeping dangerous people away from society. Those kept in maximum security areas, like the leaders of AB or Khalid Sheik Mohammed or Tim McVeigh are never going to get out. Thus, you have far more to fear from rapists and murderers who are held in genpop than you would from terrorists who would be in near continual lockdown.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
What if you had to guard a guy who praised the men who slaughtered 3,000 people on 9/11?

what about guards who have to guard people who have murdered their fellow guards?

where could you possibly be going with this?

also... your scenario insinuates that these people have been found guilty of a crime, so you do agree that guantanamo inmates should have a day in court?

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Hey, guys, I have an idea. Let's make less terrorists by not getting our fingers in their messes. JUST A THOUGHT IS ALL.

inimalist
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Hey, guys, I have an idea. Let's make less terrorists by not getting our fingers in their messes. JUST A THOUGHT IS ALL.

If we don't fight them in places like Lebanon, Yemen and Palestine, we will be fighting them in Nebraska

/fact

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
I havent seen anything official, but I'd assume it would be something like "we faced too much opposition from the American people, and we serve them" or some other cop out.

I'd be interested in what they would say about the contradiction between candidate obama and president obama on this (and, frankly, a number of other issues ), but I'm sure they would avoid saying anything too close to honest about how realpolitks work in Washington.

Strictly speaking Obama did close Gitmo in 2009 like he promised to during his campaign.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-closure-dentention-facilities-guantanamo-bay-naval-base

So it's actual a contradiction between President Obama c2009 and President Obama c2011. Obama's biggest mistake seems to have been asking for $80 million when he didn't actually know what he was going to do, then for likely more political reasons he didn't keep asking for the money once he had a prison in Illinois lined up.
http://www.webcitation.org/5jPWyaCDq

jaden101
Originally posted by inimalist
If we don't fight them in places like Lebanon, Yemen and Palestine, we will be fighting them in Nebraska

/fact

Awesome...that means tornadoes.


http://www.therealmartha.com/Navy2/Afghani_tornado.jpg

Darth Jello
Truculent, first of all, I don't even know where to begin with you. I'd maybe go to any nuclear regulatory agency and bone up on what a dirty bomb actually is and how it works. If you somehow manage to get radioactive material and you strap C4 to it, what'll happen is exactly what happens if you blow up anything else. Boom. Radioactive doesn't mean flammable. Dirty bombs are only dangerous for raising everyone within the blast radius' chances of getting cancer by 1% and for generating fear and panic among the ignorant and stupid.
As for your comments on letting loose terrorists, a majority of people at "Club Gitmo where civillians captured by warlords and turned into the US for a cash reward, many as adolescents.
In addition, I'd like to point out that we have massive networks of right wing terrorists allowed to act and caucus with laws excusing their terrorism in several state legislatures pending vote, many terrorists in current and former government positions, and terrorists heading major corporations. We've got a terrorist agent for the IRA holding hearings on radical Islam employing terrorist apologists as his experts. See any problems with that?

inimalist
Originally posted by jaden101
Awesome...that means tornadoes.


http://www.therealmartha.com/Navy2/Afghani_tornado.jpg

lol, that looks freaking awesome....

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Truculent, first of all, I don't even know where to begin with you. I'd maybe go to any nuclear regulatory agency and bone up on what a dirty bomb actually is and how it works. If you somehow manage to get radioactive material and you strap C4 to it, what'll happen is exactly what happens if you blow up anything else. Boom. Radioactive doesn't mean flammable. Dirty bombs are only dangerous for raising everyone within the blast radius' chances of getting cancer by 1% and for generating fear and panic among the ignorant and stupid.
As for your comments on letting loose terrorists, a majority of people at "Club Gitmo where civillians captured by warlords and turned into the US for a cash reward, many as adolescents.
In addition, I'd like to point out that we have massive networks of right wing terrorists allowed to act and caucus with laws excusing their terrorism in several state legislatures pending vote, many terrorists in current and former government positions, and terrorists heading major corporations. We've got a terrorist agent for the IRA holding hearings on radical Islam employing terrorist apologists as his experts. See any problems with that?

bBv88ixx74k

argue with that, pinko

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Strictly speaking Obama did close Gitmo in 2009 like he promised to during his campaign.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-closure-dentention-facilities-guantanamo-bay-naval-base

So it's actual a contradiction between President Obama c2009 and President Obama c2011. Obama's biggest mistake seems to have been asking for $80 million when he didn't actually know what he was going to do, then for likely more political reasons he didn't keep asking for the money once he had a prison in Illinois lined up.
http://www.webcitation.org/5jPWyaCDq

interesting

you think if he had waited on the funding request he could have got it through? that seems like a convienient excuse for dems, who are normally scared to look soft on "defense" issues

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist

bBv88ixx74k


Conclusion:

Islamy bombers = terrorist

Liberal radicals = terrorist

Abortion bombers = Not terrorist

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Robtard
Conclusion:

Islamy bombers = terrorist

Liberal radicals = terrorist

Abortion bombers = Not terrorist Thank you for pointing out what every red-blooded American already knew.

chomperx9
im starting to like the guy some

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Hope and change?

NOPE.jpg.

What a spineless flip-flopper....

skekUng
Not closing the base: Fail

Indefinite: Only if you consider restarting trials for those being detained, which was called a step towards saving America by violating the Gen.Conv. should they be tried and released if found innocent, and defining trials as indefinite is only a bullshit redefinition of the entire situation.

Pretending you love Joe the Plumber and raping the Union:?

Hating abortion AND gays:?

Running Newt when he impeached a President that cheated in the oval office, while he was cheating with his mistress in the congress:?

I guess everyone's answer will be Ron Paul

Lord Lucien
Ron Paul 2012!

He can't win, don't do kid yourself.

He's got a chance.

Yeah in France.

Bet you'd vote for Palin.

red g jacks
Originally posted by Darth Jello
This shit is why I'm surprised why every single so-called liberal and progressive isn't over at www.socialdemocratsusa.org so... vote democrat?

Originally posted by inimalist

my point is, prisions already do a good job of keeping dangerous people away from society. Those kept in maximum security areas, like the leaders of AB or Khalid Sheik Mohammed or Tim McVeigh are never going to get out. Thus, you have far more to fear from rapists and murderers who are held in genpop than you would from terrorists who would be in near continual lockdown. but if we imprison them here then we have to give them 'rights'..

Bicnarok
A politician breaking a promise, nothing new really.

Liberator
State repression and religious brainwashing.
Always great in combination.

inimalist
glenn greenwald for president, of the world:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/08/guantanamo/index.html

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/09/guantanamo/index.html

Symmetric Chaos
Well, that's pretty damning.

skekUng
Originally posted by skekUng
I guess everyone's answer will be Ron Paul

It's too bad that no who has responded hasn't done so without their own version of informed answers, without realizing they are just as informed as the people who loved Jurassic Park II

By the way, there isn't anything wrong with socialism. In fact, it's stupid to assume any governtment exists without it. In fact, that is the agreement of every citizen who choses to live under any government. Too bad the US has so much to learn, given our finger pointing and willful ignorance.

chomperx9
Originally posted by Robtard
And there goes Obama yet again bending over, spreading cheek and cum-farting over those who voted him in on given campaign promises. laughing

inimalist
Originally posted by skekUng
By the way, there isn't anything wrong with socialism.

you see no problem with a state that, by design, continues to encroach on personal responsibility and freedom in the name of knowing what is best for you?

skekUng
Originally posted by inimalist
you see no problem with a state that, by design, continues to encroach on personal responsibility and freedom in the name of knowing what is best for you?

It doesn't have to be that, though. Republics and democracy doesn't, either. But it has done so.

inimalist
Originally posted by skekUng
It doesn't have to be that, though.

I'd disagree

If you accept that the role of the government is to provide for its people, you really don't present a non-arbitrary line where that "providing" stops. The reason modern social-democracies work at all is that there is a conservative opposition that opposes these types of things.

For instance, imho at least, it is very difficult to argue from a socialist position that the state shouldn't regulate fast food.

A purely socialist system, or any system in which it is deemed to government's purpose is to provide things for its people, will over time, tautologically imho, have to accrue more and more power. In some ways this is even just a consequence of previous mandates. In Canada, increases in the elderly population will lead to greater health care costs, which will lead to a larger government collecting more money from its people to provide more services it deems it has to provide based on said mandates.

skekUng
But you're still following out what strictly socialist nations have become, not what they could be. The same argument you present is one that could be made for communism; it works wonderfully on paper, just like most government models. The notion that a government must provide for it's people doesn't have to be the perspective from which you approach the debate. There is a difference between "provide for" and "responsible to".

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by skekUng
But you're still following out what strictly socialist nations have become, not what they could be. The same argument you present is one that could be made for communism; it works wonderfully on paper, just like most government models. The notion that a government must provide for it's people doesn't have to be the perspective from which you approach the debate. There is a difference between "provide for" and "responsible to". I think the cynic in inimialist tells him that "responsible for" inevitably leads to "provide for".

inimalist
more that there is a philosophical difference between providing for, which I would consider socialism, and being responsible to. Being responsible to really just assumes that the state represents the will of the people. Regardless of whether that works in reality, the only way "being responsible to" is the same as socialism is when the people want to be socialist. Though, it is very easy to think of times where the social welfare of a nation is made stronger by going against the will of the people.

Creating a nanny welfare state is not being responsible to people, it is providing for them, regardless of benevolence, and given the nature of state power, they will never meaningfully give it up, and as time progresses, it will naturally take more and more of a governing role in people's lives, albeit in providing them necessities, but still.

skekUng
Now, ask yourself who that government is.

Lord Lucien
The People, dammit!

inimalist
Originally posted by skekUng
Now, ask yourself who that government is.

the idea that the government represents the collective will of the people it represents is directly argued against by the equality of women, blacks, and other minority groups. These groups earned their freedom in spite of the people.

GaDaffy Duck
Obama you really are a man of your word, aren't you?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.