why is gitmo bad ?

first of all, i'm not a moron, just because i have you working so hard on this. i don't think # 14 applies to unlawful combatants. the supreme court does, but that could change. it's not cut and dry, it doesn't feel like "settled law" ... yet.
if it we're would gitmo be closed and all of it's residents processed?


Unfortunately, you are technically incorrect. It is under US military control, but it is being officially leased to the US.


this may be another technicality/problem

You are no moron. You know more about this than 95% of Americans. I certainly does not feel like a "settled law", but it is the state of things. All I wanted to do is point out that the reason that they can use Guantanamo Bay as a way of detaining "enemy combatants" is through a minor loophole. Therefore, it is constitutional in the strict sense, but in is not in line with the spirit of the constitution. And in that respect, I agree with you.

But the loophole is there. The US does not own the land and is therefore not technically "sovereign". But to anyone who looks at the situation, the US is sovereign in pretty much every way they can be except on paper.

My hope is that Obama will finally close the place, and he has made a massive effort to do so. It will take him longer than he originally promised, but as with all politicians, the reality of situation requires a lot of time and subtlety.
 
first of all, i'm not a moron, just because i have you working so hard on this. i don't think # 14 applies to unlawful combatants. the supreme court does, but that could change. it's not cut and dry, it doesn't feel like "settled law" ... yet.
if it we're would gitmo be closed and all of it's residents processed?


Unfortunately, you are technically incorrect. It is under US military control, but it is being officially leased to the US.


this may be another technicality/problem

You are no moron. You know more about this than 95% of Americans. I certainly does not feel like a "settled law", but it is the state of things. All I wanted to do is point out that the reason that they can use Guantanamo Bay as a way of detaining "enemy combatants" is through a minor loophole. Therefore, it is constitutional in the strict sense, but in is not in line with the spirit of the constitution. And in that respect, I agree with you.

But the loophole is there. The US does not own the land and is therefore not technically "sovereign". But to anyone who looks at the situation, the US is sovereign in pretty much every way they can be except on paper.

My hope is that Obama will finally close the place, and he has made a massive effort to do so. It will take him longer than he originally promised, but as with all politicians, the reality of situation requires a lot of time and subtlety.

thank you, and thanks for another of the cogent replies. there are so many facets to this, you made me think of another with repect to us being in cuba. why hasn't castro tried to run us off. have they made a challenge at the hague? i'm glad we have guantanamo. i am conflicted with the obama handling of ksm and others, and they being no closer to "having been processed" then when he took office.
being president can't be all that hard, but i wish he would own up to "what's good for the gooses is good for the gander, he's such a blowhard. no one wants to see anyone get a fair trial (and speedy due procees) more than i do, the boat has long since sailed, the laws are and have been in order, what is the hold up now?
 
thank you, and thanks for another of the cogent replies. there are so many facets to this, you made me think of another with repect to us being in cuba. why hasn't castro tried to run us off. have they made a challenge at the hague? i'm glad we have guantanamo. i am conflicted with the obama handling of ksm and others, and they being no closer to "having been processed" then when he took office.
being president can't be all that hard, but i wish he would own up to "what's good for the gooses is good for the gander, he's such a blowhard. no one wants to see anyone get a fair trial (and speedy due procees) more than i do, the boat has long since sailed, the laws are and have been in order, what is the hold up now?

Well, I do think being President is probably one of the most difficult jobs in the world. It recquires an expansive knowledge a familiarity with an myriad of issues that all have difficult subtleties and all of which affect the well being of, not only US citizens, but of millions of people who depend or are affected by US influence. My speculation is that it is anything but simple. The economy, the war, international relations between friends and allies, an unstable middle-east, domestic issues involving the drug wars, illegal immigration, party politics, to name but a few of the issues.

In regards to Guantanamo Bay, there is good article by the NY Times that outlines the difficulties in closing Guantanamo Bay. It turns out Obama issued an executive order to close the facility in late January, following his inauguration, with the directive of closing it within the year. No doubt security issues, and probably a ton of flak from military advisors used to the hard-liner Bush policy, are putting up a lot of road blocks. And rightfully so. These individuals are dangerous, and they need to be handled correctly and safely.
[The NY Times article is titled "Obama Issues Directive to Shut Down Guantánamo" and is on the NY Times website. Google should do the trick]

You also mentioned Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. Another article outlines the legal issues of giving KSM a trial by a US District court, or a military tribunal in the interest of security. Again, Obama can give the order, but it requires a lot of coordination. And with everything else he's got to handle, I think as Americans we should cut him a hell of a lot of slack.
[The article is from Yahoo News and is titled: "U.S. close to decision on 9/11 trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed"]
 
thank you, and thanks for another of the cogent replies. there are so many facets to this, you made me think of another with repect to us being in cuba. why hasn't castro tried to run us off. have they made a challenge at the hague? i'm glad we have guantanamo. i am conflicted with the obama handling of ksm and others, and they being no closer to "having been processed" then when he took office.
being president can't be all that hard, but i wish he would own up to "what's good for the gooses is good for the gander, he's such a blowhard. no one wants to see anyone get a fair trial (and speedy due procees) more than i do, the boat has long since sailed, the laws are and have been in order, what is the hold up now?

Well, I do think being President is probably one of the most difficult jobs in the world. It recquires an expansive knowledge a familiarity with an myriad of issues that all have difficult subtleties and all of which affect the well being of, not only US citizens, but of millions of people who depend or are affected by US influence. My speculation is that it is anything but simple. The economy, the war, international relations between friends and allies, an unstable middle-east, domestic issues involving the drug wars, illegal immigration, party politics, to name but a few of the issues.

In regards to Guantanamo Bay, there is good article by the NY Times that outlines the difficulties in closing Guantanamo Bay. It turns out Obama issued an executive order to close the facility in late January, following his inauguration, with the directive of closing it within the year. No doubt security issues, and probably a ton of flak from military advisors used to the hard-liner Bush policy, are putting up a lot of road blocks. And rightfully so. These individuals are dangerous, and they need to be handled correctly and safely.
[The NY Times article is titled "Obama Issues Directive to Shut Down Guantánamo" and is on the NY Times website. Google should do the trick]

You also mentioned Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. Another article outlines the legal issues of giving KSM a trial by a US District court, or a military tribunal in the interest of security. Again, Obama can give the order, but it requires a lot of coordination. And with everything else he's got to handle, I think as Americans we should cut him a hell of a lot of slack.
[The article is from Yahoo News and is titled: "U.S. close to decision on 9/11 trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed"]






okay... first of all, i don't believe anything from the salzburg family or the new york times, they have repeatedly traitored themselves as anti american benedict arnold loving types of american bottom feeder news rag owners.
and how many yers of "it requires lots of coordination do we have to endure?" i'm hoping four


and my friend, i think that our dear leader, president obama has succinctly proven, that anyone, even the average joe off the street, even the average homeless guy, or girl from the street, could stand on that fancy carpet in the oval office, and make all of the country's most important decisions by throwing darts at a dartboard, and would be a better president than the one we have now, at least there might be some humility in the whitehouse again.
 
Last edited:
okay... first of all, i don't believe anything from the salzburg family or the new york times, they have repeatedly traitored themselves as anti american benedict arnold loving types of american bottom feeder news rag owners.
and how many yers of "it requires lots of coordination do we have to endure?" i'm hoping four


and my friend, i think that our dear leader, president obama has succinctly proven, that anyone, even the average joe off the street, even the average homeless guy, or girl from the street, could stand on that fancy carpet in the oval office, and make all of the country's most important decisions by throwing darts at a dartboard, and would be a better president than the one we have now, at least there might be some humility in the whitehouse again.

Well, we could all use a little humility. But I'd rather the efforts of educated government leaders, no matter how much I disagree with them, to lead my country more than a homeless individual picked off the street, or even a random succession dart throws.

I am intrigued however, what news sources do you use if something as reputable as the NY Times is "american bottom feeder news rag owners"?
 
like hell it isn't...

putting people into an internment camp, without charging them with any crime or act and never trying them violates everything we pretend to stand for.

or maybe you want to ask second generation japanese-americans who were interned what's wrong with it.
Anyone who questions the Stazi is a traitor :evil:
 
The Cheka, the Stazi
The human tragedies
The casualties of the state
Fifty years,
a tragic philosophy
Fifty years,
collective suffering
Fifty years,
we're the casualties
of the state

The sorrow, a so-called liberation
The sorrow, a violent domination
Sorrow, the humiliation
Fifty years, the death of a nation


Someone explain to me the difference again

full.jpg
 
like hell it isn't...

putting people into an internment camp, without charging them with any crime or act and never trying them violates everything we pretend to stand for.

or maybe you want to ask second generation japanese-americans who were interned what's wrong with it.

jillian how can you compare ksm (and others e.c. s) to japanese american citizens ? i dont' think history will see guantanamo so egregious as that internment.
yes, only ksm ever wound up in gitmo, bagram, or the others...
 
can someone remind me why guantanamo is a bad thing?

It was utilized by the Bush administration because of its location, which (they felt) enabled them to skirt the laws and regulations prohibiting torture as well as various Constitutional guarantees, such as speedy trial and right to counsel.

You weren't aware of this?

If it would save American troops lives, and protect the US from terror attacks, I wouldn't care if they used bolt cutters and lopped off enemy combatants fingers an inch at the time to obtain useful information. The people detained there are not "model citizens" you know. There are reports of some of the ones they released already in the terror camps again and causing problems.


The gestapo and the Czeka said the same thing
 
you are correct ! enemy combatant is a newly coined phrase with ties to "unlawful combantant" in use for a century or so. then the supreme ct. ruled that e.c. s should have access to civilian law. it's a sticky set of definitions that's for sure. "prisoners of war" may be a better expression. still the questions remain. do we try them at all? standard precedent has previous wars ending, not this one, is that a factor? also it's technically not a war

Prisoners of war? WHAT "war"? You can call a pile of dog poop ice cream. That does not make it so.

as i've said, when the plane hit the first tower it became a war, america one of many battlefields.
and addressing the hypocricy issue and the precious speedy trial for combatants. last year they were going to try KSM in front of the world in N.Y.C. presumably to demonstrate "the right to speedy trial, for anyone", another year later, what happened, are they still "thinking about it?" come to think of it, wasn't gitmo going to be closed (campaign promise) in one year? i see lots of wheelspinning and libeal bs
A war against anyone we say is the enemy!

Do not question the State Police.
 
can someone remind me why guantanamo is a bad thing?


it's complicated

but i'll try to explain .....


one of the reasons we took out saddam was because he was torturing his own people.

and THAT was bad!

so we took out saddam and now WE are torturing his own people....

which is GOOD!

understand?


when homosexuals get together and do naked things with each other for FUN it is BAD!
SICK!
PERVERTED!


but when u.s. soldiers or our police do these things to prisoners...
it's FUNNY!

and a good way to relieve stress!



when the vietnamese stripped and blindfolded American prisoners and set vicious dogs on them it was
PROOF of how EVIL COMMUNISTS (and liberals and democrats) REALLY ARE!

when u.s. government agents do it to "enemy combatants" and prisoners then it's "a good way to get vital information to defend America!"


basically...when we do it it is a-ok!
but when our enemies do it it is PROOF of how EVIL they are
You should have your own show on Fox News :razz:
 
I'll tell you what is wrong with Gitmo, the ONLY thing wrong with Gitmo is that the world knows it exists. The CIA needs such facilities to exist in order to be able to do their jobs properly; any reasonable person with a functioning brain realizes this. But we shouldn't be advertising it.

and fuck the terrorists and their rights. They have none. This is war. You want the US to abide by the Geneva Convention when dealing with them? Okay, then at the very least you should also be petitioning the World Court to go after the Muslims for their War Crimes.
125px-Emblema_Stasi.svg.png

 
Reichwingers know there's no excuse. That's why they can't be honest and say 'We value the State more than any persons liberty, rights, or innocence- including citizens. We approve of torture and indefinite detainment without charges for anyone we deem a potential enemy of Der Staat and are tired of hearing about anyone's so-called "rights".'
 
okay... first of all, i don't believe anything from the salzburg family or the new york times, they have repeatedly traitored themselves as anti american benedict arnold loving types of american bottom feeder news rag owners.
and how many yers of "it requires lots of coordination do we have to endure?" i'm hoping four


and my friend, i think that our dear leader, president obama has succinctly proven, that anyone, even the average joe off the street, even the average homeless guy, or girl from the street, could stand on that fancy carpet in the oval office, and make all of the country's most important decisions by throwing darts at a dartboard, and would be a better president than the one we have now, at least there might be some humility in the whitehouse again.

Well, we could all use a little humility. But I'd rather the efforts of educated government leaders, no matter how much I disagree with them, to lead my country more than a homeless individual picked off the street, or even a random succession dart throws.

I am intrigued however, what news sources do you use if something as reputable as the NY Times is "american bottom feeder news rag owners"?

they're news gathering is probably ok, the the owners politics preclude any confidence i may have. i trust fox, wall street journal, washington times, just a few others. used to trust reuters... but they photoshop their pictures now
 
I expect that someone or several someones makes lots of money from Gitmo.

Just might be a factor in keeping it open.
 

Forum List

Back
Top