Will Obama Close Guantanomo ?

[Jagger69]

closing it is not the answer, finding out who's who and either convicting or aquitting them asap is whats right.

People have to be officially charged with a crime before they can be either acquitted or convicted. I'm not defending a lot of the scum that is being held there....just the mad methodology we are using to justify it. I hope he closes it....it has been a pariah to the Bush administration and we need to make a statement to the world that we are not all about Bush and Cheney and deinal of rights and torture and all that crazy shit.

How can we pretend to be the paragon of democratic virtue that we claim to be and then shit all over the constitution? It's a dichotomy of immense proportions and we need to get our priorities back in order. Justice is needed....not what we have now. The guilty will be found and those who are not will be exonerated.

 

[titsrock]

How can we pretend to be the paragon of democratic virtue that we claim to be and then shit all over the constitution? It's a dichotomy of immense proportions and we need to get our priorities back in order. Justice is needed....not what we have now. The guilty will be found and those who are not will be exonerated.

I think this is well said. I think half of the people in Gitmo are there wrongly or are there for being seen having a coffee with someone bad sometime...the other half are people we KNOW are "bad" and want to destroy America, but we have no proof that they've done anything. Atleast we have no proof that would hold up in a real court of law.

In short, Gitmo has become America's Gulag. It is a ******** for our country to have had a president who spouts "freedom" "democracy" "the universality of freedom" and then goes out and sanctions Gitmo and leaves people to rot.

I do believe that Obama will close Gitmo within 2009. I think the only way we begin to repair our WORLDY IMAGE is to transfer the prisoners to The Hague or somehow get the UN involved...it will not be a "clean" ending. We have to just do it.

I don't know of anyone that holds the US Military responsible for Gitmo or Abu Ghraib. Sure there were some out-of-control Army personnel in Abu Ghraib but the accountability for these messes is further up the chain of command....

 

[usmc071984]

I have a question for you. If we as a country reduce ourselves to being closer to the level of the people we think are evil and the people that we **** what they do, if we throw away all the liberties and human rights we hold dear, if we cast aside the very values that made our country what it is and the foundation upon which it was built, if we become reprehensible and use an ends to a means philosophy to justify making things more convenient for us...THEN JUST WHAT THE HELL ARE WE FIGHTING FOR ANYMORE? At that point there really isn't much left worth to preserve. We will have become as bad or even worse than our enemies. At least some of them don't hide their bad sides. Is that something you would want to fight for? For me it isn't.




I have learned in life that you can't fight evil with evil and have something good come out of it. Sooner or later it will come back and worse than before. It does nothing but keep perpetuating evil in the world. In that situation only evil wins. Even worse it corrupts and destroys the very thing people are, the very things that made them the person they were in the first place. Either as a person or as a society is becoming a *******, becoming that which you ****, worth it to make an impossible victory perceived to be easier?

ok quick question in response. if all our fights are to preserve the founding morals, and american was founded upon christianity, then why do we have an islamist about to take over the prez's chair? let it be known that i said it right here, bad things are comin, and its all gunna start in these next 4, and god pray it stays at just 4, years.

 

[bodie54]

ok quick question in response. if all our fights are to preserve the founding morals, and american was founded upon christianity, then why do we have an islamist about to take over the prez's chair?

Holy shit

I had hoped the "islamist" garbage would end with the election; that perhaps it was just part of playing hardball politics. Unfortunately it appears that for some it was not.

And furthermore, America wasn't "founded upon christianity".

 

[usmc071984]

uh, yes, it was. the whole reason for comin over here was to escape britains rule over us and them not allowing us to practice christianity freely. instead we were locked under roman catholics insanely strict rules at the time, i.e. certain parts of the bible that only deacons were allowed to see and such......

we came here to practice christianity freely, they followed and tried to make us yet another province of britain, and we fought em out.

thus the "one nation, under god....." as in the pledge of alegance
as well as "in god we trust" on every dollar you spend.
funny, i thought i wasnt the only person seeing and hearing all of this....

 

[TwatDetective]

ok quick question in response. if all our fights are to preserve the founding morals, and american was founded upon christianity, then why do we have an islamist about to take over the prez's chair? let it be known that i said it right here, bad things are comin, and its all gunna start in these next 4, and god pray it stays at just 4, years.

Is that satire?

 

[usmc071984]

well how do you mean satire? similar to irony?
if so, i do find it to be slightly satire......
but mostly horrifying...........

 

[Baill Inneraora]

Untruths lead to flaws in logic:

Of course the obvious one is President Elect Obama is a Christian and not an Islamist

The Constitution is “God Free”. The bill of rights establishes freedom from religion as mush as freedom of religion

Roman Catholicism had nothing to do with British rule. Britain was Protestant since Henry the VIII. In fact the only colony of the original 13 who had in significant number of Catholics in the Colonial period was Maryland, which also happened to be one of the most religiously tolerant at the time.


The early settlers in what became the US did not come over here to found a new country. That came much later.

One nation under god was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the fricking 1950’s, not the 1770’s.

 

[bodie54]

uh, yes, it was. the whole reason for comin over here was to escape britains rule over us and them not allowing us to practice christianity freely. instead we were locked under roman catholics insanely strict rules at the time, i.e. certain parts of the bible that only deacons were allowed to see and such......

we came here to practice christianity freely, they followed and tried to make us yet another province of britain, and we fought em out.

thus the "one nation, under god....." as in the pledge of alegance
as well as "in god we trust" on every dollar you spend.
funny, i thought i wasnt the only person seeing and hearing all of this....

Yikes usmc. There are a lot of errors in the above.....I see Bail Inneraora has already started addressing them, so I'll add on.....

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892. The words "under God" were not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954.

The motto "In God We Trust" first appeared on a United States coin in 1864.

As you can see, those dates are a long, long way removed from our founding.


The first amendment to the bill of rights states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The United States was founded as a secular republic; a nation with no state-sponsored religion, Christian or otherwise. Thereby the establishment of European style theocracies, be they Christian or otherwise, was to be prevented. The 1st amendment guarantees the free excercise of religion to all religions, not just Christianity.

we came here to practice christianity freely, they followed and tried to make us yet another province of britain, and we fought em out.

We WERE a British colony. They didn't have to come here to make us one.

 

[BlueBalls]

Finally, maybe those who are being held there can fanally get a the trail every criminal (and in many cases at GitMo in my opinion innocent), has the right to have. This prison should have been torn down long ago. Holding a person prisoner without trial and for as many years as you wish is completly wrong. If they were "terrorists" why werent they tried and convicted? Because the US had no evidence and they never will have any.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

If they were "terrorists" why werent they tried and convicted?

Or even charged?

 

[ChefChiTown]

ok quick question in response. if all our fights are to preserve the founding morals, and american was founded upon christianity, then why do we have an islamist about to take over the prez's chair?

America wasn't founded on anything but the idea of personal freedom and freedom of choice. Yes, freedom of religion is part of that, but most certainly not the whole thing.

With that being said, the fact that we are about to have a so-called "Islamist" (which is incorrect, by the way) take over as President of the United States of America, is one of the most American things I have ever seen in my lifetime.

"Land of the Free": Without freedom of choice in this country, we would be run as if we lived under a dictatorship. We wouldn't be able to choose what we wanted to do in any aspect of life; the clothes we wear, the houses we live in, the jobs we work at, the money we make...the President of the United States of America. The true "founding morals" of this country are all aimed at personal freedom and freedom of choice. Electing Barack Obama (not a white man) as our next President is a huge step in freedom of choice and it also shows the exact reason why the United States of America is the...

"Home of the Brave": Sadly, it took bravery for Barack Obama to run for office. Our "founding morals", as you call them, were all created by white men who were all looking out for themselves. When they created the law of the land (so to speak) it was to benefit themselves and other white men...not anybody else. The events in our country's history will prove that; slavery, civil rights, etc. After countless years of conflict, to have a man, who is not a purebred white man, to stand up and have the bravery to run for office as the President of the United States of America and actually win is as American as it gets.

let it be known that i said it right here, bad things are comin, and its all gunna start in these next 4, and god pray it stays at just 4, years.

What would you be saying if John McCain won the election?

"This is going to be the best 4 years of my life!!! I can't wait!!! WOO HOO!!!"

 

[Facetious]

Short answer is YES he will close it.It may take some time to get the people who they need to repatriot back to other countries.

What about those "militants" whose country will not repatriate ? After all, their nations' governments aren't likely to want to become the known home of such jihadi combatants, that would just include them on Obama's daily intellegence report.

So what are the options ? There aren't any, as far as I can see.
By no acceptable means should "our" govt. release a single Guant-jihadist into the American populous, period !

That's the first question that the dems should be asking themselves :
Do I, Harry reed . . .Do I, San fran nanci . . Do I, carpetbagger, loudmouth - midget Babs Boxer . . Do I Dianne Feinstein, who was attempting to remain a fixture on and around Barack Obama on Inaug day, (did any of you guys see that ? ) until the secret service had to step in front and prevent me . . . do we have the temerity, to think that the American populous will not take up arms against us, in the event that we allow, in good faith, of course, terrorists to walk free on American soil ?

I like the way the Russians conduct business against terrorists :thumbsup:. . . like at that theatre in Moscow ? After fogging up the joint with . . who knows what, they used the means of, on the spot, summary execution of terrorists . . including women jihadi ! Just BANG ! and it's all over with.

 

[calpoon]

I like the way the Russians conduct business against terrorists :thumbsup:. . . like at that theatre in Moscow ? After fogging up the joint with . . who knows what, they used the means of, on the spot, summary execution of terrorists . . including women jihadi ! Just BANG ! and it's all over with.

You mean the one that ****ed more of the hostages than the terrorists? good job. :thumbsup:

I don't see why any of the people would not be repatriated (in the event that they aren't tried and imprisoned by the US). If the countries considered them criminals, then they would just extradite and try them at home, or if they supported them, then they would be glad to have them back.

 

[Facetious]

You mean the one that ****ed more of the hostages than the terrorists? good job. :thumbsup:

Hey ! I never condoned the gas. :tongue:


Are you referring to hostages who died as a direct result of the gases ?

 

[marquis2]

Quite frankly I don't think the base actually achieved very much.Yes, some terrorists may have been swept up and kept there but there is an unlimited supply of replacements.It also provided a rallying and recruiting point for disaffected Muslims around the world.It's done a lot of damage to the reputation of the US.
If there is a valid case to bring against individuals then let the law take its course.But you really aren't going to solve the terrorist problem by locking just a few of them away.

 

[Facetious]

In any event, and all silliness aside, This Guantanamo, Jihadi POW operation should be coined "Operation Sweep It Under The Rug", let the next administration handle it, as far as I'm concerned; and the idea that the Guant. captives were going to, one day, receive due process under the law, really gets dicey !

Since the bush admin. is now history, I would hope that the left leaning in this nation would lay off of their dogma as it relates to the rights of the Guant. captives. Your man is in control already ! Don't make it more difficult for him to process these toxic captives !


At what point do we not use our laws against the collective people of the United States of America in the hinting that our government should honor said captives the usage of our American courtrooms for trial ? I would hope, that it would be the day after a Liberal Democratic Socialist is sworn in as President of the United States, but you never can tell.
Please ! Do not entertain the idea that the captives need to set foot upon this land. There are all too many attorneys at law who would love to make a name for themselves . . and in doing so, they would only endanger the population, in all of their vigor and :spin:

Maybe employ some form of an Operation Pastorius in order to get 'em processed, something. :dunno:

 

[maildude]

It'll be interesting to see what his executive encore will be.

 

[Spleen]

let it be known that i said it right here, bad things are comin

COMING? Are you fucking blind? The bad is already here

 

[Violator79]

Closing the Bay, while not a top priority for Obama (nor should it be), is still something that must be done during Obama's first term. Give the prisoners speedy trials and give death sentence or life imprisonment to ones who deserve it, but release the rest (and bar them from ever entering US just in case). US cannot be taken seriously by the world if it fails to obey the same law as everybody else, or if it goes against its own constitution. Bush has made US a mockery in the world, it's time for Obama to restore that image and make US great again.

Well said!!! This country is so pussified that I sometimes wonder how strong we really are. The United Nations are the ones to blame for that. There was a time where America answered to NOBODY. We did things OUR way, and didn't give a fuck what others think. We sure could use those days again.

Finally, maybe those who are being held there can fanally get a the trail every criminal (and in many cases at GitMo in my opinion innocent), has the right to have. This prison should have been torn down long ago. Holding a person prisoner without trial and for as many years as you wish is completly wrong. If they were "terrorists" why werent they tried and convicted? Because the US had no evidence and they never will have any.

Or even charged?

Both of you are right on the money!!!

Oh I forgot to add, I believe GitMo will be closed within the year.