Obama has a Guantanimo bay problem !!

One of his big pledges 8 years ago was to close Guantanimo bay.....Like all Presidents he is hoping to add to his legacy in his final year....A legacy so far full of promise that hasn't delivered......Obama has a poor favorability rating...

Whilst he's saying it's to take the problem off an incoming President.......... It's about legacy !!

Plans have been announced by the White house to shut the facitlity down (It costs a fortune to run....Could save $350 million over ten years)

Anyway 91 prisoners are there and the idea is to transfer some back to their Countries and the 35 or so left would come to US facilities...

Republicans are saying under no circumstances are we having these people in the US.....and as it's an election year and they run congress it's a problem for the White house...Some more extreme types have put videos on the net crumpling up Obama's proposal and shoving it in a bin (Subtle as ever)..

The GOP have always said these prisoners are prisoners of war...Hence they question it's "illegality.."

However the President can overrule congress as the constitution does allow a President to make "Tactical military decisions"...

However If he does go down this route the Republicans have already threatened to sue Obama.......and one assumes it isn't an idle threat..

Much for Obama to ponder...

A problem, to be sure. If I was Obama I'd be doing all I can to highlight the lunacy and seriously questionable morals of those who set it up and dumped it in his lap. I don't envy him having to tidy up after W and his criminal cronies.

It was set up with the best of intentions...

Yes. To avoid the UN and its pesky regulations re. the treatment of POWs. Laudable. Not.

To keep America safe.....After 9/11...

Bollox to the UN..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:To keep America safe.....After 9/11...

Bollox to the UN..

That's not a good argument and you know it. They were detained w/o trial in dubious circumstances, to say the least. Protect the U.S., my arse. Are you seriously suggesting the U.S. couldn't house them in high security on the U.S. mainland?? Laughable. Keep trying to justify it though....
The U.S. is a Permanent Security Council member. If they man sausage a snook so easily at the U.N., they deserve plenty of opprobrium.

Not arguing...I'm no fan of Guantanimo.

Think the intentions were good but flawed...

That's it...Blair seem to agree..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Not arguing...I'm no fan of Guantanimo.  

Think the intentions were good but flawed...

That's it...Blair seem to agree..

Blair could sell snake oil to snake oil salesmen. Slimy murderous b*stard.

You're right there..

A lot of the prisoners were not from Afghanistan despite being in Afghanistan at the time of the war and when the terrorist camps were operating.
Why were they there in the first place? Its not the Costa Del Sol ffs!!

aja424 wrote:A lot of the prisoners were not from Afghanistan despite being in Afghanistan at the time of the war and when the terrorist camps were operating.
Why were they there in the first place? Its not the Costa Del Sol ffs!!

What's the above got to do with the legality of the U.S.' actions in holding them, untried, in Guantanimo? If you have evidence, you charge and put on trial. If they're bona fide POWs, they have certain rights under the Third Geneva Convention, which the U.S. was, presumably, instrumental in creating and was also a (if not, the) key signatory. Acting directly counter to all the U.S. would profess to believe in is/was shooting themselves in the foot and more than a little stupid, not to say, probably illegal (not that they'll ever have to deal with that aspect). In addition, like it or not, the U.S. is looked at for leadership in things like this and they signally dropped the ball on this one.

Interesting Obama documentary (seems like first of a series):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07470xw/inside-obamas-white-house-1-100-days

Lot of big name features.

Well there probably will be a 'lack of evidence',given that there was probably not any cctv footage or witnesses' able to verify that they had entered Afghanistan with bad intentions.

You're advocating locking people up without evidence for a decade or more for being in a specific country? Pathetic.

Scottrf wrote:You're advocating locking people up without evidence for a decade or more for being in a specific country? Pathetic.

Afghanistan isn't Costa del Sol FFS.

Lock up all of the International Committee of the Red Cross employees. They are in plenty of places that aren't Costa del Sol.

Such a simplistic argument.

The reality is that half the people got locked up because people were being offered bounties to turn people over.

OK

Kingraf was mocking Aja, Navy. Get some sleep my friend!

Not advocating locking someone up purely for being in another country. But why on earth would they be there anyway?

Maybe they should establish that in some kind of designated place.

A court, for example.

To be fair the entire middle East is hardly a holiday inn so you could ask what is anyone doing at any place that isn't their home. I supoose the answers will generally be a variation of the phrase "I'm broke bitch" abd "trying to make some Frak money"

You're right.

Everybody forgets a little incident called 9/11........If you want to remember it.. try watching "Voices from the Tower" it is probably on youtube.... Where Parents who had no problem from Islamic fundamentalists got to listen to their Sons and Daughters last minutes on the phone before the lines went dead..

No one is interested in them......But waterboard a terrorist and all hell breaks loose..

Sorry I'm out of tears..

You're being emotive and failing to grasp the very basics of the argument.

Because people don't want to give carte blanche to any action deemed necessary (even acts subsequently banned by the same government), they have forgotten 9/11? You do sensationalist things sometimes TRUSSY. Sounding like Trump.

You're assuming that they are terrorists being waterboarded. If you have to waterboard someone, chances are it's because you don't have evidence on them. And it's been shown to be ineffective for gathering evidence.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Everybody forgets a little incident called 9/11........If you want to remember it.. try watching "Voices from the Tower" it is probably on youtube.... Where Parents who had no problem from Islamic fundamentalists got to listen to their Sons and Daughters last minutes on the phone before the lines went dead..

No one is interested in them......But waterboard a terrorist and all hell breaks loose..

Sorry I'm out of tears..

This is why practically anything you say in defense of America is bullsh*t unless proved otherwise. Simply because in your mind...


Response to 9/11 - 3 countries bombed to the stone age, 1.3 million people dead, tens of countries destabilized and now prone to attack, Al Qaeda reduced to almost nothing, bin laden dead = everyone forgets about 9/11

Response to Guantanamo Bay = U.S accused of torture and are called hypocrites = All hell breaking loose

Pr4wn wrote:You're being emotive and failing to grasp the very basics of the argument.

I know the argument only too well my friend.....But feel free to patronise.. its more interesting than trying to change the argument which you do regularly when you're losing a "conversation.."

I see the opposite side though and can see why posters don't agree with me..Fair enough....

But when it comes to these things I'm with the great Presidential Candidate Barry M Goldwater : "Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice"...."Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"..

What a guy..

Liberal in every other regard bar defence..

Screw em....I care about people that care !!

We all care mate, but some of us don't want to stoop so low in the name of defence.

If it keeps my family safe...I'll go as low as it takes..

I care about people that care..

But I do acknowledge your argument..