DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on December 09, 2010, 06:04:25 PM
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/8/congress-deals-death-blow-gitmo-closure/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/8/congress-deals-death-blow-gitmo-closure/)
-
Damn Bush
-
Not surprising
-
Someone must be surprised , why was the promise ever made?
This is part of Obamas effort to make Bush look good.
-
Congress is to blame for not closing Guantanamo.The prisoners have to go somewhere, after all.
Not closing it simply indicates that Congress is uninterested in world opinion or justice.
-
And who's been in Majority control of Congress since Obama took office again??
-
And who's been in Majority control of Congress since Obama took office again??
Err, actually, for two years PRIOR to Obama taking office.
-
Tis true. I was just addressing Xo's apparent effort to make this a "congress" issue and trying to give a pass to both Obama & the Dems who have been in complete control since he took office
-
I was just addressing Xo's apparent effort to make this a "congress" issue and trying to give a pass to both Obama & the Dems who have been in complete control since he took office
Not sure how you can read that into his reply.
-
Unlike the bubble you tend to keep your responses locked into, mine was in reference to the rhetorical track record
-
Unlike the bubble you tend to keep your responses locked into, mine was in reference to the rhetorical track record
So you misrepresented his post?
-
Not at all. It's an accurate deduction, when you remove your bubble of immunity. But, if he comes on and clarifies that he really was criticizing Obama & the Democrats in charge for not closing Gitmo, then my deduction will have been in error. Which again, isn't a misrepresentation either
Misrepresentation would be pushing a position that he doesn't support, as if he did, or vice versa. Kinda like......claiming someone supports a Conservative MSM bias when they don't
-
If a man responds to a thread titled "Democratic Controlled US House Decides to NOT CLOSE GITMO!"
with Congress is to blame for not closing Guantanamo.The prisoners have to go somewhere, after all.
One would assume that the man knew that the Congress being blamed was "Democratic Controlled" and by extension not trying to give a pass to both Obama & the Dems who have been in complete control since he took office
-
And one more time, my reference is not to this bubble of this thread alone, where no other thread exists. Its in reference to the rhetorical history of giving pass after pass after pass to Obama & the Dems....except of course when they're not being liberal enough.
But as I said, if he comes on and clarifies that he really meant the Dems and Obama, then I'd be in error. We shall wait for the clarification
-
And one more time, my reference is not to this bubble of this thread alone, where no other thread exists.
So your reply was prejudiced. I can see how in your mind it was not a misrepresentation, because damn it once people are placed in their pigeonhole they had better damn well stay there.
I took his post to mean that he was disappointed in the dem congress for not living up to their stated ideals, even if implementing the closure of GITMO would be complicated and problematic to say the least.
Now my question to you is did the dems do wrong in not funding the closure of GITMO and the transfer stateside of the prisoners?
-
And one more time, my reference is not to this bubble of this thread alone, where no other thread exists.
So your reply was prejudiced.
Not quite, more so biased, as it was deduced from the mountains of consistent rhetoric already on record. But as i said, if we see Xo come forward and lay specific blame on the Dems and Obama, as it relates to not closing gitmo, I will be in error
Now my question to you is did the dems do wrong in not funding the closure of GITMO and the transfer stateside of the prisoners?
Not at all. I applaud their lack of political cahones, on this issue.
-
Not at all. I applaud their lack of political cahones, on this issue.
More likely, typical inside the beltway horse-trading. The funding for the GITMO closure was left out of the final bill so they could get other pet projects through.
-
Putting aside the speculation to such, I'm sure that puts their constituents' minds at ease, then
-
By Congress being to blame, I mean a majority of Congress, which includes both Democrats and Republicans. It is pretty clear that Obama wanted to close Gitmo, and this was unfortunately prevented by Congress.
-
I was proven right, thanks Xo. Dems had complete majority control. They even passed Obamacare with an end around the filibuster, using reconciliation.
But no, Xo has to make this about the GOP as well. News flash Xo, the GOP never ran on a campaign to close Gitmo. Obama had carte-blanche ability to pass anything and everything, including the closure of Gitmo. Dems could have defunded Gitmo at any time Obama's 1st year. Notice the theme?....DEMOCRATS are what impeded your liberal utopia. DEMOCRATS are what "prevented" the closure of Gitmo. Not "Congress"
-
The move to block the prison's closure was written into a massive year-end spending bill that passed the House on Wednesday evening on a vote of 212-206, part of a last-minute legislative rush by Democrats to push through their priorities before ceding the House to Republican control in January....
The final bill passed with no Republican support, while 35 House Democrats broke with their party leadership to also oppose the bill. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/8/congress-deals-death-blow-gitmo-closure/print/)
What is interesting is that in this appropriations bill they didn't just leave funding out, they specifically
forbid spending any funds on closing GITMO or transferring prisoners.
On Guantanamo Bay, by blocking the administration from spending money on a replacement prison or any prisoner transfers, Congress would effectively stop the administration from acting over the next year.
And with Republicans dead-set against closing the prison, and poised to take control of the House in January, chances are virtually zero that Congress will relent any time before Mr. Obama stands for re-election in 2012.
"None of the funds provided to the Department of Justice in this or any prior act shall be available for the acquisition of any facility that is to be used wholly or in part for the incarceration or detention of any individual detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of June 24, 2009," the bill says.
The bigger question remains what was in the bill that passed that was so odoriferous that 35 dems voted against their party.
-
Good question
-
Which brings up the auxiliary question: By voting against the bill does that mean the GOP and the 35 dems were in favor of funding the closure of GITMO and transferring the prisoners stateside?
-
Pretty doubtful considering the public positions they (in particular, the GOP) have taken vs Obama and the vast majority of Democrats
-
So it would be fair to say that they were against the entire bill and not just a small part of it?
Would it also be fair to say that the dems who voted for the bill could have been voting for the entire bill and not just the provisions that defunded the closing of GITMO, possibly in the hopes that that would free up funds for the projects that were dearer to their hearts?
-
BT why havent the Democrats that have control of both Houses of Congress
closed Gitmo as Obama promised would happen? Democrat House, Democrat Senate,
Democrat President and Gitmo is still open.
-
So it would be fair to say that they were against the entire bill and not just a small part of it? Would it also be fair to say that the dems who voted for the bill could have been voting for the entire bill and not just the provisions that defunded the closing of GITMO, possibly in the hopes that that would free up funds for the projects that were dearer to their hearts?
You could "say it", but your bubble defense of the left again leaves out the consistent rhetoric and campaign pledges to the contrary
-
Look how much this dude has aged!
Obama's Plan to Close Guant?namo Bay Detention Camp (Gitmo) will be harder than he "thought" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_NqDThwubo#)
-
You could "say it", but your bubble defense of the left again
Just curious....
why is it that BT has become a prosecutor when it comes to Republicans
and a defense attorney when it involves Democrats?
-
Letting his moderate roots spread?
-
BT why havent the Democrats that have control of both Houses of Congress
closed Gitmo as Obama promised would happen? Democrat House, Democrat Senate,
Democrat President and Gitmo is still open.
My guess is it is a typical Not in My BackYard kind of thing.
Would you like some GITMO refugees in your neighborhood?
-
I would not consider them to be any more dangerous than the local criminals that are in prision near here. It is ridiculous to assume that they are some sort of superthugs impossible to contain.
-
"Would you like some GITMO refugees in your neighborhood?"
No Sir...but the difference is I saw that from
the start and didnt ever advocate closing
Club Gitmo.
There is nothing wrong with Gitmo except
it treats the enemy way too nice. Gitmo
is perfect and I knew that from Day 1.
Once again Bush Was Right!
-
I would guess a good many of the democrat representatives constituents feel the same way.
-
why is it that BT has become a prosecutor when it comes to Republicans
and a defense attorney when it involves Democrats?
Is that how you see it?
I see it as questioning some of the positions taken by some of the conservative members of this forum.
And apparently that makes them very uncomfortable.
-
At least your consistent with the erroneous assumptions
-
At least your consistent with the erroneous assumptions
Now would that be a subjective or objective analysis of my motivations?
-
Oh no, not commenting on your motivations, merely your conclusions
-
My conclusions are based on my perceptions. You are free to disagree and even invited to share why you disagree.
-
Sirs disagrees because he has a real aversion to agreeing with anyone about anything, it seems. No one is even close to correct about anything but sirs, and only sirs knows why this is true. Lamentably, he seems unable to actually express his reasons in any coherent way.
-
My conclusions are based on my perceptions. You are free to disagree and even invited to share why you disagree.
Been there, done that. Especially on the fairly "insane" notion that either myself or Cu4 are "uncomfortable" with positions we hold or are challenged on
-
CU and I see eye to eye on many issues, and if we do disagree the discussion has always been civil. And he certainly knows what it is like to argue the opposing point of view.
I don't think he is uncomfortable in the least when his position is examined. And i never claimed he was.
He certainly has never accused me of smoking wacky weed when i'm making a point, nor has he accused me of letting my moderate roots spread. I think he understands what I am doing though he might not agree with some of the points i make.
-
and.....................? Still waiting for this inciteful rationale that somehow explains "uncomfortable"
-
"Is that how you see it?"
In some ways, but heck BT I guess it is actually educational to have you probe our beliefs.
I suppose looking back you did do the same thing to Michael Tee and others.
But really with the current population, you dont have a lot of choice as to what side to probe.
I am not sure SIRS doesn't feel "picked on"
And I don't want him to feel you are being hostile
We certainly dont want him to leave....
This place would not be the same without SIRS!
I know SIRS is a big boy....he is bright and well spoken and can handle it.
But it seems as though even though you probably agree with a lot of his stances
you are never supportive....only the prosecutor.
Sure I know what you are doing....if you dont play the "devil's advocate"
this place with it's current population would remain pretty boring.
So you are creating debate were normally there may not be any.
I realize you are between a rock and a hard place to create some dialogue.
I just hope SIRS realizes this too and doesn't take it personal.
You both are vital to this place we all love and if we ever leave
seem to find our way back to.
-
and.....................? Still waiting for this inciteful rationale that somehow explains "uncomfortable"
Didn't think so
-
and.....................? Still waiting for this inciteful rationale that somehow explains "uncomfortable"
Didn't think so
It's really simple. And it was already explained when i compared CU's responses to yours.
CU doesn't feel the need to get defensive. You do.
Thus the need for implied slurs of insanity and illicit drug use. And everyone knows that once you start with the name-calling you have lost the debate.
-
There are now around 160 prisoners in Guantanamo. There have been over 600. So there is an attempt to bring this to a close, if only eventually.
-
and.....................? Still waiting for this insightful rationale that somehow explains "uncomfortable"
It's really simple. And it was already explained when i compared CU's responses to yours. CU doesn't feel the need to get defensive. You do.
That's your rationale for "uncomfortable"? Somehow, somewhere your "deductive monitor" lost a fuse. Oh, wait, you're going to take that as personal insult/attack now, aren't you
Thus the need for implied slurs of insanity and illicit drug use. And everyone knows that once you start with the name-calling you have lost the debate.
That has squat to do with uncomfortability and everything to do with how egregious your thought process & supposed deductive reasoning had been going, in several of your exchanges with me. I was merely making light of it, since "name calling" generally entails a rather overt personal slur. Like calling someone an idiot, or moron, or worse. Again, I didn't realize how uber sensitive you apparently can get, with even feigned humor. My bad
-
There ya go again
-
my bad again
-
There are now around 160 prisoners in Guantanamo. There have been over 600.
So there is an attempt to bring this to a close, if only eventually.
Yeah and some of those released are back on the battle lines killing Americans.
Some of those released are leaders in charge of killing Americans...(and many other non-Americans)
Caskets with young Americans in them coming home to be buried...killed by Gitmo released IslamoWhackjobs!
I hope you are proud!
-
Name two Americans killed by someone released from Guantanamo. Or even one.
I bet you can't.
-
Former Guantanamo inmate, Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul once released from Gitmo quickly
became the Taliban operations chief in southern Afghanistan. This is the area where
lots of the American reinforcements are deployed to fight the Taliban. Rasoul, once
safely behind American bars, is now free to plot to kill them. Are you proud XO?
Of course a part of me would like to see the Gitmo IslamoNazis sent to some of our roughest prisons.
At Club Gitmo the IslmoaNazis have much better lives than most of the people they claim to be fighting
for. The IslamoNazis at Gitmo have plenty of shelter, nutritious food, freedom to pray and worship,
free medical care, free clean clothes and sanitation. If we moved these whackjobs to a nasty US Prison,
they would no longer be surrounded by like-minded Muslims, they would suddenly be in a tiny minority. Hell
put them among the criminal gangs, I bet the isolation would quickly make life much harder for them being
they would only get one hour daily to exercise outside their cells and never have contact with other prisoners
as they currently enjoy.
Abdullah Saleh Ali al-Ajmi, who was repatriated to Kuwait in 2005. In April 2008, he was confirmed to have
conducted a suicide bombing in the city of Mosul, Iraq, killing several Iraqi citizens.
ARE YA PROUD XO?
Ibraham bin Shakaran and Mohammed Bin Ahmad Mizouz, were repatriated to Morrocco in July 2004. In September 2007,
they were convicted for their post-release involvement in a terrorist network recruiting Moroccans to fight for al Qaida in Iraq.
ARE YA PROUD XO?
Ibrahim Shafir Sen was repatriated to Turkey in November 2003. In January 2008, he was confirmed to have been
arrested in Van, Turkey and later indicted for his role as a leader of the al Qaida cells in Van. Sen also recruited and trained
new members, provided illegal weapons to the group and facilitated the movement of jihadists.
ARE YA PROUD XO?
Ravil Shafeyavich Gumarov and Timur Ravilich Ishmurat were repatriated to Russia in March 2004.
Russian authorities arrested them in January 2005 for involvement in a gas-line bombing. A Russian court convicted
both in May 2006, sentencing them to 13 years and 11 years respectively.
ARE YA PROUD XO?
Shah Mohammed, who was repatriated to Pakistan in May 2003, and was later killed fighting U.S. forces
in Afghanistan.
ARE YA PROUD XO?
Abdullah Majid al-Naimi, who was repatriated to Bahrian in November 2005, was arrest in October 2008.
He had been involved in facilitating terrorism and was known for his association with al Qaeda.
ARE YA PROUD XO?
(http://i-mode.o2.co.uk/images/logo_cnn2.gif)
Pentagon: Ex-Gitmo detainees resume terror acts
January 14, 2009|From Mike Mount CNN
Pentagon officials say 61 former Gitmo detainees have committed or are suspected of returning to
terrorism. Dozens of suspected terrorists released by the United States from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
are believed to have returned to terrorism activities, according to the Pentagon.
Since 2002, 61 former detainees have committed or are suspected to have committed attacks after being
released from the detention camp, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said at a briefing Tuesday.
The number is up since the Pentagon's last report in March 2008 when officials said 37 former detainees
had been suspected of returning to the battlefield since 2002.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-14/us/gitmo.detainees_1_detainees-guantanamo-bay-naval-base-pentagon?_s=PM:US (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-14/us/gitmo.detainees_1_detainees-guantanamo-bay-naval-base-pentagon?_s=PM:US)
(http://www.hypnosis-and-health.com/images/sunday-times-logo.gif)
From The Times February 24, 2009
One in ten freed Gitmo detainees goes back to terrorism, says Pentagon Tom Baldwin in Washington and Michael
Evans More than one in ten of the Gitmo detainees sent back to their countries of origin have subsequently become
involved in terrorist activities, according to the Pentagon.
Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon spokesman, said that an estimated 62 former inmates had been linked to terrorism again.
"That's an 11 per cent recidivist rate," he told The Times.
Said Ali al-Shihri, released to Saudi Arabia in 2007, was put through the kingdom's special rehabilitation programme for
Jihadists but subsequently emerged as al-Qaeda's deputy leader in Yemen, Mr Morrell claimed. "The detainees released
in the early phases were considered to be the easy ones, in other words they could be released with minimal risk, and
yet 11 per cent have returned to terrorism," he said.
"With the remaining detainees, it's increasingly difficult to come to an arrangement because they are considered to
pose a greater danger, although not necessarily too dangerous to release to their home countries in the right circumstances."
Of the 243 detainees left in Gitmo, 100 are Yemenis. The United States is still trying to negotiate a deal with the
Yemeni Government about suitable monitoring and rehabilitation before they can be released.
The US says that it is not insisting on their detention in a Yemeni jail but it is seeking a firm assurance that they will be
under some form of control and not be "subject to torture or abuse".
Yemen recently released 170 al-Qaeda suspects after receiving promises from the individuals that they would renounce
terrorism.
With the closure of Gitmo less than 12 months away, on the orders of President Obama, the US authorities are
trying to find ways of dealing with the remaining detainees.
Dick Cheney, the former US Vice-President, said recently: "If you release the hard-core al-Qaeda terrorists that are
held at Gitmo, I think they go back into the business of trying to kill more Americans and mount further
mass-casualty attacks".
"If you turn them loose and they go kill more Americans, who's responsible for that?"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5793046.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5793046.ece)
-
I note that you did not name even ONE American killed by anyone. Not one. You just believe propaganda that justifies your silly views.
Why should I be proud? I had nothing to do with this.
I favored transferring these people to the US and trying them and closing Guantanamo, but I really had no say in anything that was done or not done.
I am responsible for nothing, so I have nothing to regret and nothing to be proud of.That should be logical to anyone with a brain.
-
I note that you did not name even ONE American killed by anyone. Not one.
OK XO I will play along with your silly ass game that means nothing.
(as if the names change the reality of the danger of releasing these halfwits)
How about Susan Elbaneh the New York woman that was killed in a
terrorist attack at the U.S. Embassy in Sana, Yemen, in September 2008.
The Gitmo released IslamoWhacko behind her killing Said Ali Shari (released from Gitmo Nov 2007)
was also involved in planning the under-wear bomber attempt to blow-up a Northwest Airlines
passenger jet over Detroit. Hundreds of Americans would be on the list but for a stroke of luck.
How many of our soldiers have already died due to attacks either carried out or planned by
released Gitmo IslamoKlansmen?
As a member of the Left I hope you are proud at being a part of the "outrage" concerning
Gitmo that led to the releases which causes innocent people all over the world to now be
violenty killed!
-
why is it that BT has become a prosecutor when it comes to Republicans
and a defense attorney when it involves Democrats?
Is that how you see it?
I see it as questioning some of the positions taken by some of the conservative members of this forum.
And apparently that makes them very uncomfortable.
We need more actual leftists .
-
BT
Administrator
Hero Member
Posts: 11111
Hey!
-
We need more actual leftists .
True....
It's frustrating to me because I know if they knew about us they'd be here.
We are an unknown planet in the internet universe....we are in no-mans land.
Last week I was snooping around...seing if there is some type of network of message boards
we could become affiliated with so we could get a much higher exposure level.
Thats our biggest problem...exposure.
Sure people have left for many reasons besides this isn't their cup of tea...
But there are plenty of folks on both sides that would enjoy this place....if they only knew!
-
I had nothing to do with anyone being put into Guantanamo or released from there. I certainly did not decide whom should be released from there. My position is that they should be tried, with the innocent being released and the guilty being sent to prisons in the US, because Guantanamo has become very bad publicity for this country abroad. I mentioned this in a letter to Senator LeMieux, and he answered with something uncommittal. I hardly think I changed his mind. He has voted in lock step with the rest of the GOP since he was appointed senator. Congress does not respond to my opinions, in any case, so you cannot blame me.
I suspect that your allegation of the woman killed in Yemen was speculation by the or some other US intel agency. There was no trial, of course,and therefore all evidence is perhaps only speculation. The CIA loves to speculate, it makes them feel important.
-
There was no trial,
There rarely is during a war...maybe after....but this war is long from over....
thats why it's rightly called The Long War.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/ (http://www.longwarjournal.org/)