Obama sets up formal system of indefinite detention, despite acquittal of prisoners

[rambone]

Obama is not only embracing the transgressions of his predecessor, he is expanding them. He signed an order that allows prisoners to be held indefinitely, even after they have been *acquitted* (if they are afforded the luxury of a trial.)

Modern day Gulags.


Obama creates indefinite detention system for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay


YouTube - No Western Govt Has Ever Claimed The Power To Do This!

 

[ATOMonkey]

But that's unpossible!!! He's going to close GITMO and end redition. He said so!!!

 

[Fletch]

But that's unpossible!!!

Nothing is unpossible for Doctor Unpossible!!!

 

[dross]

I thought he already closed it. Wasn't that supposed to happen immediately.

That's been my favorite thing to say to Obama supporters:

"Well, at least he closed Guantanamo, got us out of Iraq, and won in Afghanistan."

 

[Expat]

While I enjoy the fact that Obama lied and everyone knows it and it is causing him problems with his base, there is a real problem that has to be dealt with. What do you do with prisoners that have made it clear that they will begin killing more of our fellow Americans as soon as they possibly can?

 

[dross]

While I enjoy the fact that Obama lied and everyone knows it and it is causing him problems with his base, there is a real problem that has to be dealt with. What do you do with prisoners that have made it clear that they will begin killing more of our fellow Americans as soon as they possibly can?

Since we're stupidly applying the Genevea Conventions to people who don't follow it themselves and thereby undermining it and creating an incentive to abuse the Conventions, let's follow them in this, too.

Hold them until the cessation of hostilities, or until they are exchanged with our prisoners, as is prescribed by the Conventions. Not our fault that won't be within their lifetimes.

 

[UncleMike]

Obama is not only embracing the transgressions of his predecessor, he is expanding them. He signed an order that allows prisoners to be held indefinitely, even after they have been *acquitted* (if they are afforded the luxury of a trial.)

Modern day Gulags.


Obama creates indefinite detention system for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay

So now you're sorry you voted for him?

 

[Bond 281]

So now you're sorry you voted for him?

Thank you, once again, for your insightful, accurate, and constructive post.

 

[rambone]

So now you're sorry you voted for him?

You think I am a democrat?

 

[Benny]

"" is used way too often.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

You think I am a democrat?

If you do not share the exact same political beliefs as someone, they always assume that you are a liberal or neo-con...

Democrats: He didn't close GITMO because we need it!

Republicans: He messed up when he did not close GITMO!

Wait... what?

...... did political poisoning change people's political views that drastically in the last few years?

 

[dross]

If you do not share the exact same political beliefs as someone, they always assume that you are a liberal or neo-con...

Democrats: He didn't close GITMO because we need it!

Republicans: He messed up when he did not close GITMO!

Wait... what?

...... did political poisoning change people's political views that drastically in the last few years?

Let me clarify my own views on this. I never thought we should close Gauntanamo, and I believe we are completely justified in holding those combatants until the cessation of hostilities, though I do think we should put forth an honest effort to determine those who were actually combatants, and those who were captured as an accident of location. I believe, though that effort was made under the Bush administration, contrary to popular opinion.

That said, I KNEW when Obama was spewing that crap about closing it, and about getting immediately out of Iraq, that he was lying to win the election. He beat Hillary in the primaries largely because he had a more "pure" history on the war, AND she was arguing more prudent means to close Guantanamo and get out of Iraq, while he was throwing red meat to his base by telling them something he knew wasn't true.

Now that he's in office, much of his base will ignore everything he does because when he does it, it's good and understandable, but when a Republican does it, it's rooted in evil.

Yes, there are Republicans who exhibit the same hypocrisy. I strongly believe, however that this is more a trait of the left than it is of the right, though again, examples can be found from both sides.

I remember a discussion with my Mother, who voted for Obama, just before the elections. She was berating Palin for hating gay people. I asked her why she thought that, and she said it was because she was against gay marriage. I pointed out that Obama and Biden were against gay marriage, too, and at first she argued with me, and then when I proved it, she said, "But they don't mean it." Which actually is true, but think of what that illustrates.

"I don't really care what my leaders say, as long as they defeat the evil Republicans."

This is the heart of the Obama reversal of his Guantanamo position for me.

 

[Expat]

Thank you, once again, for your insightful, accurate, and constructive post.

You think I am a democrat?

If you do not share the exact same political beliefs as someone, they always assume that you are a liberal or neo-con...

Democrats: He didn't close GITMO because we need it!

Republicans: He messed up when he did not close GITMO!

Wait... what?

...... did political poisoning change people's political views that drastically in the last few years?

As I understand it from articles that I have read, there were a lot of libertarians that voted for President Obama. They felt he was going to be better on civil liberty issues than Senator McCain. In spite of those articles that were written, in several cases, by libertarians, it seems that no libertarians admit to voting for him now.

 

[Pyroponce]

I don't see what the big deal is. The president said he was gonna close Gitmo. He found out that he couldn't just let them go even if they were "innocent." Clearly no one on American soil is gonna house these terrorists. So he can't close Gitmo. Back to square one. Everyone makes mistakes. At least he didn't actually release these guys.

 

[dross]

I don't see what the big deal is. The president said he was gonna close Gitmo. He found out that he couldn't just let them go even if they were "innocent." Clearly no one on American soil is gonna house these terrorists. So he can't close Gitmo. Back to square one. Everyone makes mistakes. At least he didn't actually release these guys.

The big deal is that he won the primary largely on his position on foreign policy, which he has been able to do exactly NONE of what he promised. Not a "mistake" a series of flat out lies that won him the Presidency.

Pretty big deal.

 

[Audie Murphy]

While I enjoy the fact that Obama lied and everyone knows it and it is causing him problems with his base, there is a real problem that has to be dealt with. What do you do with prisoners that have made it clear that they will begin killing more of our fellow Americans as soon as they possibly can?

Execute every last one of them.

 

[Hammerhead]

Yes, but if you went and executed every congresscritter because they lied, we'd never have the wonderful semi-functioning government we have now...

 

[Expat]

Execute every last one of them.

Actually, I come close to agreeing with you. If we do not think they have any intelligence information, then they should not be taken captive. They should be left deceased on the battlefield. If we do take them, they should be turned over to our spooks to have that information extracted and then disappeared with no records kept.

 

[dross]

Actually, I come close to agreeing with you. If we do not think they have any intelligence information, then they should not be taken captive. They should be left deceased on the battlefield. If we do take them, they should be turned over to our spooks to have that information extracted and then disappeared with no records kept.

That's a small fact that all the folks claiming we're violating rights have overlooked. According to the Geneva Conventions everyone keeps screaming about, we would have been perfectly legal to hold quick military tribunals in the field and executed them right there.

Combatants not wearing uniforms, using civilians for cover, spying, and many other offenses you can just hold a military trial and shoot them. It's the height of irony to claim we mistreated these people.

We are the first Army in history to take fire ourselves rather than return fire that would harm a building, much less civilians, who feed our POWs and those who don't even hold that status better than we feed our own troops, who react with incredible restraint in the face of an attack on civilians on our own soil, and yet we are somehow violators of rights.

When we fight wars more humanely than any other Army that has ever existed on the planet, AND we happen to be the most powerful nation that has ever existed on the planet, and we are judged to be oppressive. As with so many things, the question that must be asked and can't be answered is:

Compared to what?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Now that he's in office, much of his base will ignore everything he does because when he does it, it's good and understandable, but when a Republican does it, it's rooted in evil.

Yup. Exactly my point...

And quite a few of those that oppose Obama will point it out as if it is a mistake.

I am not an Obama supporter. I will not be voting for Obama anytime soon... but I also will not point to policy I agree with and treat it as if it were a mistake...

Well... at least not closing Gitmo... I am on the fence about detention without a trial...