Obama had no balls to close Gitmo

[revelarts]

Former Gito Prosecutor who resigned Says Obama had no balls to close Gitmo, that most of the detainees should have been released, all of the evidences gotten though water bording and enhanced technique should have been tossed out, and that Obama is worse than Bush beucase he kills "terrorist" even Americans rather than capture and torture. and that the CIA is the new forward "combat" and the only reason we are able to get away with it is becuase we are a supperpower but we want every one else to obey torture treaties and the rule of law but we don't did it. That we should be an example but we're not.

for those of you who have difficulty with videos

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/y7tusvKLzdA?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/y7tusvKLzdA?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[ConHog]

I actually give Obama credit here. It isn't that he didn't have the balls to close gitmo. It's that after taking office and seeing things from that perspective rather than that of a candidate pandering for votes, he realized that gitmo is in fact necessary.

[fj1200]

^I thought you despised lying, POS politicians.

[jimnyc]

I actually give Obama credit here. It isn't that he didn't have the balls to close gitmo. It's that after taking office and seeing things from that perspective rather than that of a candidate pandering for votes, he realized that gitmo is in fact necessary.

I said from day one that the most of his tough talk about closing gitmo and bringing troops home was a bunch of crap. I've also said most of these decisions are best left for the Generals on the ground and those involved first hand. Obama changed his tune - or broke his "promises" - as soon as the reality of the situation set in after he was elected. You have a few buildings full of terrorists and shitheads that tried to kill American troops. Boo fucking hoo for them.

[Abbey Marie]

I have long believed that once they get in office, Presidents especially, have second thoughts on foreign policies, allies, etc., once they are privy to the most secret of information. It tends to have a moderating effect on most of them.

Not knowing what they know, I can hardly hold it against them.

[revelarts]

I have long believed that once they get in office, Presidents especially, have second thoughts on foreign policies, allies, etc., once they are privy to the most secret of information. It tends to have a moderating effect on most of them.

Not knowing what they know, I can hardly hold it against them.

Don't you think the Gitmo prosecutor was privy to the most secret of the info on the accused terrorist detanees probably at a more intimate and detailed level then Obama was briefed on.

Yes, presidents get in an have 2nd look however he was going on the word of Generals who advised him when he decided to close it, he had many of them standing behind him as he signed the 100 day executive order.

He just didn't have the stones to follow through, if any thing it was political pressure that he bowed to not secret info, or the word of the generals he had all of that that he needed from day one.

[ConHog]

^I thought you despised lying, POS politicians.

I can appreciate a wise decision even from someone I despise.

[Abbey Marie]

Don't you think the Gitmo prosecutor was privy to the most secret of the info on the accused terrorist detanees probably at a more intimate and detailed level then Obama was briefed on.

Yes, presidents get in an have 2nd look however he was going on the word of Generals who advised him when he decided to close it, he had many of them standing behind him as he signed the 100 day executive order.

He just didn't have the stones to follow through, if any thing it was political pressure that he bowed to not secret info, or the word of the generals he had all of that that he needed from day one.

Obviously we don't know who knows what; we can only speculate. But as a person who has zero respect for Obama, I can still believe that he had more than politics in mind when he acted this way.

[revelarts]

Obama signed new orders a while back that say even IF detainees are found NOT guilty that he STILL can keep them locked up for all of the natural lives.


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Edij2CTWrx4?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Edij2CTWrx4?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[fj1200]

I can appreciate a wise decision even from someone I despise.

So wisdom equals your POV? He's no longer a pandering politician?

[jimnyc]

For others interested, I've looked over Obama's executive orders and speeches and can't find where he ordered any indefinite detentions of those found not guilty. Yep, indefinite detention while there may be hostilities still going, or for those found guilty, or for those not tried yet, but I can't find anything as of yet stating they can hold the "not guilty" or innocent. I still need to read the orders in further detail...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/07/AR2011030704871.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/guantanamo-bay-executive-order-sends-mixed-signals/story?id=13086929&page=2#.TwNHXvL3tMk
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ClosureOfGuantanamoDetentionFacilities/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/07/executive-order-periodic-review-individuals-detained-guant-namo-bay-nava

[ConHog]

So wisdom equals your POV? He's no longer a pandering politician?

What are you talking about FJ? You don't even KNOW my POV re:Gitmo. I merely stated that I think that in this case Obama made a wise decision. IOW I can admit a decision is wise, not only when I agree with it, and not only when I disagree with it, but when I look at a situation and realize I don't have the facts to render anything more than an opinion without all the facts.

[fj1200]

What are you talking about FJ? You don't even KNOW my POV re:Gitmo. I merely stated that I think that in this case Obama made a wise decision.

I know what you consider wise. Did BO pander for votes or was he ignorant?

[ConHog]

I know what you consider wise. Did BO pander for votes or was he ignorant?

My OPINION is that candidate Obama truly believed that closing Gitmo was the best thing.and then PRESIDENT Obama got more facts and changed his opinion.

I'm not sure why all the pandering remarks? I don't remember using that word before.

[fj1200]

My OPINION is that candidate Obama truly believed that closing Gitmo was the best thing.and then PRESIDENT Obama got more facts and changed his opinion.

I'm not sure why all the pandering remarks? I don't remember using that word before.

You used it in post #2. My opinion is that he ran a calculated campaigned against Gitmo with no backup plan and bent to Congressional pressure and backlash. Does anyone know if he altered the EO regarding Gitmo?

[ConHog]

You used it in post #2. My opinion is that he ran a calculated campaigned against Gitmo with no backup plan and bent to Congressional pressure and backlash. Does anyone know if he altered the EO regarding Gitmo?

Well, just my opinion that Obama actually believed in closing Gitmo as a candidate, certainly possible it was just for votes though. No way of knowing for sure.

[revelarts]

For others interested, I've looked over Obama's executive orders and speeches and can't find where he ordered any indefinite detentions of those found not guilty. Yep, indefinite detention while there may be hostilities still going, or for those found guilty, or for those not tried yet, but I can't find anything as of yet stating they can hold the "not guilty" or innocent. I still need to read the orders in further detail...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/07/AR2011030704871.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/guantanamo-bay-executive-order-sends-mixed-signals/story?id=13086929&page=2#.TwNHXvL3tMk
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ClosureOfGuantanamoDetentionFacilities/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/07/executive-order-periodic-review-individuals-detained-guant-namo-bay-nava



Back from my break here about to take another
but here's a response.

It seems you have a point, the Keeping Indefinately even if Found innocent ammendment was taken out of the bill. Thanks to RAND Paul.



Rand Paul Blocks Attempt to Sneak Through Dangerous Amendment



Campaign for Liberty to continue standing with freshman senator to defend the Constitution.



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Matt Hawes

December 2, 2011 703-865-7162


SPRINGFIELD, Virginia – On Thursday night, Senator Rand Paul blocked passage of an amendment that would have allowed the government to indefinitely detain American citizens until Congress declares the War on Terror to be over. These Americans would be detained even if they were tried and found not guilty.
An attempt was made to pass Amendment No. 1274 to the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867) by voice vote, but Senator Paul’s objection and request for a roll call vote ultimately led to the bill’s defeat by a final vote of 41-59.
“Campaign for Liberty is proud to stand with Rand Paul as he continues to fight for our liberties against the federal government’s lust to increase its police state powers,” said Matt Hawes, Vice President of Campaign for Liberty.
“The American people should not be forced to sacrifice their fundamental values, like the right to one’s day in court and fair treatment, just so politicians can keep pretending they are making us safer.
“It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to picture how furious the Founders would be that any American, especially one who has been found innocent of the charges, could be held indefinitely by officials sworn to uphold the Constitution.”
Earlier this year, Campaign for Liberty worked with Senator Paul to combat the extension of controversial provisions of the Patriot Act and the IRTPA, and the organization will continue mobilizing its over half a million members to support such efforts to defend the American people’s civil liberties.



http://www.campaignforliberty.org/profile/7786/blog/2011/12/02/press-release-c4l-stands-rand


So you can only be detained indefinitely without a trial or access to a lawyer,
but not if found innocent by a military tribunal.
indefinite detention without trial has now been codified into law by way of Section 1031 (http://www.infowars.com/indefinite-detention-bill-passes-senate-93-7/)

However even before this new NDAA law , I can't put my hands on it but I watched and rewacthed a bit a of a congressional hearing where an Obama justice dept lawyer, (maybe DOD lawyer But i think Justice Dept.) was asked point blank. "If the the president decides that the person is a threat, does he assume the authority to detain that person even if there's no legal case against them. the Lawyer responded that they had determined that the President has that right "under the Laws of war".
the Congressman responded with something like "doesn't that make what we are doing here moot, trying to create a legal standard for detention if he claims that authority?"
The lawyer deny that, but still said the COC had the authority, under the "laws of war".

And Obama and Lindsey Graham and McCain don't want to bother with dention anyway "just kill um" if you THINK they are Alquida, we trust ya.

Crazy old Lindsey Graham Backing Obama up with the new law
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/D9U9agmcRws?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/D9U9agmcRws?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pD0GthpIgQw?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pD0GthpIgQw?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

rest in peace bill of rights is right.

[jimnyc]

Back from my break here about to take another
but here's a response.

It seems you have a point, the Keeping Indefinately even if Found innocent ammendment was taken out of the bill. Thanks to RAND Paul.

So this:


Obama signed new orders a while back that say even IF detainees are found NOT guilty that he STILL can keep them locked up for all of the natural lives.


Was stated without any attempt of looking up actual documents?

And Rand Paul didn't stop the amendment. The vote was 59-41. Sounds like he had 58 other people with him to me. He simply called for a roll call vote.

[revelarts]

So this:



Was stated without any attempt of looking up actual documents?

And Rand Paul didn't stop the amendment. The vote was 59-41. Sounds like he had 58 other people with him to me. He simply called for a roll call vote.


yes,
and
OK, if you say so.

[jimnyc]

yes,
and
OK, if you say so.

It would serve us all better if you actually verified what you are posting, but it's not mandatory. And it's not "if you say so", the vote is factual and a matter of history and the tally was 59-41. Claiming one person made made the difference is dumb.

[revelarts]

So does anyone here have a problem with congress giving the COC the power to allow the military to seize americans and put us in jail forever without a trial?

[jimnyc]

So does anyone here have a problem with congress giving the COC the power to allow the military to seize americans and put us in jail forever without a trial?

Can you show where the amendment states "forever" as you keep stating? Or are you once again stretching words for your point of view?

Here is the relevant portion of the amendment - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1129aGVC0:e548990:

The amendment in its entirety - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c1129aGVC0::

[ConHog]

So does anyone here have a problem with congress giving the COC the power to allow the military to seize americans and put us in jail forever without a trial?

I'm sure you meant CiC. and yes, of course I have a problem with that. I have no problem with him targeting pussies who hide over seas as they plot war against us though. Fuck them.

[revelarts]

Can you show where the amendment states "forever" as you keep stating? Or are you once again stretching words for your point of view?

Here is the relevant portion of the amendment - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1129aGVC0:e548990:

The amendment in its entirety - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c1129aGVC0::

"Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force."

I'd love to be wrong here Jim, but do you have an end date in mind for the "war on terror". I asked folks here about a date for that to end and didn't get an answer. Heck even Iraq isn't "finished" according to some people here, (best i can recollect from what they've said, forgive me if it's a bit off) until they have a stable U.S. friendly gov't and a safe & secure thriving country.

[jimnyc]

"Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force."

I'd love to be wrong here Jim, but do you have an end date in mind for the "war on terror". I asked folks here about a date for that to end and didn't get an answer. Heck even Iraq isn't "finished" according to some people here, (best i can recollect from what they've said, forgive me if it's a bit off) until they have a stable U.S. friendly gov't and a safe & secure thriving country.

Ok, so at least you admit that you made up your prior claims, so we can start there. As for when the hostilities are over, what does the amendment say?

[jimnyc]

So does anyone here have a problem with congress giving the COC the power to allow the military to seize americans and put us in jail forever without a trial?

Just re-read this as well, what a load of crap!! Do you even read documents before you whine about them? Here's what it states in the amendment you are speaking of, as to WHO can be held:



(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:



(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.




(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.






And then about American citizens:



(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-



(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.




(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

[revelarts]

Ok, so at least you admit that you made up your prior claims, so we can start there. As for when the hostilities are over, what does the amendment say?

uh no, "Forever" is a hard technical legal term Jim, and is not made up but completely 100% accurate, your wrong.

But Jim I ask you the question 1st. When is the end of Hostilities?

[jimnyc]

uh no, "Forever" is a hard technical legal term Jim, and is not made up but completely 100% accurate, your wrong.

But Jim I ask you the question 1st. When is the end of Hostilities?

Where does it state that Americans can be held, as you tried to state? Your entire premise is a lie and you'll just continue to make shit up until you find something that sticks.

[jimnyc]

uh no, "Forever" is a hard technical legal term Jim, and is not made up but completely 100% accurate, your wrong.

But Jim I ask you the question 1st. When is the end of Hostilities?

And it is NOT accurate as the amendment which you have CLEARLY not even read yet spells everything out. Did you get your news on this one from Youtube again?

[revelarts]

See here's the thing Jim,
lawyers read stuff different than regular folks,
I've read my share of law and contracts let me point a few things out.
Yo seem to want to provr i'm wrong so you won't agree , fine but, FYI




(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:





(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.







(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.



And then about American citizens:



(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-





(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.







(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.





these are a few of the wiggle words

I'm not required to piss in the toilet either.

but Obama agrees with you...

..." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law...
he says to indefinitely detain Americans "would break with our most important traditions and values" but not any LAWS or the constitution. and that any detention the NDAA authorizes "complies with" the Constitution. well, he's a constitutionally lawyer he knows whats what there. yes sir.never done anything unconstitutional.
I feel much better, thanks Jim, I can trust Obama and all other presidents to do the same. mm hmm


....Moreover, the provision’s reference to “existing law” begs far too many questions. It is precisely the scope of existing law that is subject to vociferous debate and continuing litigation. Under the Bush administration, the law was interpreted to allow the indefinite detention of both citizens and non-citizens arrested anywhere in the world, including the United States.
While the Supreme Court upheld the military detention of an American citizen captured as part of the armed conflict in Afghanistan, it has yet to hear an indefinite detention case involving anyone—citizen or non-citizen—picked up in the United States. Nor has it handled a case involving a terrorist suspect, as opposed to a participant in a traditional armed conflict. With these fundamental questions still in play, it is disingenuous to say that the law could not be used to detain Americans deemed to be involved in terrorism....

http://verdict.justia.com/2012/01/02/the-ndaa-explained



But Prez Obama don't need no stinkin congress to tell hem to "detain" he just kill um, law of war baby.


<tbody>


</tbody>

<tbody>


</tbody>
Obama Lawyers: Citizens Targeted If At War With US
Reuters
December 1, 2011

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/12/01/usa-security-idINDEE7B00QN20111201 (http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/12/01/usa-security-idINDEE7B00QN20111201)

American citizens are not immune from being treated like an enemy if they take up arms against the United States, the CIA general counsel said on Thursday.

CIA General Counsel Stephen Preston was responding to a question at an American Bar Association national security conference about the killing of Americans overseas without presenting evidence of wrongdoing.

A CIA drone strike killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric linked to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, earlier this year.

He was linked to failed plots to blow up a U.S.-bound passenger plane in 2009 and cargo planes headed for the United States in 2010, U.S. officials say.

Preston said he would not discuss Awlaki or any specific operations.

"I will make this observation that citizenship does not confer immunity on one who takes up arms against his own country. It didn't in World War Two when there were American citizens who joined the Nazi army and it doesn't today," Preston said.

Jeh Johnson, Defense Department general counsel, said he echoed Preston's comments "in terms of those who are combatants, part of the congressionally declared enemy, who also happen to be U.S. citizens."

But he said the same view would not apply to someone who was not considered an enemy combatant.

"We go down a slippery slope if an individual who wants to do harm to Americans and who is inspired in his own basement by the writings he has read from al Qaeda and he hasn't interacted with a single other individual in that group, yet he has decided to do violence against America based on what he read, in my view is not part of the congressionally declared enemy and we have to be careful not to go down that landscape," Johnson said.

He said it was not feasible to take decisions made on enemy combatants to courts each time.

"Courts are not equipped to make those types of decisions which very often are based moment-by-moment on an intelligence picture that constantly evolves," Johnson said.
...






But i'm just doing crazy talk

nevermind

[jimnyc]

But i'm just doing crazy talk

nevermind


So does anyone here have a problem with congress giving the COC the power to allow the military to seize americans and put us in jail forever without a trial?

Rev, you have already admitted that your assertion was factually wrong about the government locking up detainees indefinitely, even with a not guilty verdict. Then you say it's forever, while the amendment does not use that word, it's simply YOUR interpretation of what is not there. You further claim they have the power to seize Americans and place us in jail forever. Back to the forever thing, and the amendment clearly rules out the possibility of the amendment applying to any American citizens.

Seriously, where do you get your information from when it is so laughably incorrect? Got to be either a youtube video or some looney dedication site to Ron Paul. Either way, its a little difficult at times addressing issues you post as so many of them are made up or incorrect.

[revelarts]

Rev, you have already admitted that your assertion was factually wrong about the government locking up detainees indefinitely, even with a not guilty verdict.
it was right, but the section was removed.




Then you say it's forever, while the amendment does not use that word, it's simply YOUR interpretation of what is not there. it's the interpretation of many lawyers and congress people so yes Jim it IS there, , so much so that Obama has to say that he won't use it that way, even though you won't acknowledge any info contrary to YOUR interpretation Jim. and you fail to acknowledge that Obama and his lawyers already claim the right to kill you if they consider you (an American Citizen) an enemy of the state.

[jimnyc]

it was right, but the section was removed.

Ummm, no. You assertion was that Obama passed it.



it's the interpretation of many lawyers and congress people so yes Jim it IS there, , so much so that Obama has to say that he won't use it that way, even though you won't acknowledge any info contrary to YOUR interpretation Jim. and you fail to acknowledge that Obama and his lawyers already claim the right to kill you if they consider you (an American Citizen) an enemy of the state.

Indefinite detention with not guilty verdict = FALSE
Amendment calls for jail perhaps "forever" = FALSE
Americans can be jailed forever = FALSE

You struck out already. At least read the shit before posting it. You simply cannot claim to have done so, as #1 and #3 are just not in there, so you spoke out on something you never even read.

[ConHog]

Ummm, no. You assertion was that Obama passed it.


[COLOR=#800000]

Indefinite detention with not guilty verdict = FALSE
Amendment calls for jail perhaps "forever" = FALSE
Americans can be jailed forever = FALSE

You struck out already. At least read the shit before posting it. You simply cannot claim to have done so, as #1 and #3 are just not in there, so you spoke out on something you never even read.

You gotta pass the bill to see what's in it.

[Gunny]

I said from day one that the most of his tough talk about closing gitmo and bringing troops home was a bunch of crap. I've also said most of these decisions are best left for the Generals on the ground and those involved first hand. Obama changed his tune - or broke his "promises" - as soon as the reality of the situation set in after he was elected. You have a few buildings full of terrorists and shitheads that tried to kill American troops. Boo fucking hoo for them.

You left out those Americans apologizing for and/or justifying their behavior. I can understand though. Most of them are so busy occupying Wall Street they haven't had a chance to weigh in and are easy to forget. Those ragheads in GITMO have it better than most of our troops in the field. They get 3 hots and a cot and allowed to openly practice their idiotic, twisted, hate-filled religion. Troops in the filed get maybe 2 MRE's a day, and we weren't allowed to display ANY religious symbols at all.

Which prompted most of us to buy little gold crucifixes,:laugh: