This is what Obama's hugs and rainbows policy gets you...

[Dr.Who]

It must be only me, but I dont have all that much problem with this especially if they are being returned to thier home country.
In most places this could be called extradition.

It is not always their home country. It is often a country that has particularly good "interviewers."

And it often results in far more cruel treatment than they are receiving at Gitmo.

Which is the goal? To obey laws? To be kind? Combine both?

How about the congress we had for the last 8 years write a few laws saying how these men should be tried so that the best balance between justice and kindness occurs? is it too much to ask that at some time in the last 8 years that congress stopped complaining about what the president was doing and started doing something themelves? Considering that this is the congress that wanted to start the war as only they are allowed to do by constitution but instead wrote some stupid letter giving the president the authority to start it so they could wash their hands of it, that is too much to ask.

If we are all going to be honest here Bush treated terrorists horrible (including torture light) because he wanted to save our country from them and he was left little other options and the congress wanted it that way because they wanted to save our country from them and at the same time dump all the blame they could rightfully point out or manufacture on Bush.

Most of the time when our parties are in opposition to each other we the people win. This is one of those times when they needed to work together for the good of the country. Most of the loss of respect we have suffered in the eyes of other countries has not been because of how we have treated terrorists (all the other countries of the world would have done the same or worse) but because our infighting provided them with the justifications to hate us.

 

[chestnut]

No. Not just muslims, but in fact the leaders from the country whose citizens flew jet liners into our landmarks, muslims who leaders drove boats into our ships, and muslims who have not only given money to support the destruction of israel, but muslims who shouted NO when it came to support our "liberation" of Iraq and among other things. If you support that, then fine, but when you do so, you have zero cred when it comes to a bunch of other foreign issues.

And Obama took campaing contributions from those same countries.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_contributions_sil.html

It's not a wonder why he is taking the steps he has when it comes to Gitmo and the detainees there.

 

[Pandora]

And Obama took campaing contributions from those same countries.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_contributions_sil.html

It's not a wonder why he is taking the steps he has when it comes to Gitmo and the detainees there.

Hey you have such a great point there. I had not thought of.

It also explains why he dropped the charges against the Cole bomber without even consulting the families.


Dang, great insight!@!

 

[Andy]

I will tell you what was made up, firstly that Iraq and Saddan had anything to do with 9-11. Secondly that Iraq was a direct threat to the US, and that Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US.

He said there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Not that Saddam had a working relationship, but that he could in the future, and there was evidence he was trying to establish that relationship.

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -GWB

"Could", not "had". So was Saddam trying to make contact with Al Qaeda?

The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998. More disturbing, according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush, the Agency has "irrefutable evidence" that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda.

So clearly there was some connection. Any questions?

Bush never bent when it came to pressure from the left. But he folded like a cheap tent when it came to the Saudis. He let the Bin Laden family fly off without question immediatly after 9-11, and he had the diplomatic equivalent of a high school back seat of the car make out session when it came to Saudi Arabia not assisting in the Iraq war, and more or less removing US troops from Arabian soil(a key part of the beef between AlQ and the US)

Actually that report has been proven bogus for ages now. I'm a bit surprised you still buy it given how typically you are more informed than this.

The flights in question, left on the 18th and 19th, long after the restrictions on commercial flights had been lifted.

Further, the 9/11 Commission reported straight from the FBI, that 22 of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight, had been questioned, and in great detail.

Let's move on...

 

[Greco]

There are two accurate observations the tinfoil hat wearers failed to observe...

1. It was the Bush administration that released the individuals cited as "now wanted".

2. Obama has never once said, never once hinted that he intends to release the prisoners. He's only said he's closing Guantanamo Bay, an act John McCain said he would also do as he campaigned.

Somehow these diminished intellect whiners in their thirst to type some absurd babble about Obama couldn't fugre out not everyone is as uninformed and ignorant as they are.

 

[Andy]

There are two accurate observations the tinfoil hat wearers failed to observe...

1. It was the Bush administration that released the individuals cited as "now wanted".

Once again... why do you think he did this? Because of idiot leftist crying and whining about gitmo. The ignorant left pushed for this, not the right.

2. Obama has never once said, never once hinted that he intends to release the prisoners. He's only said he's closing Guantanamo Bay

Let's think this through a little bit. So he's only going to close Gitmo, but not release the prisoners. So... he's going to move them to a new military detention camp? If so, then this is simply a waste of money in moving people, equipment, and prisoners to a new location, but changing nothing else.

Or... he's going to give them over to other governments? Most have already said they are not going to take them. Many treat their prisoners worse than we have ours. So not only does he have to find someone to take them, but we'll get less information about terrorist networks, and the prisoners will be treated much worse.

They are not coming to the US. Obama has said as much, which is a good thing. What we need is to bring combatants found in Al Qaeda camps, to the US, then not have enough evidence for a civil trial, and have them released in the US. Now there's a brilliant move. Terrorist released inside the country. At least we can drop the debate on boarder security then.

So, what other option do you think there is? What, hand them over to Iran? They'll be happy to take them...

Come on leftist, give me your brilliant theory.

 

[Andy]

Not true. A Canadian indicted for murder still faces the US system.

Why yes of course. We have an extradition policy with Canada. Why not just setup the same with the Taliban, or Saddam's Ba'ath party, or even Al Qaeda! Brilliant...

Its not an infringement on the US constitution, it potentially violated international law, and treaty, of which the US is subject to, and we scream and yell when our citizen is not treated accordingly.

You and I will never agree on this specific point. I do not hold "international law" as having any value or authority whatsoever. It is a meaningless waste of paper and ink. Terrorist don't follow it. Saddam didn't follow it. China doesn't follow it. Russia, and the prior Soviets, doesn't follow it. Castro never followed it. Hugo Chavez doesn't follow it.

Why is it, international law is all important when stopping the US from invading a rouge nation like Iraq under Saddam, but violations by Saddam is never validation for action against Iraq?

Our citizens are not treated according to "international law" routinely. Only when we don't follow it, does it suddenly become important.

No, wrong. They wont be turned over, without a hearing to decide where the best place for them might be. But I do appreciate how you put detainee in quotes.
Please tell me here Andy,
When it comes to "detainess"
How long do we keep them?
Under what circumstances?
With what level of evidence?
Under what US or international law?

We keep them as long as we're fighting against the terrorist network they are a part of. We kept Germans captured until Germany surrendered. They kept our POWs until the end of the war as well.

Ill leave everyone with this for now because I find it quite telling. The two gals in full Burquas walking, and here is Bush holding hands with the Saudi Royal Prince holding hands like a couple. In any US city ld assume those two were a sexual couple.

Not a big deal. In other parts of the world, they are not as emotionally constipated about non-sexual touching as we seem to be.

I read about two women that were missionaries to a southeast Asian country, that came to the US on furlough. They were having breakfast at a restaurant when they were seen holding their pinky fingers, a common expression of friendship there. The pastor of a local church assumed it meant something else, and a minor controversy erupted over it, until it was explained culturally.

In some parts of Africa, two business men engaged in working out a deal, will hold hands until the deal is finalized.

I understand that culturally your response to Bush holding the Arabian business guys hand is normal. However, that's just Bush adapting to the cultural norms of where that man is from. It means nothing.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

He said there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Not that Saddam had a working relationship, but that he could in the future, and there was evidence he was trying to establish that relationship.

​

"Could", not "had". So was Saddam trying to make contact with Al Qaeda?

​

So clearly there was some connection. Any questions?



Actually that report has been proven bogus for ages now. I'm a bit surprised you still buy it given how typically you are more informed than this.

The flights in question, left on the 18th and 19th, long after the restrictions on commercial flights had been lifted.

Further, the 9/11 Commission reported straight from the FBI, that 22 of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight, had been questioned, and in great detail.

Let's move on...

you mean like that tape of bin laden calling on al qaeda to overthrown Saddam? You mean that same tape Bush said proved they where working together? There was no relationship, anyone with half a brain knows that Saddam was what Al Qaeda is against just as much as the US or Russia is...Anyone who knows anything about there views, know that Saddam would support any power group that could possibly create a power thta could overtake him, he crushed them.....

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Once again... why do you think he did this? Because of idiot leftist crying and whining about gitmo. The ignorant left pushed for this, not the right.



Let's think this through a little bit. So he's only going to close Gitmo, but not release the prisoners. So... he's going to move them to a new military detention camp? If so, then this is simply a waste of money in moving people, equipment, and prisoners to a new location, but changing nothing else.

Or... he's going to give them over to other governments? Most have already said they are not going to take them. Many treat their prisoners worse than we have ours. So not only does he have to find someone to take them, but we'll get less information about terrorist networks, and the prisoners will be treated much worse.

They are not coming to the US. Obama has said as much, which is a good thing. What we need is to bring combatants found in Al Qaeda camps, to the US, then not have enough evidence for a civil trial, and have them released in the US. Now there's a brilliant move. Terrorist released inside the country. At least we can drop the debate on boarder security then.

So, what other option do you think there is? What, hand them over to Iran? They'll be happy to take them...

Come on leftist, give me your brilliant theory.

typical, your republican leader does something, you blame the left for it. you guys have no solutions just *****. And you wrap yourself in the constitution when it comes to your money, but American values you could care less about ...laws Screw them they are only for those you deem fit .

 

[Greco]

"Once again... why do you think he did this? Because of idiot leftist crying and whining about gitmo. The ignorant left pushed for this, not the right."

That's really, really dumb even for a Bush excuser. It's also a lie, total fiction from the tinfoil hat crowd.

"Let's think this through a little bit. So he's only going to close Gitmo, but not release the prisoners. So... he's going to move them to a new military detention camp? If so, then this is simply a waste of money in moving people, equipment, and prisoners to a new location, but changing nothing else."

You've already firmly established, and proved it conclusively, that "thinking" isn't your strong suit. Remember when Bush screwed up Abu Graghib in Iraq and had to close it? It for the same reasons Guantanamo Bay is going to close. Even McCain said if he was elected he was going to close it.

"Or... he's going to give them over to other governments? Most have already said they are not going to take them. Many treat their prisoners worse than we have ours. So not only does he have to find someone to take them, but we'll get less information about terrorist networks, and the prisoners will be treated much worse."

That's your opinion. It's not a fact, it's based on nothing more than the opion of a tinfoil hat wearer.

"They are not coming to the US. Obama has said as much, which is a good thing. What we need is to bring combatants found in Al Qaeda camps, to the US, then not have enough evidence for a civil trial, and have them released in the US. Now there's a brilliant move. Terrorist released inside the country. At least we can drop the debate on boarder security then."

That's really, really dumb also to suggest accused terrorists would be released in the U.S. There's not even one other tinfoil hat wearer that's so stupid to make that absurd comment.

"So, what other option do you think there is? What, hand them over to Iran? They'll be happy to take them..."

It is a gnarly issue. Bush screwed things up so bad there are few good choices, but let's remember we now have a government that isn't headed by half-wits any longer. They'll come up with a workable plan. It won't be any of the made up claims you expressed, that's how half-wits think.

 

[Bunz]

Can I at least tell you?
LOL ok

how about I re direct you to the frakin video

In the beginning of the video Neil asks her what did you think of this and she says

"I Voted for Him, I Think I Made The Wrong Decision"

I dont think he asked a trick question, all he said was what did you think of this.




Twice she said she was Disillusioned with him and 3 times she said she was
Disappointed in him.

One of her daughters wants him impeached


sorry if that is not good enough for you

Obamanation,
My apologies, I was looking for where she said she voted for the President. I missed it the first 2x. When I watched it again, I did hear her say that right off the bat. I was wrong.

 

[Bunz]

Good post Dr. Who, Ill take a minute to respond.

It is not always their home country. It is often a country that has particularly good "interviewers."

And it often results in far more cruel treatment than they are receiving at Gitmo.

OK, lets look for example at those who were detained while in Iraq or Afghanistan, for fighting American troops in one way or another. Now, if those countries in question have thier own governments and are allies of the US, why arent the subjected to the rules of the governments in those respective countries?

How about the congress we had for the last 8 years write a few laws saying how these men should be tried so that the best balance between justice and kindness occurs? is it too much to ask that at some time in the last 8 years that congress stopped complaining about what the president was doing and started doing something themelves? Considering that this is the congress that wanted to start the war as only they are allowed to do by constitution but instead wrote some stupid letter giving the president the authority to start it so they could wash their hands of it, that is too much to ask.

I wont even begin to defend Congress. They made some major blunders, but I will point out that the President is still CIC, and various members of the Bush administration did something that was rather unprecedented in American history when it came to Congressional subpeonas...they ignored them entirely.

If we are all going to be honest here Bush treated terrorists horrible (including torture light) because he wanted to save our country from them and he was left little other options and the congress wanted it that way because they wanted to save our country from them and at the same time dump all the blame they could rightfully point out or manufacture on Bush.

Most of the time when our parties are in opposition to each other we the people win. This is one of those times when they needed to work together for the good of the country. Most of the loss of respect we have suffered in the eyes of other countries has not been because of how we have treated terrorists (all the other countries of the world would have done the same or worse) but because our infighting provided them with the justifications to hate us.

With some small differences we are in agreement here, and while I dont think Bush wasnt trying to do his best to "keep us safe" which is a farse in itself, but the establishment of the prison at gitmo was designed to skirt the law itself. Which is something that bugs me to no end.

Also, I disagree that it is our "infighting" that provides justification for anything. When I have traveled abroad, and listening to worldly, educated people, who see America from afar, and it is largely based on thier perceptions through thier brief time in America and through the media in thier home country it is that we are all collectively on board with whatever decision is made at 1600 Pennslyvania, regardless of who the POTUS is.

Also, certainly there are other countries who would treat these terrorists worse, but we do not hold the high road by any means.

 

[Bunz]

He said there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Not that Saddam had a working relationship, but that he could in the future, and there was evidence he was trying to establish that relationship.

He could in the future? That justifies war? Hell Canada could in the future have that.

So clearly there was some connection. Any questions?

Some connection? Some connection doesnt justify war, government over throw, and occupation to me.

Actually that report has been proven bogus for ages now. I'm a bit surprised you still buy it given how typically you are more informed than this.

The flights in question, left on the 18th and 19th, long after the restrictions on commercial flights had been lifted.

Further, the 9/11 Commission reported straight from the FBI, that 22 of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight, had been questioned, and in great detail.

Let's move on...

Fair enough, Ill let it drop to a certain point, but after reading more into it, I found the connection to WAMY and the FBI suspected terror group founder being allowed to get a US Government protected flight out of the country. But that isnt worth bothering with for these purposes.

 

[Bunz]

Once again... why do you think he did this? Because of idiot leftist crying and whining about gitmo. The ignorant left pushed for this, not the right.

Again, as I said before, I dont think for a minute that Bush released these guys because any Democrat called for it, because if that was the case he would have let a bunch of others go, but those that have been released, as far as I know, (a Briton or two, an Aussie and these Saudis) have all come as a result of pressure from thier own governments.
I am sure the Saudis told Bush that they had this great program set up to correct ex jihadists as was mentioned in the link provided. This notion that Bush made up his mind because a bunch of bleeding heart weak kneed ignorant libs wanted him to is nothing but shifting blame.

 

[Pandora]

Obamanation,
My apologies, I was looking for where she said she voted for the President. I missed it the first 2x. When I watched it again, I did hear her say that right off the bat. I was wrong.

No worries

It was hard to hear, I had to listen twice myself.