I have no opinion on Gitmo at all. I'm just here for the copious flip-flopping and back peddling
.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
of course obama can't control them. thats part of the point of having seperate branches. i find that a good thing.
but i still can't see blaming obama for this. dems? sure but not obama. only thing you can lay on him is he is not trying hard enough. he is trying to dictate what happens (so far it has worked) and they are getting tired of it.
Obama != Congressional Democrats. Hopefully, their constituents vote them out in the primaries.
In any case, the alternative (Bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran) was much, much worse.
In any case, the alternative (Bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran) was much, much worse.
Sheik Yerbouti
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2005
- 14,080
- 5,453
- 136
Dammit. Really? I had a bet going that pj was zendari.... So that was who that troll mutated to. ROFL.
And yet another winnar thread by pj, full of home spun hypocrisy and hype. WINNAR!!!
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Is this an 'Obama" problem?
Absolutely, his decision to announce the closing of GITMO was not thought out and this Congressional action is the direct result of that blunder.
Change?
Yeah, it's a 'change' problem. Obama has solid majorities in Congress and so change should be easy for him (and we've seen it has in any number of areas), but 'change' needs to be at least some-what intellegent. See above - the announced closing of GITMO without first having a solution for the problem of what to do with the detainees was a mistake. I.e., not any kind of 'good change' (some would argue not in fact change at all).
Congress - Pretty dang good move on their behalf. To continue pushing this closing along withoput having the solution would do nothing but their own backs up against teh wall. They saw that trap coming and avoided it.
IMO, the whole affair just illustrates how Obama got it backwards - should've decided on the detainee solution before announcing the GITMO closing with a timetable. "Getting it backward" is no kind of change I want to see (nor apparently the Dem controlled Congress)
(Political) inexperience FTL
Fern
Absolutely, his decision to announce the closing of GITMO was not thought out and this Congressional action is the direct result of that blunder.
Change?
Yeah, it's a 'change' problem. Obama has solid majorities in Congress and so change should be easy for him (and we've seen it has in any number of areas), but 'change' needs to be at least some-what intellegent. See above - the announced closing of GITMO without first having a solution for the problem of what to do with the detainees was a mistake. I.e., not any kind of 'good change' (some would argue not in fact change at all).
Congress - Pretty dang good move on their behalf. To continue pushing this closing along withoput having the solution would do nothing but their own backs up against teh wall. They saw that trap coming and avoided it.
IMO, the whole affair just illustrates how Obama got it backwards - should've decided on the detainee solution before announcing the GITMO closing with a timetable. "Getting it backward" is no kind of change I want to see (nor apparently the Dem controlled Congress)
(Political) inexperience FTL
Fern
I actually seem to remember some heated arguments here when the the closing was declared by Obama. Many cited his lack of a plan for the detainees as a serious flaw, but many others scoffed at the notion, indicating that it was far more important to declare it's closure now (then) than to have a formal plan outlined. "Meh... there's plenty of time to figure that out."
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Some of you seemed to have missed a major point in the OP so I shall repeat it for you here.
Obama made a long list of promises when it comes to the war on terror and has back tracked on many of them.
The list:
End the war in Iraq has become withdraw all combat troops, but leave 50,000 'non-combat' troops. What the hell is a 'non-combat' troop??? The peace corps are 'non-combat' the US Army is not.
End military tribunals has turned into restarting them with a few new rules in place.
Release the torture pics has turned into not releasing the torture pics.
Closing Gitmo, we can blame the Democrats in congress for that one.
End warrantless wire taps? Nope, still using them AND defending them in court.
What disgusts me about all this is that Obama ran on the promise to end all of this stuff and the media gave him a free pass on that promise and now reality is setting in and they are giving him a free pass on changing his mind as well.
Obama made a long list of promises when it comes to the war on terror and has back tracked on many of them.
The list:
End the war in Iraq has become withdraw all combat troops, but leave 50,000 'non-combat' troops. What the hell is a 'non-combat' troop??? The peace corps are 'non-combat' the US Army is not.
End military tribunals has turned into restarting them with a few new rules in place.
Release the torture pics has turned into not releasing the torture pics.
Closing Gitmo, we can blame the Democrats in congress for that one.
End warrantless wire taps? Nope, still using them AND defending them in court.
What disgusts me about all this is that Obama ran on the promise to end all of this stuff and the media gave him a free pass on that promise and now reality is setting in and they are giving him a free pass on changing his mind as well.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Haha,
Oh, everybody knows what the choices are:
1. Bring 'em back here, or
2. Ship them off to some foriegn country.
(3. I suppose he could do a complete reversal and leave it open)
But those 2 choices are what is know as the peverbial 'rock and a hard place'. Looks like they figured that out a bit too late.
So far nobody wants the detainees transferred into their area. IIRC Pelosi, in the most liberal district, has already refused. I really really doubt that Dems from more conservative areas are gonna relent and agree to take them in - political suicide.
#2 is a big problem, many foreign countries don't want them and others would likely torture the detainee so that's out under the GC Convention Against Torture (no rendition etc).
IMO, shipping them off to Bahgram is nothing other than choice #3 above.
IMO, it's mostly a political calculation so solving that and getting agreement among the parties (whether a Congressperson or a foriegn country or doing a ' Bahgram reversal') is gonna take time.
Will it be before the mid-term election cycle? IDK, but it just might unless some suitable foreign country steps up to take the problem off our hands (and what will we give in return - a detainee 'bailout'?).
Fern
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Fern hit the nail right on the head.
Everyone wants to get rid of Gitmo as the stain it is on America's record, but the problem is HOW do we close it?
I think Obama, like many on the left, suffers from the false illusions of appearances.
Look at how they redefined all these war on terror terms as if it makes a difference.
We no long have a war on terror we now have an "Overseas Contingency Operation."
We no longer have enemy combatants now we just have "detainees"
It is all a dog and pony show to make things appear different than they really are.
Everyone wants to get rid of Gitmo as the stain it is on America's record, but the problem is HOW do we close it?
I think Obama, like many on the left, suffers from the false illusions of appearances.
Look at how they redefined all these war on terror terms as if it makes a difference.
We no long have a war on terror we now have an "Overseas Contingency Operation."
We no longer have enemy combatants now we just have "detainees"
It is all a dog and pony show to make things appear different than they really are.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
I acknowledge your point (although it's doubtful most Obama supporters would).
But at least as far as the above issues go, I'm starting to think I prefer Obama over McCain. I think McCain would've tacked further left than Obama (if only because of pressure).
No matter Mcain did, the vocal left would be screaming at the top of their lungs, while similar moves by Obama garner praise.
Fern
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
The revisionism is strong in this one. "Everyone" did not want to get rid of Gitmo. Bush and Cheney explicitly said closing Gitmo makes us less safe, and they had a fair share of backers among republicans. Now suddenly "everyone" wants gitmo closed but it's Obama's fault they can't do it? Convenient.
Obama pulled the trigger and put the pressure on Congress to fund the closure. He's speaking tomorrow on what else his "plan" might entail, but without his pushing Gitmo would stay open indefinitely. He's created the conversation of how and when.
For decades everyone talks about reforming healthcare, no one does anything. Obama throws 600 billion as a downpayment. For decades everyone talks about increasing gas mileage, no one does anything. Obama calls the auto folks in and says get me 35 mpg stat, first to tell me it isn't possible gets walking papers.
Everyone knows the whats, but the hows and whens don't get done till someone starts pushing. Gitmo is a stain, and the faster we clean it up the better. We house 2 million people in our prisons including mass murderering rapist cannibals, I think we can hold a few starving afghanis. Let the moral cowards in congress blather on about how Gitmo is a black mark on our country, yet when given opportunity to close it they sit around and dither. The onus is on them now, and I don't want to hear a fucking peep out of them (specifically the dems) about how horrible gitmo is when they sit by and preach to their constituents the dangers of bringing them to US soil. Man up or shut up.
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
I think you misunderstood what I said.
I said get rid of it as the stain it is on America's record. Gitmo makes us look bad in the eyes of the world, so getting rid of that 'stain' is a good thing. But the reality is that closing Gitmo is not going to eliminate that stain. All we would doing is moving it from Gitmo to another place.
The only way to get rid of the 'stain' is to come up with a final solution. Which is either trials for everyone in Gitmo or set them free. Any other solution is meaningless. Like taking every thing out of the storage shed and placing it in the garage and then telling the wife that the shed is clean.
Kay Bailey Hutchinson did a tremendous job playing the Fear Card on the news tonight.
My solution is to house them in the Yucca Mountain Super Max. I wonder what Harry will have to say about that
My solution is to house them in the Yucca Mountain Super Max. I wonder what Harry will have to say about that
It is hard to put them to trial when most of the evidence are lost on the battlefield. Setting them free would endanger our troops in foreign country. I mean there is a reason why even democrat don't want to house them in USA.
Clearly someone with Obama's community organizing experience should be able to resolve this quite quickly.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
"I would just say to my colleagues who made those statements, you ought to take a look at some of our security facilities in the United States, and you ought to have a little more respect for the men and women who are corrections officers and put their lives on the line every single day to keep us safe and to make sure that those who are dangerous are detained and incarcerated. The reality is that we?re holding some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world right now in our federal prisons, including the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the shoe bomber, the Unibomber, and many others.," - Dick Durbin
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
disagree.
If you set policy, you don't get into the specifics for implementation. thats the job of your Departments/Agencies
Obama sets policy>> Close Gitmo
Its up to the Justice Department/Congress/Any other stakeholder to determine the logistics/implementation.
Otherwise, why bother having those entities?
You read US LAW... or any law/act/policy....and you would understand this. The requirements are outlined within policy..but implementation isn't.
This is no different.
I do agree with you that it is GOOD to see congress being assertive...something we've missed for a LOONG TIME.
If this was the Bush Admin then we would have seen an executive memo circumventing congressional input and granting all authority to the Justice Department and Alberto Gonzalez would have slapped the padlock on Gitmo himself
edit: if we required an implementation "plan" for every policy decision then there would be NO policy decisions.
AND to add to that...if the same policy makers were responsible for implementation then that would be one HELL of a job to do and I'd like to meet the fella that has the power to make these policy decisions and the knowledge to tell everyone how to implement it.edit2: An example would be..Gov Schwarzenneger says to cut 5% of the state worker labor force. That is a policy decision.
But he doesn't tell Agencies who/where/how to make those cuts. That is the Agencies/Departments job.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter