Obama drafts executive order to close Gitmo

[TallBill]

On your "that was fast comment" I'm sure he has a pile of executive order's that have been worked on for a long long time that are about 90% complete. He'll edit/revise them as fit and sign them.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
The prison or the naval base?

The musical

I smell a Tony!

Somebody call Mel Brooks

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveymark
according to AP, details are sketchy. timeline set to be one year.


will be interesting to see where the prisoners are sent.

I think this has been the biggest issue thus far even with the Bush administration. The Bush admin has wanted to close that place down for a couple of years as well. But they want to prosecute some and send others away. The problem is some of them they want to send home, the host countries wont take. So what do you do with them? Drop them off on a desert island?

Exactly. What many on the left fail to recognize. Whether it should have been set up at all is really what should be debated. The fact it was established and the Bush admin has wanted to close it down for some time is not generally discussed.

By establishing the camp, the Bush admin dug a hole they had difficulty getting out of. Other means of dealing with illegal enemy combatants existed and should have been used.

Since most of them were picked up in Pakistan and Afghanistan, I'm sure our lawyers can find a way to force them to take these guys back.

See thats the problem. They arent Pakistani or Afghanistani, so they have every legal right to say no. As do there home countries.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: daveymark
will be interesting to see where the prisoners are sent.

I say we give them a trial before deciding if they're guilty.

The US will prosecute a few in US Courts(finally).

Then the US will release the other ones. Im sure this is where hes talking about being sent. The US has tried to unload quite a few Gitmo prisoners, but their home countries have said no.

Yeah you've heard stories here and there about the UK, Cananda, etc trying to get people released. Thats few and far between compared to the people they refuse to repatriate.

Most of the remaining people that are likely to be released are people without countries at the moment.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveymark
according to AP, details are sketchy. timeline set to be one year.


will be interesting to see where the prisoners are sent.

I think this has been the biggest issue thus far even with the Bush administration. The Bush admin has wanted to close that place down for a couple of years as well. But they want to prosecute some and send others away. The problem is some of them they want to send home, the host countries wont take. So what do you do with them? Drop them off on a desert island?

That`s a crock!! If Bush wanted to close the place down he could have easily closed the place down!!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveymark
according to AP, details are sketchy. timeline set to be one year.


will be interesting to see where the prisoners are sent.

I think this has been the biggest issue thus far even with the Bush administration. The Bush admin has wanted to close that place down for a couple of years as well. But they want to prosecute some and send others away. The problem is some of them they want to send home, the host countries wont take. So what do you do with them? Drop them off on a desert island?

That`s a crock!! If Bush wanted to close the place down he could have easily closed the place down!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5102528.stm

June 21st 2006, 2.5 years ago.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveymark
according to AP, details are sketchy. timeline set to be one year.


will be interesting to see where the prisoners are sent.

I think this has been the biggest issue thus far even with the Bush administration. The Bush admin has wanted to close that place down for a couple of years as well. But they want to prosecute some and send others away. The problem is some of them they want to send home, the host countries wont take. So what do you do with them? Drop them off on a desert island?

That`s a crock!! If Bush wanted to close the place down he could have easily closed the place down!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5102528.stm

June 21st 2006, 2.5 years ago.

Wow, so Bush talked it about 2 and a half years ago and did nothing... Obama's been in office for a day and the order's going out. Does that make Obama a thousand times more efficient than Bush? Actions speak louder than words, and Bush's actions were never indicative of someone who wanted Gitmo closed. So if this is the best argument you can come up with, you fail on so many levels it's hard to quantify.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveymark
according to AP, details are sketchy. timeline set to be one year.


will be interesting to see where the prisoners are sent.

I think this has been the biggest issue thus far even with the Bush administration. The Bush admin has wanted to close that place down for a couple of years as well. But they want to prosecute some and send others away. The problem is some of them they want to send home, the host countries wont take. So what do you do with them? Drop them off on a desert island?

That`s a crock!! If Bush wanted to close the place down he could have easily closed the place down!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5102528.stm

June 21st 2006, 2.5 years ago.

Wow, so Bush talked it about 2 and a half years ago and did nothing... Obama's been in office for a day and the order's going out. Does that make Obama a thousand times more efficient than Bush? Actions speak louder than words, and Bush's actions were never indicative of someone who wanted Gitmo closed. So if this is the best argument you can come up with, you fail on so many levels it's hard to quantify.

Did you bother to read what Obama did? He postponed the trials of inmates for 120 days for review. He didnt close Gitmo at this time. He will have the same issues Bush had. Where to put some people which no country wants.

This isnt an issue about failing on many levels. That is something a CS kiddy would bother writing. It is a legitimate issue with the closure of Gitmo and one Bush had to deal with and Obama will as well. The next issue is the trials of some inmates. Some of them will have to come to trial.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think this has been the biggest issue thus far even with the Bush administration. The Bush admin has wanted to close that place down for a couple of years as well. But they want to prosecute some and send others away. The problem is some of them they want to send home, the host countries wont take. So what do you do with them? Drop them off on a desert island?

IF there isn't any crime to prosecute, then send them where they want to go. If that country won't take them, go to the next country. If no country will take them, then let them loose in the US. Remember, there was no crime to prosecute, so there isn't any harm in having them here - we brought them under our control afterall. We dug our hole, now it is time to jump in.

 

[Sedition]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
The prison or the naval base?

The musical

i have heard mixed reviews.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Why does it make any sort of sense to send them to Crawford, TX? Wouldn't it make more sense to send them to the homes of people who say they aren't dangerous? I'm sure most of these guys that were picked up are fine upstanding citizens.. offer up your own houses.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why does it make any sort of sense to send them to Crawford, TX? Wouldn't it make more sense to send them to the homes of people who say they aren't dangerous? I'm sure most of these guys that were picked up are fine upstanding citizens.. offer up your own houses.

Maybe Dullard above would volunteer to house some of these wrongfully imprisoned people. After all, they have to go somewhere and he suggests the US. I think that is a splendid plan. Shows how caring our fellow leftist Americans are and how callous the mean old neos really are all at the same time!

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveymark
according to AP, details are sketchy. timeline set to be one year.


will be interesting to see where the prisoners are sent.

I think this has been the biggest issue thus far even with the Bush administration. The Bush admin has wanted to close that place down for a couple of years as well. But they want to prosecute some and send others away. The problem is some of them they want to send home, the host countries wont take. So what do you do with them? Drop them off on a desert island?

I don't know, but should they be detained indefinitely because you don't know where to "put" them?

I say charge them or send them on their way.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveymark
according to AP, details are sketchy. timeline set to be one year.


will be interesting to see where the prisoners are sent.

I think this has been the biggest issue thus far even with the Bush administration. The Bush admin has wanted to close that place down for a couple of years as well. But they want to prosecute some and send others away. The problem is some of them they want to send home, the host countries wont take. So what do you do with them? Drop them off on a desert island?

I don't know, but should they be detained indefinitely because you don't know where to "put" them?

No; they should be taken out back and shot. Then when there's none left, close it down. Solves all the problems. Nobody has to "take" them, Gitmo's closed, and the animals caged down there have gotten the justice they deserve.

 

[nakedfrog]

Go Constitution!

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
The prison or the naval base?

The musical

I smell a Tony!

Somebody call Mel Brooks

Get your paws off me, you dirty ape!

 

[WA261]

He had to free his buddies didn't he?

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveymark
according to AP, details are sketchy. timeline set to be one year.


will be interesting to see where the prisoners are sent.

I think this has been the biggest issue thus far even with the Bush administration. The Bush admin has wanted to close that place down for a couple of years as well. But they want to prosecute some and send others away. The problem is some of them they want to send home, the host countries wont take. So what do you do with them? Drop them off on a desert island?

I don't know, but should they be detained indefinitely because you don't know where to "put" them?

No; they should be taken out back and shot. Then when there's none left, close it down. Solves all the problems. Nobody has to "take" them, Gitmo's closed, and the animals caged down there have gotten the justice they deserve.

with no charges?

 

[NewPhone]

If a terrorist that is released from Camp X Ray kills more Americans and you voted for Barack then how will you feel

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think this has been the biggest issue thus far even with the Bush administration. The Bush admin has wanted to close that place down for a couple of years as well. But they want to prosecute some and send others away. The problem is some of them they want to send home, the host countries wont take. So what do you do with them? Drop them off on a desert island?

IF there isn't any crime to prosecute, then send them where they want to go. If that country won't take them, go to the next country. If no country will take them, then let them loose in the US. Remember, there was no crime to prosecute, so there isn't any harm in having them here - we brought them under our control afterall. We dug our hole, now it is time to jump in.

Let them loose in the US? How fast do you want to see Obama's numbers tank anyways?
The prosecution of these guys will be hard due to the battlefield conditions many of them were taken in under. That said I agree something does need to be done. But if nobody wants them they will be stuck in limbo.

I don't know, but should they be detained indefinitely because you don't know where to "put" them?

I say charge them or send them on their way.

The first point is hard to answer. Because it may be out of our control. If nobody wants them how do we go about getting rid of them? I can agree with the second point.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: NewPhone
If a terrorist that is released from Camp X Ray kills more Americans and you voted for Barack then how will you feel

That's assuming that the person being released was a terrorist in the first place.

Either way, just because you think someone's a terrorist doesn't mean you can hold them with little to no evidence and no oversight. Compromising the smaller ideals for the larger ones is like building a house without a foundation.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daveymark
according to AP, details are sketchy. timeline set to be one year.


will be interesting to see where the prisoners are sent.

Crawford Texas would be a good place for them.

He's in Dallas now. LMFAO!

You are a hoot, Red.

-Robert

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: daveymark
according to AP, details are sketchy. timeline set to be one year.


will be interesting to see where the prisoners are sent.

Also how many will be arbitrarily set free and granted US citizenship because their home Countries do not want them back.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: NewPhone
If a terrorist that is released from Camp X Ray kills more Americans and you voted for Barack then how will you feel

Probably equally bad as a bunch of innocent men, kept in Gitmo for life, because we didnt know what to do with the fact that we couldn't tell which of them is guilty and which is not.

All that aside, it represents a bad taste in American history. One of torture, and ineptitude. Once we started torturing people to find out more info on the bad guys, we ourselves became the bad guys and it needs to die, if for nothing else than public perception.

I dont agree with letting them all go, the ones we know are guilty should all be hung by thier penises and beaten to death slowly with police batons.

 

[bozack]

They can send them to Chicago, they'd fit right in

 

[jpeyton]

So far, all golden.

A majority of voters want Gitmo gone.

The media (since they're all LIBRULS!!!) want Gitmo gone.

Obama gets it done on day one.