The Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: waggy
if they are found not guilty ship them out back home. you do not continue to hold them in jail.

this is what people bitched about with bush. it was wrong then and its wrong now.

bush fucked up. he should have classified them as POW's and then he could kept them until the "war" was over. but then he wouldnt been able to torture them or get info from them.

now we have to give them a trail. if found NOT guilty they should be sent back home. IF found g uilty they should e shot.

to hold someone in jail when they are found NOT guilty goes beyond anything the govemrent should do and goes against what the nation stands for.

now the nation and world knows any "trial" is a sham. Nothing more then something to say that we gave them one. This puts no better then NK having the "trail" of those 2 women.

We've tried to ship many back home. Home doesn't want them. Go figure.

To hold a US citizen when they are found not guilty is a travesty. Foreign nationals don't always get the same consideration. It's the way things have to be at this time. I don't deny that that sucks, immensely. I wish it were otherwise and truly don't want it to be that way. However, wishes and wants aren't reality.

Nor do I believe that the people Obama is detaining even remotely resemble the women NK put on their dog & pony show for. Trying to draw an equivocation between the two seems pretty ridiculous.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

You do realize that Obama has said they have the right and the power to continue to imprison those found innocent in their own "trials", right?

Obama said they have the right and power to continue to imprison those "acquitted." iow, they were found "not guilty," not "innocent." For those not familiar with that concept I have two letters - OJ. Luckily for OJ...he's a US citizen. 😉

You aren't really arguing that those acquitted in trials as lopsided as these should continue to be imprisoned, are you?

No, I'm not. Like I already said, ask Obama about that. Like you, I have no control over the continued detention of those acquitted.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: waggy
if they are found not guilty ship them out back home. you do not continue to hold them in jail.

this is what people bitched about with bush. it was wrong then and its wrong now.

bush fucked up. he should have classified them as POW's and then he could kept them until the "war" was over. but then he wouldnt been able to torture them or get info from them.

now we have to give them a trail. if found NOT guilty they should be sent back home. IF found g uilty they should e shot.

to hold someone in jail when they are found NOT guilty goes beyond anything the govemrent should do and goes against what the nation stands for.

now the nation and world knows any "trial" is a sham. Nothing more then something to say that we gave them one. This puts no better then NK having the "trail" of those 2 women.

We've tried to ship many back home. Home doesn't want them. Go figure.

To hold a US citizen when they are found not guilty is a travesty. Foreign nationals don't always get the same consideration. It's the way things have to be at this time. I don't deny that that sucks, immensely. I wish it were otherwise and truly don't want it to be that way. However, wishes and wants aren't reality.

Nor do I believe that the people Obama is detaining even remotely resemble the women NK put on their dog & pony show for. Trying to draw an equivocation between the two seems pretty ridiculous.

no it is not the way things have ot be done. IF the country of orgin does not want them to fucking bad. drop them wher you got them and let them go. they were found not guilty by our courts.

this is damaging to the US reputation and honor. this goes against the constition and what many fought for.

you do not hold a person found not guilty in jail.

All this has done is show that the "trails" are a joke. whats the point of them then? we are just going to keep them in jail. and yes this makes us look no diffrent then NK and many other countries people laugh at.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

You do realize that Obama has said they have the right and the power to continue to imprison those found innocent in their own "trials", right?

Obama said they have the right and power to continue to imprison those "acquitted." iow, they were found "not guilty," not "innocent." For those not familiar with that concept I have two letters - OJ. Luckily for OJ...he's a US citizen. 😉

You aren't really arguing that those acquitted in trials as lopsided as these should continue to be imprisoned, are you?

No, I'm not. Like I already said, ask Obama about that. Like you, I have no control over the continued detention of those acquitted.

You said the program was 'necessary' with no mention of the indefinite detention of those found innocent. Since that was a major part of the discussion in the thread outside of the 'OMG WHY AREN'T PEOPLE POSTING' fagdance, it was reasonable to assume you supported that as well.

If you don't, I'm glad to hear it.

As for the trial system however, I doubt it will survive Supreme Court review. The USSC has stated that the detainees are entitled to a certain degree of due process and Obama's plan to give them exactly enough 'due process' to ensure that he can convict them probably won't fly.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: waggy
if they are found not guilty ship them out back home. you do not continue to hold them in jail.

this is what people bitched about with bush. it was wrong then and its wrong now.

bush fucked up. he should have classified them as POW's and then he could kept them until the "war" was over. but then he wouldnt been able to torture them or get info from them.

now we have to give them a trail. if found NOT guilty they should be sent back home. IF found g uilty they should e shot.

to hold someone in jail when they are found NOT guilty goes beyond anything the govemrent should do and goes against what the nation stands for.

now the nation and world knows any "trial" is a sham. Nothing more then something to say that we gave them one. This puts no better then NK having the "trail" of those 2 women.

We've tried to ship many back home. Home doesn't want them. Go figure.

To hold a US citizen when they are found not guilty is a travesty. Foreign nationals don't always get the same consideration. It's the way things have to be at this time. I don't deny that that sucks, immensely. I wish it were otherwise and truly don't want it to be that way. However, wishes and wants aren't reality.

Nor do I believe that the people Obama is detaining even remotely resemble the women NK put on their dog & pony show for. Trying to draw an equivocation between the two seems pretty ridiculous.

no it is not the way things have ot be done. IF the country of orgin does not want them to fucking bad. drop them wher you got them and let them go. they were found not guilty by our courts.

this is damaging to the US reputation and honor. this goes against the constition and what many fought for.

you do not hold a person found not guilty in jail.

All this has done is show that the "trails" are a joke. whats the point of them then? we are just going to keep them in jail. and yes this makes us look no diffrent then NK and many other countries people laugh at.

You don't hold a US citizen found not guilty in jail. For non-US citizens, in certain situations, the law is not the same. If you want to argue law on the issue, please do. Things like reputation and honor, however, are best left to reruns of ST:TNG.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: waggy
if they are found not guilty ship them out back home. you do not continue to hold them in jail.

this is what people bitched about with bush. it was wrong then and its wrong now.

bush fucked up. he should have classified them as POW's and then he could kept them until the "war" was over. but then he wouldnt been able to torture them or get info from them.

now we have to give them a trail. if found NOT guilty they should be sent back home. IF found g uilty they should e shot.

to hold someone in jail when they are found NOT guilty goes beyond anything the govemrent should do and goes against what the nation stands for.

now the nation and world knows any "trial" is a sham. Nothing more then something to say that we gave them one. This puts no better then NK having the "trail" of those 2 women.

We've tried to ship many back home. Home doesn't want them. Go figure.

To hold a US citizen when they are found not guilty is a travesty. Foreign nationals don't always get the same consideration. It's the way things have to be at this time. I don't deny that that sucks, immensely. I wish it were otherwise and truly don't want it to be that way. However, wishes and wants aren't reality.

Nor do I believe that the people Obama is detaining even remotely resemble the women NK put on their dog & pony show for. Trying to draw an equivocation between the two seems pretty ridiculous.

no it is not the way things have ot be done. IF the country of orgin does not want them to fucking bad. drop them wher you got them and let them go. they were found not guilty by our courts.

this is damaging to the US reputation and honor. this goes against the constition and what many fought for.

you do not hold a person found not guilty in jail.

All this has done is show that the "trails" are a joke. whats the point of them then? we are just going to keep them in jail. and yes this makes us look no diffrent then NK and many other countries people laugh at.

You don't hold a US citizen found not guilty in jail. For non-US citizens, in certain situations, the law is not the same. If you want to argue law on the issue, please do. Things like reputation and honor, however, are best left to reruns of ST:TNG.

perhaps to you they are best left to reurns on ST:TNG but i gurentee to othes they are not.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

You do realize that Obama has said they have the right and the power to continue to imprison those found innocent in their own "trials", right?

Obama said they have the right and power to continue to imprison those "acquitted." iow, they were found "not guilty," not "innocent." For those not familiar with that concept I have two letters - OJ. Luckily for OJ...he's a US citizen. 😉

You aren't really arguing that those acquitted in trials as lopsided as these should continue to be imprisoned, are you?

No, I'm not. Like I already said, ask Obama about that. Like you, I have no control over the continued detention of those acquitted.

You said the program was 'necessary' with no mention of the indefinite detention of those found innocent. Since that was a major part of the discussion in the thread outside of the 'OMG WHY AREN'T PEOPLE POSTING' fagdance, it was reasonable to assume you supported that as well.

If you don't, I'm glad to hear it.

As for the trial system however, I doubt it will survive Supreme Court review. The USSC has stated that the detainees are entitled to a certain degree of due process and Obama's plan to give them exactly enough 'due process' to ensure that he can convict them probably won't fly.

Then I await the USSC decision on the issue.

For those acquitted, no problem, send them back home...if they'll take them.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: waggy
if they are found not guilty ship them out back home. you do not continue to hold them in jail.

this is what people bitched about with bush. it was wrong then and its wrong now.

bush fucked up. he should have classified them as POW's and then he could kept them until the "war" was over. but then he wouldnt been able to torture them or get info from them.

now we have to give them a trail. if found NOT guilty they should be sent back home. IF found g uilty they should e shot.

to hold someone in jail when they are found NOT guilty goes beyond anything the govemrent should do and goes against what the nation stands for.

now the nation and world knows any "trial" is a sham. Nothing more then something to say that we gave them one. This puts no better then NK having the "trail" of those 2 women.

We've tried to ship many back home. Home doesn't want them. Go figure.

To hold a US citizen when they are found not guilty is a travesty. Foreign nationals don't always get the same consideration. It's the way things have to be at this time. I don't deny that that sucks, immensely. I wish it were otherwise and truly don't want it to be that way. However, wishes and wants aren't reality.

Nor do I believe that the people Obama is detaining even remotely resemble the women NK put on their dog & pony show for. Trying to draw an equivocation between the two seems pretty ridiculous.

no it is not the way things have ot be done. IF the country of orgin does not want them to fucking bad. drop them wher you got them and let them go. they were found not guilty by our courts.

this is damaging to the US reputation and honor. this goes against the constition and what many fought for.

you do not hold a person found not guilty in jail.

All this has done is show that the "trails" are a joke. whats the point of them then? we are just going to keep them in jail. and yes this makes us look no diffrent then NK and many other countries people laugh at.

You don't hold a US citizen found not guilty in jail. For non-US citizens, in certain situations, the law is not the same. If you want to argue law on the issue, please do. Things like reputation and honor, however, are best left to reruns of ST:TNG.

perhaps to you they are best left to reurns on ST:TNG but i gurentee to othes they are not.

Yes. No doubt the Klingons would be upset.

Unfortunately the real world, on Earth, doesn't work that way. It didn't under Bush, or his predecessors, and it doesn't under Obama either. The sooner people learn that in here, the better. Though the rampant idealism seems to never die in here. The realists in this forum are few and always have been.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Unfortunately the real world, on Earth, doesn't work that way. It didn't under Bush, or his predecessors, and it doesn't under Obama either. The sooner people learn that in here, the better. Though the rampant idealism seems to never die in here. The realists in this forum are few and always have been.

Some of the worst advocates for evil are those who hide behind the veneer of terms like 'realist'. They give themselves license for all but unlimited evil by calling it 'necessary'.

Those who attack the idealists, the ones who want to improve things, are some of the most harmful, worst people there are, insidiously hiding and rationalizing and blocking.

Little cynicism spreaders, the enemies of all progress for the most part.

 

[alchemize]

Bump for the AM crowd 🙂

 

[Double Trouble]

I'm 100% opposed to the whole concept of indefinite detention without a conviction (or even a charge) for a crime. I was against Bush doing it, and I'm against Obama doing it. I think most of us can agree on that, left or right in the political spectrum.

Obama's position on the issue does make me wonder though. He's been adamant against this for the past few years, and having studied constitutional law, he knows perfectly well what is / is not acceptable.... And yet, when he got into the oval office something changed his mind. Perhaps he saw some info that he didn't previously have access to, perhaps he's got different advisers telling him stuff now, perhaps he doesn't see other ways out of the conundrum of what to do with these folks, perhaps his opposition to indefinite detention was just a politically motivated lie, who knows, but the fact that he's done such a stark turnaround makes you wonder what's going on.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Bump for the AM crowd 🙂

The silence from the crowd of usual suspects is certainly deafening, that's for sure. As someone else said, the most we're going to see is some meek "condemnation," but most likely, nothing at all.

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
I'm 100% opposed to the whole concept of indefinite detention without a conviction (or even a charge) for a crime. I was against Bush doing it, and I'm against Obama doing it. I think most of us can agree on that, left or right in the political spectrum.

Obama's position on the issue does make me wonder though. He's been adamant against this for the past few years, and having studied constitutional law, he knows perfectly well what is / is not acceptable.... And yet, when he got into the oval office something changed his mind. Perhaps he saw some info that he didn't previously have access to, perhaps he's got different advisers telling him stuff now, perhaps he doesn't see other ways out of the conundrum of what to do with these folks, perhaps his opposition to indefinite detention was just a politically motivated lie, who knows, but the fact that he's done such a stark turnaround makes you wonder what's going on.

Bingo. It is easy to play ATP&N armchair politician when you don't have access to all the information available. A lot of the folks in here are idealists and really don't seem to grasp how the real world works.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: alchemize
Bump for the AM crowd 🙂

The silence from the crowd of usual suspects is certainly deafening, that's for sure. As someone else said, the most we're going to see is some meek "comdemnation," but most likely, nothing at all.

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
I'm 100% opposed to the whole concept of indefinite detention without a conviction (or even a charge) for a crime. I was against Bush doing it, and I'm against Obama doing it. I think most of us can agree on that, left or right in the political spectrum.

Obama's position on the issue does make me wonder though. He's been adamant against this for the past few years, and having studied constitutional law, he knows perfectly well what is / is not acceptable.... And yet, when he got into the oval office something changed his mind. Perhaps he saw some info that he didn't previously have access to, perhaps he's got different advisers telling him stuff now, perhaps he doesn't see other ways out of the conundrum of what to do with these folks, perhaps his opposition to indefinite detention was just a politically motivated lie, who knows, but the fact that he's done such a stark turnaround makes you wonder what's going on.

Bingo. It is easy to play ATP&N armchair politician when you don't have access to all the information available. A lot of the folks in here are idealists and really don't seem to grasp how the real world works.

Probably but if these people have been cleared by the Military tribunals they should be released. Obama being an idealist himself probably didn't realize the fucking mess that ws going to be handed to him when he took over after 8 years of recklessness by the previous Administration. Hopefully by the 2012 he's been able to sort through it a clean most of it up.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Probably but if these people have been cleared by the Military tribunals they should be released. Obama being an idealist himself probably didn't realize the fucking mess that ws going to be handed to him when he took over after 8 years of recklessness by the previous Administration. Hopefully by the 2012 he's been able to sort through it a clean most of it up.

Setting aside the discussion of previous admin messes, cleanup etc, I just found the stark turnaround on a fundamental principle of indefinite detention without any conviction interesting. I'd love to know what caused that shift, but we'll likely never find out.

 

[themusgrat]

To be honest, it doesn't really matter if the left comes in here and bashes Obama or not, it's not like the right agreed with all that Bush did either. I think the left will soon have to agree though that Obama plain lied about the change he claimed would happen. For example:

Originally posted by Glen Greenwald
...this is the first time an Obama official has affirmatively stated that they have the "post-acquittal detention" power (and, to my knowledge, the Bush administration never claimed the power to detain someone even if they were acquitted).

Stuff like this can only go on so far (and this is pretty fing far already) before just about everyone has to stand up against it. Don't worry right wingers, Obama will dig his own hole just fine without all your retarded posts.

 

[manowar821]

Look democrats... One of two things happened.

1) He lied to you to get your vote, and then had a "haha just kidding, we're still fascist dogs" moment.

or

2) He really did believe in human rights and being a decent person, but then had a gun held to his head by the oligarchs and had a "oh shit, I better do what they say" moment.


Either way, you've been used by somebody. At least take solace in the fact that you've been used due to your apparent love of diversity, freedoms and rights, whereas the republicans were used due to their socially backwards hate, stubbornness and fearfulness. You're tools, but at least you're nice tools. ..I guess..

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
To be honest, it doesn't really matter if the left comes in here and bashes Obama or not, it's not like the right agreed with all that Bush did either. I think the left will soon have to agree though that Obama plain lied about the change he claimed would happen. For example:

Originally posted by Glen Greenwald
...this is the first time an Obama official has affirmatively stated that they have the "post-acquittal detention" power (and, to my knowledge, the Bush administration never claimed the power to detain someone even if they were acquitted).

Stuff like this can only go on so far (and this is pretty fing far already) before just about everyone has to stand up against it. Don't worry right wingers, Obama will dig his own hole just fine without all your retarded posts.

Actually, if you read the whole column, Greenwald updates it to show that Bush actually was for the 'post-acquittal detention' power as well.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
If Palin was a Black or other minority the bashing wouldn't be occuring

If you were Black or other minority, could you spell the word occurring?

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Actually, if you read the whole column, Greenwald updates it to show that Bush actually was for the 'post-acquittal detention' power as well.

Then my apologies, but it's still one of the more retarded things a President has been able to get away with.

edit: nvm

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Unfortunately the real world, on Earth, doesn't work that way. It didn't under Bush, or his predecessors, and it doesn't under Obama either. The sooner people learn that in here, the better. Though the rampant idealism seems to never die in here. The realists in this forum are few and always have been.

Some of the worst advocates for evil are those who hide behind the veneer of terms like 'realist'. They give themselves license for all but unlimited evil by calling it 'necessary'.

Those who attack the idealists, the ones who want to improve things, are some of the most harmful, worst people there are, insidiously hiding and rationalizing and blocking.

Little cynicism spreaders, the enemies of all progress for the most part.

Many of the worst advocates for evil hide behind a facade of idealism as well. They do whatever evil they feel is necessary to support those ideals. The jihadists are one glaring example of that.

Imagining that idealists only want to improve things is misguided and a distortion of reality. It's the sort of one-sided thinking that idealists so often wrap themselves up in. Of course, their ideals are only good things, according to them, and anyone who attacks those ideals are made out to be evil, just as the jihadists will claim their idealism is the pursuit of good and perfection in the world and anyone who disagrees should die.

The problem with idealism is that it so often deals solely in black & white and ignores all else. That's the real dangerous type of thinking...imagining that things would be so wonderful if only everyone did exactly what you told them.

 

[Jeffg010]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Unfortunately the real world, on Earth, doesn't work that way. It didn't under Bush, or his predecessors, and it doesn't under Obama either. The sooner people learn that in here, the better. Though the rampant idealism seems to never die in here. The realists in this forum are few and always have been.

Some of the worst advocates for evil are those who hide behind the veneer of terms like 'realist'. They give themselves license for all but unlimited evil by calling it 'necessary'.

Those who attack the idealists, the ones who want to improve things, are some of the most harmful, worst people there are, insidiously hiding and rationalizing and blocking.

Little cynicism spreaders, the enemies of all progress for the most part.

Many of the worst advocates for evil hide behind a facade of idealism as well. They do whatever evil they feel is necessary to support those ideals. The jihadists are one glaring example of that.

Imagining that idealists only want to improve things is misguided and a distortion of reality. It's the sort of one-sided thinking that idealists so often wrap themselves up in. Of course, their ideals are only good things, according to them, and anyone who attacks those ideals are made out to be evil, just as the jihadists will claim their idealism is the pursuit of good and perfection in the world and anyone who disagrees should die.

The problem with idealism is that it so often deals solely in black & white and ignores all else. That's the real dangerous type of thinking...imagining that things would be so wonderful if only everyone did exactly what you told them.

That was beautiful you describe craig234 to a T.

On anther note I'd like to see what Harvey has to say about this. I think if he pushed his spamtraderinchief button in this thread his computer would explode. What about it Harvey?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: n yusef
*snip*

Leftists like you should go form your own socialist utopia somewhere else. Leave America alone.

Maybe you righties should leave and go fuck up another country like you did the US, but no country would let you gaggle of idiots in.

I'm not a conservative.

Ignore him, CitizenKain is a Phokus wannabe.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: Jeffg010
That was beautiful you describe craig234 to a T.

On anther note I'd like to see what Harvey has to say about this. I think if he pushed his spamtraderinchief button in this thread his computer would explode. What about it Harvey?

I too would like to know when Obama and the rest of his CRIMINAL CABAL OF TRAITORS AND LIARS will answer for these obvious crimes. :thumbsdown: Obama and the ENTIRE OBAMAWHACKO ADMINISTRATION must answer!!! :thumbsdown::Q:frown::disgust:😕🙁:Q:thumbsdown:

I doubt we'll get an answer though.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: alchemize
Fantastic thread. I think it needs to be kept on page 1 until a few certain prolific posters reply to it.

Are you more concerned about the policy or the reaction of a certain prolific posters reply?

Coming from you, this is an interesting question...seems you are perpetually fascinated with other posters history as well...

Originally posted by: cliftonite
I wonder where this concern was over the past 8 years?

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Why do you and your types always go back the Clinton? Last I checked he wasnt our president.

Originally posted by: cliftonite
Its amazing how this has evolved to a Clinton discussion.

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Please show me where you expressed such outrage over anything that Bush did.

How is that any different than what you are doing in these threads?

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Good luck with that. Read through a majority of the threads in here, it all reads R talking point, D counter. D talking point, R counter. There are a few people in here who think for themselves, but the majority don't do much more than regurgitate the agenda of the week from there preferred political affiliation.

Sadly, I have to agree with this point. If most of us took the time to actually see what was going on around us and how it directly or even indirectly affected us, we would have a complete shamble of a Congress next session. There would be 15 different parties that had representatives because the two leading us now are complete fvcktards.

nice concept, but too many of the progressive idiots like several around here can already submit their ballots without knowing whom is actually running, cause to them that's what matters.