Closing Gitmo altogether, as President Shithead once promised, would be even better.
He signed the order closing it in the first 30 days of his first term. He held up his end of the promise.
Congress (Dems and Repubs) refused to appropriate money to close it (that's something that needs to happen in order to close it), and refused to allow any of the prisoners to be held on US soil. The White House has been trying to find countries to take the people housed there, but guess what? They don't want them.
On 22nd January 2009, President Barack Obama signed an order to suspend the proceedings of the Guantanamo military commission for 120 days and to shut down the detention facility within the year.[11][12] On 29th January 2009, a military judge at Guantanamo rejected the White House request in the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, creating an unexpected challenge for the administration as it reviewed how the United States brings Guantanamo detainees to trial.[13] On 20th May 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90???6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[14] President Obama issued a Presidential memorandum dated 15th December 2009, ordering Thomson Correctional Center, Thomson, Illinois to be prepared to accept transferred Guantanamo prisoners.[15]
Absent opening the front door and kicking them out on the beach to fend for themselves, what would you suggest the President do?
GITMO needs to be closed, so write your Congressman and urge them to appropriate the funds. Calling the president a shithead isn't going to get it done.
Serious question: should the government allow the hunger strikers to starve themselves to death, or force-feed them? I fully understand the that there is a third option of acceding to the strikers demands, but that option aside, which of the previous two is the correct course of action?
Serious question: should the government allow the hunger strikers to starve themselves to death, or force-feed them? I fully understand the that there is a third option of acceding to the strikers demands, but that option aside, which of the previous two is the correct course of action?
Letting them die would be unconscionable, but the way they are living is also horrid.
No good options here, IMO. I think we need to err on the side of preventing death, even with the price it costs.
Serious question: should the government allow the hunger strikers to starve themselves to death, or force-feed them? I fully understand the that there is a third option of acceding to the strikers demands, but that option aside, which of the previous two is the correct course of action?
Letting them die would be unconscionable, but the way they are living is also horrid.
No good options here, IMO. I think we need to err on the side of preventing death, even with the price it costs.
That's essentially my feeling on the matter as well. As unpleasant as a feeding tube through the nose is (and frankly, it's really not that high on the scale of unpleasant things that can happen to you in prison), the other option is letting these people die.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
HarveyCanal said:
Closing Gitmo altogether, as President Shithead once promised, would be even better.
He signed the order closing it in the first 30 days of his first term. He held up his end of the promise.
Congress (Dems and Repubs) refused to appropriate money to close it (that's something that needs to happen in order to close it), and refused to allow any of the prisoners to be held on US soil. The White House has been trying to find countries to take the people housed there, but guess what? They don't want them.
On 22nd January 2009, President Barack Obama signed an order to suspend the proceedings of the Guantanamo military commission for 120 days and to shut down the detention facility within the year.[11][12] On 29th January 2009, a military judge at Guantanamo rejected the White House request in the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, creating an unexpected challenge for the administration as it reviewed how the United States brings Guantanamo detainees to trial.[13] On 20th May 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90???6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[14] President Obama issued a Presidential memorandum dated 15th December 2009, ordering Thomson Correctional Center, Thomson, Illinois to be prepared to accept transferred Guantanamo prisoners.[15]
Absent opening the front door and kicking them out on the beach to fend for themselves, what would you suggest the President do?
GITMO needs to be closed, so write your Congressman and urge them to appropriate the funds. Calling the president a shithead isn't going to get it done.
If the vote was 90-6, then Obama's fellow Democrats weren't even on board with the closing. He could easily make that so as the head of his party, that is if his efforts weren't just an empty public relations move made by an empty suit of nutless evil.
Congress (Dems and Repubs) refused to appropriate money to close it (that's something that needs to happen in order to close it), and refused to allow any of the prisoners to be held on US soil. The White House has been trying to find countries to take the people housed there, but guess what? They don't want them.
Four words: Carnival cruise. International waters.
If the vote was 90-6, then Obama's fellow Democrats weren't even on board with the closing. He could easily make that so as the head of his party, that is if his efforts weren't just an empty public relations move made by an empty suit of nutless evil.
The fact that it hasn't been closed is strong evidence that Obama can't snap his fingers and make things happen, contrary to what some believe.
Let me also remind you that the GOP Senators have filibustered every single piece of legislation. So, unless Obama could get 60 Senators to break the filibuster (there's 51 Dems right now he would need 9 other Senators to break it, 8 if you put Sanders in the "close" column"), nothing is happening. And, nothing is happening. This Congress is on pace for a record low number of bills passed.
The President is not king. It's not as easy as you think it is, but it is, indeed, tragic.
Man, this is a wild thing to be cynical about. It's been bubbling under the mainstream radar for a while, if Mos gave a little extra in his performance, and it raises awareness, I can't see a problem with that.
If the vote was 90-6, then Obama's fellow Democrats weren't even on board with the closing. He could easily make that so as the head of his party, that is if his efforts weren't just an empty public relations move made by an empty suit of nutless evil.
The fact that it hasn't been closed is strong evidence that Obama can't snap his fingers and make things happen, contrary to what some believe.
Let me also remind you that the GOP Senators have filibustered every single piece of legislation. So, unless Obama could get 60 Senators to break the filibuster (there's 51 Dems right now he would need 9 other Senators to break it, 8 if you put Sanders in the "close" column"), nothing is happening. And, nothing is happening. This Congress is on pace for a record low number of bills passed.
The President is not king. It's not as easy as you think it is, but it is, indeed, tragic.
Hey dude, I thought "them" was "us", so why don't you bunch of "we" just sort it out, stat.
If the vote was 90-6, then Obama's fellow Democrats weren't even on board with the closing. He could easily make that so as the head of his party, that is if his efforts weren't just an empty public relations move made by an empty suit of nutless evil.
The fact that it hasn't been closed is strong evidence that Obama can't snap his fingers and make things happen, contrary to what some believe.
Let me also remind you that the GOP Senators have filibustered every single piece of legislation. So, unless Obama could get 60 Senators to break the filibuster (there's 51 Dems right now he would need 9 other Senators to break it, 8 if you put Sanders in the "close" column"), nothing is happening. And, nothing is happening. This Congress is on pace for a record low number of bills passed.
The President is not king. It's not as easy as you think it is, but it is, indeed, tragic.
Hey dude, I thought "them" was "us", so why don't you bunch of "we" just sort it out, stat.
Kthxbai
We're having the debate, aren't we? It's being talked about, isn't it?
^^^^^^
Utterly powerless?
Impotent?
Your leader, the leader of the free world (lol), can order drone strikes and hit squads to tear into other countries, but can't find it within his remit to close a tiny facility holding a handful of dudes?
^^^^^^
Utterly powerless?
Impotent?
Your leader, the leader of the free world (lol), can order drone strikes and hit squads to tear into other countries, but can't find it within his remit to close a tiny facility holding a handful of dudes?
^^^^^^
Utterly powerless?
Impotent?
Your leader, the leader of the free world (lol), can order drone strikes and hit squads to tear into other countries, but can't find it within his remit to close a tiny facility holding a handful of dudes?
^^^^^^
Utterly powerless?
Impotent?
Your leader, the leader of the free world (lol), can order drone strikes and hit squads to tear into other countries, but can't find it within his remit to close a tiny facility holding a handful of dudes?
GTFOOHWTBS
Learn how our system of government works, then post.
You sound ignorant.
I'll post this again, since you seemed to have missed this (for like the 1000th time)
On 22nd January 2009, President Barack Obama signed an order to suspend the proceedings of the Guantanamo military commission for 120 days and to shut down the detention facility within the year.[11][12] On 29th January 2009, a military judge at Guantanamo rejected the White House request in the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, creating an unexpected challenge for the administration as it reviewed how the United States brings Guantanamo detainees to trial.[13] On 20th May 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90???6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[14] President Obama issued a Presidential memorandum dated 15th December 2009, ordering Thomson Correctional Center, Thomson, Illinois to be prepared to accept transferred Guantanamo prisoners.[15]
^^^^^^
Utterly powerless?
Impotent?
Your leader, the leader of the free world (lol), can order drone strikes and hit squads to tear into other countries, but can't find it within his remit to close a tiny facility holding a handful of dudes?
GTFOOHWTBS
Learn how our system of government works, then post.
You sound ignorant.
I'll post this again, since you seemed to have missed this (for like the 1000th time)
On 22nd January 2009, President Barack Obama signed an order to suspend the proceedings of the Guantanamo military commission for 120 days and to shut down the detention facility within the year.[11][12] On 29th January 2009, a military judge at Guantanamo rejected the White House request in the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, creating an unexpected challenge for the administration as it reviewed how the United States brings Guantanamo detainees to trial.[13] On 20th May 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90???6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[14] President Obama issued a Presidential memorandum dated 15th December 2009, ordering Thomson Correctional Center, Thomson, Illinois to be prepared to accept transferred Guantanamo prisoners.[15]
bassie
11,710 Posts
Comments
He signed the order closing it in the first 30 days of his first term. He held up his end of the promise.
Congress (Dems and Repubs) refused to appropriate money to close it (that's something that needs to happen in order to close it), and refused to allow any of the prisoners to be held on US soil. The White House has been trying to find countries to take the people housed there, but guess what? They don't want them.
You're must be unaware of this.
Here's some fun facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
On 22nd January 2009, President Barack Obama signed an order to suspend the proceedings of the Guantanamo military commission for 120 days and to shut down the detention facility within the year.[11][12] On 29th January 2009, a military judge at Guantanamo rejected the White House request in the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, creating an unexpected challenge for the administration as it reviewed how the United States brings Guantanamo detainees to trial.[13] On 20th May 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90???6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[14] President Obama issued a Presidential memorandum dated 15th December 2009, ordering Thomson Correctional Center, Thomson, Illinois to be prepared to accept transferred Guantanamo prisoners.[15]
Absent opening the front door and kicking them out on the beach to fend for themselves, what would you suggest the President do?
GITMO needs to be closed, so write your Congressman and urge them to appropriate the funds. Calling the president a shithead isn't going to get it done.
Letting them die would be unconscionable, but the way they are living is also horrid.
No good options here, IMO. I think we need to err on the side of preventing death, even with the price it costs.
There is this:
http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2013/04/30/07/58/FRs25.So.56.pdf
That's essentially my feeling on the matter as well. As unpleasant as a feeding tube through the nose is (and frankly, it's really not that high on the scale of unpleasant things that can happen to you in prison), the other option is letting these people die.
If the vote was 90-6, then Obama's fellow Democrats weren't even on board with the closing. He could easily make that so as the head of his party, that is if his efforts weren't just an empty public relations move made by an empty suit of nutless evil.
No doubt.
Four words: Carnival cruise. International waters.
The fact that it hasn't been closed is strong evidence that Obama can't snap his fingers and make things happen, contrary to what some believe.
Let me also remind you that the GOP Senators have filibustered every single piece of legislation. So, unless Obama could get 60 Senators to break the filibuster (there's 51 Dems right now he would need 9 other Senators to break it, 8 if you put Sanders in the "close" column"), nothing is happening. And, nothing is happening. This Congress is on pace for a record low number of bills passed.
The President is not king. It's not as easy as you think it is, but it is, indeed, tragic.
But, they are there, and wishing them away won't do anything.
I'm presuming you're on the side of "let them starve", like these handful of doctors are?
b/w
"Make sure you get a close-up of my shoes."
Hey dude, I thought "them" was "us", so why don't you bunch of "we" just sort it out, stat.
Kthxbai
We're having the debate, aren't we? It's being talked about, isn't it?
KTHNXBAI.
Utterly powerless?
Impotent?
Your leader, the leader of the free world (lol), can order drone strikes and hit squads to tear into other countries, but can't find it within his remit to close a tiny facility holding a handful of dudes?
GTFOOHWTBS
So...you're saying we should drone strike Gitmo?
I'm down with that.
Learn how our system of government works, then post.
You sound ignorant.
I'll post this again, since you seemed to have missed this (for like the 1000th time)
Here's some fun facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
On 22nd January 2009, President Barack Obama signed an order to suspend the proceedings of the Guantanamo military commission for 120 days and to shut down the detention facility within the year.[11][12] On 29th January 2009, a military judge at Guantanamo rejected the White House request in the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, creating an unexpected challenge for the administration as it reviewed how the United States brings Guantanamo detainees to trial.[13] On 20th May 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90???6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[14] President Obama issued a Presidential memorandum dated 15th December 2009, ordering Thomson Correctional Center, Thomson, Illinois to be prepared to accept transferred Guantanamo prisoners.[15]
It's all us when it suits, and them when it doesn't,
Lol.
Pathetic.
Right back at you
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/closure-guantanamo-detention-facilities
Pathetic is right because you clearly don't. You seem the think the US President is king. So weird and and so utterly incorrect.
Has it occurred to you that maybe many Americans don't want GITMO closed? The last vote was 90-6 in favor of keeping it open.
Perhaps you think Obama can order a new vote?
I mentioned that in my post, and cited to it.
What is your point?