4 ms·

> we've fallen so low that we're blaming the Obama administration for not fixing what the Bush administration At least nobody gave Bush a Nobel Peace Prize. Ob

by rdtsc 9y ago

> we've fallen so low that we're blaming the Obama administration for not fixing what the Bush administration At least nobody gave Bush a Nobel Peace Prize. Obama had filled people with hopes and dream and in 8 years did nothing. Just his last year in power he dropped over 20000 bombs in countries we were not even at war with. Speaking of torture, Guantanamo is still open, he could have closed that. In other words expectation were different for Obama so pointing out his failures is also expected vis-a-vis those expectations.

gamblor956 9y ago
Obama did try to shut down Guantanamo. Congress passed a law preventing Obama from closing Guantanamo.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  Shouldn't have promised it then. Apri 2007: "As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists." There was nothing there about "if Congress lets me and activist judges don't impede my progress".
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    Obama did shut down Guantanamo to new detainees. Congress wouldn't let him close the facility. He spent the remainder of his term releasing prisoners, trying prisoners, and/or transferring them to other facilities, all pursuant to the UCMJ. Unlike some presidents, Obama tried to follow the rule of law. He achieved 90% what he promised on Guantanamo. Are you really quivering over the last 10%?
    - rdtsc 9y ago
      > Are you really quivering over the last 10%? Yes because it is still open. You don't lock a prisoner without trial only 10% he is either locked up for decades and tortured or he isn't.
      - gamblor956 9y ago
        The prisoners still locked up are stateless terrorists who are not protected by the Geneva Convention or the Constitution. They have no rights under any law, and the only reason that they were accorded due process is because we are better than they are and prove it by not simply filleting them. The ones left in Guantanamo were given trials and found guilty of war crimes, including the rape and torture of their own former countrymen. Rotting in a prison with free healthcare, food, and religious materials is better than they deserve.
        rdtsc 9y ago
        If they had their trials and found guilty they should be either imprisoned in a federal prison or sent back to the country they come from. How are they "stateless"? There were not born in the middle of the ocean. From what I remember it was a mix of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Yemen.
        gamblor956 9y ago
        Congress passed a law barring the transfer of those prisoners to stateside facilities from Guantanamo, and their home countries refused to accept them (nor were they legally obligated to do so). Under traditional international law, the US would have been within its rights to execute these individuals rather than simply jailing them in relatively plush accommodations. You really should do some basic research before you try to argue out of your rear on this.
        rdtsc 9y ago
        > (nor were they legally obligated to do so). Legally obligated by what? Aren't people deported back to their country of origin all the time. They don't want to take them fine, deny their citizens visas and entry then, until they do. > Congress passed a law barring the transfer of those prisoners to stateside facilities from Guantanamo, Ok fair point, you're right about that. Why make strong promises then? > US would have been within its rights to execute these individuals That's a bit disturbing. At that level what rights are we talking about. US had been droning people including American citizens, so sure they could have taken them back and shot them. So we should be glad they didn't. Great, I guess?

by rdtsc 9y ago

gamblor956 9y ago

Obama did try to shut down Guantanamo. Congress passed a law preventing Obama from closing Guantanamo.

rdtsc 9y ago
Shouldn't have promised it then. Apri 2007: "As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists." There was nothing there about "if Congress lets me and activist judges don't impede my progress".
- gamblor956 9y ago
  Obama did shut down Guantanamo to new detainees. Congress wouldn't let him close the facility. He spent the remainder of his term releasing prisoners, trying prisoners, and/or transferring them to other facilities, all pursuant to the UCMJ. Unlike some presidents, Obama tried to follow the rule of law. He achieved 90% what he promised on Guantanamo. Are you really quivering over the last 10%?
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    > Are you really quivering over the last 10%? Yes because it is still open. You don't lock a prisoner without trial only 10% he is either locked up for decades and tortured or he isn't.
    - gamblor956 9y ago
      The prisoners still locked up are stateless terrorists who are not protected by the Geneva Convention or the Constitution. They have no rights under any law, and the only reason that they were accorded due process is because we are better than they are and prove it by not simply filleting them. The ones left in Guantanamo were given trials and found guilty of war crimes, including the rape and torture of their own former countrymen. Rotting in a prison with free healthcare, food, and religious materials is better than they deserve.
      - rdtsc 9y ago
        If they had their trials and found guilty they should be either imprisoned in a federal prison or sent back to the country they come from. How are they "stateless"? There were not born in the middle of the ocean. From what I remember it was a mix of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Yemen.
        gamblor956 9y ago
        Congress passed a law barring the transfer of those prisoners to stateside facilities from Guantanamo, and their home countries refused to accept them (nor were they legally obligated to do so). Under traditional international law, the US would have been within its rights to execute these individuals rather than simply jailing them in relatively plush accommodations. You really should do some basic research before you try to argue out of your rear on this.
        rdtsc 9y ago
        > (nor were they legally obligated to do so). Legally obligated by what? Aren't people deported back to their country of origin all the time. They don't want to take them fine, deny their citizens visas and entry then, until they do. > Congress passed a law barring the transfer of those prisoners to stateside facilities from Guantanamo, Ok fair point, you're right about that. Why make strong promises then? > US would have been within its rights to execute these individuals That's a bit disturbing. At that level what rights are we talking about. US had been droning people including American citizens, so sure they could have taken them back and shot them. So we should be glad they didn't. Great, I guess?