...............................................................
your probably not going to believe this but Ghadafi from Libya says that Bin Laden may want to have peace negotiations with the US to stop the killing
GO OBAMA !
The failed policies of the past 8 minutes
- Thread starter gjn23
- Start date
...............................................................
your probably not going to believe this but Ghadafi from Libya says that Bin Laden may want to have peace negotiations with the US to stop the killing
GO OBAMA !
The next president will have to find a way to deal with the detainees
David H. Schanzer
Published: Wed, Oct. 29, 2008 12:30AMModified
Wed, Oct. 29, 2008 06:13AM
President Bush said last year that "it should be a goal of the nation to shut down Guant?namo," but it now appears this goal will be unfulfilled when he leaves office. His recent decision not to close the prison at Guant?namo Bay for aliens accused of being terrorists is regrettable.
Bush's decision represents a victory for Vice President Dick Cheney, who, according to reports, believes that keeping the prison open under a new administration would "validate" Bush's detention policies. But there is no redeeming the detention and prosecution system at Guant?namo -- a system that has produced only two convictions in seven years, has been rebuked by the Supreme Court three times and has caused four military prosecutors to step down in disgust. Colin Powell has properly urged that this symbol of injustice be shut down "this afternoon."
The next president will need different strategies for dealing with the three categories of detainees at Guant?namo:
Use of the well-respected military justice system, on the other hand, will gain us greater international respect, reduce delay and eliminate the possibility of convictions being overturned due to constitutional defects in the military commissions.
* The second group consists of detainees who our military has determined present no danger, but have not been released because we cannot find a country that will take them. The new president will have to expend some diplomatic capital on convincing our allies to share the burden of closing Guant?namo by taking custody of these individuals.
For this mission to succeed, however, we will need to avoid what happened earlier this month, when a State Department effort to place 17 Uighurs detainees abroad was undercut by Justice Department statements that they are extremely dangerous.
* The most difficult challenge is the group of detainees who the government believes are dangerous, but against whom there is insufficient admissible evidence to bring a prosecution. The Supreme Court has held that we may detain unlawful enemy combatants captured in battlefield circumstances under the law of war until hostilities have ended. The court's most recent ruling, however, gives detainees the right to challenge their status as unlawful combatants in federal court.
The best way to get out of this legal hole is to transfer these detainees to their home countries, if we can be assured they will be maintained in custody and treated humanely. Recent negotiations to transfer a large number of detainees to Yemen, for example, need to be brought to a speedy conclusion.
The remainder of the detainees should be transferred to high-security military facilities inside the United States. The government has resisted taking this step because bringing the detainees here may provide them additional rights when challenging their detentions in court and increase the possibility a judge could order detainees released here, as one judge recently did with respect to the Uighurs (a ruling that is currently being appealed).
These are low-level risks worth enduring to close the Guant?namo jail. The likelihood that Guant?namo detainees are going to be released into the United States is minimal. Even if a court rules that continued military detention is unlawful, the detainees have no right to be here. They can be placed in custody as illegal immigrants until we find a country to which to deport them. Congress has robust authority over immigration matters and will intervene if the courts attempt to release detainees into our civilian population.
Another obstacle to the transfer is opposition from members of Congress, who oppose placing dangerous terrorists in prisons in their districts. This demagoguery will simply have to be ignored. Our prisons hold mass murders and serial rapists -- surely they can be counted on to prevent the escape of the Guant?namo detainees as well.
This combination of prosecutions, diplomatic initiatives to move detainees abroad and transfer of detainees to the United States will not resolve all our legal difficulties. If we want to continue detaining alleged terrorists without charge for the duration of a conflict that has no clear end, new legislation will probably be required. But at least these steps will bring the Guant?namo debacle to an end.
David Schanzer is director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, which is jointly sponsored by Duke University and UNC-Chapel Hill.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/1272646.html
StevieD, if he DISMANTLES the things that have kept our nation safe, how would it NOT be his FAULT?
StevieD, if he DISMANTLES the things that have kept our nation safe, how would it NOT be his FAULT?
............................................................
dismantles the things that kept us safe :142smilie
you complete imbecile !
damn your stupid
Scott, always check you're I mean your sentence when you include the word STUPID. TIA.
:mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07:
...........................................................
I know
your just stupid
I am too lazy to type that correctly
dont judge me my my grammer you commie bastid
Skulnik, please explain which "things that have kept our nation safe" you are referring to because I am fairly certain that there are 4,229 American soldiers that served and died in Iraq who would almost certainly disagree with you if they were able to.
Last edited:
Heres a few Gregg--and while reading consider what would have been without the coerced interrogation--
I'm have highlighted a few-
Then to the crux of the matter-
Per my conviction-- I'll be more than willing to waterboard him or the next one again and feel great in knowing it saved american lives
Now will you be willing to tell those that died because we didn't -it was because of your convictions.
:0corn
By Marc A. Thiessen
Thursday, January 22, 2009; Page A17
When President Bush left office on Tuesday, America marked 2,688 days without a terrorist attack on its soil. There are 1,459 days until the next inauguration. Whether Barack Obama is standing on the Capitol steps to be sworn in a second time depends on whether he succeeds in replicating Bush's achievement.
As the new president receives his intelligence briefings, certain facts must now be apparent: Al-Qaeda is actively working to attack our country again. And the policies and institutions that George W. Bush put in place to stop this are succeeding. During the campaign, Obama pledged to dismantle many of these policies. He follows through on those pledges at America's peril -- and his own. If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation.
Consider, for example, the CIA program that Bush created to detain and question senior leaders captured in the war on terror. Many of these terrorists, including Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, refused to talk -- until Bush authorized the CIA to use enhanced interrogation techniques. Information gained using those techniques is responsible for stopping a number of planned attacks -- including plots to blow up the American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan; to fly airplanes into the towers of Canary Wharf in London; and to fly a hijacked airplane into the Library Tower in Los Angeles.
During the campaign, Obama described the techniques used to prevent these attacks as "torture." He promised that if elected, he would "have the Army Field Manual govern interrogation techniques for all United States Government personnel and contractors." If he follows through, he will effectively kill a program that stopped al-Qaeda from launching another Sept. 11-style attack. It was easy for Obama the candidate to criticize the CIA program. But as president, what will he do when the next senior al-Qaeda leader -- with actionable intelligence on plots to strike our homeland -- is captured and refuses to talk? Will the president allow the CIA to question this terrorist using enhanced interrogation techniques? If Obama refuses and our country is attacked, he will bear responsibility.
Consider also the National Security Agency's program to monitor foreign terrorist communications. In the Senate, Obama voted against confirming then-NSA Director Michael Hayden to lead the CIA because, in Obama's words, Hayden was "the architect and chief defender of a program of wiretapping and collection of phone records outside of FISA oversight." In 2007, Obama voted against the Protect America Act, which temporarily authorized the NSA program. Last year, he promised to filibuster a long-term authorization but at the last minute switched his vote. He explained that he still wanted to make changes to the law, including stripping out immunity for telecommunications companies for their cooperation with the NSA -- which would effectively kill the program. And he promised that "once I'm sworn in as President . . . my Attorney General [will] conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and . . . make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties."
Now that he has been sworn in, will Obama allow the program to continue through 2012 as Congress authorized -- breaking his pledge to his liberal base? Or will he move forward with his promised review and impose new constraints on the NSA's ability to learn what terrorists are planning? If he does, what if we fail to connect the dots before the next attack?
Obama faces a similar quandary regarding Iraq. Bush left him with a stabilized Iraq, where al-Qaeda is in retreat and American forces are coming home by the end of 2011 under a policy of "return on success." Candidate Obama promised to dramatically accelerate this withdrawal and to remove American troops within 16 months. Just last week, senior Obama adviser David Axelrod declared on ABC's "This Week" that Obama intends to keep that promise. The problem is that Gen. David Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs are not likely to recommend such a rapid and irresponsible withdrawal. That leaves Obama with two choices: He can scale back his plans and continue the slower drawdown already set in motion by President Bush. Or he can overrule his military commanders -- and pursue a rapid drawdown over their objections. If he does this, he will own the potentially devastating results. In 2007, President Bush revealed intelligence that Osama bin Laden had told al-Qaeda leaders in Iraq to form a cell to conduct attacks inside the United States -- then the surge drove them from their havens and set back those plans. If Obama allows al-Qaeda to regain its Iraqi havens, and the terrorists use them to strike our country, he will not be able to blame Bush.
President Obama has inherited a set of tools that successfully protected the country for 2,688 days -- and he cannot dismantle those tools without risking catastrophic consequences. On Tuesday, George W. Bush told a cheering crowd in Midland, Tex., that his administration had left office without another terrorist attack. When Barack Obama returns to Chicago at the end of his time in office, will he be able to say the same?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103215.html
I'm have highlighted a few-
Then to the crux of the matter-
Per my conviction-- I'll be more than willing to waterboard him or the next one again and feel great in knowing it saved american lives
Now will you be willing to tell those that died because we didn't -it was because of your convictions.
:0corn
By Marc A. Thiessen
Thursday, January 22, 2009; Page A17
When President Bush left office on Tuesday, America marked 2,688 days without a terrorist attack on its soil. There are 1,459 days until the next inauguration. Whether Barack Obama is standing on the Capitol steps to be sworn in a second time depends on whether he succeeds in replicating Bush's achievement.
As the new president receives his intelligence briefings, certain facts must now be apparent: Al-Qaeda is actively working to attack our country again. And the policies and institutions that George W. Bush put in place to stop this are succeeding. During the campaign, Obama pledged to dismantle many of these policies. He follows through on those pledges at America's peril -- and his own. If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation.
Consider, for example, the CIA program that Bush created to detain and question senior leaders captured in the war on terror. Many of these terrorists, including Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, refused to talk -- until Bush authorized the CIA to use enhanced interrogation techniques. Information gained using those techniques is responsible for stopping a number of planned attacks -- including plots to blow up the American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan; to fly airplanes into the towers of Canary Wharf in London; and to fly a hijacked airplane into the Library Tower in Los Angeles.
During the campaign, Obama described the techniques used to prevent these attacks as "torture." He promised that if elected, he would "have the Army Field Manual govern interrogation techniques for all United States Government personnel and contractors." If he follows through, he will effectively kill a program that stopped al-Qaeda from launching another Sept. 11-style attack. It was easy for Obama the candidate to criticize the CIA program. But as president, what will he do when the next senior al-Qaeda leader -- with actionable intelligence on plots to strike our homeland -- is captured and refuses to talk? Will the president allow the CIA to question this terrorist using enhanced interrogation techniques? If Obama refuses and our country is attacked, he will bear responsibility.
Consider also the National Security Agency's program to monitor foreign terrorist communications. In the Senate, Obama voted against confirming then-NSA Director Michael Hayden to lead the CIA because, in Obama's words, Hayden was "the architect and chief defender of a program of wiretapping and collection of phone records outside of FISA oversight." In 2007, Obama voted against the Protect America Act, which temporarily authorized the NSA program. Last year, he promised to filibuster a long-term authorization but at the last minute switched his vote. He explained that he still wanted to make changes to the law, including stripping out immunity for telecommunications companies for their cooperation with the NSA -- which would effectively kill the program. And he promised that "once I'm sworn in as President . . . my Attorney General [will] conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and . . . make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties."
Now that he has been sworn in, will Obama allow the program to continue through 2012 as Congress authorized -- breaking his pledge to his liberal base? Or will he move forward with his promised review and impose new constraints on the NSA's ability to learn what terrorists are planning? If he does, what if we fail to connect the dots before the next attack?
Obama faces a similar quandary regarding Iraq. Bush left him with a stabilized Iraq, where al-Qaeda is in retreat and American forces are coming home by the end of 2011 under a policy of "return on success." Candidate Obama promised to dramatically accelerate this withdrawal and to remove American troops within 16 months. Just last week, senior Obama adviser David Axelrod declared on ABC's "This Week" that Obama intends to keep that promise. The problem is that Gen. David Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs are not likely to recommend such a rapid and irresponsible withdrawal. That leaves Obama with two choices: He can scale back his plans and continue the slower drawdown already set in motion by President Bush. Or he can overrule his military commanders -- and pursue a rapid drawdown over their objections. If he does this, he will own the potentially devastating results. In 2007, President Bush revealed intelligence that Osama bin Laden had told al-Qaeda leaders in Iraq to form a cell to conduct attacks inside the United States -- then the surge drove them from their havens and set back those plans. If Obama allows al-Qaeda to regain its Iraqi havens, and the terrorists use them to strike our country, he will not be able to blame Bush.
President Obama has inherited a set of tools that successfully protected the country for 2,688 days -- and he cannot dismantle those tools without risking catastrophic consequences. On Tuesday, George W. Bush told a cheering crowd in Midland, Tex., that his administration had left office without another terrorist attack. When Barack Obama returns to Chicago at the end of his time in office, will he be able to say the same?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103215.html
There was no reason for another attack. Bush played right into the hand of bin Laden and with the folly of Iraq has brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy. Exactly what bin Laden wanted. I am sure bin Laden thought the fight would be in Afghanistan but he was only too happy to keep us busy and spending money we don't have in Iraq
Out of curiousity Smurph--were you really not aware Stem cell research has been going on for years--seriously???
If you want something new to celebrate--Here's O's 2nd initiative since in office (after his 1st of aiding and abetting terrorist) he's got new way to spend our tax $ as of today--are you ready?
Wonder if your buddy Spy would considering doing that running death totals of deaths he likes to do-and update us every month
Obama to Lift Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding
President Obama on Friday is expected to lift a ban on federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions, reversing a policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.
Judge, I would assume that most of the things that have kept us safe are classified, unless the New York Times thinks otherwise. Maybe if we got out of the UN, we wouldn't have been so gung ho to back the UN resolutions.
Yeah, sure they are classified. They apparently are so classified, they can't be mentioned when justifying the reason for holding people in captivity for years and eventually releasing them without cause. I remember some of those "classified" things that were so important, those things that took us to war, etc. I remember being told how many things were good for us, how we needed to be protected from those things they could not tell us about (unless some could make money off of the situations, like port security, etc.). Those things that eventually proved false and having no basis in fact or having proof to show value.
They say ignorance is bliss. Some here have been very blissful the past few years just letting people do whatever they want, under the guise of protection and some kind of reason given of safety.
Proof, even eventual proof, is an important part of what makes this country better than others. It's a doctrine that we used to hold dear and as a deciding factor in the way we live our lives and hold others accountable. Sadly, the burden of proof is no longer that important for some people, as long as they feel like the causes they personally believe in justify the means.
Let's see, what group of people that we find so much fault in ALWAYS believe that the ends justify the means? At all costs? With no other possible avenue allowed? Hmm...
They say ignorance is bliss. Some here have been very blissful the past few years just letting people do whatever they want, under the guise of protection and some kind of reason given of safety.
Proof, even eventual proof, is an important part of what makes this country better than others. It's a doctrine that we used to hold dear and as a deciding factor in the way we live our lives and hold others accountable. Sadly, the burden of proof is no longer that important for some people, as long as they feel like the causes they personally believe in justify the means.
Let's see, what group of people that we find so much fault in ALWAYS believe that the ends justify the means? At all costs? With no other possible avenue allowed? Hmm...
Chad, If the Liberals choose to feel sorry for the individuals that got taken from the battle field, they are doing it at their own PERIL and the Peril of their fellow citizen.
lets meet one another halfway on this one....
1)return them to the battlefield in afghanistan where most were captured....
2)be sure to let the 101st airborne know exactly where, and when, that's due to happen....
3)problem solved.....:shrug:
A little tutoring on liberal logic Weisy.
The guilty til proven innocent is a 2 way street for them.
Remember Haditha when the liberals and media were calling our marines cold blooded killers--only to find they were innocent (not much media on that) not one to step forward in their defence
however give them a potential terrorist captured on battlefield and they will defend them with "the last stroke of their pen."
--and while on topic of liberal logic I see same response this time by 2 in this thread to same question posed bout 10 individuals since war started- on coerced interrogation--and that response being silence.
Let me pose question one last time to anyone willing to come forward and defend their stance instead of :00x7
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The question being--
I'll waterboard any terriorisst if it will save lives and be happy to do it.
Are any of you willing to tell those that died because we didn't -it was because of your convictions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
if no answer- I assume I can archive this along with those on inflation-employment and charitable giving--that you threw in the towel on--er make that waved the white flag/retreated from.
The guilty til proven innocent is a 2 way street for them.
Remember Haditha when the liberals and media were calling our marines cold blooded killers--only to find they were innocent (not much media on that) not one to step forward in their defence
however give them a potential terrorist captured on battlefield and they will defend them with "the last stroke of their pen."
--and while on topic of liberal logic I see same response this time by 2 in this thread to same question posed bout 10 individuals since war started- on coerced interrogation--and that response being silence.
Let me pose question one last time to anyone willing to come forward and defend their stance instead of :00x7
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The question being--
I'll waterboard any terriorisst if it will save lives and be happy to do it.
Are any of you willing to tell those that died because we didn't -it was because of your convictions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
if no answer- I assume I can archive this along with those on inflation-employment and charitable giving--that you threw in the towel on--er make that waved the white flag/retreated from.
When the ssue of woter boarding first csme up I did not know what it was. I imagined with what I was hearing that it must be this horrific torture device that looked like something out of the dark ages. I was somewhat amazed when I started looking and saw how mundane it actually was. I have since seen a couple of shows where people volentarily went through it and were able to last 30 minutes or so before asking to stop. It was over and that was it, no long term effects. Now I am not niave enough to think the terrerist spilled there guts after 20 minutes and the military ended it there, but compared to what I was expecting having heard all the retoric, it wasnt what I would have thought. Anyway, anything can be torture, just according to your perception of the word. The funniest things I have read concerning Gitmo and waterboarding is the references to the geneva conventions and how we want our soldiers treated. If you think terrorist give a rats ass about the Gen. Con., conventional war, or anything else then you are just stupid. I tend to agree with treating others with kids gloves when it involves russia, china, etc. But all bets are off when it comes to the terrorist fuks.
sending money to appease the far left abortion propaganda:shrug: where is the outrage
the jury is out on stem cell research, maybe they can come up with a cure for cancer, I would agree a good thing
