PDA

View Full Version : Obama gives aid and comfort to five more enemy detainees held at Gitmo




johnwk
12-31-2014, 07:51 AM
SEE: U.S. transfers 5 more Guantanamo detainees; 127 remain (http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/us/guantanamo-detainees-transferred/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3 A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher)

Wed December 31, 2014

”CNN) -- The U.S. government has transferred five more Guantanamo Bay detainees, shrinking the number to 127.”

Keep in mind that defense department personal are complicit in this act!


JWK


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Acala
12-31-2014, 09:42 AM
So you are of the opinion that it is lawful for the US government to imprison individuals not affiliated with any nation, without a declaration of war, indefinitely, and without a trial? Having some government agency simply saying they are an enemy erases all rights of due process and all international law?

enhanced_deficit
12-31-2014, 11:13 AM
Bush Interrogated Terrorists to Get Information; Obama Kills Them With Drones

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?465470-Declassified-docs-show-Anwar-Al-Alawqi-ID-d-as-potential-terrorist-BEFORE-speaking-at-Pentagon&p=5740018&viewfull=1#post5740018


(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?465470-Declassified-docs-show-Anwar-Al-Alawqi-ID-d-as-potential-terrorist-BEFORE-speaking-at-Pentagon&p=5740018&viewfull=1#post5740018)And then some.

#SWCdronegansta
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?466644-You-re-Nitpicking-It!-O-Reilly-Judge-Nap-Do-Battle-Over-Drone-Strikes&p=5754980&viewfull=1#post5754980)

Ender
12-31-2014, 11:50 AM
So you are of the opinion that it is lawful for the US government to imprison individuals not affiliated with any nation, without a declaration of war, indefinitely, and without a trial? Having some government agency simply saying they are an enemy erases all rights of due process and all international law?

Apparently so.

Ender
12-31-2014, 11:52 AM
Bush Interrogated Terrorists to Get Information; Obama Kills Them With Drones

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?465470-Declassified-docs-show-Anwar-Al-Alawqi-ID-d-as-potential-terrorist-BEFORE-speaking-at-Pentagon&p=5740018&viewfull=1#post5740018

Interrogated is another word for torture- I think I'd take my chances with the drones.

(Not that I approve of either.)

enhanced_deficit
12-31-2014, 12:01 PM
Interrogated is another word for torture- I think I'd take my chances with the drones.

(Not that I approve of either.)

Yea in many cases it meant "enhanced interrogation" or torture.

On your second point, these kids probably would have had a different view and would have preferred that disgraced dronegangsta used interrogations over drones:



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Hv5F5G2rPjY/UTjs9RJw1OI/AAAAAAAANYY/M0ZV407FSVQ/s1600/droneC1.PNG (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhpmonitor.blogspot.com%2F2013%2F0 3%2Fhuffpost-us-drone-policy-is-suffering.html&ei=CzmkVJWdBoahNuachMAE&bvm=bv.82001339,d.eXY&psig=AFQjCNGok2RKoImKnK6OwGTRuBYxmMw9gQ&ust=1420134921731170)

Ender
12-31-2014, 12:16 PM
Yea in many cases it meant "enhanced interrogation" or torture.

On your second point, these kids probably would have had a different view and would have preferred that disgraced dronegangsta used interrogations over drones:



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Hv5F5G2rPjY/UTjs9RJw1OI/AAAAAAAANYY/M0ZV407FSVQ/s1600/droneC1.PNG (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhpmonitor.blogspot.com%2F2013%2F0 3%2Fhuffpost-us-drone-policy-is-suffering.html&ei=CzmkVJWdBoahNuachMAE&bvm=bv.82001339,d.eXY&psig=AFQjCNGok2RKoImKnK6OwGTRuBYxmMw9gQ&ust=1420134921731170)

Killing innocent children is reprehensible- still, I doubt any of these poor kids, and their parents, would have preferred indefinite incarceration with continuous torture.

enhanced_deficit
12-31-2014, 12:20 PM
Killing innocent children is reprehensible- still, I doubt any of these poor kids, and their parents, would have preferred indefinite incarceration with continuous torture.

Are you implying that killing an innocent child is a lesser sin/crime, morally less repugnant than torture of suspected innocent/insurgent/guilty adults?

BTW, dronegansta is also opposed to prosecuting torturers and for good selfish reasons as punishing for torture of adluts could open door to punisment for killing of innocent children:

"We Tortured Some Folks" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?464536-quot-We-Tortured-Some-Folks-quot-CIA-Lied-To-Congress-Senate-Torture-Report-Reveals&)

Acala
12-31-2014, 12:43 PM
Are you implying that killing an innocent child is a lesser sin/crime, morally less repugnant than torture of suspected innocent/insurgent/guilty adults?

BTW, dronegansta is also opposed to prosecuting torturers and for good selfish reasons as punishing for torture of adluts could open door to punisment for killing of innocent children:

"We Tortured Some Folks" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?464536-quot-We-Tortured-Some-Folks-quot-CIA-Lied-To-Congress-Senate-Torture-Report-Reveals&)

You didn't ask me, but I will answer for myself. INTENTIONALLY torturing people is morally more repugnant than ACCIDENTALLY killing innocent children. Indeed, if the military effort were a legitimate defense of the nation, the accidental death of children would be a deeply regrettable tragedy, but not morally repugnant, while intentional torture still would be.

enhanced_deficit
12-31-2014, 12:52 PM
You didn't ask me, but I will answer for myself. INTENTIONALLY torturing people is morally more repugnant than ACCIDENTALLY killing innocent children.

Agreed. Just as accidental torture of adults would be less morally repugnant and criminal than INTENTIONALLY dropping bombs where children are expected to be present. Places like houses.

On this note, are there any known cases where SWC team cancelled drone attack where he could not confirm that innocent children/wife would be present?
Any known cases where SWC's puppet master instructed him to apologize after innocent children died in a drone strike?

SWC Drone King will not publicly apologise for Afghan civilians deaths (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?434051-Breaking-SWC-%28Goldman-Sachs-funded%29-will-not-publicly-apologise-for-Afghan-civilians-deaths)

Reporter Asks White House if US Airstrike that killed 11 children is ‘Terrorism’ (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?411985-Reporter-Asks-White-House-if-US-Airstrike-that-killed-11-children-is-%E2%80%98Terrorism%E2%80%99&)

While You Were Debating Obama’s ‘Selfie,’ U.S. Drones Killed 13+ Yemen Wedding Guests (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?436307-While-You-Were-Debating-Obama%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98Selfie-%E2%80%99-U-S-Drones-Killed-13-Yemen-Wedding-Guests&)

jmdrake
12-31-2014, 12:52 PM
SEE: U.S. transfers 5 more Guantanamo detainees; 127 remain (http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/us/guantanamo-detainees-transferred/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3 A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher)

Wed December 31, 2014

”CNN) -- The U.S. government has transferred five more Guantanamo Bay detainees, shrinking the number to 127.”

Keep in mind that defense department personal are complicit in this act!


JWK


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

http://i711.photobucket.com/albums/ww111/funk2win2/sure-if-serious-i-am-not.jpg

Do you realize that we have held people at Guantanamo Bay that everybody acknowledges are innocent of terrorism or any other charge? Releasing someone who has never been determined to be an enemy of the U.S. is not giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You're just being silly.

From back in 2013.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/25/kafka-at-gitmo-why-86-prisoners-are-cleared-for-release-but-might-never-get-it/
For the 86 prisoners, it's a plight almost Kafkaesque in its cruel absurdity: though the United States believes they should be released from their concrete cells at Guantanamo Bay, they have stayed in prison, often for years, not because of any crime they committed or immediate threat they pose, but because of diplomatic and political hurdles out of their control.

For the Obama administration, it's a maze with no obvious exits: it doesn't want to keep these prisoners locked up in Gitmo, which is politically and diplomatically costly, not to mention antithetical to Obama's stated desire to close the prison, but Congress has forbidden the prisoners from being transferred to U.S. soil. Though the administration had searched for foreign countries to which the detainees could be released, it appears to have since given up, having closed the office responsible for finding those countries.

All of this means that a number of Guantanamo's detainees are stuck in the facility even though the United States believes they should be released. Perhaps understandably, the detainees are not happy about this. Increasingly aware that the world has largely given up on them, they are starting to make noise.

The past three months have been hard ones at Guantanamo. A hunger strike that began in February now includes 93 of the camp's 166 detainees, fighting has broken out in the normally sedate Camp Six between inmates and guards, and tensions are reportedly worsening at the facility.

So who are the 86 detainees who have been cleared for transfer out of Guantanamo, and why are they still there? When the Obama administration came into office and took ownership of the camp, it announced its intention to close it. The administration had four ways to deal with the detainees: put them through civilian trials, put them through military tribunals, send them to a foreign country's prison system or, for a lucky few dozen, release them. The United States has since released 31 detainees to their home countries and another 40 to countries that were not their homelands, either because their home country would not accept them or because the United States believed the home country might subject them to torture or other abuses.

These remaining 86 detainees are the ones who, the United States believes, should be released to either their home or another country, but haven't been because of diplomatic and political hurdles. There are two theories as to why an individual detainee cleared for release might not get it. The first theory is that no country will accept him. It's not implausible; as an example of how tough it can be to find safe homes for the detainees, some Chinese Muslim dissidents held at Gitmo had to released to, of all places, Bermuda. But the second theory that's increasingly mentioned by critics: some administration officials might fear that a released detainee could later participate in terrorism, for which the administration might well be blamed.


Rep. Howard P. McKeon (R-Calif.) said in the New York Times that Congress recently gave the Pentagon the power to circumvent some of the restrictions that make it tough for them to release detainees to foreign countries, but that the Pentagon doesn't appear to have taken advantage of this.

"It’s just a political game," McKeon told the paper. "They like to point to this as our intransigence, but we have worked with them."

A recent study by a U.S. intelligence office estimated that between 16 and 27 percent of released Gitmo detainees have participated in terrorism since leaving the facility. Imagine the reaction if, hypothetically, the Boston Marathon bombings were discovered to have been conducted by detainees whom the Obama administration had cleared from Guantanamo and you can perhaps start to understand the White House's possible thinking.

To be clear, I'm not defending this position or arguing that it's correct. If this is indeed part of the administration's thinking, it raises the questions: How do you weigh that risk against the continued detention of 86 men who might otherwise go free? And isn't there something distasteful and unsettling about imprisoning people not because they've done anything wrong but because they might in the future?

It's exactly this sort of dilemma that President Obama was likely hoping to avoid when he pledged, at the start of his presidency, to close Guantanamo. And perhaps you can see some of what can make these decisions so difficult. Still, every day they go unresolved, dozens of men are waking, living, praying and now, in many cases, going hungry in concrete cells that, according to the administration, they don't need to be in any more. But there they are, and, unless something changes, there they will remain.

HOLLYWOOD
12-31-2014, 12:56 PM
Just read the news...

5 political prisoners were; bagged, tagged, kidnapped, tortured, force-fed, and held in GITMO for 12 years, WITHOUT a single charge or any evidence against any of them.

Just horrible and it's becoming apparent the murderous, psychopathic, tyrannical government on planet earth is the FOR SALE, OWNED, & CONTROLLED, Washington DC political banksta-Fascist empire.

Think not? Watch this video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYX4WeqQfRo#t=151

Acala
12-31-2014, 01:03 PM
Agreed. Just as accidental torture of adults would be less morally repugnant and criminal than INTENTIONALLY dropping bombs where children are expected to be present. Places like houses.


Yes. I had to craft my response very carefully because it is really hair-splitting. Intentionally trying to kill children is inexcusable. Accidentally killing children as a side effect of trying to kill soldiers is also inexcusable IF the battle is not necessary to defend the liberty of the American people. Accidentally killing children as a side effect of trying to kill soldiers that are a direct and immediate threat to the liberty of the American people IS excusable, but just barely and should be avoided if at all possible consistent with a successful defense. Torture is NEVER excusable. May we live to see times where these questions are purely academic.

Slave Mentality
12-31-2014, 01:04 PM
Close it the fuck down.

amy31416
12-31-2014, 01:10 PM
You didn't ask me, but I will answer for myself. INTENTIONALLY torturing people is morally more repugnant than ACCIDENTALLY killing innocent children. Indeed, if the military effort were a legitimate defense of the nation, the accidental death of children would be a deeply regrettable tragedy, but not morally repugnant, while intentional torture still would be.

It's a matter of degrees, but I have to disagree. Anyone who goes to war knows that there will be "collateral damage" and it is a conscious choice that you will kill innocents in order to kill the allegedly guilty. I guess I can't even comprehend your point on legitimate defense, since I've never seen that on anything but an individual level.

At least, with torture, you have to look at your victim in the eyes and possibly address the monster that you are. The person may survive and be able to change things or hunt you down for your crimes. Crap like that has people like Dick Cheney shitting himself daily.

Acala
12-31-2014, 01:17 PM
It's a matter of degrees, but I have to disagree. Anyone who goes to war knows that there will be "collateral damage" and it is a conscious choice that you will kill innocents in order to kill the allegedly guilty. I guess I can't even comprehend your point on legitimate defense, since I've never seen that on anything but an individual level.

At least, with torture, you have to look at your victim in the eyes and possibly address the monster that you are. The person may survive and be able to change things or hunt you down for your crimes. Crap like that has people like Dick Cheney shitting himself daily.

In our lives we have only seen illegitimate use of military violence by our government. But there is, at least in theory, the possibility that military force might be used to actually defend the country. Unintentional damage to innocents is almost impossible to avoid in such a scenario but you need to do it anyway. You never need to torture someone.

twomp
12-31-2014, 01:26 PM
SEE: U.S. transfers 5 more Guantanamo detainees; 127 remain (http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/us/guantanamo-detainees-transferred/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3 A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher)

Wed December 31, 2014

”CNN) -- The U.S. government has transferred five more Guantanamo Bay detainees, shrinking the number to 127.”

Keep in mind that defense department personal are complicit in this act!


JWK


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

So you must be at the wrong forum. Most folks around here don't hate Obama because he's team Blue. We hate him because he is a corrupt, warmongering tyrant. Guantanamo should be shut down. You become the enemy when you behave in the same manner that they do.

amy31416
12-31-2014, 01:30 PM
In our lives we have only seen illegitimate use of military violence by our government. But there is, at least in theory, the possibility that military force might be used to actually defend the country. Unintentional damage to innocents is almost impossible to avoid in such a scenario but you need to do it anyway. You never need to torture someone.

I don't disagree entirely in regards to war. But it's definitely purely academic--and I think we have the technology already to keep those events to an absolute minimum--if anyone gave enough of a shit.

This just reminds me of how we killed an Afghani girl by dropping a box of leaflets on her head. Really? We couldn't avoid that?

Ender
12-31-2014, 01:56 PM
Are you implying that killing an innocent child is a lesser sin/crime, morally less repugnant than torture of suspected innocent/insurgent/guilty adults?

BTW, dronegansta is also opposed to prosecuting torturers and for good selfish reasons as punishing for torture of adluts could open door to punisment for killing of innocent children:

"We Tortured Some Folks" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?464536-quot-We-Tortured-Some-Folks-quot-CIA-Lied-To-Congress-Senate-Torture-Report-Reveals&)

I am not "implying" anything. Yet to say that knowingly torturing people who were never even terrorists- only SUSPECTED- is somehow "better", is not acceptable to me.

And implying that Bush is somehow better than Obama is unfathomable to anyone who truly believes in liberty.

Acala
12-31-2014, 02:16 PM
I don't disagree entirely in regards to war. But it's definitely purely academic--and I think we have the technology already to keep those events to an absolute minimum--if anyone gave enough of a shit.

This just reminds me of how we killed an Afghani girl by dropping a box of leaflets on her head. Really? We couldn't avoid that?

Yes. If you ever watched the video of the US gunships blowing up the journalists in Iraq and then blowing up the van with the children inside, you can get an idea of how little they care. Dead children? "That's what happens when you bring your kids to the battle field." Okay, so maybe it was your front yard and we turned it into a battle field when we invaded . . . too bad.

Ender
12-31-2014, 02:48 PM
Yes. If you ever watched the video of the US gunships blowing up the journalists in Iraq and then blowing up the van with the children inside, you can get an idea of how little they care. Dead children? "That's what happens when you bring your kids to the battle field." Okay, so maybe it was your front yard and we turned it into a battle field when we invaded . . . too bad.

Saw that video and agree with your perceptions.

Suzanimal
12-31-2014, 02:56 PM
Close it the fuck down.

This. ^^^

Zippyjuan
12-31-2014, 03:06 PM
Congress refuses to allocate money to close the facility and has also banned trials in the US for any prisoners as well as military tribunals on Cuba.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/30/obama-just-gave-a-powerful-speech-about-the-need-to-close-gitmo-so-why-hasnt-he/


The challenge in closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay is not actually the detention facility itself. The problem is the 166 detainees, each of whom has to be moved somewhere else. A basic premise of Gitmo, after all, was that these are people would be kept in perpetual limbo. Each detainee can leave that limbo through one of four different routes: a civilian trial, a military tribunal, a foreign country's prison system or freedom.

Sounds simple enough, right? Except that the first two routes – civilian trial or military tribunal – were blocked by Congress, which passed legislation barring the federal government from funding trials for Guantanamo detainees or buying a prison in the U.S. to house them.

The third route, to send the detainees to a foreign country's prison system, is only legal if the U.S. can be sure that the detainees will not be tortured there. Given some of the countries from which the detainees originate, this is not always an easy guarantee to make. And there have been doubts about foreign governments' ability to appropriately safeguard the detainees. A 2008 Washington Post article portrayed Yemeni officials struggling to convince their U.S. counterparts that they could safely accommodate prisoners from Guantanamo, while U.S. officials worried that they might be released.

The fourth route, freedom, actually already applies to 86 of the 166 detainees. The U.S. government believes they can be safely released back into the world, but it has nowhere to send them. For many of these individuals, their home country will not take them or might torture them, meaning the U.S. has to find an entirely different country to release them to.

thoughtomator
12-31-2014, 03:38 PM
The official policy of the Department of Defense is that they don't know who we are at war with.

If they don't know, then those held at Guantanamo can't be said to be enemies, because officially we don't actually have any that we can name.

Acala
12-31-2014, 03:53 PM
Congress refuses to allocate money to close the facility and has also banned trials in the US for any prisoners as well as military tribunals on Cuba.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/30/obama-just-gave-a-powerful-speech-about-the-need-to-close-gitmo-so-why-hasnt-he/

This is mealy-mouthed Obama-apologist BS. If Obama wanted to end the detention he could do it today with the stroke of a pen. "You all go free, a military plane drops you off in some neutral country, base is closed." End of story.

johnwk
12-31-2014, 04:03 PM
So you must be at the wrong forum. Most folks around here don't hate Obama because he's team Blue. We hate him because he is a corrupt, warmongering tyrant. Guantanamo should be shut down. You become the enemy when you behave in the same manner that they do.

Perhaps you should invite those five enemy combatants to live with your wife and children.


Report: Dozens of Former Gitmo Detainees Now Fighting With ISIS (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/10/30/gitmo-report-n1912037)

Oct 30, 2014

”Of course they are. The Guantanamo recidivism problem has been very real for years at this point, with at least one former Gitmo guest reportedly participating in the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks.”

I didn’t think you would support ISIS in their recruiting efforts.


JWK



To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny!

Acala
12-31-2014, 04:05 PM
The official policy of the Department of Defense is that they don't know who we are at war with.

If they don't know, then those held at Guantanamo can't be said to be enemies, because officially we don't actually have any that we can name.

Couldn't give you more rep.

Before we enter into hostilities we must, at the very least, have:
1. A clearly identifiable and finite enemy;
2. Clearly-stated goals; and
3. Criteria defining victory.

If the proponent of war can't say exactly who we are fighting, to what purpose, and how we will know when we are finished, NO GO! Anything else is just Orwellian continual warfare for political and economic purposes.

Acala
12-31-2014, 04:06 PM
Perhaps you should invite those five enemy combatants to live with your wife and children.


JWK

Are you suggesting that anyone in the world that you would not want living with your family should spend their life in prison?

TheCount
12-31-2014, 04:09 PM
This is mealy-mouthed Obama-apologist BS. If Obama wanted to end the detention he could do it today with the stroke of a pen. "You all go free, a military plane drops you off in some neutral country, base is closed." End of story.

All of that costs no money?

amy31416
12-31-2014, 06:04 PM
All of that costs no money?

It costs a hell of a lot less than housing, paying psychiatrists, guards, etc. Not to mention the non-monetary costs of keeping people indefinitely detained and torturing them.

kcchiefs6465
12-31-2014, 06:52 PM
This is mealy-mouthed Obama-apologist BS. If Obama wanted to end the detention he could do it today with the stroke of a pen. "You all go free, a military plane drops you off in some neutral country, base is closed." End of story.
Most, if not every country, does not want them.

Acala
12-31-2014, 08:02 PM
All of that costs no money?

It would probably cost close to nothing at all. US military transport planes are flying all over the world all the time. The cost of diverting a couple of them to pick up some human cargo would be nil. If the Supreme Commander of all the armed forces of USA wanted to release a handful of prisoners held on foreign soil, under the sole control of the military, and drop them off in a neutral country, he could do it without needing an extra penny in appropriations.

Acala
12-31-2014, 08:05 PM
Most, if not every country, does not want them.

Have we asked anybody? Besides, we drop a LOT of things on other countries that they don't want. So we land the plane in Afghanistan, push them out the door, and take off again. Done.

thoughtomator
12-31-2014, 08:06 PM
Most, if not every country, does not want them.

We can send them to Mexico; they don't ask permission to resettle their exiles, so we won't be obligated to do so either.

kcchiefs6465
12-31-2014, 08:12 PM
Have we asked anybody? Besides, we drop a LOT of things on other countries that they don't want. So we land the plane in Afghanistan, push them out the door, and take off again. Done.
Many of them were soldiers in the Afghan war (when the Soviet Union was the one invading). Most "Afghans" (as they are called) aren't actually from Afghanistan (that isn't to read as if Afghans aren't from Afghanistan). The CIA was doing a bit to promote any and everyone's training to go fight the Soviets. They recruited from all around and people voluntarily went. Some of those people never left or if they did, they left and were eventually rendered from the countries they traveled to.

The countries they are from want nothing to do with them. Some were legitimately dangerous, some are now clinically insane, and some, when released, will take up arms against the United States. It's what happens when you torture someone for the period they've been kept.

TheCount
01-01-2015, 03:37 AM
It costs a hell of a lot less than housing, paying psychiatrists, guards, etc. Not to mention the non-monetary costs of keeping people indefinitely detained and torturing them.

Yes, and Congress has allocated money for all of the things that you mentioned. They specifically denied funding for closing the base. The President and the DOD cannot use budget money for a purpose other than directed/allowed in the budget and/or CR.



It would probably cost close to nothing at all. US military transport planes are flying all over the world all the time. The cost of diverting a couple of them to pick up some human cargo would be nil. If the Supreme Commander of all the armed forces of USA wanted to release a handful of prisoners held on foreign soil, under the sole control of the military, and drop them off in a neutral country, he could do it without needing an extra penny in appropriations.

So you agree that it costs money. Money which cannot be spent per Congress. See above.

TheCount
01-01-2015, 03:37 AM
Double

amy31416
01-01-2015, 04:11 AM
Yes, and Congress has allocated money for all of the things that you mentioned. They specifically denied funding for closing the base. The President and the DOD cannot use budget money for a purpose other than directed/allowed in the budget and/or CR.




So you agree that it costs money. Money which cannot be spent per Congress. See above.

If you want people indefinitely detained, tortured and want their (and your) souls slowly leeched--you pay for it. You've also got to be willing to do it rather than send someone else to do it for you on our dime. Congress allocates a whole buttload of our money for immoral things--using .1% of it to end this crap is not only worthwhile, but it makes financial sense.

Want me to start a chip-in to help get you there? I got $5.00 to donate, but then it's all on you. Back up your beliefs with action and your own damned wallet.

Acala
01-01-2015, 07:24 AM
Yes, and Congress has allocated money for all of the things that you mentioned. They specifically denied funding for closing the base. The President and the DOD cannot use budget money for a purpose other than directed/allowed in the budget and/or CR.




So you agree that it costs money. Money which cannot be spent per Congress. See above.

The defense budget is not earmarked to that extent. The President could easily accomplish this without explicit Congressional approval. The President has far less discretion domestically than he does in the military realm and has no problem issuing executive orders that are not expressly approved by Congress or are even contrary to Congressional intent.

Acala
01-01-2015, 07:32 AM
Many of them were soldiers in the Afghan war (when the Soviet Union was the one invading). Most "Afghans" (as they are called) aren't actually from Afghanistan (that isn't to read as if Afghans aren't from Afghanistan). The CIA was doing a bit to promote any and everyone's training to go fight the Soviets. They recruited from all around and people voluntarily went. Some of those people never left or if they did, they left and were eventually rendered from the countries they traveled to.

The countries they are from want nothing to do with them. Some were legitimately dangerous, some are now clinically insane, and some, when released, will take up arms against the United States. It's what happens when you torture someone for the period they've been kept.

NONE of them committed a crime on US soil so they cannot be charged under US criminal law. They need to be released where we got them. If Afghanistan thinks they are criminals, Afghanistan can put them on trial and lock them up. Is there a risk that they will take up arms against us? Sure. When is that ever NOT the case when releasing a prisoner of any kind? That risk does not justify life in prison. The idea that the aftereffects of our prior wrongs compel us to continue to do wrong is a logical dead end. We need to stop what we have been doing and start doing the right thing, even if it is difficult and dangerous. If we are going to change course and stop being a force of evil in the world, we need to bite the bullet, stop making excuses, and change.

A Son of Liberty
01-01-2015, 09:47 AM
Where's that report that showed a lot of the guys the US picked up were "problems" for Afghan leaders - warlords, chieftains, etc. - who conveniently tipped off US military, CIA, etc. and, voila, "problem" solved.

TheCount
01-01-2015, 10:51 AM
The defense budget is not earmarked to that extent. The President could easily accomplish this without explicit Congressional approval. The President has far less discretion domestically than he does in the military realm and has no problem issuing executive orders that are not expressly approved by Congress or are even contrary to Congressional intent.

Yeah... no. That's not how this works. The law says that he can't use any money authorized by Congress by any legislation whatsoever.

Step 1, he can't build or modify any facility designed to house the detainees anywhere outside Guantanamo:




Sec. 529. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be used to construct, acquire, or modify any facility in the United States, its territories, or possessions to house any individual described in subsection (c) for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense. (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to any modification of facilities at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (c) An individual described in this subsection is any individual who, as of June 24, 2009, is located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Step 2, he can't move them to the US:



Sec. 528. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be used to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within the United States, its territories, or possessions Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who-- (1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and (2) is or was held on or after June 24, 2009, at the United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department of Defense.


Step 3, he can't transfer them anywhere outside the US:




Sec. 8111. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used to transfer any individual detained at United States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the custody or control of the individual's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity except in accordance with section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

NDAA Section 1035 goes on to make it impossible to release anyone, and requires notification to Congress 30 days prior to release so that they can block you in the event you manage to lie your way through the requirements. (https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr3304/BILLS-113hr3304enr.pdf)



Bottom line, Obama cannot release or transfer any Guantanamo detainees without breaking the law.

otherone
01-01-2015, 11:07 AM
Bottom line, Obama cannot release or transfer any Guantanamo detainees without breaking the law.

Section 2. Clause 1. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Office, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

jmdrake
01-01-2015, 11:08 AM
Congress refuses to allocate money to close the facility and has also banned trials in the US for any prisoners as well as military tribunals on Cuba.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/30/obama-just-gave-a-powerful-speech-about-the-need-to-close-gitmo-so-why-hasnt-he/

Yeah. Obama doesn't care about congressional power when it comes to changing the rules on immigration. The democrats were able to push through Obamacare without any republican support, yet for some reason Gitmo couldn't be closed? Not buying it.

TheCount
01-01-2015, 11:15 AM
Section 2. Clause 1. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Office, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

1) The detainees are not even charged with anything.

2) Doesn't matter, because the CR/NDAA doesn't care about their criminal status, just that they are at Guantanamo and not US citizens.

3) Hilariously, it's easier to get rid of the detainees that are actually either convicted or acquitted, because Congress was extremely careful to make loopholes for court ordered moves.

A Son of Liberty
01-01-2015, 11:48 AM
Step 1,

Summon DOJ attorney.


Step 2,


Tell said attorney you want to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison, and want him to find the "legal basis" for him to do so absent Congressional action.


Step 3,

Await said basis.

Step 4:

Shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison.

It's all been done before.


Bottom line, Obama cannot release or transfer any Guantanamo detainees without breaking the law.

The bottom line is that the law is whatever they say it is, and no one would say Boo about it if he did it anyway.

Acala
01-01-2015, 01:51 PM
Summon DOJ attorney.




Tell said attorney you want to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison, and want him to find the "legal basis" for him to do so absent Congressional action.



Await said basis.

Step 4:

Shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison.

It's all been done before.



The bottom line is that the law is whatever they say it is, and no one would say Boo about it if he did it anyway.

Agree with this.^ But even if Obama wanted to comply with the statute (the details of which I had not paid attention to, so thanks Count!) there is no question that he COULD order all the military personnel at Gitmo to transfer to other US bases. Just abandon Gitmo and last one out leaves the door open. That would not violate the statute. Sorry Cuba. If Congress doesn't like things done the messy way then they can pull their heads out and do it the neat way. A president who wanted to end that nightmare and had the cajones could do it.

Zippyjuan
01-01-2015, 02:02 PM
Section 2. Clause 1. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Office, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.



You cannot padon somebody who has not been even accused of anything let alone tried and found guilty.

jmdrake
01-01-2015, 02:39 PM
You cannot padon somebody who has not been even accused of anything let alone tried and found guilty.

Again, since when did Obama restrict himself to enumerated powers? If you can order someone killed without a trial you can pardon him without being found guilty. Nixon was pardoned by Ford without having been found guilty of anything.

Zippyjuan
01-01-2015, 02:47 PM
Again, since when did Obama restrict himself to enumerated powers? If you can order someone killed without a trial you can pardon him without being found guilty. Nixon was pardoned by Ford without having been found guilty of anything.

Nixon was charged. The prisoners at Gitmo have been held without charges for years. That is wrong. If there are no charges, there can be no pardon from them.

twomp
01-01-2015, 02:49 PM
Perhaps you should invite those five enemy combatants to live with your wife and children.


Report: Dozens of Former Gitmo Detainees Now Fighting With ISIS (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/10/30/gitmo-report-n1912037)


Oct 30, 2014

”Of course they are. The Guantanamo recidivism problem has been very real for years at this point, with at least one former Gitmo guest reportedly participating in the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks.”

I didn’t think you would support ISIS in their recruiting efforts.


JWK



To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny!


Oh please. Your main stream media links don't scare me. There were more Americans killed by cops last year than ISIS. You are just looking to stir up a shit storm because you hate Obama because of the letter behind his name. Show me some evidence for the reasons these people were held and tortured in Guantanamo and I might have more sympathy for you and your crusade against brown people. Just because they were held in Guantanamo doesn't make them guilty of anything and throwing out the word ISIS doesn't scare me like it scares you. I have balls.

Go back to hiding under your bed because ISIS could be right around the corner. The MSM said so, bitch.

jmdrake
01-01-2015, 03:18 PM
Nixon was charged. The prisoners at Gitmo have been held without charges for years. That is wrong. If there are no charges, there can be no pardon from them.

He was impeached. The constitution specifically forbids pardons for impeachment. Ford pardoned Nixon for things he might be charged with.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4696
As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.
......
Now, Therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

I agree that it is wrong that these men haven't even been charged though.

Zippyjuan
01-01-2015, 03:25 PM
Charges were filed. That starts the impeachment process. After charges are filed, the Senate investigates and decides whether or not to have a trial. It did not get to the Senate trial stage but charges were brought and the investigation was in process.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-charged-with-first-of-three-articles-of-impeachment


Jul 27, 1974:
Nixon charged with first of three articles of impeachment

On this day in 1974, the House of Representatives charges President Richard M. Nixon with the first of three articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice after he refused to release White House tape recordings that contained crucial information regarding the Watergate scandal.

In June 1972, five men connected with Nixon's reelection committee, the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP), had been caught breaking into the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate Hotel in Washington D.C. A subsequent investigation exposed illegal activities perpetrated by CREEP and authorized by senior members of Nixon's administration. It also raised questions about what the president knew about those activities. In May 1973, the Senate convened an investigation into the Watergate scandal amid public cries for Nixon's impeachment. Nixon vigorously denied involvement in the burglary cover-up, most famously in November 1973 when he declared, "I am not a crook." Although Nixon released some of the tapes requested by the Senate in April 1974, he withheld the most damning of them, claiming executive privilege. On July 24, 1974, the Supreme Court rejected Nixon's claim of executive privilege and ordered him to turn over the remaining tapes. When he refused to do so, the House of Representatives passed the first article of impeachment against Nixon for obstruction of justice. On August 5, with the impeachment process already underway, Nixon reluctantly released the remaining tapes.

On August 8, 1974, Nixon avoided a Senate trial and likely conviction by becoming the first president to resign.


The pardon removed the charges. Prisoners in Gitmo have not been charged with anything.

jmdrake
01-01-2015, 04:18 PM
Charges were filed. That starts the impeachment process. After charges are filed, the Senate investigates and decides whether or not to have a trial. It did not get to the Senate trial stage but charges were brought and the investigation was in process.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-charged-with-first-of-three-articles-of-impeachment



The pardon removed the charges. Prisoners in Gitmo have not been charged with anything.

Uhh....nope. That's not what happened. The pardon wasn't for the impeachment. Nixon was already impeached and he resigned before the Senate could convict. So there was nothing left for the Senate to do in that regard. Nixon could have had charges brought against him in criminal court. Ford's pardon was for charges that could have been filed. Not for the impeachment. The constitution is clear. You can't do away with impeachment charges with a pardon.

Zippyjuan
01-01-2015, 04:33 PM
Hmm. Impeachment is bringing charges. Step one is the House of Representatives files charges. Then it moves to the Senate.


Nixon was already impeached and he resigned before the Senate could convict.

Nixon was impeached but wasn't charged?

An impeachment trial is held by the Senate- not criminal court.


In the Senate

The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House.

The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.

A trial will be held. The President will be represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members will serve as "prosecutors." The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (currently John G. Roberts) will preside with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.

The Senate will meet in private session to debate a verdict.

The Senate, in open session, will vote on a verdict. A 2/3 vote of the Senate will result in a conviction.

The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.

The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future.

You are right he resigned before he could be convicted but he was charged. That is why it was in the hands of the Senate.


The constitution is clear. You can't do away with impeachment charges with a pardon.

Can you show us where it says that?


The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishmnet, according to Law.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/constitution.html

Zippyjuan
01-01-2015, 04:37 PM
But the real point is that the prisoners at Gitmo have been held indefinitely without any charges being brought against them or any hearings or rights. That should not be what the US stands for. They should be charged and tried or released. Some have been there fourteen years now. There should be no surprise that ones who do finally get released don't like the US when they get treated like these people were.

jmdrake
01-01-2015, 04:40 PM
Hmm. Impeachment is bringing charges. Step one is the House of Representatives files charges. Then it moves to the Senate.

Right. But those aren't criminal charges. Richard Nixon had no criminal charges pending against him when Ford pardoned him.

Again, from what Ford said in the pardon.

As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States.

In the impeachment process the House voting for impeachment is the equivalent to "indictment." But Ford said Nixon was subject to indictment. That meant criminal indictment.



Nixon was impeached but wasn't charged?

An impeachment trial is held by the Senate- not criminal court.


Exactly! The Senate is NOT a criminal court. Had he been "convicted" in the Senate he would have been removed from office. He resigned first. There was nothing left for the Senate to do. But he still could have been brought before a grand jury and criminal charges could have been brought against him. This is all covered in the language of Ford's pardon that I posted for you already!



You are right he resigned before he could be convicted but he was charged. That is why it was in the hands of the Senate.


Once he resigned how was the Senate going to remove him from office? :confused:




Can you show us where it says that?


That was already in the post by otherone that you replied to!


[I]Section 2. Clause 1. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Office, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

jmdrake
01-01-2015, 04:44 PM
But the real point is that the prisoners at Gitmo have been held indefinitely without any charges being brought against them or any hearings or rights. That should not be what the US stands for. They should be charged and tried or released. Some have been there fourteen years now.

I think you meant to say "should not have been held indefinitely." And with that I agree. I think the OP is being ridiculous to say that Obama freeing people that even the Bush administration concluded were likely innocent was somehow "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." I do think you and others raise some valid points that republicans in congress have been needlessly obstructionist on this point, but it's interesting to note that Obama has found ways to just do what he wants on other issues. If the executive has any plenary power it should be in freeing POWs and trying POWs. After all trials come under the executive branch. Congress can't grow a pair and defund anything else Obama does but they could stand up on the one case they shouldn't?

jmdrake
01-01-2015, 04:49 PM
More on the impeachment process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States
Similar to the British system, Article One of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Unlike the British system, impeachment is only the first of two stages, and conviction requires a two-thirds vote. Impeachment does not necessarily result in removal from office; it is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict. Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibility of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from ever again holding political office in the jurisdiction where he was removed. Impeachment with respect to political office should not be confused with witness impeachment.

kcchiefs6465
01-01-2015, 05:31 PM
Where's that report that showed a lot of the guys the US picked up were "problems" for Afghan leaders - warlords, chieftains, etc. - who conveniently tipped off US military, CIA, etc. and, voila, "problem" solved.
It is still quite common.

Land dispute? You could be labelled a Taliban sympathizer having your home no knock raided at three in the morning.

kcchiefs6465
01-01-2015, 05:38 PM
NONE of them committed a crime on US soil so they cannot be charged under US criminal law. They need to be released where we got them. If Afghanistan thinks they are criminals, Afghanistan can put them on trial and lock them up. Is there a risk that they will take up arms against us? Sure. When is that ever NOT the case when releasing a prisoner of any kind? That risk does not justify life in prison. The idea that the aftereffects of our prior wrongs compel us to continue to do wrong is a logical dead end. We need to stop what we have been doing and start doing the right thing, even if it is difficult and dangerous. If we are going to change course and stop being a force of evil in the world, we need to bite the bullet, stop making excuses, and change.
Of course they should be released. Not even Rand Paul would release them though. There would be an attack on servicemen somewhere and the American public would be up in arms. The many who legitimately are innocent and simply wish to see their family be damned.

You can't keep someone in a cage for years, treating them as dogs, degrading them and their religion, etc. without angering a few. It would not surprise me if those who were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time now do not wish death on America.

Of course, I am unworried. If credible evidence cannot be brought forth before a competent and open court, release the lot of them. I was simply saying that these countries do not want them back. Not that 'we' ever gave piss about the sovereignty of other countries before...

Legend1104
01-01-2015, 07:51 PM
The official policy of the Department of Defense is that they don't know who we are at war with.

If they don't know, then those held at Guantanamo can't be said to be enemies, because officially we don't actually have any that we can name.

Same logic as how the South did not secede but were rather states in rebellion, yet when they refused to comply they were put under martial law and told to ratify the 14th amendment before they could rejoin a union they apparently never left. What ever logic serves their purposes.

johnwk
01-15-2015, 08:19 PM
.
See: Yemeni terror suspects held at Gitmo released to live in nearby Oman (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/15/us-announces-release-5-gitmo-detainees/)


January 14, 2015


”The Department of Defense announced Wednesday that five Yemeni terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have been released. But despite concerns from lawmakers about the risks of sending anybody back to Yemen, four were released to Oman -- which is right next door.”


JWK



When will the America People realize we have an Islamic sympathizing cell operating out of our Nation’s White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Islamic terrorist activities begin in our southern Border States or cities like New York City?

kcchiefs6465
01-15-2015, 08:40 PM
:eek:

























Good.

Zippyjuan
01-15-2015, 08:55 PM
Of course they should be released. Not even Rand Paul would release them though. There would be an attack on servicemen somewhere and the American public would be up in arms. The many who legitimately are innocent and simply wish to see their family be damned.

You can't keep someone in a cage for years, treating them as dogs, degrading them and their religion, etc. without angering a few. It would not surprise me if those who were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time now do not wish death on America.

Of course, I am unworried. If credible evidence cannot be brought forth before a competent and open court, release the lot of them. I was simply saying that these countries do not want them back. Not that 'we' ever gave piss about the sovereignty of other countries before...

All the more reason to shut the whole thing down.