RE: Civil Liberties and Himan Rights Organizations Oppose Obama

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Civil Liberties and Himan Rights Organizations Oppose Obama

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Civil Liberties and Himan Rights Organizations Oppose Obama

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Civil Liberties and Himan Rights Organizations Oppo... - 5/23/2009 8:50:45 AM

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

People can also change their mind based upon new information, or realizations about old information. I have no problem with that, and have admitted changes in my views here in the past. I admire it in others.

The statement in bold I very much agree with though, and should likely stop trying to "teach some pigs to sing" ;).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

I agree, the link I posted under your OP depicts Obama's speeches. And his contradictions. As far as whats wrong goes, I have asked myself that countless times. Wild imagination makes me wonder if the presidents get briefed (or de-briefed) to things we, as a public, arent privvy to. Maybe thats why the back-track this time. As far as me dropping out of threads like this...I tend to say what I say whether it's well received or not (as long as I believe it honestly). When people start going overboard and start contradicting themselves to the point to idiocy...or talking out their ass (usually about things *I* don't agree with) thats when I bow out. (why associate here with what I wouldn't anywhere else?)

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Louve00)

RE: Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organizations Oppo... - 5/23/2009 8:51:05 AM

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

What would Obama do?

If I really wanted Gitmo closed, I would use discretionary spending to do so, rather than wait for Congress to approve the funds.

Hi Orion,

But a president doesn't have such money or power. Discretionary spending is entirely up to Congress--including its purpose.

Live well,

Tim

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

RE: Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organizations Oppo... - 5/23/2009 8:54:32 AM

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

Hiya Tim,

The Defense Department does have Discretionary Funding areas that they could use. Gitmo is a military installation.

Live well,
Orion

edited to add: Here is one I find with just a quick search that may could be used -

" Members of the House of Representatives passed the fiscal year (FY) 2009 Defense Military Construction and VA Appropriations Bill, the only one of 12 FY 2009 spending bills to pass during this session of Congress. The bill totals $118.7 billion for mandatory spending, veterans programs, military construction (MILCON) and base closings.
The measure contains $72.7 billion in discretionary spending. It allocates $24.8 billion ($400 million above the administration's request) in discretionary spending for military construction, including $9.1 billion to cover Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommendations and $3.2 billion for military family housing. Discretionary funds also ... "

< Message edited by OrionTheWolf -- 5/23/2009 8:57:33 AM >

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Musicmystery)

RE: Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organizations Oppo... - 5/23/2009 2:51:12 PM

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

Well I did some more digging, and the last approved budget actually has a seperate stipulation in it that prevents any funds, what so ever, from being used to move any detainees from Gitmo to US Soil. Obama's own party put this in, which contributes to how Obama must handle the situation. I stand corrected on that being an option.

Edited to add the following quote and link:

"Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) confirmed the decision, which follows intense pressure from Republicans going into debate over a $91.3 billion wartime spending bill expected to come to the floor late Tuesday.

“We’ll wipe out all the money,” Inouye said, “And I’ll put in a provision that says none of the funds in this bill or any other bill can be used to pay for the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to the United States.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22677.html

< Message edited by OrionTheWolf -- 5/23/2009 3:02:48 PM >

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

RE: Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organizations Oppo... - 5/23/2009 7:05:29 PM

Posts: 1674
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline

(At the risk of this sounding oversimplistic, too much like a blonde statement...I'm no, I'm not blonde), This might show my ignorance to the matter, but try the prisoners in Gitmo, if found guilty of a crime not associated with terrorism, ship them to their country to be dealt with. If its been proven they are guilty of a crime in the name of terror, then keep them in Gitmo as a POW. If evidence has been destroyed to be able to give them a fair trial, then if they're in there for terrorism, wouldn't they actually already be a POW? Aren't we closing Gitmo because its been said they are criminals we don't know what to do with? If thats so...try the ones that are tryable...and the ones captured for terrorism would justify their 'keep' as a POW. Don't we still take POW's in War?

editted to add...Not a reply specifically to Orion, but to anyone who can either explain why, why not, or whatever.

< Message edited by Louve00 -- 5/23/2009 7:07:53 PM >

_____________________________

For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are. - Niccolo Machiavelli

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

RE: Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organizations Oppo... - 5/23/2009 7:33:57 PM

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

The issue is complicated because are they really POW's? If so, then of what nation are they from? Is it a nation that has signed the Geneva Convention? Does the Geneva Convention apply?

The term War on Terrorism, is the same as War on Drugs. The people we are dealing with are militant criminals part of a larger organization, that is not a nation (usually). So most everything points that they should be held as criminals. There are arguments against this, but my opinion is that most of them are based upon technicaalities.

We also cannot release them to a country that may use torture on them, per treaties that we signed in the United Nations. Most of the countries they belong to really do not want them back, at least the one's that have been classified as extremely dangerous.

So now the options are:

1) Put them in front of the Military Tribunals with as much legitimacy as possible.
2) Release them if a country will have them
3) Keep them under lock and key, but I feel a term should be inserted for a review by a Military/Civilian review board.

These are basically the same things Bush did, except no torture, no hear say evidence, and a little more due process.

Edited to add: No I wonder why the Democrats have not supported Obama more in closing Gitmo, and processing the prisoners through Federal Courts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

(At the risk of this sounding oversimplistic, too much like a blonde statement...I'm no, I'm not blonde), This might show my ignorance to the matter, but try the prisoners in Gitmo, if found guilty of a crime not associated with terrorism, ship them to their country to be dealt with. If its been proven they are guilty of a crime in the name of terror, then keep them in Gitmo as a POW. If evidence has been destroyed to be able to give them a fair trial, then if they're in there for terrorism, wouldn't they actually already be a POW? Aren't we closing Gitmo because its been said they are criminals we don't know what to do with? If thats so...try the ones that are tryable...and the ones captured for terrorism would justify their 'keep' as a POW. Don't we still take POW's in War?

editted to add...Not a reply specifically to Orion, but to anyone who can either explain why, why not, or whatever.

< Message edited by OrionTheWolf -- 5/23/2009 7:35:13 PM >

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Louve00)

RE: Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organizations Oppo... - 5/23/2009 7:44:35 PM

Posts: 662
Joined: 9/7/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
The issue is complicated because are they really POW's?

Most authorities in the world would consider them such. However, the Bush administration chose the label "enemy combatants", specifically to avoid that pesky Geneva Convention re treatment of POW's.

quote:

If so, then of what nation are they from? Is it a nation that has signed the Geneva Convention?

Doesn't matter. The U.S. has signed it, so we are bound by it in treatment of POW's--irrespective of their nationality.

quote:

Does the Geneva Convention apply?

See above...

quote:

Edited to add: No I wonder why the Democrats have not supported Obama more in closing Gitmo, and processing the prisoners through Federal Courts.

Well "not voting for funding" is not quite the same as "not supporting". It appears that most Democrats (Congressional and non-) do in fact support President Obama's decision to close Gitmo. To be honest I haven't read the articles as to why Congress isn't providing funding--only saw the headlines, so I can't speak to their rationale.

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

RE: Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organizations Oppo... - 5/23/2009 8:54:01 PM

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

Supporting but not funding? So how does that work? They said there was no specific plan presented, and they went so far as to place in the last funding bill that no funds from anywhere can be used for it in that budget and no detainees can be brought to US soil.

They trust Obama with Billions of dollars in bailout money, but not 147 million to close Gitmo?

Now the issue of the POW's would be, what country are we at war with so that they would be Prisoners of War? I have no problem with giving them rights under the Geneva Convention, or the US Constitution really, but they are not military personel of any country.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Cagey18)

RE: Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organizations Oppo... - 5/23/2009 9:36:10 PM

Posts: 662
Joined: 9/7/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Supporting but not funding?

Supporting the idea. Agreeing with it. As I said, both Congressional and non-Congressional (ie Democrats like me).

quote:

Now the issue of the POW's would be, what country are we at war with so that they would be Prisoners of War?

Oh come now. Most if not all of them came from Afghanistan and Iraq. But again, their nationality is irrelevant.

quote:

I have no problem with giving them rights under the Geneva Convention, or the US Constitution really, but they are not military personel of any country.

They have to be military personnel to be POW's? (hey, news to me) But certainly they do have a country of origin, as I mentioned above.

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

RE: Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organizations Oppo... - 5/23/2009 10:12:30 PM

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

They have to be military personnel to be POW's? (hey, news to me) But certainly they do have a country of origin, as I mentioned above.

It may also bear mention that everybody has a "country of origin".

A prisoner of war (POW) is a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict.... In principle, to be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured servicemember must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war, e.g. be part of a chain of command, wear a uniform and bear arms openly.

In other words,

One who has been captured while fighting under the banner of some state.

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 5/23/2009 10:13:39 PM >

(in reply to Cagey18)

RE: Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organizations Oppo... - 5/23/2009 10:20:00 PM

Posts: 662
Joined: 9/7/2008
Status: offline

Ah, okay, thanks.

So in say, the VietNam war, if a GI captured a VietCong male with a rifle, but no uniform, that VietCong is not a POW then? And has no Geneva protections?

(in reply to Kirata)

RE: Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organizations Oppo... - 5/23/2009 10:25:48 PM

Posts: 20
Joined: 1/13/2007
Status: offline

Captured VC where turned over to the ARVIN. They may have passed through a number of hands such intelligence, CIA before they got there but that is where they ended up, unless they slipped out the helicopter by accident.

(in reply to Cagey18)

RE: Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organizations Oppo... - 5/23/2009 10:28:35 PM

Posts: 27
Joined: 5/29/2005
Status: offline

Don't know if this is true or not...

THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution
Michele Chang

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is extremely frustrated with
orders that the White House is contemplating. According to
sources at the Pentagon, including all branches of the armed
forces, the Obama Administration may break with a
centuries-old tradition.

A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states that the Obama
Administration wants to have soldiers and officers pledge a
loyalty oath directly to the office of the President, and no
longer to the Constitution.

"The oath to the Constitution is as old as the document
itself." the spokesman said, "At no time in American history,
not even in the Civil War, did =2 0 the oath change or the subject
of the oath differ. It has always been to the Constitution."

The back-and-forth between the White House and the Defense
Department was expected as President George W. Bush left
office. President Obama has already signed orders to close
Guantanamo and to pull combat troops from Iraq But, this, say
many at the Defense Department, goes too far.

"Technically, we can't talk about it before it becomes
official policy." the spokesman continued. "However, the
Defense Department, including the Secretary, will not take
this laying down. Expect a fight from the bureaucracy and the
brass."

Sources at the White House had a different point of view. In a
circular distributed by White House Press Secretary Robert
Gibbs, the rationale for the change was made more clear.

"The President feels that the military has been too
indoctrinated by the old harbingers of hate: nationalism,
racism, and classism. By removing an oath to the American
society, the soldiers are less likely to commit atroc ities
like those at Abu Ghraib."

"We expect a lot of flak over this," the classified memo
continues. "But those that would be most against it are those
looking either for attention or control."

The time frame for the changes are unknown. However, it is
more likely that the changes will be made around the July 4th
holiday, in order to dampen any potential backlash. The
difference in the oath will actually only be slight. The main
differences will be the new phrasing. It is expected that the
oath to the Constitution will be entirely phased out within
two years.

(in reply to smc5188)

RE: Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organizations Oppo... - 5/23/2009 10:37:49 PM

ThatDamnedPanda

Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

Don't know if this is true or not...

It's not...

_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?

(in reply to Kindandcruel)

RE: Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organizations Oppo... - 5/23/2009 10:38:12 PM

Posts: 662
Joined: 9/7/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kindandcruel

Don't know if this is true or not...

THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution

Completely false.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/oath.asp

(in reply to Kindandcruel)

RE: Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organizations Oppo... - 5/23/2009 11:12:36 PM

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

Are the two situations even similar? There was an actual Police Action going on in Vietnam, against the North Vietnamese Government. Not to mention the Vietcong were turned over to civilian authorities after being debriefed. As I said, I have no problem with them having the rights in the Geneva Convention or US Constitution, but I do not see them as POW's as they are not fighting a war for a nation or government. Is that so difficult to understand?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

Ah, okay, thanks.

So in say, the VietNam war, if a GI captured a VietCong male with a rifle, but no uniform, that VietCong is not a POW then? And has no Geneva protections?

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Cagey18)

RE: Civil Liberties and Himan Rights Organizations Oppo... - 5/24/2009 11:01:20 AM

Posts: 862
Joined: 3/13/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

" Civil liberties and human rights groups who criticized the Bush administration's detention policies are definitive in their opposition to Mr. Obama's plans.
"It's really crossing a constitutional Rubicon," said Jonathan Hafetz, American Civil Liberties Union attorney who represented Ali al Marri. Mr. al Marri recently pleaded guilty to being an al Qaeda sleeper agent after years being held without charge as an "enemy combatant." "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124302633236948169.html

What many republicans fail to appreciate is how big a tent the democratic party has set up. Diversity is allowed to such a great extent that there is always going to be disagreement within that party. Does that mean that the left will throw Obama out because it disagrees with some aspect of what Obama is doing? I doubt such will occur. Faced with the option of either supporting Obama or having another Cheney,
Bush or the like in office, I think they will support Obama no matter what.

In any event the issue may be academic since the barge Cheney was towed in attempting to fire a broadside. David Brooks a republican commentator feels that Cheney's fuss may get him what Cheney publically said he wanted; a Truth Court. The left wanted a Truth Court and Obama had refused. Now the the alleged chief war criminal got in Obama's face and wanted a Truth Court saying that he wanted everything to hang out. Lord what a change from when he was vice president about openness. Brooks feels that Cheney may get what he is demanding including an investigation into such things as WMD etc. What a precedent and everyone has only Cheney to blame. I thought that Limbaugh had more control over his party.

What a waste of time.

< Message edited by Lorr47 -- 5/24/2009 11:03:13 AM >

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

RE: Civil Liberties and Himan Rights Organizations Oppo... - 5/24/2009 8:45:59 PM

Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

One of the first things Obama did was sign a declaration to close Gitmo in one year. Now he has a big problem. The democrats in congress won't pay to close gitmo. No States want the terrorists in their prisons and other countries want nothing to do with them. Go Obama. Shoot first, now figure out what to do next...

(in reply to Lorr47)

RE: Civil Liberties and Himan Rights Organizations Oppo... - 5/24/2009 10:38:16 PM

Posts: 862
Joined: 3/13/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

One of the first things Obama did was sign a declaration to close Gitmo in one year. Now he has a big problem. The democrats in congress won't pay to close gitmo. No States want the terrorists in their prisons and other countries want nothing to do with them. Go Obama. Shoot first, now figure out what to do next...

I think that still gives Obama over 7 months to deal with the problem.

If instant gratification is needed, commentators have indicated this week that several other nations have agreed to take them but we have declined since the prisoners would not make it off the tarmac alive.

My concern is that this is preventing us from dealing with the problems in the US economy. Both democrats and republicans in congress may desearve a Truth Court and jail terms.

(in reply to servantforuse)

RE: Civil Liberties and Himan Rights Organizations Oppo... - 5/24/2009 11:57:54 PM

Posts: 624
Joined: 9/28/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lorr47

we have declined since the prisoners would not make it off the tarmac alive.
Why look a gift horse in the mouth?

My concern is that this is preventing us from dealing with the problems in the US economy.

Then maybe he should stop campaigning over every issue. It would give the TOTUS a badly needed rest too. (And btw, you dont need Obama to deal with the problems in the US economy. The markets would do that just fine, without throwing trillions away on fixes that wont work.)

(in reply to Lorr47)

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Civil Liberties and Himan Rights Organizations Oppose Obama

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.279