quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

Its a lot easier to campaign than it is to actually do something effective, isnt it Blowboy?  Maybe thats why half your time is still spent campaigning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

Its a lot easier to campaign than it is to actually do something effective, isnt it Blowboy?  Maybe thats why half your time is still spent campaigning.

Look, maybe you don't like his policies, but he's been pretty damn effective and active for his first 100 days.  Bailouts, changing the theater of was from Iraq, prodding the Pakistanis to actually do something, nudging the Middle East peace process, and beginning the Gitmo shutdown.  Feel free to criticize him on valid grounds but not on made-up ones.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

Its a lot easier to campaign than it is to actually do something effective, isnt it Blowboy?  Maybe thats why half your time is still spent campaigning.

Look, maybe you don't like his policies, but he's been pretty damn effective and active for his first 100 days.  Bailouts, changing the theater of was from Iraq, prodding the Pakistanis to actually do something, nudging the Middle East peace process, and beginning the Gitmo shutdown.  Feel free to criticize him on valid grounds but not on made-up ones.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

My problem is starting to be the double standard and hypocricy. These things were denounced sharply by many democrats when Bush was doing them, but not a peep now that it is Obama. Just like some on this forum just steer clear of these topics, because they remember their own words over the last few years, and someone may just remind them of it.

When it comes to due process, I am a pretty strict. Here are the options:

1) Give them a trial and chips fall where they may.
2) Release them
3) Sign an executive order and lock them away

Which of these three should be done with the worst or the prisoners? The ones they mention may never be released. If it is that bad then why can't a court determine that? If it is that bad, then why doesn't a President have the balls to sign the order?

If something is wrong for Clinton, Bush or Obama, then it is wrong for all of them. This is not made up, this is continuing to happen today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Well, they could execute them all as spies.
None of them were wearing uniforms, you couldn't discern them from the local populace.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

The problems are:

1) Rules of evidence, due process etc do not work in the context of terrorism. Take the trial of the blind Sheikh. It served better as a resource of information for terrorists than it did as "justice" for Abdel Rhaman.

quote:


2) Release them where? Their home countries dont want them back, and we sure as hell dont want them here.

quote:


3) Political correctness. As I said above, BHO is learning that it is a lot harder to lead than it is to campaign, and he is afraid of offending his flock as he realizes that "permanent detention" may be the only solution. I question whether he has the gumption to stand up to Soros et al.

And of course if he does your noted hypocrisy will be even more obvious. Changing the venue of detention from the relative luxury of Gitmo to the isolation of a federal maximum security prison will be proclaimed as "effective".

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

The problems are:

1) Rules of evidence, due process etc do not work in the context of terrorism. Take the trial of the blind Sheikh. It served better as a resource of information for terrorists than it did as "justice" for Abdel Rhaman.

That is saying the American justice system does not work then. The same claim was used for espionage during the Cold War. If there is evidence then present it and allow a judge or jury to determine it.

No, it says the American justice system doesnt work for prosectuing terrorists. Tribunals are no less effective but far safer than judges and juries.

quote:


2) Release them where? Their home countries dont want them back, and we sure as hell dont want them here.

To where ever they wish and will allow them to go.

and if no one will allow them in, anywhere?

quote:


3) Political correctness. As I said above, BHO is learning that it is a lot harder to lead than it is to campaign, and he is afraid of offending his flock as he realizes that "permanent detention" may be the only solution. I question whether he has the gumption to stand up to Soros et al.

And of course if he does your noted hypocrisy will be even more obvious. Changing the venue of detention from the relative luxury of Gitmo to the isolation of a federal maximum security prison will be proclaimed as "effective".

Well if you cannot do 1 or 2, then there is only number 3 left.  Exactly. But in his naivete our hopeless leader didnt understand that or led his constituents on about what he could accomplish, and now his balls are in a vice for it.

I agree about the hypocricy being evident by the silence of several posters that raked the former President across the coals for this, but not a peep for what is happening now. This is probably the largest problem with American, the partisianship creates an atmosphere where there is no moral or ethical integrity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

My problem is starting to be the double standard and hypocricy. These things were denounced sharply by many democrats when Bush was doing them, but not a peep now that it is Obama.

If something is wrong for Clinton, Bush or Obama, then it is wrong for all of them. This is not made up, this is continuing to happen today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

If you`re all up in arms about this ,Orion,what would you do with this mess?How would you close gitmo,or would you close it at all?

quote:


What would you do with the remaining men?