1876 replies to this topic

[Derock]

What I wonder is....what does he plan to do with these people? Alot of these people....their home countries don't want them back.

We do have other jail facilities within the US.

[Miss Soupy]

We do have other jail facilities within the US.

They wouldn't bring them here, not terrorists that were part of 9/11 and have otherwise threatened the U.S. Either they will have to find another country to take them or they will just build a new facility somewhere else. I don't see why he couldn't have just reformed what is done there rather than closing it and having to build a new place.

[Nate River]

We do have other jail facilities within the US.

Ah, so if Obama captures Osama we can just shove him in a cell in a nearby federal penitentiary? What's the difference between holding them here and in Gitmo if there is no change in the term of confinement? You think federal pens are nicer places? If it that simple why does Obama need to establish a process to determine what to do with them. He could have started moving them today and closed shop by the end of the week. He needs a year to do that?

These guys aren't just run of the mill criminals.

[Dark]

In all honesty, I agree with closing down Guantanamo. Maybe those people aren't worth the chance to ever see light again, but I don't think that gives us the right to become, in a way, the same thing that those people in there are. American's should NOT be known for torture. Yeah, it'll take a while to find where to place them exactly, and we're not suggesting that we put them in federal prisons, on our land, not at all. There are currently 250 prisoners there, and I'm sure there will be TONS of negotiations with the countries about how to deal with their terms, imprisonment, etc. Maybe Yemen, China, etc, might pose a problem with their prisoners, but at least there is action being taken after the decisions made by the Bush Administration.

I'm born Cuban, so I've witnessed Guantanamo's effect on the country, and it's probably one of the biggest reasons we have such a rift with Cuba. Obama closing down the prison would most likely open some doors, if anything.

I don't know about all of you, but I personally think this is a step in the right direction for our country.

(:

[Nate River]

In all honesty, I agree with closing down Guantanamo. Maybe those people aren't worth the chance to ever see light again, but I don't think that gives us the right to become, in a way, the same thing that those people in there are. American's should NOT be known for torture. Yeah, it'll take a while to find where to place them exactly, and we're not suggesting that we put them in federal prisons, on our land, not at all. There are currently 250 prisoners there, and I'm sure there will be TONS of negotiations with the countries about how to deal with their terms, imprisonment, etc. Maybe Yemen, China, etc, might pose a problem with their prisoners, but at least there is action being taken after the decisions made by the Bush Administration.

Then apply to Army Field Manual to the detainees. How does the specific location of the detainees solve the problem of torture? Is placement in the facility alone torture and if so how is any other facility going to be any different? Should we choose a different country to place a similar prison? There is no indication that Obama has any idea what do with them. If they cannot be place on our land, where can they placed when their country doesn't want them? Unless he comes up with a workable plan, then this is nothing more than an empty gesture.

I'm born Cuban, so I've witnessed Guantanamo's effect on the country, and it's probably one of the biggest reasons we have such a rift with Cuba. Obama closing down the prison would most likely open some doors, if anything.

I don't know about all of you, but I personally think this is a step in the right direction for our country.i
(:

We've had a huge rift with Cuba for decades. It didn't start and will not end with this.

If he comes up with a reasonable alternative it might be, but if he doesn't it's nothing but a symbolic gesture.

[Dark]

I don't believe we should build a new prison, because that would defeat the purpose of shutting down Guantanamo in the first place. Also, we all know what goes on in Guantanamo, and it is not humane or moral in any way. I just rather not become exactly what we fight against. IF no country will take them back, then they'll have to deal with a new prison, but with DIFFERENT methods of dealing with the prisoners. Not human torture.

About Cuba: The rift does have a lot of factors to it, but, this is a good thing for Cuba, so I'm sure they won't be disappointed with Guantanamo closing down. We won't be hugging and singing, but it's a nice break between the usual fighting.

[Nate River]

I don't believe we should build a new prison, because that would defeat the purpose of shutting down Guantanamo in the first place. Also, we all know what goes on in Guantanamo, and it is not humane or moral in any way. I just rather not become exactly what we fight against. IF no country will take them back, then they'll have to deal with a new prison, but with DIFFERENT methods of dealing with the prisoners. Not human torture.

About Cuba: The rift does have a lot of factors to it, but, this is a good thing for Cuba, so I'm sure they won't be disappointed with Guantanamo closing down. We won't be hugging and singing, but it's a nice break between the usual fighting.

There's evidence they will not and that many who have been released have returned to the battlefield and shot at American soldiers. The question is though what is the difference with location alone? What makes Gitmo in and of itself torture and how does moving them somewhere else solve that problem?

What goes on there that would not go on somewhere else? Changing the tactics for interrogation would be the way to address that, I don't see how changing location has any meaningful effect. Again, if they cannot be brought to the U.S., where do they go?

Moreover, would not the prudent thing to have been to come up with the plan before shutting down the prison rather than setting some artificial deadline in which people hope he may be able to figure something out?

Finally, if I understand what you are referring to as human torture (specifically waterboarding because we haven't been slicing heads off the way they have), Obama has not completely ruled anything out. He's left himself an out if Osama or some other operationally important firgure is nailed.

[Nee-sama]

Unless he comes up with a workable plan, then this is nothing more than an empty gesture.

That's the point. In the article someone even says, "Obviously, what we have started is a process."
Obama himself probably has no idea of what to do with those people, and even if he had an idea it wouldn't be the best one most likely. His job is to find the people that do know what to do with them and put them on the committee.

[Nate River]

That's the point. In the article someone even says, "Obviously, what we have started is a process."
Obama himself probably has no idea of what to do with those people, and even if he had an idea it wouldn't be the best one most likely. His job is to find the people that do know what to do with them and put them on the committee.

He's the President, shouldn't he have some idea of what to do? The President should be more than a delegater of responsibility. And they are starting a process to generate an idea....such as? The lack of specifics tells me that don't have any idea what the process might be, let alone any actual idea.

As I asked Dark, would not the more prudent action be to figure out what to do with BEFORE you decide that their current confinement is a problem rather than setting up some artificle deadline? With all the calls for conservatives to "give him a chance" would not his supporters been willing to do the same while he decided what to do with these people? It would seem a reasonable request.

Obama and supporters talked throughout his campain about closing Gitmo. Didn't he think he'd have to figure out what he was going to do with them afterwards?

One of the reasons I oppose closing Gitmo is because I have yet to here a single reasonable idea about what to do next, especially one that would be distinctly different from what is being done now. How does closing the prison change interrogation techniques by itself and why could they not be changed without closing the prison? In other words, how is this anything other than symbolic?

[Dark]

I do agree with it behind unplanned. That I cannot deny. Also, I don't agree with a specific deadline being assigned towards Gitmo, considering this isn't the simplest thing to deal with. They need to now exactly where to place them, how many are going to be freed, and how the countries are going to react to having them sent back. I don't know exactly where they'll place them, and I guess we're just going to have to be patient to see exactly what decisions the Obama camp makes.

All in all, they need to plan this correctly. Whats the point of moving the camp? I don't know. To my knowledge, it's because of the unfair trials and imprisonment of innocents. Then, what happens to those who ARE guilty? Do they get freed without paying for what they've done?

Closing down Gitmo would obviously mean an improvement in Public Relations, but it's also a big security risk to the country. I've heard that on Monday, Hillary Clinton will meet with foreign ministers to try to seek agreements with taking back some detainees. We'll have to wait and see.

[Nee-sama]

You're probably right. It is symbolic, he is just trying to increase public opinion by doing something that seems like a moral step up. Maybe? Somthin' like that.

Edited by Nee-sama, 23 January 2009 - 06:47 PM.

[Nate River]

I do agree with it behind unplanned. That I cannot deny. Also, I don't agree with a specific deadline being assigned towards Gitmo, considering this isn't the simplest thing to deal with. They need to now exactly where to place them, how many are going to be freed, and how the countries are going to react to having them sent back. I don't know exactly where they'll place them, and I guess we're just going to have to be patient to see exactly what decisions the Obama camp makes.

All in all, they need to plan this correctly. Whats the point of moving the camp? I don't know. To my knowledge, it's because of the unfair trials and imprisonment of innocents. Then, what happens to those who ARE guilty? Do they get freed without paying for what they've done?

Closing down Gitmo would obviously mean an improvement in Public Relations, but it's also a big security risk to the country. I've heard that on Monday, Hillary Clinton will meet with foreign ministers to try to seek agreements with taking back some detainees. We'll have to wait and see.

Precisely, and that's the primary argument against it's closing and why the order of doing this seems backwards to me. If the true goal is closing Gitmo and finding a better place for these guys, then you should find the place and close Gitmo when you have some where to go. That way, you can actually close Gitmo when you hand down the order. Instead, he set and artificial time table and he makes himself look bad if he can't meet it or has to cram down a solution to avoid missing the deadline.

Would anyone be statifised if in 2004 Bush said we are starting a process with to come up with an idea for getting out of Iraq? I can't imagine they would because it's just a vague promise to do something at some point in time.

On your second point, all of that could be corrected without closing Gitmo and simply changing the location of confinement doesn't in any way solve that problem. The problem Obama faces with those trials is that they all involve loads of confidential info and since they are captured on the battlefield and no in the context of a standard criminal case much of that evidence may be inadmissible in a traditional criminal trial under the current rules of evidence. He's going to have to come up with a way to try them and what does he plan to do that's any different from the tribunals currently set up. I think once he received the confidential info in his briefings he realized he can't just release all of them and that the traditional legal process isn't going to work either. These are enemy combatants (I'm not saying that in the legal sense of the Geneva Conventions) not DWI and theft defendants.

You're probably right. It is symbolic, he is just trying to increase public opinion by doing something that seems like a moral step up. Maybe? Somthin' like that.

How is it moral if he's got nowhere for them to go? What if he doesn't come up with a reasonable alternative and is forced to keep them there or what if that alternative is nothing more than a superficial change (like a transfer of facilities)? Is it still moral if it means nothing?

Again if the objections are about treatment v. the facility itself, you can mandate different treatment without changing the location just as you can mandate a change of location without changing the treatment.

[Sakura Blossoms]

Trouble in Obama land

The Europeans aren't happy with the stimulus package either

Tell you the truth...honestly...even though that $700 billion dollar bailout for the banks was a bunch of kittene, and hasn't really done any of what it was supposed to do, in terms of helping to stabilize the banking center and economy, I was more than willing to give Obama his try at a new stimulus package, because I figured that he could do it 10 times better than Bush did.

But when the price tag for Obama's stimulus package soared clear past $700 billion dollars, into the $900 billion, almost $1 trillion dollar range, I had to just say whoa whoa, hold up that's asking for just a bit too much there, with no true guarantee that it'll do anymore good than Bush's 'stimulus' package did, and will only help to double our deficit >.>

[Hefster]

Trouble in Obama land

The Europeans aren't happy with the stimulus package either

Tell you the truth...honestly...even though that $700 billion dollar bailout for the banks was a bunch of kittene, and hasn't really done any of what it was supposed to do, in terms of helping to stabilize the banking center and economy, I was more than willing to give Obama his try at a new stimulus package, because I figured that he could do it 10 times better than Bush did.

But when the price tag for Obama's stimulus package soared clear past $700 billion dollars, into the $900 billion, almost $1 trillion dollar range, I had to just say whoa whoa, hold up that's asking for just a bit too much there, with no true guarantee that it'll do anymore good than Bush's 'stimulus' package did, and will only help to double our deficit >.>

Ah, but you fail to grasp that Bush's $700 billion bail out ticket was never put in motion in it's entirety. And Obama's version of a free ticket from jail is so expansive simply [i]because[/] it is a much better package. Either way one might approve of it or not, but there is no way around it. There needs to be something done or we might as well just start WW3 now and get it behind us before we all hit rock bottom from the depression that is bound to bankrupt everyone.

I vote for Germany not being the aggressor this time... didn't really pay out the last two times.

[Dark]

http://news.yahoo.co...ildren_s_health

A great choice, in my opinion.

Edited by Dark, 06 February 2009 - 01:15 AM.

[Sakura Blossoms]

http://news.yahoo.co...ildren_s_health

A great choice, in my opinion.

I agree

[Pite]

Ah, but you fail to grasp that Bush's $700 billion bail out ticket was never put in motion in it's entirety. And Obama's version of a free ticket from jail is so expansive simply [i]because[/] it is a much better package. Either way one might approve of it or not, but there is no way around it. There needs to be something done or we might as well just start WW3 now and get it behind us before we all hit rock bottom from the depression that is bound to bankrupt everyone.

I vote for Germany not being the aggressor this time... didn't really pay out the last two times.

I would say that Germany won't start another war. I gots them feeling that if something would start it would be all Russia's fault (Poland o course would be in the cross-fire (again for the thrid time XD) .

The stimulus package itself is a double edged sword. It basically tries to restart the circulation of money in the economyby giving people something to spend with (The idea of dropping bags of cash on streets). But people by knowing that the economy is wanining would rather save the money up and wait for better times. (Good thing that the US doesn't have deflation [It would mean that everybody wouls saveup money due to decreasing prices])

The gov. is trying to give banks cahs so banks can loan people money, but the problem is that the banks can't stop wanting more and more. Something has to be done so that the circulation is reinstated. Maybe the government can spend more in the US industry, just like it did during WWII, that helped drag the US from the Great Depression. It should work like that again rite?

[Sakura Blossoms]

Just found this kind of interesting, and wanted to share:

WASHINGTON – Congress struck the government's strongest anti-smoking blow in decades Thursday with a Senate vote to give regulators new power to limit nicotine in cigarettes, drastically curtail ads and ban candied tobacco products aimed at young people.

Cigarette foes say the changes could cut into the 400,000 deaths every year caused by smoking and reduce the $100 billion in annual health care costs linked to tobacco.

The legislation, one of the most dramatic anti-smoking initiatives since the U.S. surgeon general's warning 45 years ago that tobacco causes lung cancer, would give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate the content, marketing and advertising of cigarettes and other tobacco products.

"This legislation represents the strongest action Congress has ever taken to reduce tobacco use, the leading preventable cause of death in the United States," declared Matthew Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids.

The 79-17 Senate vote sends the measure back to the House, which in April passed a similar but not identical version. House acceptance of the Senate bill would send it directly to President Barack Obama, who supports the action. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that "from what I have seen so far, I believe it will be possible for us to accept their bill and send it right on to the president."

Obama's signature would then add tobacco to other huge, nationally important areas that have come under greater government supervision since his presidency began. Those include banking, housing and autos. Still to come, if Congress can agree: health care.

S, how do *you* feel about the government owning so much, of what used to be private/public sectors?

[Sir Whirly]

I have a new industry that could help lift this recession, though many are unsure it is a good idea. During the great depression, organized crime was rampant funded by the prohibition of alcohol. By lifting the ban, the mob was weakened and money was brought back into the economy.

That's why I believe the legalization of Marijuana would do us some good. First it would weaken the drug cartels in Mexico who are causing anarchy throughout their country and second it would create a boost in money and resources. Just from the taxation of the medical marijuana in California, $1 billion is raised in taxes a year.

Now I believe this can brought forth through regulation from the growers to the sellers. Age restriction is a must just like with alcohol and tobacco.

Just my two cents.