NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-guantanamo15-2009jan15,0,4433520.story?track=rss

It's the new plan - since no nation other than Portugal wants to take any of the remaining inmates from Guantanamo, and since the plan is to release most of them, and since they can't go to their home countries (where they would be tortured and killed), Obama is going to set the example and release some of them into the US.

Would you take one into your home?

I'm not American, but no,I wouldn't dream of doing so.

Not American, but I would let them live with me, just like anyone else if they paid rent.

I won't take anyone into my home for more than a brief visit. Not now, not ever, no matter who.
Makes for an easy poll choice. :D

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-guantanamo15-2009jan15,0,4433520.story?track=rss

It's the new plan - since no nation other than Portugal wants to take any of the remaining inmates from Guantanamo, and since the plan is to release most of them, and since they can't go to their home countries (where they would be tortured and killed), Obama is going to set the example and release some of them into the US.

Would you take one into your home?
No, but I'll take the stripper from the Spanish prison. And make sure my CCW permit is up to date...

Maybe one or two can live in the Blair House?

Not American, but I would let them live with me, just like anyone else if they paid rent.

This, if I had a place in America. Though I suppose a little leeway with the rent would be reasonable. They won't be getting jobs easily. Being arrested for terrorist acts seems to be more than enough for some people to assume total, undeniable guilt.

No, but I'll take the stripper from the Spanish prison. And make sure my CCW permit is up to date...

Maybe one or two can live in the Blair House?

I think they should get the Lincoln bedroom. If he's going to lead by example...

He would be showing that he trusts them around his wife and kids. Oh, and I'd have the Secret Service stay out of the residential areas of the house - to show that the trust was complete.

This, if I had a place in America. Though I suppose a little leeway with the rent would be reasonable. They won't be getting jobs easily. Being arrested for terrorist acts seems to be more than enough for some people to assume total, undeniable guilt.

I assume that they would get some sort of monetary compensation for being imprisoned.

I think they should get the Lincoln bedroom. If he's going to lead by example...

He would be showing that he trusts them around his wife and kids. Oh, and I'd have the Secret Service stay out of the residential areas of the house - to show that the trust was complete.

What are you even trying to say here?

What are you even trying to say here?
I would say that Obama should lead by example. If he expects us to tolerate the Gitmo terrorists in our towns, then he should probably house the first one.

Isn't that reasonable?

Not American, and wouldn't have a problem so long as they acted like any other tenants. However, I hope the thing to do would be for the US to take them all in if they cannot be returned to their country of origin. "You break it, you own it" is in play in my book.

I would say that Obama should lead by example. If he expects us to tolerate the Gitmo terrorists in our towns, then he should probably house the first one.

Isn't that reasonable?

So is this thread a passive-aggressive stab at Obama or is the issue that they're letting detainees go free in America?

So is this thread a passive-aggressive stab at Obama or is the issue that they're letting detainees go free in America?

Considering the probable level of danger from letting them loose in the U.S.? Yeah.

How would it make YOU feel, if they started feeding guys from san-quentin into random towns...oh, wait, they already do-my mistake. The Gitmo detainees will at least be in the U.S. legally once released...

Considering the probable level of danger from letting them loose in the U.S.? Yeah.

How would it make YOU feel, if they started feeding guys from san-quentin into random towns...oh, wait, they already do-my mistake. The Gitmo detainees will at least be in the U.S. legally once released...

What would you propose doing with them?

I think they should get the Lincoln bedroom. If he's going to lead by example...

He would be showing that he trusts them around his wife and kids. Oh, and I'd have the Secret Service stay out of the residential areas of the house - to show that the trust was complete.

also: "Human rights advocates are urging the incoming Obama administration to allow some detainees from the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to resettle as U.S. residents as part of any plan to close the controversial facility."
He hasn't advocated this.

So is this thread a passive-aggressive stab at Obama or is the issue that they're letting detainees go free in America?
Can't we do both?

Not a chance. If they weren't unstable individuals before being taken in, they no doubt will be afterwards.

sorry. my place is small.

Can't we do both?

1. What do you propose?

2. This is what other people are saying he should do, he hasn't confirmed or denied this yet.

So no, not really much here to criticize him for.

I would say that Obama should lead by example. If he expects us to tolerate the Gitmo terrorists in our towns, then he should probably house the first one.

Isn't that reasonable?

except where Obama would be living, the security there would be tighter than any bank.

A far better idea (and more likely for Obama to do) is to reclassify them as POWs and build detention camps in the United States, similar to World War II.

We in fact have a room open and no doubt there will be some settlement assistance from the people who tore them away from their homes and held them for years without so much as being charged with anything, so I'm not worried about rent. There might have to be an agreement that the situation is in fact fucked up and I do agree with them but it doesn't have to be the topic of every conversation, but other than that I don't see any problem with it. I can see the Hotwife's and Myri's having a problem with it, because I live between the two spans of one of the busiest bridges in the country, but it's that sort of bullshit mentality that created the problem in the first place so I see no reason to pay it heed.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-guantanamo15-2009jan15,0,4433520.story?track=rss

It's the new plan
No, it's not.

Obama is going to set the example and release some of them into the US.
Which he should do.

Would you take one into your home?
Will never be an option.

A far better idea (and more likely for Obama to do) is to reclassify them as POWs and build detention camps in the United States, similar to World War II.
Actually, the "far better idea" part is incorrect.

I voted "No, but maybe in some other US states" just to mess with the poll results...


*mutters* when do people learn on this forum that it's not only US people on here :(

Considering the probable level of danger from letting them loose in the U.S.? Yeah.

How would it make YOU feel, if they started feeding guys from san-quentin into random towns...oh, wait, they already do-my mistake. The Gitmo detainees will at least be in the U.S. legally once released...

If theyre innocent and being released, why should they cause a problem? Theyre innocent.

If theyre guilty and being sent to the US, they'll be in US prisons.

There is no problem here.

Not a chance. If they weren't unstable individuals before being taken in, they no doubt will be afterwards.

What you said, with unnecessary elaboration.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-guantanamo15-2009jan15,0,4433520.story?track=rss

It's the new plan - since no nation other than Portugal wants to take any of the remaining inmates from Guantanamo, and since the plan is to release most of them, and since they can't go to their home countries (where they would be tortured and killed), Obama is going to set the example and release some of them into the US.

Would you take one into your home?

I don't possibly have the financial resources to put them up, but I don't have a problem with them living in my country (The US). Or even in my neighborhood, for that matter.

They can crash at my house. I can foist all my child porn onto them.....

I assume that they would get some sort of monetary compensation for being imprisoned.
One would hope so.
What are you even trying to say here?

He seems to be accusing someone of hypocrisy, but I can't imagine who.

I voted "No, but maybe in some other US states" just to mess with the poll results...


*mutters* when do people learn on this forum that it's not only US people on here :(

Oh, that will never happen. Learn to embrace it! :wink:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-guantanamo15-2009jan15,0,4433520.story?track=rss

It's the new plan - since no nation other than Portugal wants to take any of the remaining inmates from Guantanamo, and since the plan is to release most of them, and since they can't go to their home countries (where they would be tortured and killed), Obama is going to set the example and release some of them into the US.

Would you take one into your home?

Can they cook?

They've probably learned so much bout explosives. I'd hug one.

Can they cook?

Nobody can make a taco like Middle Easterners.

Nobody can make a taco like Middle Easterners.

Well, that clinches it then. :)

On a serious note: These people are fucked up. Chances are, they were fucked up long before they ever went to Guantanamo. I think spending some time in the United States, among people vastly different in opinion, perspective and lifestyle from those that held them captive could do them a whole lot of good. Maybe us too. *nod*

A far better idea (and more likely for Obama to do) is to reclassify them as POWs and build detention camps in the United States, similar to World War II.

Don't you need a declaration of war to have prisoners of war?

Don't you need a declaration of war to have prisoners of war?

That's the kinda stupid logic that lost us the revolutionary war. Damn colonials.

I'll take in the women!

Hotwife, NOBODY is talking of "taking them into our homes", so that analogy of yours is, put quite simbly, BULLSHIT.

What the hell would you see done to them, Hotwife, innocent men that were in Gitmo? Kill them because "well, after we took them in we destroyed their lives anyways"?

Let's hear a solution from YOU that isn't terribly unfair to them, shall we?

Oh, that will never happen. Learn to embrace it! :wink:

Nah, it might happen when this place gets flooded by the Indian middle class :D

Only if they're housebroken...I don't have enough Qurans to use.

OUTDATED TOPICAL HUMOR EL OH EL CALL O'REILLY

Release them all into the deepest part of Alaska and see what happens when the bears find them.

It would prove a theory of mine that people are who actually terrorists are hated by God and thus will be consumed by bears. Will those who have done no wrong will survive.

No, I wouldn't want to attract media attention, I hear it's very stressful.

I would. :)

Gee, DK attempts to use an old right wing email as a statement on the policies of the left and as a debate topic... AGAIN.

Color me surprised.

Edit: Found that copy http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/lark.asp

Aww christ....I just got rid of my roommates.

But okay.

Gee, DK attempts to use an old right wing email as a statement on the policies of the left and as a debate topic... AGAIN.

Color me surprised.


*paints NERVUN in neon colors*

Request granted.

We've known that DK is about as honest as a Nigerian bankers widow wishing to share the wealth for some time now.

So now that he's been exposed, yet again, how many bets that this thread will evolve into a spam thread (because spam is better than the tripe DK posts)? It's not likely that he'll return to this thread now that he's been exposed.

Hell no. The US fucked things up with the Gitmo lager, now it's the US who have to clean up.

No, but I'll take the stripper from the Spanish prison. And make sure my CCW permit is up to date...

Maybe one or two can live in the Blair House?

Only one person at a time can live in the Blair House, don't you know it only has 133 rooms!?

What would you propose doing with them?

Well... There's probably plenty of room to move them into close proximity to the Hamptons, oh, and Foggy Bottom, just pick a nest of gated communities, or set them up within two miles of Sidwell Friends Private School. There's enough of them we can move a bunch into San Francisco, too-and Malibu-they'll be among Their friends in those communities, and less likely to be victimized by their new neighbours than if you move them into working middle or lower-class neighbourhoods in so-called "Flyover Country" (the traditional dumping ground for Refugees, Convicts, and people the government would rather forget exist.)

I think spreading them out among the Berkeley crowd would be good for both-the Gitmo detainees would get to learn about the values of the people who worked so hard to free them, and the people who support them could meet their beneficiaries face-to-face on a daily basis. Thanks to the Kelo decision, if Real-Estate prices in the selected areas are too high, someone's Estate, like maybe Sean Penn's, could be condemned and converted into low-cost housing for Detainees and their families... Right in hollywood.

This, if I had a place in America. Though I suppose a little leeway with the rent would be reasonable. They won't be getting jobs easily. Being arrested for terrorist acts seems to be more than enough for some people to assume total, undeniable guilt.

Sure that kind of thing held few back here.....I think we should take two or three.

Well, I'm not renting out my house, but if I was... sure, why not?

Gee, DK attempts to use an old right wing email as a statement on the policies of the left and as a debate topic... AGAIN.

Color me surprised.

Edit: Found that copy http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/lark.asp
Ah DK. Staying consistent.
*paints NERVUN in neon colors*

Request granted.

We've known that DK is about as honest as a Nigerian bankers widow wishing to share the wealth for some time now.

So now that he's been exposed, yet again, how many bets that this thread will evolve into a spam thread (because spam is better than the tripe DK posts)? It's not likely that he'll return to this thread now that he's been exposed.
I hope so :D
Sure that kind of thing held few back here.....I think we should take two or three.

Would muslim terrorists get on better with unionists or nationalists? Hmmmmm

*paints NERVUN in neon colors*

Request granted.
Odd, I always thought that surprise was pink, with purple polka dots

Odd, I always thought that surprise was pink, with purple polka dots

Hence you are colored surprised, its not what you expected.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-guantanamo15-2009jan15,0,4433520.story?track=rss

It's the new plan - since no nation other than Portugal wants to take any of the remaining inmates from Guantanamo, and since the plan is to release most of them, and since they can't go to their home countries (where they would be tortured and killed), Obama is going to set the example and release some of them into the US.

Would you take one into your home?

My lease won't allow anyone to live in my apartment that's not currently named on the lease. That, and the 2 bedrooms in the apartment are already occupied. So, no matter who it is, I really can't.

Would muslim terrorists get on better with unionists or nationalists? Hmmmmm

The conservative wahabi type would fit into the DUP perfectly. Hate the gays, women stay home, fundamentalist......

As most of them are devout Muslims my beer stash would be safe

I think I would rather have an innocent (unconvicted) detainee in my neighbourhood than some of the paedos the govt deem fit to live in the community

There's enough of them we can move a bunch into San Francisco, too-and Malibu-they'll be among Their friends in those communities

Again with the tired, old, false "liberals are friends with terrorists" claim?

Don't you need a declaration of war to have prisoners of war?

That, and a war that might actually end. But the "war on terror" is eternal, so you're basically imprisoning them indefinitely without trial.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-guantanamo15-2009jan15,0,4433520.story?track=rss

It's the new plan - since no nation other than Portugal wants to take any of the remaining inmates from Guantanamo, and since the plan is to release most of them, and since they can't go to their home countries (where they would be tortured and killed), Obama is going to set the example and release some of them into the US.

Would you take one into your home?

No. If anything, they ought to be admitted to mental institutions where they can get the care they deserve for all of the psychological suffering they've been inflicted with.

Right now these people are far too unstable. They need help, not just release. We did this to them. We ought to fix them too.

No. If anything, they ought to be admitted to mental institutions where they can get the care they deserve for all of the psychological suffering they've been inflicted with.

Right now these people are far too unstable. They need help, not just release. We did this to them. We ought to fix them too.
Can't we give them the choice instead of forcing them into another situation that they may not want to be in?

Again with the tired, old, false "liberals are friends with terrorists" claim?
The people being released wouldn't be terrorists.

put them on ships to interrogate them its less obvious then an island base.

*paints NERVUN in neon colors*

Request granted.

We've known that DK is about as honest as a Nigerian bankers widow wishing to share the wealth for some time now.

So now that he's been exposed, yet again, how many bets that this thread will evolve into a spam thread (because spam is better than the tripe DK posts)? It's not likely that he'll return to this thread now that he's been exposed.

So you'll take one into your house?

So you'll take one into your house?

I'm pretty sure he won't. Especially because THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED WITH THEIR RELEASE. AND YOU KNOW IT.

You, however. Will you torture an innocent WHITE man, keep him imprisoned for years, prevent him from ever being able to go back home, all due to you, and propose he STAYS THERE through idiotic rhetorical questions?

See, my rendering of YOUR proposition regarding brown men rings far truer.

I'm pretty sure he won't. Especially because THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED WITH THEIR RELEASE. AND YOU KNOW IT.

You, however. Will you torture an innocent WHITE man, keep him imprisoned for years, prevent him from ever being able to go back home, all due to you, and propose he STAYS THERE through idiotic rhetorical questions?

See, my rendering of YOUR proposition regarding brown men rings far truer.

I'm not the one proposing the solution.

They can't go home, because their home nations will torture and/or kill them on arrival.

Only Portugal has offered to take any of them.

The proposal is to release some of them in the US.

That's the exact proposal. So, do you want one living with you? Would you volunteer to take one?

If me and my wife weren't in the process of getting a new cat on top of the infant and two other cats in an already crowded apartment, sure. But he or she would have to be one of the nice ones.

Can't we give them the choice instead of forcing them into another situation that they may not want to be in?



Well of course they should be given a choice. I thought that was implicit.

Unless you're suggesting (1) that Obama is going to quarter Guantanamo inmates inside someone's home and (2) that any Tom, Dick and harry ought to be able to housed in the White House, I really don't see what the problem is. if these guys can't be found guilty in a fair court of law, they're innocent until proven guilty, and permanant residency should be adequate compensation. And, if there are any British citizens left in Guantanamo, I have no problem with them being returned to the UK.

If you don't want to deal with the consiquences of locking people up without trial, might I suggest not locking people up without trial?

I'm not the one proposing the solution.

They can't go home, because their home nations will torture and/or kill them on arrival.

Only Portugal has offered to take any of them.

The proposal is to release some of them in the US.

That's the exact proposal. So, do you want one living with you? Would you volunteer to take one?

Why are you even asking this question? What do you gain from our answers? Do you think that if we say no you get to parade around and say we don't really believe what we say when we talk about how these people are most likely innocent and ought to be released?

Seriously, what is the point?

Why are you even asking this question? What do you gain from our answers? Do you think that if we say no you get to parade around and say we don't really believe what we say when we talk about how these people are most likely innocent and ought to be released?

Seriously, what is the point?

If you're not willing to take one in on principle, then there are only a few alternatives:

1) You want some other country to take them in. Which makes you a hypocrite.
2) You want them taken in to the US, somewhere, but not in your home or backyard. Which makes you a hypocrite.

If you're not willing to take one in on principle, then there are only a few alternatives:

1) You want some other country to take them in. Which makes you a hypocrite.
2) You want them taken in to the US, somewhere, but not in your home or backyard. Which makes you a hypocrite.

How does that make me a hypocrite to say I wouldn't take one into my home?

No, seriously, how?

We've said they were innocent. We're also not stupid and realize that even if these people weren't potentially dangerous before, they sure are now because of the psychological trauma, hence why I suggested they be given the choice to be admitted to mental institutions so they could get the help they need.

That doesn't make me a hypocrite. That makes me someone seeking the best possible resolution to a problem. A problem the United States is responsible for, and ought to fix.

If you're not willing to take one in on principle, then there are only a few alternatives:

1) You want some other country to take them in. Which makes you a hypocrite.
2) You want them taken in to the US, somewhere, but not in your home or backyard. Which makes you a hypocrite.

Or I'm fine with having them taking into the country, but not my house, because I think they should be in their OWN houses. Like, you know, most people. That's not hypocrisy. I don't want ANY strangers living in my house.

This is seriously one of the weirdest and most nonsensical angles you've ever gone after, and that's saying something.

Or I'm fine with having them taking into the country, but not my house, because I think they should be in their OWN houses. Like, you know, most people. That's not hypocrisy. I don't want ANY strangers living in my house.

This is seriously one of the weirdest and most nonsensical angles you've ever gone after, and that's saying something.

What I'm wondering is what he thinks he gains from it even if we were somehow hypocrites in some vague fashion. Does that somehow invalidate reality?

Unless you're suggesting (1) that Obama is going to quarter Guantanamo inmates inside someone's home and (2) that any Tom, Dick and harry ought to be able to housed in the White House, I really don't see what the problem is. if these guys can't be found guilty in a fair court of law, they're innocent until proven guilty, and permanant residency should be adequate compensation. And, if there are any British citizens left in Guantanamo, I have no problem with them being returned to the UK.

If you don't want to deal with the consiquences of locking people up without trial, might I suggest not locking people up without trial?
That would seem rather obvious, wouldn't it, but apparently some people have a problem understanding the concepts of responsibility and accountability. I see a lot of people in positions of authority who seem truly and sincerely suprised that they might be called to account for how they do their jobs. Makes one wonder.

I suppose that's part of how we end up with emails being circulated like the OP's. All it really is, is an attempt fend off blame for the bad situation they created by trying to put their critics in an impossible spot, in the hope that we'll be forced to back down and say, "Oh, well, I guess we have no option but to keep doing what you've been doing, so carry on."

Too bad for them that it doesn't work.

I really hope we don't let any of them in here. We have enough people leeching off state benefits and the NHS without letting a few more in. Also, the fact that they are former guantanamo detainees casts enough doubt on their character to refuse them entry. If there are even the slightest doubts about them, they shouldn't be allowed in. It's America's mess, they should clean it up. Though I bet our government will cave in, they've always proved themselves spineless and they seem to be all too eager to grovel to Saint Obama.

I really hope we don't let any of them in here. We have enough people leeching off state benefits and the NHS without letting a few more in. Also, the fact that they are former guantanamo detainees casts enough doubt on their character to refuse them entry. If there are even the slightest doubts about them, they shouldn't be allowed in. It's America's mess, they should clean it up. Though I bet our government will cave in, they've always proved themselves spineless and they seem to be all too eager to grovel to Saint Obama.

Iirc at least 4 or so British citizens who got sent to Gitmo have already returned to the UK.

If you're not willing to take one in on principle, then there are only a few alternatives:

1) You want some other country to take them in. Which makes you a hypocrite.
2) You want them taken in to the US, somewhere, but not in your home or backyard. Which makes you a hypocrite.

I wouldnt take you into my house either. Does that make my a hypocrit?

Iirc at least 4 or so British citizens who got sent to Gitmo have already returned to the UK.
Well yeah, but they're British citizens so we obviously have an obligation to take them in. Different matter altogether.

That's the exact proposal. So, do you want one living with you? Would you volunteer to take one?

You know what? That's it.

YES, Hotwife. I want my house to be filled with with Gitmo victims, thirty of them sharing my bedroom and other thirty sharing my living room. I want them to kill my pets, not that I have any, force sharia on me and rape me. In the anus. Sans lubricant.

NOW WILL YOU STOP PRETENDING NOT TO REALIZE THAT YOUR QUESTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND? Now will you stop trying pathetically to weaken an argument you oppose through such a stupid, weak, and, above all, OBVIOUS trick?

Your question is pointless. I don't want you to show up at my house either, but feel free to come live in my city! I wouldn't take them into my house either, but if they want to live in my city, I'll be glad to give them directions to the local mosque and even recommend some newspapers with housing classified sections. THAT'S THE POINT YOU'VE BEEN EVADING THROUGH THIS ENTIRE SHAM OF A THREAD! It's not about "living in my house", it's about "living in my city/state/country". And with that, Hotwife, ONLY YOU have a problem, partly because you seem to purposefully mistake your COUNTRY for your HOUSE.

Your country is not your house. These people are your country's problem, created by it as well. Your analogy makes ZERO sense.

DEAL!

Edit: I would NEVER take you into my house either. Reversing your sham of a thought process, that means you belong in Gitmo.

If you're not willing to take one in on principle, then there are only a few alternatives:

1) You want some other country to take them in. Which makes you a hypocrite.
2) You want them taken in to the US, somewhere, but not in your home or backyard. Which makes you a hypocrite.

I don't want any random person moving into my house. Why would I be hypocritical in not wanting a random Gitmo detainee to do so?

Thatd be a big No....Why would they even think about that?

Will they mow the lawn?

Will they mow the lawn?

Thatd put lots of Immigrants out of work...how could you? :rolleyes:

So you'll take one into your house?

Well surprise surprise, even when he's shown to have built a castle out of lies and idiocy, DK comes back and tries to sell it again. I've got to give it to you. Your dedication to lies, slander, misrepresentation to advance your murderous ideals would put even a Nigerian scammer to shame.

But if you insist, it would be your house that should be housing them, at your expense, with murder charges and long prison sentences if you decide to take matters into your own hands. After all, you were the one who proposed killing them all without a trial, declared their guilt because you said so, and alleged that torture was not torture. So you should pay for it. That would be justice, something you've shown a great hatred for.

I would not mind if one of them who was detained for wearing a certain kind of watch or a similar reason moved into the hall of residence I live in.