NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30864460/

Yes they gave him war fund. (Few congresses deny war funds while soldiers are in the field).

But they dropped the 80 mil he needed/requested to close Gitmo.

Just seems a bit strange they drop off a tiny fraction of a bill.

So guantanamo is staying?

Yah it's staying. Where else are they going to put those guys? Nobody wants them.

Pakistan? Iran?

They don't want them.

They don't want suspected terrorists?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30864460/

Yes they gave him war fund. (Few congresses deny war funds while soldiers are in the field).

But they dropped the 80 mil he needed/requested to close Gitmo.

Just seems a bit strange they drop off a tiny fraction of a bill.

There is too much fear mongering being thrown around by the neocons so it is politically foolish to support closing Guantanamo and move the prisoners to the US.

Yah it's staying. Where else are they going to put those guys? Nobody wants them.

They should be moved to the US. But the neocons are kicking and screaming in order to scare the public (imagine that :rolleyes:).

They should be moved to the US. But the neocons are kicking and screaming in order to scare the public (imagine that :rolleyes:).

Well then, at the next available opportunity the neocons should be voted out of office.

They don't want suspected terrorists?

I think most of them are goatherds or someshit. Anyway I'm pretty sure they'll be killed if they are handed back, so I take that as a sign of not wanting them.

Yah it's staying. Where else are they going to put those guys? Nobody wants them.

A prison until they can be tried?

A prison until they can be tried?

A prisoner in gitmo being tried? Preposterous!

A prison until they can be tried?

Haha. No.

Real trials would be both costly and embarrassing for everyone.

GITMO is a prison. I suppose they could give them a few throw pillows or something to cheer the place up though.

Haha. No.

Real trials would be both costly and embarrassing for everyone.
If you're not going to try them, release them and compensate them for effectively kidnapping them.

GITMO is a prison. I suppose they could give them a few throw pillows or something to cheer the place up though.

Forgive me if I don't join the chorus of laughter.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30864460/

Yes they gave him war fund. (Few congresses deny war funds while soldiers are in the field).

But they dropped the 80 mil he needed/requested to close Gitmo.

Just seems a bit strange they drop off a tiny fraction of a bill.
they didnt want to be open to campaign ads suggesting that they were in favor of putting terrorists in your neighborhood. working at mcdonalds, teaching your kids, walking your dogs, that kind of thing.

they didnt want to be open to campaign ads suggesting that they were in favor of putting terrorists in your neighborhood. working at mcdonalds, teaching your kids, walking your dogs, that kind of thing.

And yet the let Obama run saying he'd shut down Guantanamo. Nice.

If you're not going to try them, release them and compensate them for effectively kidnapping them.

Yeah, that would be a preferred option I suppose. But it's not going to happen.

The Senate could easily have ponied up if the government wanted this thing closed. It didn't. For whatever reason it's part of US policy.

And yet the let Obama run saying he'd shut down Guantanamo. Nice.
that was then, this is now.

it will still be shut down, they will avoid the blame for any bad thing that might happen because of it.

not that i can think of a bad thing that might be likely to happen.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30864460/

Yes they gave him war fund. (Few congresses deny war funds while soldiers are in the field).

But they dropped the 80 mil he needed/requested to close Gitmo.

Just seems a bit strange they drop off a tiny fraction of a bill.
Interesting question. If you look at the way it was when the Constitution was ratified, the Senate should represent the State governments. Clearly, Governors don't want Gitmo inmates clogging up their prisons and languishing amongst law-abiding citizens.

If you subscribe to the recent amendment that makes the election of Senators subject to popular vote, then they represent the people of their home states. Just as clearly, these people don't want Gitmo trash in their streets anymore than the Governors do.

Nowhere does it say the Senate votes in sync with the President. And good for them for not doing it this time.

Interesting question. If you look at the way it was when the Constitution was ratified, the Senate should represent the State governments. Clearly, Governors don't want Gitmo inmates clogging up their prisons and languishing amongst law-abiding citizens.

If you subscribe to the recent amendment that makes the election of Senators subject to popular vote, then they represent the people of their home states. Just as clearly, these people don't want Gitmo trash in their streets anymore than the Governors do.

Nowhere does it say the Senate votes in sync with the President. And good for them for not doing it this time.
not that i think they are RIGHT but they are a seperate branch of government equal to the executive branch. if they dont want to bring gitmo detainees to the US, they have as much right to block it as the president has to authorize it.

Interesting question. If you look at the way it was when the Constitution was ratified, the Senate should represent the State governments. Clearly, Governors don't want Gitmo inmates clogging up their prisons and languishing amongst law-abiding citizens.

If you subscribe to the recent amendment that makes the election of Senators subject to popular vote, then they represent the people of their home states. Just as clearly, these people don't want Gitmo trash in their streets anymore than the Governors do.

Nowhere does it say the Senate votes in sync with the President. And good for them for not doing it this time.

What makes you think that these suspected terrorists will be at ALL interacting with "law-abiding" citizens? Furthermore, the GITMO detainees will be going to FEDERAL supermax facilities. There won't be an Islamic Jihad gang in the prison yard that will start shanking the Aryan Brotherhood.

Yah it's staying. Where else are they going to put those guys? Nobody wants them.
They could use Iraq. It's an occupied territory, doesn't matter what the Iraqi want.

However, that would be too dangerous.

Interesting question. If you look at the way it was when the Constitution was ratified, the Senate should represent the State governments. Clearly, Governors don't want Gitmo inmates clogging up their prisons and languishing amongst law-abiding citizens.
How many people are there in Guantanamo anyway? A couple thousand? You could probably put them 1 to a prison across the US.

If you subscribe to the recent amendment that makes the election of Senators subject to popular vote, then they represent the people of their home states. Just as clearly, these people don't want Gitmo trash in their streets anymore than the Governors do.
Yes, trash. You've certainly swayed me. :rolleyes:

There is too much fear mongering being thrown around by the neocons so it is politically foolish to support closing Guantanamo and move the prisoners to the US.



They should be moved to the US. But the neocons are kicking and screaming in order to scare the public (imagine that :rolleyes:).

Hahahahahahhahahhahahahhahhahahahhahahhahahah

























...............................................................................



AHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

No.

A democrat-dominated congress, tangling with a Democrat president because Democrat (and Republican) congressmen don't want suspected or known terrorists brought to their states absolutely does not = OMG ITS THE NEO-CONSSSSSSSSSS

Bush has been out of office for over 100 days, you need to update your pre-programmed response accordingly.:rolleyes:

When TAI enters, sanity leaves.

In my view we already had a referendum on this thing.
It is called we elected Obama. The senate needs to grow some god damn balls and get him the money to close the place.

How many people are there in Guantanamo anyway? A couple thousand? You could probably put them 1 to a prison across the US.


Yes, trash. You've certainly swayed me. :rolleyes:
about 250 including quite a few who are already authorized to be released as soon as some place can be found for them.

A democrat-dominated congress, tangling with a Democrat president because Democrat (and Republican) congressmen don't want suspected or known terrorists brought to their states absolutely does not = OMG ITS THE NEO-CONSSSSSSSSSS

I was going to give you a long, thought out, logical reply. Then I remembered you are a troll.

I was going to give you a long, thought out, logical reply. Then I remembered you are a troll.

I mean isn't it a little weird to blame the conservatives when the democrats hold 60 in the senate?

I was going to give you a long, thought out, logical reply.
Sure, sure you were. ;)

Then I remembered you are a troll.
Sure, sure I am. ;) Way more convenient for you to throw an ad-hominem than actually clarify your nonsense and scapegoating.

about 250 including quite a few who are already authorized to be released as soon as some place can be found for them.

Wow, 250. Considering there's millions of people in prison in America, I think the jails can handle less than 250 more.

There is too much fear mongering being thrown around by the neocons so it is politically foolish to support closing Guantanamo and move the prisoners to the US.

They should be moved to the US. But the neocons are kicking and screaming in order to scare the public (imagine that :rolleyes:).

So, basically, you're saying the Democrats in the Senate are pussies, and shouldn't be held responsible because they're pussies?

I hold everyone responsible for what they do, even if they do it because they're pussies.

As John Stewart point out: Our jails handle a guy that pulls out people's brains and bites into them.

They aren't afraid of bringing the detainees into the american prison system, they are afraid that if they do, they might actually get due process of law.

When TAI enters, sanity leaves.

I was going to give you a long, thought out, logical reply. Then I remembered you are a troll.

TAI does have a point, Democrats hold a majority in the Senate, so what's their excuse now? You can't keep blaming everything on the Neo Cons and the 8 years of Bush.

If this didn't pass the Senate, It's the Democrats and Republican faults.

I mean isn't it a little weird to blame the conservatives when the democrats hold 60 in the senate?

But you can't really blame the Democrats, because they are apparently pussies who get bullied by the Republicans. :p

As John Stewart point out: Our jails handle a guy that pulls out people's brains and bites into them.

They aren't afraid of bringing the detainees into the american prison system, they are afraid that if they do, they might actually get due process of law.

Did John say the name of the brain eating guy?

As John Stewart point out: Our jails handle a guy that pulls out people's brains and bites into them.

They aren't afraid of bringing the detainees into the american prison system, they are afraid that if they do, they might actually get due process of law.
after listening to a few political shows today, they are afraid of the ACLU. that it will force the government to follow the consitution and that that could end up with some people being given due process.

TAI does have a point, Democrats hold a majority in the Senate, so what's their excuse now? You can't keep blaming everything on the Neo Cons and the 8 years of Bush.

As a matter of fact, I can. The neocons have been hemming and hawing about "terrorists loose in America, coming for your kids!" if we close Guantanamo and move the suspects to American prisons, or release any of them in America (like the relatively harmless Uighurs). Thus the electorate, being idiots, are running around screaming and thus it is politically unwise to support closing Guantanamo and moving prisoners to America or releasing them. Despite the fact that there are already Uighurs in America and convicted, proven terrorists in supermax jails in America.

Did John say the name of the brain eating guy?
joseph garner

Thus the electorate, being idiots, are running around screaming and thus it is politically unwise to support closing Guantanamo and moving prisoners to America or releasing them.
So, they should go back on their promises, countless resolutions from the UN, the Geneva Convention, and the US constitution because it's "Politically Unwise"?

Oh, and I don't believe I've ever used this phrase seriously before:

Why do you hate democracy?

Wow, 250. Considering there's millions of people in prison in America, I think the jails can handle less than 250 more.

Unless you are really wanting to punish them .. they are better off in gitmo than an American prison. It would be pure hell for them in population with bloods crips ab the various mexican gangs etc..

They'd have to be in an isolated area I'd think

As a matter of fact, I can. The neocons have been hemming and hawing about "terrorists loose in America, coming for your kids!" if we close Guantanamo and move the suspects to American prisons, or release any of them in America (like the relatively harmless Uighurs). Thus the electorate, being idiots, are running around screaming and thus it is politically unwise to support closing Guantanamo and moving prisoners to America or releasing them. Despite the fact that there are already Uighurs in America and convicted, proven terrorists in supermax jails in America.

So, the Neo-Cons told the Democrats to vote to not fund the closing of Gitmo? Wow, I didn't know they had Jedi or Sith mind bending powers.

As John Stewart point out: Our jails handle a guy that pulls out people's brains and bites into them.

They aren't afraid of bringing the detainees into the american prison system, they are afraid that if they do, they might actually get due process of law.

yeah the only difference is he isn't hell bent on destroying the entire western world.

So, they should go back on their promises, countless resolutions from the UN, the Geneva Convention, and the US constitution because it's "Politically Unwise"?

Oh, and I don't believe I've ever used this phrase seriously before:

Why do you hate democracy?
So, the Neo-Cons told the Democrats to vote to not fund the closing of Gitmo? Wow, I didn't know they had Jedi or Sith mind bending powers.
"The Neo-Cons™" is used by certain leftists largely in the same fashion that "The Terrorists™" was used by certain Bush administration officials. Haven't you figured that out by now?

Did John say the name of the brain eating guy?

Probably.

So, the Neo-Cons told the Democrats to vote to not fund the closing of Gitmo? Wow, I didn't know they had Jedi or Sith mind bending powers.

That's Karl Rove's job. *nod*

yeah the only difference is he isn't hell bent on destroying the entire western world.

Yes he is; He's a zombie! :eek:

That's Karl Rove's job. *nod*

I had missed that episode. So who was the Sith? Karl, Rummy or Dick? :p

I had missed that episode. So who was the Sith? Karl, Rummy or Dick? :p

Yep.

*sigh* come ON Senate... you can do it... just close the place, take the prisoners to a REAL civilian court, and if found guilty, send them to an ordinary prison. It's that easy.

Or else, pay one of your banana republic satellite states to take them. Easy.

It's a rampant case of NotMyBackYarditis.

Now, the funny thing is, there's a small town in Montana by the name of Hardin that's more than happy to accept the Gitmo detainees as a prison facility there would boost its sagging economy.

Problem is, NotMyBackYarditis has even infected Montana's senators to the point they've clamped down on Hardin's request to host the prisoners.

Smalltown USA's Guantanamo hopes [Caution: Link to article on EbilMozlemNews] (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/05/2009515211913607892.html)

yeah the only difference is he isn't hell bent on destroying the entire western world.

Neither are the people in Guantanamo, seeing as at least six out of seven (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25519331-401,00.html) (not what that article is trying to say, but it says it anyway) of the ones who have been released aren't attacking the US.

Unless you are really wanting to punish them .. they are better off in gitmo than an American prison. It would be pure hell for them in population with bloods crips ab the various mexican gangs etc..

They'd have to be in an isolated area I'd think

Which can be done. In supermax prisons the inmates are confined for 23 hours a day. While unpleasant(to say the least) it'd keep the guantanamo inmates safe until they could be put in front of a judge.

Everyone in the same party should think exactly alike and do whatever their leader asks them to. Obv. Since when are politicians allowed to think, or differ in their opinions!? Outrage!

Everyone in the same party should think exactly alike and do whatever their leader asks them to. Obv. Since when are politicians allowed to think, or differ in their opinions!? Outrage!

Considering closing Gitmo was a major campaign promise, On this issue I would expect the Senate to have Obama's back on this.

Considering closing Gitmo was a major campaign promise, On this issue I would expect the Senate to have Obama's back on this.

Oh, I didn't realize the Senate was a single hive-minded unit that had one campaign in which they promised to close Gitmo. My bad.

Oh, I didn't realize the Senate was a single hive-minded unit that had one campaign in which they promised to close Gitmo. My bad.

Well when that's the campaign promise of the party I expect the party to at least take steps in that direction. The party after all selected this as a common goal and campaign strategy.
If the democrats wont do it then we need to elect the Greens to power, or the libertarians or someone else with a pair. To close that god damn base.

Well when that's the campaign promise of the party I expect the party to at least take steps in that direction. The party after all selected this as a common goal and campaign strategy.
If the democrats wont do it then we need to elect the Greens to power, or the libertarians or someone else with a pair. To close that god damn base.
y'all are over thinking this.

the dems in congress know that gitmo will be closed no matter what. they are letting the president take whatever heat their is over the matter instead of backing him up. if push ever comes to shove, they will cast whatever vote is necessary to close gitmo.

. . . you expect politicians to follow thru with campaign promises?

Each senator is held accountable by his or her state that elects him or her to office.

And only a third of the senate was elected this past November. How many of those just elected voted against giving the money to shut down the base?

y'all are over thinking this.

the dems in congress know that gitmo will be closed no matter what. they are letting the president take whatever heat their is over the matter instead of backing him up. if push ever comes to shove, they will cast whatever vote is necessary to close gitmo.

I object. I rarely thing, much less over think anything

I object. I rarely thing, much less over think anything
sorry.

my bad.

sorry.

my bad.

It's cool :fluffle: An easy mistake to make, what with my paltry post count and cunning wit.

y'all are over thinking this.

the dems in congress know that gitmo will be closed no matter what. they are letting the president take whatever heat their is over the matter instead of backing him up. if push ever comes to shove, they will cast whatever vote is necessary to close gitmo.

The funding to close Gitmo would seem to be a needed step to close gitmo.

Guantanamo Bay is Cuban. It was grabbed off them by gunboat diplomacy. Barack should do more than close Gitmo - he should hand it back over.

And the uS has a Bill of Rights which George W managed to disregard and Congress let him.

Obama made a point about forsaking our principles for national security. If the US government doesn't stand by the Constitution what can it stand for.

Send them back or try them! No exceptions! ......And Justice for All!

Guantanamo Bay is Cuban. It was grabbed off them by gunboat diplomacy. Barack should do more than close Gitmo - he should hand it back over.

And the uS has a Bill of Rights which George W managed to disregard and Congress let him.

Obama made a point about forsaking our principles for national security. If the US government doesn't stand by the Constitution what can it stand for.

Send them back or try them! No exceptions! ......And Justice for All!

Not as good as the Black album.

Guantanamo Bay is Cuban. It was grabbed off them by gunboat diplomacy. Barack should do more than close Gitmo - he should hand it back over.

And the uS has a Bill of Rights which George W managed to disregard and Congress let him.

Obama made a point about forsaking our principles for national security. If the US government doesn't stand by the Constitution what can it stand for.

Send them back or try them! No exceptions! ......And Justice for All!

well technically we took that during the war with Spain.
That freed* Cuba from Spain.
It was the first point Americans landed in Cuba during the Spanish American war and we were in continuous occupation until the Platt amendment was signed legalizing* it.

*terms used lightly very lightly.

The funding to close Gitmo would seem to be a needed step to close gitmo.
its not being closed this month. they have plenty of time to allocate funds to close it.

it wont stop detainees from being released, from being tried in gitmo by military tribunal or from being brought to the US for trial.

"Isn't the Senate supposed to be on Obama's side?"

No.
http://www.evgschool.org/three_branches_of_government.htm
http://www.congressforkids.net/Constitution_threebranches.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5I2KFENjS8&feature=related

The Executive, Legislative and Judiciary Branches are all supposed to provide checks and balances to make sure no one side gets too much power.

This is third grade stuff.

There won't be an Islamic Jihad gang in the prison yard that will start shanking the Aryan Brotherhood.
Oz?

"The Neo-Cons™" is used by certain leftists largely in the same fashion that "The Terrorists™" was used by certain Bush administration officials. Haven't you figured that out by now?
Saw an amusing pair of signs taped to the back of a Jeep in my neighborhood:

Piss off a Liberal Today!
and
I didn't vote for HIM!

The irony made me laugh out loud.

It was the first point Americans landed in Cuba during the Spanish American war and we were in continuous occupation until the Platt amendment was signed legalizing* it.

*terms used lightly very lightly.

Didn't you signed that during Batista's tenure as president of Cuba?
I may be getting my history mixed up.

Didn't you signed that during Batista's tenure as president of Cuba?
I may be getting my history mixed up.

No. Batista came later.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1901platt.html
the platt amendment was put in the Cuban Constitution in 1901.

When Batista seized power rallying against the Platt Amendment.
He was also a communist. Once he got into power the reality of the situation and the ability to make money off the Americans changed his mind of course.

No. Batista came later.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1901platt.html
the platt amendment was put in the Cuban Constitution in 1901.

When Batista seized power rallying against the Platt Amendment.
He was also a communist. Once he got into power the reality of the situation and the ability to make money off the Americans changed his mind of course.

Yup, I keep getting my history mixed.:$

Yup, I keep getting my history mixed.:$

I doubled checked. Latin American history is not my expertise.

I doubled checked. Latin American history is not my expertise.

Neither is it mine.:tongue:
And true, it was, after all, Batista the one who allowed American's to open casinos at La Habana and other places. He was against you guys in principle, but not economically. I guess that's the reason why Fidel Castro did what he did.

Neither is it mine.:tongue:
And true, it was, after all, Batista the one who allowed American's to open casinos at La Habana and other places. He was against you guys in principle, but not economically. I guess that's the reason why Fidel Castro did what he did.

Castro and Batista were contemporaries, they admired and spoke to each other. If we had not done the bay of pigs, Castro would have simply become another Batista.

Castro and Batista were contemporaries, they admired and spoke to each other. If we had not done the bay of pigs, Castro would have simply become another Batista.
you think he would have been bought off by the US mob running casinos in cuba?

you think he would have been bought off by the US mob running casinos in cuba?

Yeah. He wanted power. If the US had offered it to him he would have been content. we would have denounced Baitista as communist and all hailed the Castro regime for bringing democracy to Cuba. that is after all why he went to the US after coming to power. He just pissed off IKE.