Let's review some of Barack Obama's most recent actions since he was inaugurated:
* His first call to any head of state as president was to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah party in the Palestinian territory.
* His first one on one interview with any news organization was with Al Arabia television.
* He ordered Guantanamo Bay closed and all military trials of detainees halted.
* He ordered all overseas CIA interrogation centers closed.
* He stopped the tial of the mastermind behind the USS Cole attack.

Anyone else seeing a pattern here?

I don't know what to make of it. OR maybe I am just too scared to look it square in the eyes.

He's the anti-christ!

The only pattern is in your mind Gal.

It's that middle name of his taking over the presidency.

What I'd like to know is what's the difference between detainees captured on the battle field in Afghanistan being held at GITMO and those detainees captured on the battle field in Afghanistan being held at Bagram Air Base ?

Evidently Obama agrees with Bush that the detainees at Bagram Air Base are not entitled to Constitutional guarantees.
Obama administration keeps Bush view on Afghanistan detainees - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/20/afghan.detainees/index.html)

Human Rights groups are losing that tingly feeling .

He's the ANTI-CHRIST!


Do I detect just a hint of mockery here, with the implication that I think Obama is the ANTI CHRIST?
He is NOT THE Anti Christ if he comes from the USA.
The Anti Christ identifies with the "Little Horn" of Daniel 7:8 and also the "beast" of Rev. 17:11 who is an "eighth, and of the seven". He is also called "the man of sin" of 2 Thes. 2:3.
In order for him to fulfill all the details of prophecy, he must come from one of the 4 divisions of the Grecian empire (divided after the death of Alexander) and also from territory that Rome controlled. Some Bible scholars think Syria is a strong possibility.

So, no, The President is NOT The Anti Christ, and I never said so.

What I suspect is that he may have a soft spot in his heart/head for Islam that can spell trouble for this country.

You are free to think whatever you please.

http://patriotpost.us/images/broadcasts/humor/images/the-one.jpg (http://patriotpost.us/images/broadcasts/humor/images/the-one.jpg)

^^
Of course you fail to mention that that photo is a Photoshop fake.

Of course it was intended for humor but if I have to explain it it probably doesn't work

Add this to the OP.
From NEWSMAX



A mere 24 hours ago, Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed landed in England at 8:30 EST - a free man. Mohamed was captured in Pakistan in April, 2002, and has admitted to training at various Al-Qaeda training camps and is alleged to have plotted multiple attacks on American soil.

Included in his laundry list of terrorist activities are:

Training at various Al-Qaeda training camps, where he specialized in firearms and explosives
Being taught by senior Al-Qaeda leaders how to falsify documents
Receiving money by Al-Qaeda leaders to travel to the United States
Tasked by senior Al-Qaeda leaders to blow up high-rise apartment buildings in the United States
Holding meetings with Saif al Adel (a top level al Qaeda planner and leader) and Khalid Sheik Mohammed (9/11 mastermind)

Sorry, Folks, I begin to wonder whose side Barack is on.

A mere 24 hours ago, Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed landed in England at 8:30 EST - a free man. Mohamed was captured in Pakistan in April, 2002, and has admitted to training at various Al-Qaeda training camps and is alleged to have plotted multiple attacks on American soil......

Sorry, Folks, I begin to wonder whose side Barack is on.Hello Gal:

With all that evidence, they couldn't convict him?? Even without any rights, they couldn't convict him?? Hmmm. Maybe he didn't do anything. We're NOT known for letting guilty people go free, are we??

excon

Hello Gal:

With all that evidence, they couldn't convict him???? Even without any rights, they couldn't convict him??? Hmmm. Maybe he didn't do anything. We're NOT known for letting guilty people go free, are we????

excon

Could it be his trial was cancelled?

Let's watch and see how long it is before he turns up again.

Hello gal:

If you want to talk about a pattern, here's one Obama is doing.

He has backtracked on his promise to get the troops out of Iraq. He has supported keeping the prisoners at Bagram Air Force Base WITHOUT their RIGHTS. He support the Bush notion of Executive Secrecy.

He's a Bush clone, for crying out loud!

excon

Beat me to it . I was just going to suggest that instead of release ;all GITMO detainees get transferred to Bagram Air Force Base.

It's hard digest these contradictory positions on Gitmo and Bagram unless you consider that closing Gitmo was a political decision, the fulfillment of a campaign promise and a bone toss to the left that had nothing to do with America's security.

Well, maybe. But at least some of these men are being released without a trial. How does anyone know whether they should be kept locked up or not without that trial? Can it be that Obama is solving the question of whether to extend Constitutioinal rights to these foreigners or not by side stepping the whole issue?

Is it possible that there was no evidence to bring these people to trial?

Is it possible that there was no evidence to bring these people to trial?

Doubtful.
If you are going to demand standards used in the arrest of US citizens, then NONE of those detainees could be tried.

Imagine reading his rights to someone who doesn't speak English and at the same time dodge bullets.

If you are going to demand standards used in the arrest of US citizens, then NONE of those detainees could be tried.Hello again, gal:

Standards like what?? A little proof?? You're silly.

excon

Hello again, gal:

Standards like what??? A little proof???? You're silly.

excon

C'mon Ex. You know better than that. How can ANYONE have any idea either way about proof without a trial?

These guys were captured on the battle field carrying weapons and not wearing uniforms. Now maybe I don't understand everything about WW 2 but I think that anyone engaging in hostilities then and were not in uniform were just shot as spies.

While no one should be convicted without a trial, you seem to favor release without a trial. How come?

Hello again, gal:

Standards like what??? A little proof???? You're silly.

excon

C'mon Ex. You know better than that. How can ANYONE have any idea either way about proof without a trial?

These guys were captured on the battle field carrying weapons and not wearing uniforms. Now maybe I don't understand everything about WW 2 but I think that anyone engaging in hostilities then and were not in uniform were just shot as spies.

While no one should be convicted without a trial, you seem to favor release without a trial. How come?

Besides, I posted about a series of things that Obama has done that makes me wonder if he is too soft on the terrorist issue. Let's not turn this into a discussion solely about Gitmo detainees.

New AG Eric Holder, the guy that called us "a nation of cowards," says Gitmo is "a well-run, professional facility that will be difficult to close — but he's still going to do it (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090225/ap_on_go_ot/holder_guantanamo)." This following on the heels of the Obama administration's own investigation that determined Gitmo "meets the standards for humane treatment (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guantanamo21-2009feb21,0,2083521.story) of detainees established in the Geneva Convention accords."

It's great that we now have an administration that's going to make the tough decisions. Take something that works - well run, professional, meets standards - and close it. That's libs for you.

That report was made by the Pentagon. Here's another report for you: Hot Dog lovers report that hot dogs are good.

Speech if you are going to quote someone use the entire quote "Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Nice try but that's conservatives for you.

That was inevitable, Obama's own investigation and Obama's own AG saying it's a fine facility, but since it doesn't fit with the program it's OK to put that distance between reality and the president. It didn't work that way with Bush.

Obama's own investigation and Obama's own AG saying it's a fine facilityThey didn't say that, the Pentagon did. Also from that report:


Human rights groups are planning to take issue with Walsh's finding that Guantanamo complies with Geneva requirements.

"We strongly disagree with the government's basic conclusion that the conditions at Guantanamo comport with international standards for humane treatment," said Pardiss Kebriaei, a staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents detainees. "That assessment is difficult to digest when our clients in Camps 5 and 6 are physically and psychologically breaking down because their conditions and isolation have become so unbearable."

Speech if you are going to quote someone use the entire quote "Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Nice try but that's conservatives for you.

Spit, thanks but I'm the last person that needs to be chastised over quoting out of context. I furnish more context and links than most here and that was descriptive, as in Eric "nation of Cowards" Holder. But here's the entire text (http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090218.html) if that helps, I welcome context and I'd be more than happy to discuss it.

They didn't say that, the Pentagon did. Also from that report:

You just never learn do you? I'm always prepared for this sort of thing.


The report, which President Obama ordered (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/20/AR2009022002191.html?wprss=rss_nation)

Like I said, it didn't work that way for Bush. If Bush had ordered this report he would have been bashed mercilessly, but since it was Obama that ordered the report he has to be distanced from it to protect his image and agenda. What unbelievable hypocrisy.

I really don't understand what you are saying. He ordered the report because he wanted to know the status of the prison. The report should not have been done by an organization that has a vested interest in producing a positive report. Outside groups are decrying the report saying it does not represent the true status of the prison.

I really don't understand what you are saying. He ordered the report because he wanted to know the status of the prison. The report should not have been done by an organization that has a vested interest in producing a positive report. Outside groups are decrying the report saying it does not represent the true status of the prison.

I agree with you here NK. Besides that point, do you think that potential terrorist should be let go so swiftly? If they were arrested or "captured" holding guns or doing something questionable, do you think we should just ask them a few questions and not even contemplate if they were or are lying or with holding very valuable info? Sometimes it takes a consequence to get the truth... I try to put myself in this position and it kills me to think people are being held without cause, it really does. It still means that people will be. Not saying it is right, but maybe what has to be done to get to the info or whatever we are looking for.

explain why the Military should care one way or the other if the Gitmo prison stays open or closed. Honestly ;closing it benefits them .The President wants civilian guards (those bastions of gentle treatment of prisoners ) to guard the jihadists and he wants non-military judges presiding over trials. This move would take the military out of the equation. I think they would in truth welcome that .

I really don't understand what you are saying. He ordered the report because he wanted to know the status of the prison. The report should not have been done by an organization that has a vested interest in producing a positive report. Outside groups are decrying the report saying it does not represent the true status of the prison.

What don't you get, NK? This whole ball of wax is Obama's now so you'll have to ask him why he chose these parameters (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ClosureOfGuantanamoDetentionFacilities/) for the review:


The Review shall be conducted with the full cooperation and participation of the following officials:

(1) the Attorney General, who shall coordinate the Review;

(2) the Secretary of Defense;

(3) the Secretary of State;

(4) the Secretary of Homeland Security;

(5) the Director of National Intelligence;

(6) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and

(7) other officers or full-time or permanent part-time employees of the United States, including employees with intelligence, counterterrorism, military, and legal expertise, as determined by the Attorney General, with the concurrence of the head of the department or agency concerned.

As I said, if this were Bush he personally would have been bashed mercilessly for such a report, but Obama gets a pass.

What would Bush have been bashed about?

What would Bush have been bashed about?

I guess I will have to spell it out more slowly.

Under Bush such a report = Bush covering his a$$.

Under Obama such a report = the Pentagon covering their a$$.

I'd say the Pentagon has the same interest no matter the president and since it's Obama's baby now this report, ordered by him and executed under his guidelines, puts a damper on his campaign rhetoric. He deserves to have his feet held to the fire the same way Bush would have been. He'll be able to keep his promise and close Gitmo regardless of how well it's run and the standards it meets - and get a pass for continuing the very policies of the Bush administration he denounced by continuing, even expanding renditions, and denying habeas to detainees at Bagram (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090221/wl_asia_afp/usafghanistanattacksguantanamoprisonjustice).

I guess I will have to spell it out more slowly. I bet you typed it out slower too. :)


Under Bush such a report = Bush covering his a$$.

Under Obama such a report = the Pentagon covering their a$$.
There would be no arse to cover if nothing wrong is being done, right? The Pentagon would be giving the same report no matter what. The same external groups would be saying the same thing, that the Pentagon's report does not portray the true facts. Why are you so outraged? Do you see windmills?

I bet you typed it out slower too. :)

There would be no arse to cover if nothing wrong is being done, right? The Pentagon would be giving the same report no matter what. The same external groups would be saying the same thing, that the Pentagon's report does not portray the true facts. Why are you so outraged? Do you see windmills?

Why do you assume I'm outraged? Do I look outraged? Have I been typing lots of exclamation points and using all caps or something? I'm just making a point which anyone who has paid even the slightest attention in the last few years should be able to get right off the bat.

And by the way, I live in the Texas panhandle - of course I see windmills, they're everywhere. We all see them.