Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

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." This following on the heels of the Obama administration's own investigation that determined Gitmo "meets the standards for humane treatment 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Obama's own investigation and Obama's own AG saying it's a fine facility

---

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

Quote:

---

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."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spitvenom

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 if that helps, I welcome context and I'd be more than happy to discuss it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Quote:

---

The report, which President Obama ordered

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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 for the review:

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

---

I bet you typed it out slower too. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.