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

Human Rights groups are losing that tingly feeling .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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/broadca...es/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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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

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?