Jump to content

What's he going to do with them?

All Tell

By All Tell
in Kentucky / National Politics

 Share

Recommended Posts

rockmom

rockmom

Posted
Posted
Isn't that what the military tribunals do? I read where one was suspended this week pending Obama's executive order. I really don't know how they differ.

 

 

These guys have been there for 5 years. I really think that the trial or tribunal needs to begin.

 

I believe during the election, Obama proposed putting them in a military prison here in the States. I believe that he has been working with the military to determine what that would entail, and what the options are. I'll try to find the information that I read that gave me that impression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RowdyRedRam

RowdyRedRam

Posted
Posted
Isn't that what the military tribunals do? I read where one was suspended this week pending Obama's executive order. I really don't know how they differ.
There is a great deal of issue with the military tribunals, the legitimacy of them is one of the big ones. Obama put a freeze on all of the tribunals until he and his staff has a chance to review them. It is not expected that he will allow them to proceed, as this is a major issue that many of our allies (or better said the "people" of our allies) have against us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ladiesbballcoach

ladiesbballcoach

Posted
Posted

Didn't he put all trials on hold too.

 

Press secretary got pushed on this too.

 

Questions were "how can you say that US is safer by doing this when you have no plan for where they are going? Will you promise us that they are not going to be going back to their home countries and attacking Americans again."

 

Press Secretary said "hey we are on day 2 here."

Question back was pretty much "first, if you don't have a plan why are you closing it and you have been talking about doing it on the campaign trail for 6 months to a year why don't you have a plan if you have been talking and promising to do it."

 

Another question was is this Administration ready to deal with it if they let someone out and that person ends up killing US soldiers and citizens because of this decision.

 

This has a making to be Obama's no WMD's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HOOKSHOT

HOOKSHOT

Posted
Posted

Should they be "water-boarded" and shot if guilt is admitted ? Should they be set free to go straight back and try to kill our troops ? Most will you know ! Maybe they should be taken to our bad lands, given a T-P and rancid beef to eat. Thats happened before. I don't have an answer and I am waiting to hear Obamas.:idunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Habib

Habib

Posted
Posted
Didn't he put all trials on hold too.

 

Press secretary got pushed on this too.

 

Questions were "how can you say that US is safer by doing this when you have no plan for where they are going? Will you promise us that they are not going to be going back to their home countries and attacking Americans again."

 

Press Secretary said "hey we are on day 2 here."

Question back was pretty much "first, if you don't have a plan why are you closing it and you have been talking about doing it on the campaign trail for 6 months to a year why don't you have a plan if you have been talking and promising to do it."

 

Another question was is this Administration ready to deal with it if they let someone out and that person ends up killing US soldiers and citizens because of this decision.

 

This has a making to be Obama's no WMD's.

 

The problem is that they haven't attacked America, as you put it, or very few of them have. If they had, would we have to hold them under some ambiguous legal interpretation on suspicion alone or could we legally detain and prosecute them? Not to mention, hundreds of detainees have already passed through GITMO and been sent home by the Bush administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ladiesbballcoach

ladiesbballcoach

Posted
Posted
The problem is that they haven't attacked America, as you put it, or very few of them have. If they had, would we have to hold them under some ambiguous legal interpretation on suspicion alone or could we legally detain and prosecute them? Not to mention, hundreds of detainees have already passed through GITMO and been sent home by the Bush administration.

 

It only has to be one that he releases and they kill Americans.

 

Like Bush said, he doesn't have the luxury of being right 99 times and wrong once. He has to be right 100 times out of 100.

 

What do you think the response will be if O sends one back home and in a year they strap a bomb to themselves and kill 20 or so Marines or walk into a mall in St. Louis and kills 100 or so citizens? O will be roasted by the media and Republicans.

 

As I said, it could be his missing WMD's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Habib

Habib

Posted
Posted
It only has to be one that he releases and they kill Americans.

 

Like Bush said, he doesn't have the luxury of being right 99 times and wrong once. He has to be right 100 times out of 100.

 

What do you think the response will be if O sends one back home and in a year they strap a bomb to themselves and kill 20 or so Marines or walk into a mall in St. Louis and kills 100 or so citizens? O will be roasted by the media and Republicans.

 

As I said, it could be his missing WMD's.

 

Curiously, the Bush administration, in an attempt to dissuade the closing of GITMO, released a list of recidivist detainees who had resorted to terrorist activity after being released. Bush certainly wasn't skewered for it. The problem is that if we knew they were terrorists, and were going to continue being terrorists, then we could prosecute them, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ladiesbballcoach

ladiesbballcoach

Posted
Posted
Curiously, the Bush administration, in an attempt to dissuade the closing of GITMO, released a list of recidivist detainees who had resorted to terrorist activity after being released. Bush certainly wasn't skewered for it. The problem is that if we knew they were terrorists, and were going to continue being terrorists, then we could prosecute them, right?

 

It will be interesting if it happens and I PRAY IT DOES NOT, that the Obama administration says, hey Bush did it and you didn't get on him about it.

 

My understanding is that we are just holding people there and not prosecuting almost no one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rockmom

rockmom

Posted
Posted
It will be interesting if it happens and I PRAY IT DOES NOT, that the Obama administration says, hey Bush did it and you didn't get on him about it.

 

My understanding is that we are just holding people there and not prosecuting almost no one.

 

 

Exactly. What's right about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.

  I accept