General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGraph showing how Democratic support for closing Guantanamo changed after Obama backed off
:large
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I understand why Obama backed off and defend him doing so, but my desire for its closure has not wavered.
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)and the fact Democrats are being made to look disingenuous. I'd expect this to be a thread starter at Freeperville, not here. Makes ya go hmm....
Warpy
(111,332 posts)If anything like that is ganked off another source and posted here, it must have the source cited.
The lack of a cite always makes me suspicious.
I can make pie charts showing 60% of the population would opt for a sex change if they had the money, but that wouldn't make it so.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Warpy
(111,332 posts)is people here blowing their corks over an unsourced pie chart from a low post count poster.
Honestly, people, do consider the source sometimes.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)It's expected, considering how many Democrats are more about the team and the quarterback than they are about actual issues.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)He did what he can. He signed the Executive Order. There is separation of powers. People need to just stop and pressure those who are creating the problem.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)But he hasn't done that.
Being the CiC means when you give an order that's not flatly illegal then the military salutes and says "Sir, yes sir!" and does it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And Congress won't give him the money. Not even the Democratic Congress. Their constituencies didn't want the prisoners there. NIMBY.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)about? Innocent people tortured, incarcerated in a disgusting gulag, held without any contact with the outside world, and many of them have been scheduled for release because there is 'no evidence against them' after all this time.
This is WRONG. And it needs to be set RIGHT. THAT is one of the main reasons we vote for Democrats. To right the wrongs of the Republican Criminals. There are NO excuses for not doing the right thing. Not where I come from. Even if you lose your job to do so. When did these standards change again??
Disgusting attempts to try to excuse the ongoing existence of that hell hole and stain on this country.
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)you read it.
Additionally: Obama signed an executive order, ordering the closing of gitmo shortly after entering office.
In 2009 his first budget included funds to shut it down. Congress removed that from the budget and added an amendment that forbade the gov't in some way or another to release info requested by aclu.
His attempt to move the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, to federal court in Manhattan fell apart against local opposition and prompted Congress to pass a law barring the use of Defense Department funds for the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners
After that they passed ridiculous legislation that allowed the closing (still without funds) requiring "certification and guarantee" by Hagel and others. Basically an impossible thing to guarantee, still without funds. In 2012 The National Defense Authorization Act removed all the partisan rigged -to -fail pieces were removed, which is what now clears the way. Also, many were released but most of those there now are from Yemen. When the underwear bomber was found to have been trained in Yemen, there was a real concern of security and recidivism. They have a new President and he seems to be serious about Al-Quaeda so it's less likely these guys will be back in a few months to blow us up.
When Obama announced a few days ago he was going to try again to close gitmo the quote from congress was: House leaders quickly signaled they would seek to scuttle any proposal by the president to shut down the detention facility and move selected prisoners to the U.S. for trials in federal courts.
He can't snap his fingers and make it happen. Two big hurdles have been cleared, congress rewrote the stupid law they wrote to basically make Hagel (Clinton at the time) Obama and I think Holder personally responsible for whatever happened, and there's a new pres in Yemen so they will probably take the detainees and make sure they don't go straight to the nearest training camp. There are still 3 or 4 who don't have a country who will take them, so I don't know what will ever happen there.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)more about the state of the country in terms of Guantanamo, the fact that this country ever tolerated such a despicable place, says something very sad about it. History will not be kind to this period of our history. Or about those who supported such a vile policy. Once upon a time those who supported segregation eg, or slavery seemed invincible, but now history has recorded them in pictures, in literature as the ignorant, sometimes criminals, they were. They go down in history in shame. As will anyone who supports the illegal, criminal detentions of people, most of whom were innocent. We are going through a dark period, but as always, it will pass and far too many Americans will find themselves to have been on the wrong side of history.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Notice the naysayers claim to care so much about these prisoners, but refuse to admit Congress' role and never advocate anyone bugging their Congress people to close it down.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They need a country to be returned to or brought here for trial. Both require money. Congress holds the purse strings. Bother your congress critter about it if you are sincere in your concern.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)or be repatriated to other countries. Yemen, for one, won't take them.
Igel
(35,350 posts)There are people there accused of nothing. There used to be far, far more.
However, after picking them up wherever they were picked up, they couldn't properly be returned to those places. Their home countries refused them. Nobody wanted them released in the US and given asylum--they'd flunk the requirements, anyway. And no other country could be found to take them in.
Albania took in a bunch but eventually said "no." So did Sweden. Some Pacific Island took some in in exchange for foreign aid. And yet there was a residue with no charges and therefore no trial, yet no place to go.
And in some cases those detained were detained on the battlefield as part of an army. We seldom granted German POWs civial trials. They got military trials. That's only reasonable.
The primary reason most are still there without trial ... Wait for it ... Is that every few years, as trials were to begin, the rules were rewritten. Usually at the request or by the demand of the detainees' lawyers. Many on the one hand demand speedy trials; on the other hand, they obstruct the process that would have long since led to trial, sentence served, and release.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)country, they should be given homes and enough money for life in THIS country as a way to try to make up for what was done to them, if 'no one else will take them'. What utter nonsense. We have done a grave wrong to these innocent people and yes, there ARE people who 'will take them'. But then we would have no bodies in that vile place to funnel money to.
I feel sick that I even have to explain this on a Democratic forum now. I got used to trying to do so to Bush supporters and never, ever thought any democrat would even try to excuse this enormous crime.
WE OWE THEM. WE took away their freedom, their families, their very lives, their dignity, their jobs, we kidnapped them from their own countries and many of them COULD return to their countries. So what is it, would you be making these excuses if Bush was president still? I should do a search on DU to see who has changed their minds on Guantanamo over the past five years.
That graph proves what I thought I was imagining. The hypocrisy of those who claimed to be opposed to Guantanamo as a matter of principle when it was under Bush. But now we know, it was not principles at all, just plain old disgusting 'politics'.
treestar
(82,383 posts)please inform the Obama administration.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Good Lord.
treestar
(82,383 posts)How do they get the money? congress has the purse strings. Call your congresspersons if you really care about these people.
Explain with legal citations how it can be done is what I meant, not some snarky irrelevant posting.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Under US and International law...of which we are signatories, ergo US law...
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I would interpret that as the whole discussion that was had on the subject after Obama tried to do it influenced a lot of people.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Obama could have ordered trials for any and all prisoners in Guantanamo at any time and the military's job would be to say "Sir, yes sir!" and then go and do what they were ordered to do by their legal Commander in Chief.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The Post Hoc fallacy derives its name from the Latin phrase "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." This has been traditionally interpreted as "After this, therefore because of this." This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect. More formally, the fallacy involves concluding that A causes or caused B because A occurs before B and there is not sufficient evidence to actually warrant such a claim.
.
.
.
Post Hoc fallacies are typically committed because people are simply not careful enough when they reason. Leaping to a causal conclusion is always easier and faster than actually investigating the phenomenon. However, such leaps tend to land far from the truth of the matter. Because Post Hoc fallacies are committed by drawing an unjustified causal conclusion, the key to avoiding them is careful investigation. While it is true that causes precede effects (outside of Star Trek, anyways), it is not true that precedence makes something a cause of something else. Because of this, a causal investigation should begin with finding what occurs before the effect in question, but it should not end there.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)'hypocrisy'. I never guessed the so-called 'left' as I knew them throughout the Bush years, claiming to be so outraged over that vile gulag where innocent people were tortured and wrongfully detaiined for years, many died there, would lose their passion for justice so easily. Never, I thought OUR side would not waver on this issue.
Then I began to see comments from people who USED to be so outraged over that torture chamber, suddenly begin to make excuses, as you are doing.
Here's a simple fact for you. When something is this wrong, it doesn't change, there are no variations of reactions that decent people should have 'depending on circumstances'. Some things are just plain simple.
We have a whole lot of hypocrites on our side it appears, just as many as the other side. This has been an incredible learning experience, I was so certain we were the good guys, the ones who would take no excuses for crimes like Guantanamo, who would remain steadfast in the demands to shut that hell hole down. THERE ARE HUMAN BEINGS THERE, INNOCENT human beings. That should keep all decent people awake at night.
One thing is for sure, Cheney is smiling. I guess he knew the 'left' would cave and see things his way sooner or later.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I'm actually in favor of closing GITMO. That has never changed for me.
What I am doing is pointing out that there is no evidence for the contention in the OP. Simply stating that Obama's actions preceded a change in opinion for some group by three years is not evidence that his actions changed their opinion.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)care when human lives have been so brutally, and for so long, destroyed by such evil, about the details of someone's OP.
I find it appalling in the face of torture and murder and illegal years long detention that anyone could be distracted by such trivia. Those people have families, children who have grown up during their kidnappings, who have no contact with them. This requires nothing but OUTRAGE.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)They do exactly the same thing that they despised the Bushies for, excusing all sorts of things they once condemned, purely because they're now being done by the home team. I've no doubt that they'll rediscover their unwavering sense of morality when there's a Republican in the White House again.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Honestly, it is really, really depressing.
I consider such situational ethics to be truly a betrayal of the Democratic Party -which I know is ironic since some here view you and I as the betrayers of the party.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Very interesting.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)And would have sent more people there.
Please tell us under U.S. law where Obama could have "ordered trials" for them. They were to be brought to the US for trial and that's what there is no money for. Congress holds the purse strings.
If people were sincere on this they would be bothering their congress critters about it. Blaming Obama says they just want to blame the President for something or everything. Rail on about chained CPI and it is at least legitimate. This one is not.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)We hold them for even longer, if they are at Guantanamo Bay. Half of the people there were supposed to be released already. They were innocent, or at least not guilty of anything serious. But we still hold them, indefinitely. We come up with lots of excuses, but we're still doing the immoral, and illegal thing. We can claim it would be worse under Bush, but we can't pretend it's right and that is what we should be doing, the right thing.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And that is another problem. Call Congress right fuckin' now if you really care - tell them to provide the funds to move the people out.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)We tell the home country that they can have their citizens back, if their citizens are kept under constant surveillance, and if the home nation can guarantee that nobody associated with the detainee will ever do anything against us. Imagine that, someone holding President Obama personally responsible to guarantee that a Timothy McVeigh won't do anything ever. Would you agree to those conditions? I certainly wouldn't. Then again, if I were in some of those nations Governments, I would be suggesting that continuing to detain our citizens illegally was at best, and unfriendly act, and at worse a serious strain to diplomatic relations. When the US wanted information, I would suggest that it would be easier to give the information, if we knew our citizens were being returned after being cleared of the asinine charges.
It is the conditions we are putting on the release of so many of the citizens that is unpaletable. Then you have Muslim Chinese from the border regions that were captured in Afghanistan. We sent some to Bermuda. Other nations are screaming to get their citizens back, and we are doing nothing. We closed the office that was supposed to find the prisoners places to go. So we're not even trying any more. Like many things this Administration has given up on, it's just too hard.
In 1961 President Kennedy said we were going to the Moon, not because it was easy, but because it was hard. Because doing hard things meant we as a Nation had to strive, we had to dream beyond our reach. We had to grow to accomplish the impossible task. Now, we just give up. We give up because it's hard. Because we don't want to expend the effort to accomplish things worthy of us.
So don't act like President Obama has done everything he can. Don't act like we Democrats are blameless. We gave up, because it is too hard.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Those countries could take their nationals. They should not care about conditions.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)citizens since the day that vile place came into existence. And IF no country would take them, then WE have an obligation to place them in decent housing and pay them compensation for the wrong that was done to them.
That place is a stain on this country and has attracted worldwide condemnation, and rightfully so. We are always the first to condemn other countries, but now when our State Dept attempts to try to condemn other countries for torture and illegal detentions, we are told, as China did among others, to 'mind our own business'. We have lost any moral authority we once had, no one listens to the US on moral issues anymore. All they have to do is to point to Abu Ghraib, Guantanimo, Bagram and our other 'secret detention centers'.
One day, hopefully soon, this period of our history will end, and those who did not speak out against these horrific crimes will not be treated kindly by history. It isn't the first time excuses were made for human rights abuses. People need to reflect on how they want to be viewed a few decades from now.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And countries that won't take their own nationals back.
Or will claim we don't have proof they are citizens. Details, details, mean nothing
Call your Congress critter to tell them to provide funding if you really care.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)have been following this story over the years. Canada, Britain, Spain among others have demanded the release of their citizens but were denied those requests.
There are NO excuses for the kind of human rights abuses, including murder, torture and illegal detainment of most of those who were told were the 'most dangerous men in the world'. Remember that huge lie? Did you ever buy it? A vast majority of the residents of this planet never bought it.
Now that the wrongs have been so exposed, and human beings are in such despair they are willing to die rather than remain in that hell hole, someone, some hero, someone with courage, needs to right this massive wrong perpetrated in our name against hundreds of innocent human beings, several of them now dead.
Not to mention that of those who were released and returned to their own countries, some have detailed the abuse they endured in that gulag, and to their credit, did not blame the American people but told their stories in an effort to end the suffering of those still there.
The place should not only be condemned as unsafe but those responsible for it should have been prosecuted. They were on the verge, at least six of them, of facing a court of law in Spain for their crimes, but this administration intervened on their behalf pressuring the Spanish Court to stop the proceedings.
And look at the thanks this administration has received for saving their war criminal torturers from prosecution. I hate to say this, but we told them so. Prosecute criminals are they will bite the hand that feeds them.
They should be so busy trying to defend themselves from the serious charges they were about to face that they would not be able to engage in the garbage they are now engaged in.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)A significant portion of us can be teased into support of almost anything if it is fed to us effectively.
That's what I see.
Forty percent of us, evidently.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)here.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)so hard the first time. People might just be looking for congress to do something else. ANything else.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)unfortunately we can't claim with a straight face that some of that same blindness does not exist on our side. Certainly not as deeply as with the Republicans - Of course not. But it is still there - a significant amount of it - and it is shameful.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Graph showing how Democratic support for closing Guantanamo changed after Obama backed off"
...without context, two different polling organizations, two different years, and the most recent poll is from February 2012 (with all the bullshit election-year polling from 2012) , what the hell is this supposed to prove?
It's May 2013.
Here's a poll from 2009 showing people opposed to closing Guantanamo. Democrats at about 50 percent
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124727/americans-oppose-closing-gitmo-moving-prisoners.aspx
Still, based on the OP premise, is it expected that Democrats will now support closing Guantanamo based on the President's recent comment?
ACLU Statement on President's Guantánamo Comments
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022778127
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)It's supposed to show that the democrats have a thoughtless robotic element in it just like the republicans do - unless your going to make the alternative point, which is everything is perfect peaches and cream on our side - and any evidence to the contrary must be wrong.
Obviously both sides have a segment that is swayed by "spin" - that's exactly why both sides spend millions if not billions of dollars forging public opinion this way and that. Don't think for a second "we" are immune, and "they" are obviously the gullible ones that fall for everything. You know they think the same way right?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)It's supposed to show that the democrats have a thoughtless robotic element in it just like the republicans do - unless your going to make the alternative point, which is everything is perfect peaches and cream on our side - and any evidence to the contrary must be wrong.
What about the two different polling organizations, and as I mentioned, another poll from the first of those two years that show less support?
You're right, the "two different years is intentional." It was designed so that people could make bullshit false equivalency statements about Democrats and Republicans.
I remember when Congress voted to cut funding for the closure. I don't remember any Democrats being happy about it.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)So you DO think everything is peaches and cream on our side. No way we could possibly have any unthinking drones like those guys eh? Seriously? Exactly what planet is it you think your on?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"So you DO think everything is peaches and cream on our side. No way we could possibly have any unthinking drones like those guys eh? Seriously? Exactly what planet is it you think your on?"
...I don't think there is an "our" side, and I certainly don't think the choice is "bullshit false equivalency" or "peaches and cream."
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)There is nothing offered in the OP that ties the changing of opinion to Obamas actions. The only thing offered is a classic case of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc logical fallacy. The fact that action A occurs before result B does not mean action A caused B.
There are ways to prove causation and in this case it would mean a pretty large and detailed study. That has not been done.
treestar
(82,383 posts)asked the same way, done by the same methods by the same polling organization, to really prove a change of mind.
Honestly, I don't think the average American cares so much about it.
Anyone who does care should be campaigning their congresspeople or the government in Yemen.
Cha
(297,568 posts)and putting an end to the indefinite detention regime there," Romero said. "There are two things the president should do. One is to appoint a senior point person so that the administration's Guantánamo closure policy is directed by the White House and not by Pentagon bureaucrats. The president can also order the secretary of defense to start certifying for transfer detainees who have been cleared, which is more than half the Guantánamo population."
Thanks for that statement from the ACLU, ProSense. Let's hope we can get gitmo closed this time in spite of all the gop and the Dems who voted against it the last time.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)They own both parties.
They divide us into teams, and foment the partisanship and the hatred.
They take turns in office, pushing in the very same corporate direction.
They exhort us to rally around our Blue (or Red) team when it's our turn to defend the indefensible. They want the idea of ever uniting with or agreeing with anyone from the other team on *anything* to be more viscerally abhorrent to us...than standing together for what is right....or against what is unconscionably wrong.
They can always count on half of us to defend the impoverishing, dehumanizing corporate agenda, no matter how much we loathed it and morally opposed it when the other guy was in office.
So...how long do we fall for the scam? How long until we realize that they are playing both sides?
How far do we let them go, before we fight back, together?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)You mean, like creating a bullshit chart that implies that Democratic voters as mindless tools?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Posters who were *outraged* about Gitmo when Dubya was resident now are doing triple reverse gainers with a twisting dismount to defend the place.
Did you defend Dubya so hard over Gitmo?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Posters who were *outraged* about Gitmo when Dubya was resident now are doing triple reverse gainers with a twisting dismount to defend the place. Did you defend Dubya so hard over Gitmo? "
...WTF? Who the fuck is defending "Gitmo," and why the hell would I defend Bush?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Anything else is defending it.
So you weren't outraged about Gitmo when Dubya was resident?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)In most cases it's illegal to repatriate them, and nobody else is taking them.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)ETA: Why weren't these quibbles being raised here on DU when Dubya was resident?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Search DU2 if you want; I said Gitmo will turn out to be damn hard to close because no country is going to want anything to do with the prisoners, whether they were radical when we took them or just radicalized by our jailing them.
Also, holding POWs without trial has never been illegal. This was just a very unwise way to do it.
(Edit: DU2, not 3)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)And we all know those rights have been and are being constantly violated.
Indeed, that's why the prisoners there are called "enemy combatants" rather than "prisoners of war".
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's a good point. But it's not the point I've made under both administration, which was that having spirited these people away is going to be damned difficult to figure out something to do with them.
byeya
(2,842 posts)they are criminals and should be treated as such.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)You know, the majority of the ones we kidnapped a decade ago that are still left.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Well then start demanding it be closed and the prisoners either tried or released
Anything else is defending it.
So you weren't outraged about Gitmo when Dubya was resident? "
...Stop inventing straw men.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It's a simple yes or no question.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Were you outraged about Gitmo when Dubya was resident?
It's a simple yes or no question. "
...really fascinating that you think that's a "gotcha" question.
Answer: Yes, and nothing has changed.
Now, answer this: Why did you think that would be a difficult question to answer, and what gives you the impression that I support Guantanamo?
I mean, please share your evidence and thought processes that led to the framing of that question.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)And also because you didn't answer the question the first time I asked it.
A resident started that shit and a President can end it.
Just declare a few Republican House members and Senators enemy combatants and drone strike their asses, the rest will vote for whatever Obama wants.
And I'm not entirely sure I'm being facetious either.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Because you constantly make excuses, time after time after time...And also because you didn't answer the question the first time I asked it. A resident started that shit and a President can end it. "
...another bullshit straw man and silly rationalization. I asked for evidence.
ACLU Statement on President's Guantánamo Comments
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022778127
Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You are wasting your time with her."
...know about "wasting" time.
Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)It's for your own good.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Of your own posts!
"Once again, you are nothing special. Get over yourself, go bump some....Of your own posts!"
...obsession: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022807040#post8
Don't force me post the pm link.
Logical
(22,457 posts)to another post and you then responded to me. Jesus, quit stalking me. Seriously!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Prosense, what is really odd about you is that I did not even respond to your post. I responded...to another post and you then responded to me. "
...odd: Your obsession and denial:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2832034
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022807040#post8
Yikes!
Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Like I said, quit stalking me. I did not even respond to one of your posts."
...stop projecting: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2592941
Logical
(22,457 posts)
Logical
(22,457 posts)carrying on with people who disagree with you way past what is needed.
Very odd.
"You tend to love attention I have noticed. Either bumping own posts to get responses or....
carrying on with people who disagree with you way past what is needed. "
...that's your job:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022807040#post8
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2592941
Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I love this. How long will you keep responding and whining about other posts?"
...long as they're a source of entertainment:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2833349
Oops, forgot the "other posts"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022807040#post8
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2592941
Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"For the 2nd time on this thread! QUIT STALKING ME!"
..."I love this."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022807040#post8
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2592941
Logical
(22,457 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"For the 4th time on this thread! QUIT STALKING ME!"
...wish you hadn't posted this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2831813
Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"For the 5th time on this thread! QUIT STALKING ME!" "
...think five times is enough? Ah, regrets: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2831813
Kick!
Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"For the 6th time on this thread! QUIT STALKING ME!""
...please kick the OP for this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022807040#post8
Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"For the 7th time on this thread! QUIT STALKING ME!""
...get an 8th repetition, and an apology: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2831813
Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"For the 9th time on this thread! QUIT STALKING ME!" "
...to another thread. I look forward to you the next time.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022807040#post8
Logical
(22,457 posts)
progressoid
(49,996 posts)Do you mean your views toward Gitmo haven't changed?
Or that nothing has changed from one President to the Next?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Nothing has changed?
Do you mean your views toward Gitmo haven't changed?
Or that nothing has changed from one President to the Next? "
...read the question and answer again, it's clear I meant my "views."
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)That is truly disgusting.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)and should not be overlooked by anyone who wants to create charts like this.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Gitmo was an outrage five years ago to virtually all DUers, now there's a plurality who will make any excuse for that horror.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Some are, IMO, right-wing sock puppets.
Some are, also IMO, fascist wannabes.
Some are, again IMO, suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That remains the biggest problem with getting people out of there: it's against US law to send them back to their homes, and all the countries it's legal to send them to keep dodging our phone calls. Remember how long it took to get anybody to take the Uighyrs?
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Sure, the president does not have dictatorial powers.
But he's not a eunuch either. He doesn't work for congress. He doesn't have to get congress's permission before he does something. He's the head of one of the three supposedly equal branches of government and he is the commander in chief of the armed forces as well as the CEO of the bazillions of civilian federal employees in the country.
As much as I dislike the bastard, if Cheney would have wanted Gitmo closed he would not have gone hat in hand to congress and asked them if he could close it, he would have taken it upon himself to close it and dared congress to stop him.
And that's exactly what Obama ought to do. If Boner and the asshole house republicans don't like it, what are they going to do about it? Impeach him? Shit, they're probably going to do that anyway.
In government, if you act like you have the authority, you'll usually have it.
Do I think he should close Gitmo? Fuckin A, he said he would and that's part of the reason I voted for him. Twice. He never said he'd close it if Boner and Cantor would let him.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"As much as I dislike the bastard, if Cheney would have wanted Gitmo closed he would not have gone hat in hand to congress and asked them if he could close it, he would have taken it upon himself to close it and dared congress to stop him."
...if only President Obama was more like Cheney, things would be better.
Cheney slams Obama over Benghazi: ‘We were always ready on 9/11?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022815670
The ACLU actually outlined some steps the President can take: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022778127
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Yes I obviously want Obama to be just like Cheney. Thats why I voted for him twice and contributed more money than I could really afford to his campaigns.
Actually part of the problem is that his policies are already too much like Cheney. Drone strikes, government snooping, cat food commission, offering to cut social security, clemency for Wall Street criminals, all these are things Cheney would love to have done.
All I want is for him to realize he actually does have some authority instead of always blaming congress for not letting him get anything done. He won't know the limits of his authority until he exerts it. And he's running out of time.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"All I want is for him to realize he actually does have some authority instead of always blaming congress for not letting him get anything done. He won't know the limits of his authority until he exerts it. And he's running out of time. "
...all he has to do is speak to convince large swaths of people. On one hand he's all powerful authoritarian working for the one percent, and on the other, he's unaware of his own powers and doesn't know how to use them.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)"...all he has to do is speak to convince large swaths of people. On one hand he's all powerful authoritarian working for the one percent, and on the other, he's unaware of his own powers and doesn't know how to use them."
See what I did? I took a portion of your post and pasted it into my reply and put quotes around it and then I will craft a clever response which will annihilate your logic and reduce you to babbling incoherence.
No I won't. I'm not clever, I'm just an old hick but I'm not playing this game anymore. I don't know whether Obama has the power to close Gitmo on his own. I just want him to fucking try like he said he would.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"No I won't. I'm not clever, I'm just an old hick but I'm not playing this game anymore. I don't know whether Obama has the power to close Gitmo on his own. I just want him to fucking try like he said he would. "
...me too. As for not knowing, I tried to offer some insight...
The ACLU actually outlined some steps the President can take: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022778127
kickysnana
(3,908 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)A vast majority of those who post here, are nothing more than cheerleaders for the DNC. All the things we opposed, they now support, all in the name of supporting Democrats. Guantanamo Bay under Bush, a torture gulag that was a violation of international law. Guantanamo Bay under Obama? Why it's like Club Med, but better. Same camp, same guards, same interrogations, but the guy holding the cattle prod answers to our guy, so it's ok.
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)The principled and the partisan. One of them deserves respect.
WillyT
(72,631 posts):kick:
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Of course, he is a powerless and delicate flower who can do nothing to stop those guys from starving except sending teams to force feed them. Oh, wait..we don't torture....unless it's politically inconvenient not to.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)and welcome to DU 
Sid
Response to Jake Izzy (Original post)
michigandem58 This message was self-deleted by its author.
rucky
(35,211 posts)
alarimer
(16,245 posts)And pretty much for Democrats in general these days. Any legitimate criticism (and there are plenty of things we should criticism for) is seen as bashing. I don't care anymore. This man has proven to be a liar, but we should still call him out on his lies, including this humanitarian disaster. He didn't start it, it's true, but he did promise to end it. And he hasn't. He won't even use the bully pulpit to call out the assholes in Congress that are the real problem (with anything).
So this guy has no guts and Democrats are falling along right behind, just like Republicans did for Bush. Hypocrites.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Kidnapping, false imprisonment for a decade, repeated abuses.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)just like his owner/operators intended.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)fuck
We the People has become We the Sheeple.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It's warming up fast enough as it is, all that brain power being suddenly unleashed would probably push global warming up another five degrees.
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Warpy
(111,332 posts)That should have been everyone's first clue...
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Clue to what?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
ecstatic
(32,729 posts)in which cable news and talk shows etc. were debating about closing Guantanamo, a lot of the logistical obstacles of closing the place came to light. Prior to that point, people knew they wanted it closed, but when it came time to decide which towns would hold the trials, etc., people weren't as eager to volunteer their cities. If I recall correctly, there was talk about whether New Yorkers (many of whom are democratic) wanted terrorists being tried in the city and exposing them to more attacks. I think the public collectively backed off and that it coincided with the President backing off as well.
Despite the softening, I think most dems would say they are for closing it but that it's not a top priority.
