Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1) The terrorists there have been executed long ago. Or set free by taking them 100 miles off shore, dumping them overboard and allowing them to swim home.
2) Gitmo serves a purpose even without the current crop of ragheads stored there.
3) Obama should be denied the opportunity to close it on political principle alone.
1) The terrorists there have been executed long ago. Or set free by taking them 100 miles off shore, dumping them overboard and allowing them to swim home.
2) Gitmo serves a purpose even without the current crop of ragheads stored there.
3) Obama should be denied the opportunity to close it on political principle alone.
You mean dog and pony principles. After all, the existence of prisoners at Gitmo for this long without trial illustrates the compromise of principles.
And still opened under Obama for 8 years compared to Bush and 6 years.
Even more late for the Dems to try to push this back on the Repubs.
It's almost as if it's easier to make a mess than to clean it up.
Be that as it may, Obama issued an EO to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility on January 22nd, 2009 - and Congress (both sides) surrendered to their own and their constituents' fear, because terrorists have superpowers and would terrorize their way out of Supermax facilities or something. So they denied any funding to transfer the detainees and set the obstructive pattern.
Surprise, surprise: The problem didn't get any smaller just because it was ignored.
After all, the existence of prisoners at Gitmo for this long without trial illustrates the compromise of principles.
[the high ground we're on is a cliff]
Which is why they should have been shot after any useful information was extracted. With no mention in the press or elsewhere about doing it. The sharks would have made quick work of the remains as they're not picky about eating even Muslim carcass.
What's the matter double d? The almighty let his slip show????
First of all, I've never supported any president's policy of detaining people without charge.
Are you willing to go that far?
I'm not on record as supporting Obama on this issue.
Secondly, I'm for closing Guantanamo...the whole base, and giving it back to its rightful owners: the Cuban people.
Are you willing to go that far, or are you a fan of American imperialism?
I'm for sending these detainees home to their families immediately.
Are you willing to go that far, or are you gonna cop out and give no opinion on the matter (like you've done so far in an effort to ridicule my position)...huh?
"The Almighty?" I know it's hard for you to believe, but I'm not on record as one of your maligned "Obamabots." As I've said before and I'll reiterate right now, if you put up McCain or Romney in an election against Obama, I've got NO CHOICE but to vote for Obama.
And I don't regret that vote one bit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
