U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-22-2009, 12:00 PM
 
Location: The Heartland
4,457 posts, read 4,014,456 times
Reputation: 759

Advertisements

So...will Obama be closing Gitmo as he said he would?

In the second article, Obama states that U.S. detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights, the same position the Bush administration took.

Imagine that!
By PETER FINNWashington Post


http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2009/02/20/23/896-xpatrick_walsh_022109_02-21-2009_6C181N91.embedded.prod_affiliate.81.jpg (broken link)
Walsh





WASHINGTON | A Pentagon review of conditions in the Guantanamo Bay military prison has concluded that the treatment of detainees meets the requirements of the Geneva Conventions.However, the report recommended that prisoners in the highest-security camps should be allowed more interaction with one another, according to a government official who has read the 85-page document.
The report, which was ordered by President Barack Obama, was prepared by Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, the vice chief of naval operations, and has been delivered to the White House. Obama requested the review as part of an executive order that the prison be closed within a year.
Defense attorneys for the approximately 245 detainees held at the military prison have complained bitterly about the isolation of some of the prisoners. The attorneys allege that the isolation has caused severe mental problems.
Defense attorneys also have criticized the force-feeding of prisoners on hunger strikes. There are approximately 40 prisoners on hunger strike in Guantanamo Bay, according to Pentagon officials.
Walsh concluded that the force-feeding, which involves strapping prisoners to feeding chairs and forcing tubes down one nostril and into their stomachs, is in compliance the Geneva Conventions’ mandate that the lives of prisoners must be preserved, the government official said.
But Walsh did find that prisoners should be allowed more communal recreation and prayer time.
Prisoners in the highest-security camps — including such high-value detainees as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed organizer of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — are held in windowless cells for up to 23 hours a day.
Detainee status is unchanged
WASHINGTON | President Barack Obama says U.S. detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights, the same position the Bush administration took. In a two-sentence court filing Friday, the Justice Department says it stands by its previous argument that detainees at Bagram Air Field cannot challenge their detention in U.S. courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that detainees at the Guantanamo Bay base in Cuba have that right, but the court never said whether it extends to detainees held in Afghanistan.
After Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to stand by Bush’s legal argument. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd says the filing speaks for itself.




The Associated Press


LINK (http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/1046045.html - broken link)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-22-2009, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,877 posts, read 31,437,189 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT View Post
So...will Obama be closing Gitmo as he said he would?

In the second article, Obama states that U.S. detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights, the same position the Bush administration took.

Imagine that!
By PETER FINNWashington Post



Walsh





WASHINGTON | A Pentagon review of conditions in the Guantanamo Bay military prison has concluded that the treatment of detainees meets the requirements of the Geneva Conventions.However, the report recommended that prisoners in the highest-security camps should be allowed more interaction with one another, according to a government official who has read the 85-page document.
The report, which was ordered by President Barack Obama, was prepared by Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, the vice chief of naval operations, and has been delivered to the White House. Obama requested the review as part of an executive order that the prison be closed within a year.
Defense attorneys for the approximately 245 detainees held at the military prison have complained bitterly about the isolation of some of the prisoners. The attorneys allege that the isolation has caused severe mental problems.
Defense attorneys also have criticized the force-feeding of prisoners on hunger strikes. There are approximately 40 prisoners on hunger strike in Guantanamo Bay, according to Pentagon officials.
Walsh concluded that the force-feeding, which involves strapping prisoners to feeding chairs and forcing tubes down one nostril and into their stomachs, is in compliance the Geneva Conventions’ mandate that the lives of prisoners must be preserved, the government official said.
But Walsh did find that prisoners should be allowed more communal recreation and prayer time.
Prisoners in the highest-security camps — including such high-value detainees as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed organizer of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — are held in windowless cells for up to 23 hours a day.
Detainee status is unchanged
WASHINGTON | President Barack Obama says U.S. detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights, the same position the Bush administration took. In a two-sentence court filing Friday, the Justice Department says it stands by its previous argument that detainees at Bagram Air Field cannot challenge their detention in U.S. courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that detainees at the Guantanamo Bay base in Cuba have that right, but the court never said whether it extends to detainees held in Afghanistan.
After Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to stand by Bush’s legal argument. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd says the filing speaks for itself.




The Associated Press


LINK (http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/1046045.html - broken link)
Now TG, you know that prisoners have a right to die if they want to. Any lib would tell you that and force feeding to save their lives is just not right.

I would think that Obama has had his decision from the Pentagon and like it or not, he may have to live by it. I don't think he will as Holder will certainly call them racists for answering like this.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2009, 04:48 PM
 
Location: The Heartland
4,457 posts, read 4,014,456 times
Reputation: 759
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Now TG, you know that prisoners have a right to die if they want to. Any lib would tell you that and force feeding to save their lives is just not right.

I would think that Obama has had his decision from the Pentagon and like it or not, he may have to live by it. I don't think he will as Holder will certainly call them racists for answering like this.
Hi Roy, glad you are here. Who told you about this place. A lot of fun to be had here.

If you can get through the posters who are here for little more than name calling there are some pretty sharp people here.

Hope you stick around, there is enough here to keep you busy.

I found it strange that you are the only one to post to this thread, I wonder why?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2009, 05:31 PM
 
Location: The Heartland
4,457 posts, read 4,014,456 times
Reputation: 759
Hey, where are all of the anti Gitmo people at? Surely one of you has something to say about this.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2009, 08:17 PM
 
Location: Harrisonville
1,831 posts, read 2,263,008 times
Reputation: 400
Quote:
WASHINGTON | President Barack Obama says U.S. detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights, the same position the Bush administration took. In a two-sentence court filing Friday, the Justice Department says it stands by its previous argument that detainees at Bagram Air Field cannot challenge their detention in U.S. courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that detainees at the Guantanamo Bay base in Cuba have that right, but the court never said whether it extends to detainees held in Afghanistan.
After Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to stand by Bush’s legal argument. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd says the filing speaks for itself.
It doesn't surprise me that the Pentagon finds itself without fault, especially in the view of their own attorneys. That is nothing new for them. The opinion of someone less partial, like the Hague would carry more weight with many people.

The second article is a whole different matter, making an "apples to oranges comparison". Afghanistan is combat zone. Guantanamo is not. The Supreme Court did not extend their ruling to Afghanistan because that would have been an insane thing to do. I think what the world is waiting to see is whether Obama treats the detainees in Afghanistan as enemy combatants and Prisoners of War and accords them the protections guaranteed them under the Geneva Convention. Bush always insisted they were neither, but fell into a special category created by the White House. That makes us look like bloodthirsty bullies to the world in general, making any rule that's convenient, and has cost us the moral high ground in whatever our beef may be with another country.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2009, 08:55 PM
 
Location: The Heartland
4,457 posts, read 4,014,456 times
Reputation: 759
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatchance2005 View Post
It doesn't surprise me that the Pentagon finds itself without fault, especially in the view of their own attorneys. That is nothing new for them. The opinion of someone less partial, like the Hague would carry more weight with many people.

The second article is a whole different matter, making an "apples to oranges comparison". Afghanistan is combat zone. Guantanamo is not. The Supreme Court did not extend their ruling to Afghanistan because that would have been an insane thing to do. I think what the world is waiting to see is whether Obama treats the detainees in Afghanistan as enemy combatants and Prisoners of War and accords them the protections guaranteed them under the Geneva Convention. Bush always insisted they were neither, but fell into a special category created by the White House. That makes us look like bloodthirsty bullies to the world in general, making any rule that's convenient, and has cost us the moral high ground in whatever our beef may be with another country.
Obama did not ask the Hague to do the investigation, he asked the Pentagon and got an answer.

This article states that the Bagram prison is much worse than Gitmo and Obama is doing nothing about it. LINK (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090222.wafghan23/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20090222.wafghan23 - broken link) In fact if Gitmo closes, the detainees may end up in a worse position than before.

As far as I am concerned I hope this is the case. It will save the US money and will put the combatants in a place where they get treated as they should.

I dont think this is what the people who voted for him were thinking when Obama said he would close Gitmo as soon as he took office.

There is an old adage that you should be careful for what you ask for.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2009, 10:44 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,877 posts, read 31,437,189 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT View Post
Hi Roy, glad you are here. Who told you about this place. A lot of fun to be had here.

If you can get through the posters who are here for little more than name calling there are some pretty sharp people here.

Hope you stick around, there is enough here to keep you busy.

I found it strange that you are the only one to post to this thread, I wonder why?
I certainly believe that you and I know why so many of the libs haven't posted on this thread. Really there is nothing they can say that hasn't already been said.

BTW, to keep the name unknown it was FatBastard that told me about this place. He always my favorite pseudo-lib.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2009, 08:50 AM
 
Location: The Woods
18,051 posts, read 24,760,420 times
Reputation: 10833
I would be more interested in an opinion by a neutral third party investigating it. Asking the Pentagon to determine if they're doing the right thing is kind of pointless, they'll cover for themselves. It's known prisoners have been tortured to death. I wouldn't call that compliance with international standards, nor is keeping them isolated and in windowless cells 23 hours a day. I wonder if by any chance you've ever read the Geneva Conventions? Read them yourselves and then decide if what's known about Gitmo and Bagram meet their standards.

Just keep in mind you agreed with this the next time a captured American is abused. You can't complain when that happens.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2009, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Harrisonville
1,831 posts, read 2,263,008 times
Reputation: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT View Post
Obama did not ask the Hague to do the investigation, he asked the Pentagon and got an answer.

This article states that the Bagram prison is much worse than Gitmo and Obama is doing nothing about it. LINK (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090222.wafghan23/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20090222.wafghan23 - broken link) In fact if Gitmo closes, the detainees may end up in a worse position than before.

As far as I am concerned I hope this is the case. It will save the US money and will put the combatants in a place where they get treated as they should.

I dont think this is what the people who voted for him were thinking when Obama said he would close Gitmo as soon as he took office.

There is an old adage that you should be careful for what you ask for.
Quote:
Obama did not ask the Hague to do the investigation, he asked the Pentagon and got an answer.

I don't recall saying that he had asked the Hague. If Bagram is worse than Gitmo that isn't surprising.

When you say

Quote:
if Gitmo closes, the detainees may end up in a worse position than before.
May is the key word.

Quote:
As far as I am concerned I hope this is the case. It will save the US money and will put the combatants in a place where they get treated as they should.
I'd be interested in which if any are guilty of a crime before deciding how they should be treated.

Quote:
I dont think this is what the people who voted for him were thinking when Obama said he would close Gitmo as soon as he took office.
I'm sure the people who voted for Obama are glad to have you looking out for their interests.

Quote:
There is an old adage that you should be careful for what you ask for
.

And another that says, "As ye sow, so shall ye reap."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2009, 10:38 AM
 
Location: The Heartland
4,457 posts, read 4,014,456 times
Reputation: 759
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatchance2005 View Post
I don't recall saying that he had asked the Hague. If Bagram is worse than Gitmo that isn't surprising.

When you say



May is the key word.



I'd be interested in which if any are guilty of a crime before deciding how they should be treated.



I'm sure the people who voted for Obama are glad to have you looking out for their interests.

.

And another that says, "As ye sow, so shall ye reap."
I agree to the reap what you sow saying and the people who voted for Obama are the sowers in this case, now they will have to reap the consequences.

I have not seen many, if any, campaign promises kept to date, how do you feel about that?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top