- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
President Obama’s renewed push close the Guantánamo Bay prison is hitting a wall of resistance in Congress.
Obama announced to great fanfare last month that he was restarting the effort to close the prison by transferring detainees cleared for release. He followed up this week by appointing a new envoy at the State Department to focus on the effort.
But Congress moved quickly to thwart Obama’s plans. The House voted against lifting restrictions on moving detainees to the United States and approved an amendment that prevents the president from using funds to return some detainees to Yemen
Meanwhile, an amendment from Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) that would have lifted the restrictions on transfers from Guantanamo was rejected, with 21 Democrats and all but two Republicans voting against it.
“It’s a very big problem, I think a lot of [lawmakers] would like to not have to think about it,” said Andrea Prasow, communications director for Human Rights Watch. “I find it incredibly depressing that’s the state of our politics right now.”
Read more: Obama
Apparently closing a facility that violates human rights, and that needed to be closed a long time ago, and barring prisoners to be transferred that have already have been transferred is "being weak on terrorism". Can we move away form these idiotic talking points and actually just close the **** hole down already? It hurts are international reputation, Islamic extremist terrorists use it as propaganda to recruit people to "fight against the great Satan", and its inherently unjust. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Because its called justice.Why would you, as an American, want to transfer citizens of another country to your country when their country of birth/citizenship doesn't want them back? If these are such model citizens, why don't the governments of the countries they come from allow them to be transferred home?
Because its called justice.
What are they guilty of?
No. Stick them on the next flight to their home country.So you believe that America should accept all displaced citizens of the world into your country?
I'm sure there are other people in the world who's country of birth has abandoned them or refused them re-enty - do you want them in America? Why aren't you beating the drum for those countries to take their guys back instead of trying to land them in America? Next you'll be wanting to add them to the illegal immigrant amnesty and give them a path to citizenship too.
No. Stick them on the next flight to their home country.
Never recommended that.. Now did i?
Seems to me you did recommend that citizens of another country, who were swept up because they were in a war zone and a perceived threat to American and coalition soldiers, who have now been determined no longer to be a threat, should be transferred to the US mainland as a form of justice. You'll have to clarify what you call justice if you're not suggesting that they will shortly upon arrival on mainland US soil be released - how can you retain in US prison innocent people? - and if you release them, where will they go if they can't be deported to their country of birth/citizenship? Shall they all be released in Kansas?
They have been cleared to go home back to their home country, they should therefor return home... Dont know how much more clear I can make it.
As I understand it, their home countries don't want them - do you suggest America invades those countries for the purpose of dropping these guys home?
I suggest we stick them on a flight and send them home. Or how bout we work directly with these countries via diplomacy.
They have been cleared to go home back to their home country, they should therefor return home... Dont know how much more clear I can make it.
Read more: Obama
Apparently closing a facility that violates human rights, and that needed to be closed a long time ago, and barring prisoners to be transferred that have already have been transferred is "being weak on terrorism". Can we move away form these idiotic talking points and actually just close the **** hole down already? It hurts are international reputation, Islamic extremist terrorists use it as propaganda to recruit people to "fight against the great Satan", and its inherently unjust. [/FONT][/COLOR]
That's not true for all of them. Perhaps you could be more clear if you knew the situation.
I suggest we stick them on a flight and send them home. Or how bout we work directly with these countries via diplomacy.
you mean 86 have not been cleared?
Your statement was clearly false and not a solution for Gitmo. That's because you were operating under false assumptions. I think you could make yourself more clear if you were more informed on the situation.
You asked. That's it. Why is it hard to understand?
Read more: Obama
Apparently closing a facility that violates human rights, and that needed to be closed a long time ago, and barring prisoners to be transferred that have already have been transferred is "being weak on terrorism". Can we move away form these idiotic talking points and actually just close the **** hole down already? It hurts are international reputation, Islamic extremist terrorists use it as propaganda to recruit people to "fight against the great Satan", and its inherently unjust. [/FONT][/COLOR]
:lamo
Ok professor... Is the 86 # wrong?
The number is not the point. The point is that your solution is incomplete and thus ineffective because you were operating under false assumptions (or portraying things as they are not, with a false statement). Why can't you own that? My suggestion that you become more informed and present a more clear solution was a recommendation made at your request.
What that we are currently in conversation with these countries? I realize that. That the president wants to close the facitliy down, but republicans are furthering making this process more hard with actions such as these?
The US is preventing other countries from accepting their citizens? That's clearly nonsense.
Uhh no its not.
"The House voted against lifting restrictions on moving detainees to the United States and approved an amendment that prevents the president from using funds to return some detainees to Yemen."
Uhh no its not.
"The House voted against lifting restrictions on moving detainees to the United States and approved an amendment that prevents the president from using funds to return some detainees to Yemen."
What party controlled both chambers of Congress during the President's first two years in which he first tried to close Gitmo?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?