Dems won't fund GITMO closing

[MintJulep]

Democrats won't fund Guantanamo closing for now
By ANDREW TAYLOR – 14 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's allies in the Senate will not provide funds to close the Guantanamo Bay prison until the administration comes up with a satisfactory plan for transferring the detainees held there, top Democrats said Tuesday.

And in a further break with Obama, the Senate's top Democrat said he opposes transferring any Guantanamo prisoners to the United States for their trials or to serve their sentences. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has said 50 to 100 Guantanamo detainees may be transferred to U.S. facilities.
"I can't make it any more clear," Reid said. "We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States."

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said Obama's plan to close Guantanamo is not dead — only that the funding will have to wait until the administration devises an acceptable plan to handle the closure and transfer the detainees. Obama has promised to close the military prison by January.

"The administration has not come up with a plan at this point," said Durbin, who is the whip, or No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. He added that Democrats are likely to address the issue on later legislation. "I think Guantanamo should be closed and we have to wait for the president's direction on what happens to the detainees."

Durbin said that he could support transferring detainees to U.S. prisons. "Our prisons are filled with dangerous people, including terrorists. And not a single one has escaped," he said.

With debate looming on Obama's spending request to cover military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, says Democrats will deny the Pentagon and Justice Department $80 million to relocate Guantanamo's 240 detainees.

The administration has yet to develop a plan for what to do with the detainees, and Obama's promise to close the facility is facing strong GOP opposition.

It appears to be a tactical retreat. Once the administration develops a plan to close the facility, congressional Democrats are likely to revisit the topic, provided they are satisfied there are adequate safeguards.

Explaining the reversal, Durbin said: "The feeling was at this point we were defending the unknown. We were being asked to defend a plan that hasn't been announced. And the administration said, 'Understood. Give us time to put together that plan and we'll come to you in the next appropriations bill.'"
The developments on Capitol Hill came as the Pentagon said it still expects the prison at Guantanamo Bay to be closed by January 2010 as Obama has ordered.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters on Tuesday that he sees nothing to indicate the January 2010 deadline will be delayed.

Republicans are poised with an amendment by James Inhofe of Oklahoma that would block any of the Guantanamo detainees from coming to U.S. soil to stand trial or serve their sentences. A detainee was released to France last week, leaving 240 at Guantanamo.

"Shuttering this facility now could only serve one end: and that is to make Americans less safe than Guantanamo has," said GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

"Guantanamo is the perfect place for these terrorists," McConnell said later.
House Democrats also dropped funding to close Guantanamo when producing their version of the war funding bill, which easily passed last week.
The Guantanamo controversy has roiled Washington, with most Republicans adamantly opposed to closing the prison, which mostly holds enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan. Republicans say abuses at the facility are a thing of the past.

The Senate's massive war spending measure otherwise sticks closely to Obama's request. The House version effectively exceeds Obama's request by almost $12 billion, adding $2.2 billion for foreign aid and eight C-17 cargo planes despite Defense Secretary Robert Gates' desire to cease purchases of the aircraft as part of his effort to overhaul Pentagon procurement.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[Crist Ero]

They should close down Guantanamo, and send the prisoners to that high tech prison in Montana, to create jobs here in america, for Americans.

Democrats are pussies, if they were true patriots, they wouldnt fall victims to the fear mongering of the right.

[SimonDavid]

They should close down Guantanamo, and send the prisoners to that high tech prison in Montana, to create jobs here in america, for Americans.

Democrats are pussies, if they were true patriots, they wouldnt fall victims to the fear mongering of the right.
Indeed. The Right pretends to fear prisoners in chains, yet our prisons are full of serial killers and rapists. The Democrats, meanwhile, apparently are sincere in their irrational fear of the defeated and discredited minority. Thirty years of being cowed dies hard.

[radioguy]

WOW... I can't believe the vote was 90-6.

[SimonDavid]

Terrorists in Prison - Oh my! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DowOUbFqPyk)

[MintJulep]

Indeed. The Right pretends to fear prisoners in chains, yet our prisons are full of serial killers and rapists. Having American killers and rapists in our prisons is not rationale to bring foreign terrorists stateside.

[SimonDavid]

Having American killers and rapists in our prisons is not rationale to bring foreign terrorists stateside.
"Foreign terrorists" are not supermen. They are criminals like any other dangerous inmates, huge numbers of which we have maintained successfullly since the inception of this country. I understand there is something exceptionally scary to you about a brown Arab killer, but they are no more magically powered than any of the serial killers we currently keep well in hand.

[Crist Ero]

"Foreign terrorists" are not supermen. They are criminals like any other dangerous inmates, huge numbers of which we have maintained successfullly since the inception of this country. I understand there is something exceptionally scary to you about a brown Arab killer, but they are no more magically powered than any of the serial killers we currently keep well in hand.

you are right on your assertion, if the right wing would drop the "war" on terror, they would realized that these people operate more like criminals than an enemy army, but then again it would require the right to think. which is impossible, and yes, those terrorist should be taken to Montana, i forget the name of the town, with the high tech prison, which even said, they would take them in, because it would create more jobs for the townspeople.....

[MintJulep]

"Foreign terrorists" are not supermen. They are criminals like any other dangerous inmates, huge numbers of which we have maintained successfullly since the inception of this country.Irrelevant. They are not American citizens and did not commit their "crime" on U.S. soil. We did not bring captured Nazis here for a venue in our domestic courts either for the same reasons. Give them a military tribunal and send them to their respective caves.

I understand there is something exceptionally scary to you about a brown Arab killer, but they are no more magically powered than any of the serial killers we currently keep well in hand.Your opinions about "me" still does not give foreign terrorists Constitutional rights as U.S. citizens.

[MintJulep]

you are right on your assertion, if the right wing would drop the "war" on terror, they would realized that these people operate more like criminals than an enemy army, but then again it would require the right to think. which is impossible, and yes, those terrorist should be taken to Montana, i forget the name of the town, with the high tech prison, which even said, they would take them in, because it would create more jobs for the townspeople.....How they "operate" is irrelevant. The salient point is they are not U.S. citizens.

[MintJulep]

Ya think???!!

May 20, 2009
White House: Closing Gitmo a 'Hasty Decision'

By David Paul Kuhn (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/david_paul_kuhn/)

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said closing the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, was a “hasty decision,” in his daily press briefing with reporters.

President Obama’s decision to close the controversial detention center in the early days of his presidency was met with adulation on the political left and earned headlines in newspapers across the world. It was seen as a clear break from Bush-era national security policy.

But recently Obama has irked many liberals with his decision to continue Bush-era military commissions to try Guantanamo Bay prisoners and his decision not to release photographs allegedly depicting U.S. soldiers abusing detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq. To an extent, this break with the political left is indicative of the difference between campaigning and governing.
Gibbs' comment appears to affirm some White House critics who argued that closing Guantanamo Bay was a policy shift easier said than done.

The White House comment comes on the eve of a major national security speech by Obama. Obama is expected to address, in part, Senate Democrats' opposition to funding the closure of Gitmo. Democrats have withheld funding closure until the White House offers a clear plan on how the detention center will be shut down and importantly, where detainees will be sent.

The closure of Guantanamo Bay has quickly turned into a "not in my backyard" issue. No U.S. representative wants to explain why a Gitmo detainee was allowed to live in his or her district. In the same vein, Obama has found U.S. allies no more willing to accept detainees. France and Britain each accepted one former detainee. There are about 240 detainees at Guantánamo Bay and 30 are clear for release.

[SeniorChief]

you are right on your assertion, if the right wing would drop the "war" on terror.....

It's Obama's war, poser. The buck stops with your Messiah. So, suck on that.

And it's a war you never served in - or, pardon me, claimed you served two "terms" in.

Terms???

You mean Tours??

What a fucking poser.

Kindly go fuck yourself.

[doctordog]

It's Obama's war, poser. The buck stops with your Messiah. So, suck on that.

And it's a war you never served in - or, pardon me, claimed you served two "terms" in.

Terms???

You mean Tours??

What a fucking poser.

Kindly go fuck yourself.

He probably has some of those medals from an antique store he shows people for his own.:lmao2:

[Crist Ero]

It's Obama's war, poser. The buck stops with your Messiah. So, suck on that.

And it's a war you never served in - or, pardon me, claimed you served two "terms" in.

Terms???

You mean Tours??

What a fucking poser.

Kindly go fuck yourself.

hey fuck u nazi, the only poser here is you. quit posing conservative values, when deep down you know you're a fucking bigot, and it's killing you, deep down, that a black man is running the country. you are one of those invisible people who once in a while get a chance to get on tv and the only thing your dumbass manages to say is, "We're losing the country!" Get it through your thick skull, Obama won, he is president, deal with it. you obviously dont know sarcasm... but then you wouldnt understand sardonic humor anyways, conservatives never can. This was was started by junior, and for your information it was under a conservative that we were attacked, under the conservatives... it's dipshit thinking like yours, that always fails in the end.

[MintJulep]

hey fuck u nazi, the only poser here is you. quit posing conservative values, when deep down you know you're a fucking bigot, and it's killing you, deep down, that a black man is running the country. you are one of those invisible people who once in a while get a chance to get on tv and the only thing your dumbass manages to say is, "We're losing the country!" Get it through your thick skull, Obama won, he is president, deal with it. you obviously dont know sarcasm... but then you wouldnt understand sardonic humor anyways, conservatives never can. This was was started by junior, and for your information it was under a conservative that we were attacked, under the conservatives... it's dipshit thinking like yours, that always fails in the end.AH ha

ha ha

Look at the little brainwashed Obot throwing a temper tantrum. Put your tired little race card back in the deck. Nobody gives a shit.

[SimonDavid]

Irrelevant. They are not American citizens and did not commit their "crime" on U.S. soil. We did not bring captured Nazis here for a venue in our domestic courts either for the same reasons. Give them a military tribunal and send them to their respective caves.
I agree, give them a military tribunal. Clearly the Bush administration had no intention of doing so, prefering to warehouse these prisoners in Cuba indefinitely. But you are making progress; elsewhere you stated they could stay there forever.

Your opinions about "me" still does not give foreign terrorists Constitutional rights as U.S. citizens.
They have rights under the Geneva Conventions, as previously noted.

Put your tired little race card back in the deck. Nobody gives a shit.
Apparently an inordinate number of participants "give a shit" about race, since they bring race into the issue quite often, when it has no context in what is being discussed.
In this thread, for example, what is the point of introducing terminology like
"wigger"? Do you approve of such behavior?

[MintJulep]

I agree, give them a military tribunal. Clearly the Bush administration had no intention of doing so, prefering to warehouse these prisoners in Cuba indefinitely. But you are making progress; elsewhere you stated they could stay there forever.Sure they did. The majority have already been released, and were released before Obamao took office.

They have rights under the Geneva Conventions, as previously noted.No, terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention.

Apparently an inordinate number of participants "give a shit" about race, since they bring race into the issue quite often, when it has no context in what is being discussed. In this thread, for example, what is the point of introducing terminology like "wigger"? Do you approve of such behavior?It doesn't matter if I approve. It's a matter of free speech. Besides, the race card is simply worn out and in tatters it's been overused so much.

[SimonDavid]

Sure they did. The majority have already been released, and were released before Obamao took office.
Where was your outcry? Do not believe they are even now winding their way back here to seek you out and have their swarthy way with you?

No, terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention.
We have been over this. You demanded I demonstrate how these prisoners met the criteria for the Geneva Conventions and I do so.

It doesn't matter if I approve. It's a matter of free speech. Besides, the race card is simply worn out and in tatters it's been overused so much.
No one is proposing legislation to prevent idiots from exposing their idiocy.
There is no "race card" played unless blatantly racist statements are made.
Racism is indeed old and tiresome and I, for one, wish it would end. But as long as stupidity reigns it will be plentiful.

[MintJulep]

Where was your outcry? Do not believe they are even now winding their way back here to seek you out and have their swarthy way with you?No need for an outcry. A military tribunal is applicable and lawful. Granting them U.S. Constitutional rights and allowing them to sue in the US for habeas corpus is the only thing I will complain about.

We have been over this. You demanded I demonstrate how these prisoners met the criteria for the Geneva Conventions and I do so.No, you did not. They do not wear uniforms, they conceal weapons, do not have a military hierarchy on the battlefield and violate the laws of war.

No one is proposing legislation to prevent idiots from exposing their idiocy. There is no "race card" played unless blatantly racist statements are made. Racism is indeed old and tiresome and I, for one, wish it would end. But as long as stupidity reigns it will be plentiful.The race card was worn out in the primaries and it is now in a tattered pile. You know it and I know it.

[foxbaron]

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe the vote not to fund the transfer of prisoners is a set up.

The Messiah wanted to close GITMO. He "promised to do it in the campaign", he swore he would, he said we could trust him to do so.

Yet, the Congress (basically his party) refused. Now why is that?

He claims he wants to do it but Congress won't give him the funds to do so. "OH WELL, I tried, but Congress wouldn't let me."

He gets to claim the high ground all the time knowing Congress won't do it because the fix was in not to close GITMO because these assholes don't really know what to do with these people.

Congress refused; to save the Messiah's ass, because politically it would kick Obama's ass, especially if one of these turds was let loose and did something.

This way Obama can claim he tried, he really wanted to, he tried to live up to his bullshit campaign promises but, DAMN IT, that pesky Congress got in the way. A majority Democratic Congress that has no integrity and does what they are told by Obama's controllers.

Every one of them TRAITORS to AMerica.

[SimonDavid]

No need for an outcry. A military tribunal is applicable and lawful. Granting them U.S. Constitutional rights and allowing them to sue in the US for habeas corpus is the only thing I will complain about.
You are willing for them, if found guilty, to be returned to their homeland?

No, you did not. They do not wear uniforms, they conceal weapons, do not have a military hierarchy on the battlefield and violate the laws of war.
Yes, I did. They do not conceal weapons in Iraq, where the Bush administration claimed we were fighting Al Qaeda, they fought with guns as well as car bombs. They do indeed have a military hierarchy, as again Bush promoted by celebrating the killing or capture of "lieutentents" of Osama bin Laden. The Geneva Conventions say nothing about restricting "military hierarchy" to the "battlefield".

The race card was worn out in the primaries and it is now in a tattered pile. You know it and I know it.
When racism is dead, which it is clearly not here, the race card will be "worn out". Since that is not likely to happen, racism should be exposed and condemned wherever it occurs.
I am not talking about Obama, in any case, I am referring to morons on this board dropping racial issues into subjects with no relevance to race.

[MintJulep]

You are willing for them, if found guilty, to be returned to their homeland?Only if they're innocent. If guilty, I'd prefer, umm, another route.

Yes, I did. They do not conceal weapons in Iraq, where the Bush administration claimed we were fighting Al Qaeda, they fought with guns as well as car bombs. They do indeed have a military hierarchy, as again Bush promoted by celebrating the killing or capture of "lieutentents" of Osama bin Laden. The Geneva Conventions say nothing about restricting "military hierarchy" to the "battlefield". Yes, they do conceal weapons and attack civilians with IEDs. This, in and of itself, is a violation of the rules of war. Osama bin Laden was not on the battlefield and they were non-uniformed, so as not to be identified. They do not meet the four pre-conditions, therefore they are not covered.

When racism is dead, which it is clearly not here, the race card will be "worn out". Since that is not likely to happen, racism should be exposed and condemned wherever it occurs. I am not talking about Obama, in any case, I am referring to morons on this board dropping racial issues into subjects with no relevance to race.Carry on.

[SimonDavid]

Only if they're innocent. If guilty, I'd prefer, umm, another route.
As do I. What ever gave you the bizarre idea "liberals" want to release guilty parties?

Yes, they do conceal weapons and attack civilians with IEDs. This, in and of itself, is a violation of the rules of war. Osama bin Laden was not on the battlefield and they were non-uniformed, so as not to be identified. They do not meet the four pre-conditions, therefore they are not covered.
They meet two, not a bad average.
The Taliban and the insurgency in Iraq, which Bush insisted was Al Qaeda, so I bow to his superior knowledge on the subject, both carried and fired guns. Our own troops shot howitzers from afar, which could be considered "concealed".
It is not necessary for the "commander" to be on the battlefield. Neither, you might recall, was Bush. Or Cheney. Ever. In their entire lives.

Carry on.
Count on it.

[MintJulep]

As do I. What ever gave you the bizarre idea "liberals" want to release guilty parties?Wasn't the original game plan to bring the Gitmoees here and "try" them in our federal courts? Now, let's say, they are found not guilty by lack of evidence -- but really are guilty. They would be released into the streets of the U.S. The only ppl who wanted this scenario were the far lefties. Thank God those in Congress put down the koolaid jug and got a taste of reality. Our lives depend on it.

They meet two, not a bad average.
The Taliban and the insurgency in Iraq, which Bush insisted was Al Qaeda, so I bow to his superior knowledge on the subject, both carried and fired guns. Our own troops shot howitzers from afar, which could be considered "concealed".
It is not necessary for the "commander" to be on the battlefield. Neither, you might recall, was Bush. Or Cheney. Ever. In their entire lives.No, they meet NONE. They carry concealed weapons and set-off IEDs amongst the citizenry. And there is NO "commander" in the field unlike our soldiers who have a direct commander overseeing their activities. Bush and Cheney were the top bosses of the hierarchy, but many commanding levels existed on lower levels, including directly on the battlefield.

Count on it.You betcha! :thumbsup:

[SimonDavid]

Wasn't the original game plan to bring the Gitmoees here and "try" them in our federal courts? Now, let's say, they are found not guilty by lack of evidence -- but really are guilty. They would be released into the streets of the U.S. The only ppl who wanted this scenario were the far lefties. Thank God those in Congress put down the koolaid jug and got a taste of reality. Our lives depend on it.
According to whom? You should really stop listen to/reading lying morons. It is bad for your health.

No, they meet NONE. They carry concealed weapons and set-off IEDs amongst the citizenry. And there is NO "commander" in the field unlike our soldiers who have a direct commander overseeing their activities. Bush and Cheney were the top bosses of the hierarchy, but many commanding levels existed on lower levels, including directly on the battlefield.
Yes, they meet TWO. We have been over this.

[MintJulep]

According to whom? You should really stop listen to/reading lying morons. It is bad for your health.

Come again? It is bad for your health to keep your skull ensconced so deeply in your posterior.

"Virginia Congressman Jim Moran (D) said in a Washington Post op-ed that his home district of Alexandria would be willing to host some of the terrorist detainees (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/08/AR2009050803168.html?hpid=topnews) currently held at the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Moran, after acknowledging the logistical and financial burdens hosting the prisoners would place on the community, nevertheless said that Alexandria would do its "civic duty" if asked by the Obama Administration."

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/11/democrat-congressman-volunteers-district-for-guantanamo-detainee/


Yes, they meet TWO. We have been over this.Nope. They meet NONE. We will just have to agree to disagree. I'm right, of course...

[Cat slave]

Democrats won't fund Guantanamo closing for now
By ANDREW TAYLOR – 14 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's allies in the Senate will not provide funds to close the Guantanamo Bay prison until the administration comes up with a satisfactory plan for transferring the detainees held there, top Democrats said Tuesday.

And in a further break with Obama, the Senate's top Democrat said he opposes transferring any Guantanamo prisoners to the United States for their trials or to serve their sentences. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has said 50 to 100 Guantanamo detainees may be transferred to U.S. facilities.
"I can't make it any more clear," Reid said. "We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States."

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said Obama's plan to close Guantanamo is not dead — only that the funding will have to wait until the administration devises an acceptable plan to handle the closure and transfer the detainees. Obama has promised to close the military prison by January.

"The administration has not come up with a plan at this point," said Durbin, who is the whip, or No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. He added that Democrats are likely to address the issue on later legislation. "I think Guantanamo should be closed and we have to wait for the president's direction on what happens to the detainees."

Durbin said that he could support transferring detainees to U.S. prisons. "Our prisons are filled with dangerous people, including terrorists. And not a single one has escaped," he said.

With debate looming on Obama's spending request to cover military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, says Democrats will deny the Pentagon and Justice Department $80 million to relocate Guantanamo's 240 detainees.

The administration has yet to develop a plan for what to do with the detainees, and Obama's promise to close the facility is facing strong GOP opposition.

It appears to be a tactical retreat. Once the administration develops a plan to close the facility, congressional Democrats are likely to revisit the topic, provided they are satisfied there are adequate safeguards.

Explaining the reversal, Durbin said: "The feeling was at this point we were defending the unknown. We were being asked to defend a plan that hasn't been announced. And the administration said, 'Understood. Give us time to put together that plan and we'll come to you in the next appropriations bill.'"
The developments on Capitol Hill came as the Pentagon said it still expects the prison at Guantanamo Bay to be closed by January 2010 as Obama has ordered.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters on Tuesday that he sees nothing to indicate the January 2010 deadline will be delayed.

Republicans are poised with an amendment by James Inhofe of Oklahoma that would block any of the Guantanamo detainees from coming to U.S. soil to stand trial or serve their sentences. A detainee was released to France last week, leaving 240 at Guantanamo.

"Shuttering this facility now could only serve one end: and that is to make Americans less safe than Guantanamo has," said GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

"Guantanamo is the perfect place for these terrorists," McConnell said later.
House Democrats also dropped funding to close Guantanamo when producing their version of the war funding bill, which easily passed last week.
The Guantanamo controversy has roiled Washington, with most Republicans adamantly opposed to closing the prison, which mostly holds enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan. Republicans say abuses at the facility are a thing of the past.

The Senate's massive war spending measure otherwise sticks closely to Obama's request. The House version effectively exceeds Obama's request by almost $12 billion, adding $2.2 billion for foreign aid and eight C-17 cargo planes despite Defense Secretary Robert Gates' desire to cease purchases of the aircraft as part of his effort to overhaul Pentagon procurement.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


Do you think it is possible that some pigs in WA are waking up? They
actually stood up on their hind legs and told the messiah, "uh, no"!

[MintJulep]

Do you think it is possible that some pigs in WA are waking up? They
actually stood up on their hind legs and told the messiah, "uh, no"!Obviously, they are waycists. ;)

[Cat slave]

Obviously, they are waycists. ;)

ROTFL.....love it:D :lmao2:

[SimonDavid]

Come again? It is bad for your health to keep your skull ensconced so deeply in your posterior.

"Virginia Congressman Jim Moran (D) said in a Washington Post op-ed that his home district of Alexandria would be willing to host some of the terrorist detainees (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/08/AR2009050803168.html?hpid=topnews) currently held at the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Moran, after acknowledging the logistical and financial burdens hosting the prisoners would place on the community, nevertheless said that Alexandria would do its "civic duty" if asked by the Obama Administration."

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/11/democrat-congressman-volunteers-district-for-guantanamo-detainee/
Here is the text of your article.

Virginia Congressman Jim Moran (D) said in a Washington Post op-ed that his home district of Alexandria would be willing to host some of the terrorist detainees currently held at the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Moran, after acknowledging the logistical and financial burdens hosting the prisoners would place on the community, nevertheless said that Alexandria would do its "civic duty" if asked by the Obama Administration. Alexandria has hosted terrorists before, serving as the site of convicted 20th hijacker Zacharais Moussaoui's federal trial. Not phased by the experience, Moran says that Alexandria, situated right across the river from Washington D.C., is prepared to do it again.

But Moran, who was once mayor of Alexandria, should have checked with the current occupant of the office before volunteering the city for terrorist detention duties. Mayor William Euille, also a Democrat, was quoted just two months ago categorically rejecting the idea of his city taking in terrorists from Guantanamo Bay.

"We would me absolutely opposed to relocating Guantanamo prisoners to Alexandria. We would do everything in our power to lobby the president, the governor, the Congress and everyone else to stop it. We've had the experience and it was unpleasant. Let someone else have it."


Moran's op-ed comes as Republicans in the House have introduced a bill which would prohibit the transfer of any detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the mainland United States. Dubbed the "Keep Terrorists Out of America Act," the bill would among other things block the use of federal funds to move prisoners held abroad to locations inside the country. Moran derided that effort, and the comments of those like Mayor Euille, as a kneejerk "not in my backyard" mindset not in keeping with the American ideal.

President Obama has not announced any plans for holding dangerous terrorist detainees despite ordering the closure of Guantanamo Bay by the beginning of next year. Republicans are taking advantage of the resulting confusion and anxiety over the fate of the detainees by introducing their legislation to prevent their transfer to the U.S. Moran, in volunteering his district against the wishes of his constituents, has fallen into the trap. Republicans will most certainly use Moran's op-ed against him in the mid-term elections next year. Until the Administration makes a decision on what to do with terrorists in U.S. custody, Democrats in Congress will have to choose to back either the president's goal of closing Guantanamo at any cost, or their constituents' call to keep terrorists out of their communities. Moran may have chosen poorly.

Now show me where it reads "They would be released into the streets of the U.S." That is the bit of idiocy to which I was referring.

Nope. They meet NONE. We will just have to agree to disagree. I'm right, of course...
No.

[SimonDavid]

Obviously, they are waycists. ;)
If the congress voted to bar brown swarthy people from the US because they are brown swarthy people, that would be racist (with an "r").

[Cat slave]

If the congress voted to bar brown swarthy people from the US because they are brown swarthy people, that would be racist (with an "r").

I think you missed the point!

[SimonDavid]

I think you missed the point!
Please, educate me.
Here is what I read.
There was a long article about the Democrats voting to not fund Gitmo's closing. One poster made some sort of joke about this being "waycist" (she does not believe racism exists, apparently). I pointed out what would actually be racist.
What, according to you, "point" did I miss, if indeed there was one beyond a poor attempt to ridicule a real problem?

[Cat slave]

IMO, it was a swipe at Barney Frank aka Bahney Fwank and the way everything,
but everything is about race, which it is not...there is life beyond the "r" word.
Other things actually exist! And it was really, really funny!

[SimonDavid]

IMO, it was a swipe at Barney Frank aka Bahney Fwank and the way everything,
but everything is about race, which it is not...there is life beyond the "r" word.
Other things actually exist! And it was really, really funny!
Glad you enjoyed it.
The article in question does not mention Barney Frank, so are you referring to his speaking voice?
I have some history with "LadyLiberty" and she has used this charming pronunciation before to belittle a real issue, which, by the way, is not always about everything, unless it is the subject interjected for no reason, as has been done recently in various threads.
But let us not get in the way of a good laugh, especially for Rightwingers and/or Republicans. They have so little joy, of late.

[The Professor]

elisabeth bumiller of the new york times reports that one in seven released detainees has returned to the battle

there's also a lot of controversy over whether the pentagon held up release of its report to protect the embarrassment of the white house by these recidivist numbers

wannabe gitmo closers, to be fair, argue it's very difficult, even impossible, to know how many released residents ended up here or there, doing this or that

and then, purely political, there's this, from the middle of bumiller's piece:



But the prospect that detainees might be moved to American soil has run into strong opposition in Congress. To show its misgivings, the Senate voted on Wednesday, 90 to 6, to cut from a war-spending bill the $80 million requested by Mr. Obama to close the prison, and overwhelmingly approved a second amendment requiring that a threat assessment be prepared for each prisoner now at Guantánamo to address what might happen on release.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21gitmo.html?_r=1

[MintJulep]

Now show me where it reads "They would be released into the streets of the U.S." That is the bit of idiocy to which I was referring.
SimonDavid,

If terrorists are brought to US shores, tried and found non-guilty -- where will they be released? Do you have any information indicating they will not be released here?

No.Yes.

[Cat slave]

Glad you enjoyed it.
The article in question does not mention Barney Frank, so are you referring to his speaking voice?
I have some history with "LadyLiberty" and she has used this charming pronunciation before to belittle a real issue, which, by the way, is not always about everything, unless it is the subject interjected for no reason, as has been done recently in various threads.
But let us not get in the way of a good laugh, especially for Rightwingers and/or Republicans. They have so little joy, of late.

Oh, lighten up Simon. Dont you realize what a crisis we are in and it is good
reason to find a smile anywhere we can?? Unless youre absolutely snorkered
out of your mind with Kool Aide you should be able to get a grin from it too.

[MintJulep]

I have some history with "LadyLiberty" and she has used this charming pronunciation before to belittle a real issue, The only thing I'm "belittling" is the default use of the race card at any criticism or questioning of the Obama Administration.

Whether you like it or not, race does not exclude Obama --or anyone else-- from criticism. It's a tired, shut-up tactic used by the likes of your girlfriend, RK.

Criticizing a government is not "racist". I recall the mantra of the left was "questioning and holding the govt to accountability is the highest form of patriotism". Clearly, that only applies when a Republican is in office. Now, any questions are met with attempts to silence them.

[Cat slave]

elisabeth bumiller of the new york times reports that one in seven released detainees has returned to the battle

there's also a lot of controversy over whether the pentagon held up release of its report to protect the embarrassment of the white house by these recidivist numbers

wannabe gitmo closers, to be fair, argue it's very difficult, even impossible, to know how many released residents ended up here or there, doing this or that

and then, purely political, there's this, from the middle of bumiller's piece:



But the prospect that detainees might be moved to American soil has run into strong opposition in Congress. To show its misgivings, the Senate voted on Wednesday, 90 to 6, to cut from a war-spending bill the $80 million requested by Mr. Obama to close the prison, and overwhelmingly approved a second amendment requiring that a threat assessment be prepared for each prisoner now at Guantánamo to address what might happen on release.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21gitmo.html?_r=1


Maybe this little exercise in finding a spine will encourage the pimps in WA
to start taking care of business and repute the king on other issues.

[Cat slave]

The only thing I'm "belittling" is the default use of the race card at any criticism or questioning of the Obama Administration.

Whether you like it or not, race does not exclude Obama --or anyone else-- from criticism. It's a tired, shut-up tactic used by the likes of your girlfriend, RK.

Criticizing a government is not "racist". I recall the mantra of the left was "questioning and holding the govt to accountability is the highest form of patriotism". Clearly, that only applies when a Republican is in office. Now, any questions are met with attempts to silence them.

But of course!

[SimonDavid]

SimonDavid,

If terrorists are brought to US shores, tried and found non-guilty -- where will they be released? Do you have any information indicating they will not be released here?
Do you have any indicating they will? Aside from Republican politicians and mouthpieces attempting to scare you?
If they are found not guilty they should be released...but not necessarily here. They are, after all, foreign nationals and have no inherent right to be here. I have no problem with deporting them.

Yes.
No.

The only thing I'm "belittling" is the default use of the race card at any criticism or questioning of the Obama Administration.

Whether you like it or not, race does not exclude Obama --or anyone else-- from criticism. It's a tired, shut-up tactic used by the likes of your girlfriend, RK.

Criticizing a government is not "racist". I recall the mantra of the left was "questioning and holding the govt to accountability is the highest form of patriotism". Clearly, that only applies when a Republican is in office. Now, any questions are met with attempts to silence them.
I did not say criticism of his administration was racist. I said dropping irrelevant references to race into a discussion having nothing to do with race is racist. Criticizing Obama because you do not approve of his policies, fine. Criticizing Obama because you do not approve of his race is not fine. It is racism. Does not mean one cannot do it, but one should know what one is doing and own it.
The examples I have been discussing, since they apparently missed your notice, involved a conversation on Texas' standings on education, health care and other issues in relation to other states. One poster found this a perfect opportunity to make an irrelevant comment about Latinos living in Texas. Another poster followed that with statistics on Black crime.
Both were irrelevant.
Another poster referred to a participant as a "wigger". Perhaps they have history and one knows the other is a caucasion enamored with Black culture. That interest in Black culture was still irrelevant to the discussion.
Another poster insists "everything that's going on" is somehow related to Obama's race, but has thus far declined to explain the connection. The racism or not of that view depends on the rationale behind it.
The "race card" was not played by me, but rather by those injecting race where it has no bearing.


On edit: Your reference to RK is interesting. In fact I have made no overtures to her at all. I have changed nothing in my posts. If I have managed to gain whatever respect she may have toward me it is a result of her re-evaluating what I have to say, not any alteration of views on my part.

[SimonDavid]

Oh, lighten up Simon. Dont you realize what a crisis we are in and it is good
reason to find a smile anywhere we can?? Unless youre absolutely snorkered
out of your mind with Kool Aide you should be able to get a grin from it too.
Did I not say I am glad you enjoyed it and we should not get in the way of a good laugh?

[MintJulep]

Do you have any indicating they will? Aside from Republican politicians and mouthpieces attempting to scare you?
If they are found not guilty they should be released...but not necessarily here. They are, after all, foreign nationals and have no inherent right to be here. I have no problem with deporting them.Harry Reid seems to disagree with you.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22710.html

On edit: Your reference to RK is interesting. In fact I have made no overtures to her at all. I have changed nothing in my posts. If I have managed to gain whatever respect she may have toward me it is a result of her re-evaluating what I have to say, not any alteration of views on my part.I was kidding.

[SimonDavid]

Harry Reid seems to disagree with you.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22710.html
The link you posted has nothing to do with what you quoted from my post.
He is talking speaking about the very process of bringing them here. I am talking about those who are "released", which Mr. Reid and I both agree should not and will not be here.

[MintJulep]

The link you posted has nothing to do with what you quoted from my post.
He is talking speaking about the very process of bringing them here. I am talking about those who are "released", which Mr. Reid and I both agree should not and will not be here.I don't know how much more simple to make this. If they are brought here and found "not guilty", where would they be released? No plan is in place to deport them hence the results of the Senate vote for bringing Gitmoees here. THAT is the point. The vote was to prevent them being released here.

See: Harry Reid.

[SimonDavid]

I don't know how much more simple to make this. If they are brought here and found "not guilty", where would they be released? No plan is in place to deport them hence the results of the Senate vote for bringing Gitmoees here. THAT is the point. The vote was to prevent them being released here.

See: Harry Reid.
I saw Harry Reid. He said nothing about releasing prisoners into the US population. He was talking about transferring them from Gitmo into US prisons. He, along with too many other Democrats, is a sniveling coward more concerned about the effects of 30 second attack ads than moving us out of this morass.
As you and the rest of the posse insist on repeating, they are not American citizens. If found guilty they could not stay here without visas, which given their notoriety after the trials, they would stand zero chance of obtaining, nor should they.
By the way, the likelihood of them being found not guilty is almost equal to getting permits to stay here.
The entire issue is completely ridiculous and a product of the Right wing propaganda apparatus, which is the only legacy of the Cheney/Bush Cabal which is still in all too unfortunately excellent health.