pink Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 u dip ur ho in ur t..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 No, that's for later tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) Not a great piece, but it contains a couple of interesting points: Obama's moves on the legal front so far (Op Ed, NYT) Edited March 19, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 ...and you all thought this thread was dead: as if on cue....odays news as a a few moments ago..... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090319/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_guantanamo_wrongly_held "SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – Many detainees locked up at Guantanamo were innocent men swept up by U.S. forces unable to distinguish enemies from noncombatants, a former Bush administration official said Thursday. "There are still innocent people there," Lawrence B. Wilkerson, a Republican who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, told The Associated Press. "Some have been there six or seven years." Wilkerson, who first made the assertions in an Internet posting on Tuesday, told the AP he learned from briefings and by communicating with military commanders that the U.S. soon realized many Guantanamo detainees were innocent but nevertheless held them in hopes they could provide information for a "mosaic" of intelligence. "It did not matter if a detainee were innocent. Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the battle area, he must know something of importance," Wilkerson wrote in the blog. He said intelligence analysts hoped to gather "sufficient information about a village, a region, or a group of individuals, that dots could be connected and terrorists or their plots could be identified." Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel, said vetting on the battlefield during the early stages of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan was incompetent with no meaningful attempt to discriminate "who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation."" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 This issue is just getting started, and so is this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 This issue is just getting started, and so is this thread. Let's put AIG execs with >1 million dollar bonuses in Gitmo and water board them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkporwit Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 This issue is just getting started, and so is this thread. When can we start talking in this thread about global warming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 This issue is just getting started, and so is this thread. When can we start talking in this thread about global warming? It's funny, all this talk about recession, stimulating packages, et cetera and suddenly the IMPENDING DOOM OF GLOBAL WARMING is being ignored. Good catch, Marcin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Global warming was the issue 15 min ago. 15 min from now, (2-3 months in real time) the US is gonna put a North Koren satellite into the sea. North Korea has declared such an move a blatant act of war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchy Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 that kills salmon right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Why would you put a satellite into the sea? Aren't they built for space? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Talk is cheap. Closing ain't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 A serious question: There are about 200 or so detainee's currently at Gitmo. Who decides if they are war criminals or should be detained? Why is it decided that they will be detained? Innocent until proven guilty right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 A serious question: There are about 200 or so detainee's currently at Gitmo. Who decides if they are war criminals or should be detained? Why is it decided that they will be detained? Innocent until proven guilty right? People smarter than you are deciding it. Now STFU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 "Senate Leaders Balk at Closing Guantánamo Prison" http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/senate-leaders-balk-at-closing-guantanamo-prison/?hp "Sigh. It all seemed so simple once, didn't it, Nancy..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 It didn't bother you so much when the same spineless democrats let Bush and his cronies do their things unopposed for 8 years. Hypocrite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 If by "unopposed" you mean "made categorical denunciations of and unqualified opposition them the central focus of their campaign rhetoric" then I agree with you 100%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 campaign rhetoric doesn't make up for not opposing devastingly harmful policies when it mattered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 A serious question: There are about 200 or so detainee's currently at Gitmo. Who decides if they are war criminals or should be detained? Why is it decided that they will be detained? Innocent until proven guilty right? People smarter than you are deciding it. Now STFU. You don’t think that its a slippery slope we travel when you can be held without evidence and a trial proving your guilt for as long as they like? Who decides this? Gitmo is one of the worst and most horrible things to come of the Bush years. Innocent people being held solely on suspicion. On top of that our government tortures them to force a bullshit answer and then uses that to propagate more terror so we can occupy more countries. Let’s stop calling this occupation a war. It is an OCCUPATION OF CHOICE. IRAQ NEVER ATTACK THE US. AFGANISTAN NEVER ATTACKED THE US. None of the people “hiding in the mt’s” attacked the US. It’s all bullshit. Remember. This occupation was and is never meant to be won……just sustained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 campaign rhetoric doesn't make up for not opposing devastingly harmful policies when it mattered. Agreed. Much less after privately endorsing them beforehand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 It didn't bother you so much when the same spineless democrats let Bush and his cronies do their things unopposed for 8 years. Hypocrite. Do you think attacking him helps us understand your view? Hypocrite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Guantanamo Bay Fact Sheet 6.5 x 8 feet – approximate size of cell in Guantánamo 775 - number detained since2002 525 - released 250- remaining 98 - oldest prisoner 14 – number of “high value detainees” held at Guantanamo 13 – age of Mohammed Ismail Agha when taken into US custody in Afghanistan in late 2002 before later being transferred to Guantanamo 10 – number of people in Guantanamo who have been charged with any crime 2 - number of trials 5 - died in custody Detained without Adequate Proof 55% – percent of detainees not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States 40% – percent of detainees who have no definitive connection with Al Qaeda 18% – percent of detainees who have no definitive connection with Al Qaeda or Taliban 8% – percent of detainees characterized as Al Qaeda fighters Bought Detainees At the time when the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies: 86% – detainees were not detained on the battle field but were instead arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody 66% – detainees were captured by Pakistani authorities 20% – detainees were captured by the Northern Alliance/Afghan authorities 8% – detainees were captured by the US authorities 3% – detainees were captured by other coalition forces Best recent quote - "We are concerned about bring these dangerous criminals into the US prison system" --- Mitch McConnell. Isn't that what prisons are for? Who's there now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 What does "adequate proof" mean? Who decides what adequate proof is? Fuck "hostile acts agaist the US"....have they commited a crime? Has the US proven they have commited a crime? If not then they have to let them go....... Best recent quote - "We are concerned about bring these dangerous criminals into the US prison system" --- Mitch McConnell." Who decides if they are dangerous criminals? You are not a criminal until you are convicted in a court of law. its all bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 campaign rhetoric doesn't make up for not opposing devastingly harmful policies when it mattered. Agreed. Much less after privately endorsing them beforehand. Not opposing these policies when it mattered is criminal but significantly less so than promoting and implementing them, so stop distracting your readers from attending to the punishment of the real culprits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Do you think attacking him helps us understand your view? Hypocrite. "attacking him" is hypocritical? That's quite some leap in logic there buddy. Could it be that my "attacking him" is due to his being a hypocrite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.