Obama's attempt to break the law again

[Guest]

Obama is threatening to break the law again. He says he wants to release the terrorists or transfer them from GITMO to the U.S. He knows that there is not enough Supreme court judges to stop him, if anyone takes it to court. So, he gets to win either way. Either by forcing the Senate to confirm another judge or he breaks the law without anyone being able to do anything about it. The tyrant will get his way, one way or another. Worst criminal since Nixon, and definitely an enemy of the American way. On top of all that, he is going to force the military to break the law by forcing them to act on an unlawful order.
Can anyone say SCUMBAG?

[Guest]

If and when there is ever another attack on our home turf and if or when ever there are hundreds of terrorists rounded up that killed Americans here and abroad, then some one with a brain and more than taking up space in the oval office will have to come up with a place to put these non civil killers.
War criminals.

Obama is just doing what he always does. He articulates the anecdotal version of what he wants to accomplish and then packs it full of BS and lies to make it sound like he is doing the right thing. In this case the right thing is keeping his commitment to close the facility. Nothing more needs to be said.

As for the BS he was spreading this morning....evrytime he meets with a foreign leader they challenge the use of the facility. That ISIS and the terrorists use it as a promtional recruiting subject.
And various other complete BS commentary from his throne.

By the way I wonder how many terrorists have been captured and locked up there since he took over. Not many if any. If he won't name who it is we are fighting, he also won't let them be captured and inconvenienced by sending them to a place like gitmo.

The only positive I can muster to say about Obama...thank GOD he is a short timer.

The man is a disgrace as the in name only leader of America.

[Guest]

Obama doesn't take prisoners because he is afraid of what they might say if questioned. Notice that he uses drones to bomb them? When is the last time he took a prisoner?

[Guest]

Obama provides new meaning to loser. On a natioal and international scale.

[Guest]

Obama doesn't take prisoners because he is afraid of what they might say if questioned. Notice that he uses drones to bomb them? When is the last time he took a prisoner?

High risk of grabbing a relative:)

[Guest]

Obama is threatening to break the law again. He says he wants to release the terrorists or transfer them from GITMO to the U.S. He knows that there is not enough Supreme court judges to stop him, if anyone takes it to court. So, he gets to win either way. Either by forcing the Senate to confirm another judge or he breaks the law without anyone being able to do anything about it. The tyrant will get his way, one way or another. Worst criminal since Nixon, and definitely an enemy of the American way. On top of all that, he is going to force the military to break the law by forcing them to act on an unlawful order.
Can anyone say SCUMBAG?


You really try to post an article that backs up this nonsense. I know you don't have to, because the haters here will agree with anything that someone posts that attacks Obama. Always have! Always will!

I guess he should have transferred them to the US before there was a law against it. Then, he wouldn't have accomplished the goal he set out to do. Which is being the worse president ever, so we would never elect another black to be president. It would have a second added benefit, breaking the law, and not going to jail or be fined. He killed two birds with one stone. Good thing he didn't throw the stone at a Gitmo detainees. He wouldn't want to kill one of them. He needs them to break the law.

[Guest]

Obama is threatening to break the law again. He says he wants to release the terrorists or transfer them from GITMO to the U.S. He knows that there is not enough Supreme court judges to stop him, if anyone takes it to court. So, he gets to win either way. Either by forcing the Senate to confirm another judge or he breaks the law without anyone being able to do anything about it. The tyrant will get his way, one way or another. Worst criminal since Nixon, and definitely an enemy of the American way. On top of all that, he is going to force the military to break the law by forcing them to act on an unlawful order.
Can anyone say SCUMBAG?

What law does he break?

[Guest]

high risk of grabbing a relative:)

more bs!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

President Obama as chief executive of the country is attempting to finalize one of his campaign promises, made in 2008 to close GITMO. He first tried in his first administration and fear of bringing these prisoners to the US stopped him and the Congress attached a rider to a bill forbidding the spending of any funds for transferring to the US. So yes there is a law or at least a financial prohibition.
As to the rest, you are badly misinformed or have ODS. Here are some facts:
349 convicted terrorists are already being held in US Max security prisons. These are people who have been tried and convicted. They are were afforded trials and a chance to tell their side of the story, to confront their accusers and plead their case. That is what America stands for, duh. None of these terrorists has escaped. No American is at risk because they are jailed here rather than in Cuba.

Gitmo originally held about 800 prisoners. Some were caught up in sweeps and not found to have violated our regulations and were sent home. Some were judged to be terrorists but were sent back as they we were done with them. Of course none of these men had open trials in Gitmo.

George W Bush administration released 532 detainees. Read that again. Under Bush 532 were released. Of those 35% are known or suspected of rejoining the fight. Under Obama 121 have been released and only 10% are known or suspected of rejoining the fight. Apparently the Obama administration is doing a better job of evaluating the risk than the previous President's team did.
There are now 91 men left at Gitmo. 91. Of these 35 are in administrative hold. That means we are done with them and ready to send them "home" but there is no place to send them at this time. When detainees are released there has to be a country that says... Send them here... These 35 are awaiting an offer.
So that leaves 56 detainees we wish to continue to hold. Is this country so weak and our max security prisons so poorly run that they could not be trusted to hold 56 people? We are already holding 349 of them quite successfully. I know fear sells well in politics. It sells well in the Middle East also where fear of the US brings more recruits to ISIS and others. And one of the proofs they present is our own country's willingness to hold without trial, without charges, without time limits, without due process Muslims in military detention camps away from the media and family. If they are guilty try them, convict them and lock them up.
What is there about the GOP that turns off their brains and makes their mouth yell "NO" to whatever Obama suggests? What do you fear would happen if we closed GITMO other than save Millions of dollars a year.
You think I made these numbers up? Sure you do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees

[Guest]

So, if we close GITMO does that make the enemy happy? After spending millions on GITMO, have much money do we save when we close it? So, when we get POWs, we bring them back to the states? Put them in the pen with the other American prisoners? Will the military still get to interrogate the prisoners? I am sure that you have all kinds of answers. I am sure they are good ones too.

On 7 January 2011, President Obama signed the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill, which, in part, placed restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the mainland or to foreign countries, thus impeding the closure of the facility.

[Guest]

What law does he break?

he can't arbitrarily close GITMO on his own.

In my humble view Obama belongs bars in GITMO

[Guest]

he can't arbitrarily close GITMO on his own.

In my humble view Obama belongs bars in GITMO

He's fit right in, and no one would notice he's gone except SNL.

[Guest]

So, if we close GITMO does that make the enemy happy? After spending millions on GITMO, have much money do we save when we close it? So, when we get POWs, we bring them back to the states? Put them in the pen with the other American prisoners? Will the military still get to interrogate the prisoners? I am sure that you have all kinds of answers. I am sure they are good ones too.

On 7 January 2011, President Obama signed the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill, which, in part, placed restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the mainland or to foreign countries, thus impeding the closure of the facility.

Unlike the, as Trump said last evening" poorly educated " persons below you, you deserve a response. If we close GITMO it does not make the enemy happy. That is not the goal. It removes GITMO as a recruiting tool in their arsenal. And it says here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw6F4fGCTTCJV21maTdYUm9XaEFwQXFTc3NKdi01bU1kNUxr/view?pref=2&pli=1
that the cost was 397 million in 2014 or about 3 million per detainee per year. Cost in a stateside max security is about 34,000/yr
Obama: 'We're spending millions for each individual' held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba | PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/dec/21/barack-obama/obama-were-spending-millions-each-individual-held-/)

These detainees are not POW's. We refuse to classify them as POW's because if we did there are international agreements that we have pledged to honor on their treatment. Instead we call them detainees or combatants. Could detainees be subject to ongoing interrogation if they were in the US and not in Cuba? Why not? Perhaps it would require that they be in a military max security facility. I, however, severely doubt that any interrogation is going to produce useful information when these men have been locked up for over a decade already.
So you seem more reasonable and willing to engage in civil discussion. Tell me why you oppose closing Gitmo? Other than Obama supports the closing.

[Guest]

:icon_bored:

[Guest]

Unlike the, as Trump said last evening" poorly educated " persons below you, you deserve a response. If we close GITMO it does not make the enemy happy. That is not the goal. It removes GITMO as a recruiting tool in their arsenal. And it says here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw6F4fGCTTCJV21maTdYUm9XaEFwQXFTc3NKdi01bU1kNUxr/view?pref=2&pli=1
that the cost was 397 million in 2014 or about 3 million per detainee per year. Cost in a stateside max security is about 34,000/yr
Obama: 'We're spending millions for each individual' held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba | PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/dec/21/barack-obama/obama-were-spending-millions-each-individual-held-/)

These detainees are not POW's. We refuse to classify them as POW's because if we did there are international agreements that we have pledged to honor on their treatment. Instead we call them detainees or combatants. Could detainees be subject to ongoing interrogation if they were in the US and not in Cuba? Why not? Perhaps it would require that they be in a military max security facility. I, however, severely doubt that any interrogation is going to produce useful information when these men have been locked up for over a decade already.
So you seem more reasonable and willing to engage in civil discussion. Tell me why you oppose closing Gitmo? Other than Obama supports the closing.

Funny how liberals (not saying you are liberal) keep insisting that GITMO is a recruiting tool, and yet there has been no proof of that being true. But, keep repeating what Obummer keeps saying and someone might believe him. After all, look at how many believe Killary.

Apparenly, you haven't served in the military (that's your perogative) so you may not understand how valuable POW interrogation really is. Our gov has produced lots of valuable information from prisoners of GIMO, but it is not widely advertised.

So, if we close GITMO, the terrorists will no longer have a recruiting tool?

Why not close GITMO? Because we need somewhere away from our American citizens to cage any future POW's. We also need to be able to keep them away from the ACLU. Another reason is to keep them away from our American prisoners so that they don't convert more to Islam and to terrorism. Those reasons are reason enough, I believe. Besides, why give GIMO back to Cuba when they are not conceding anything to us? I believe that Obama has given enough away in the past seven plus years.