IDBillzFan Posted April 29, 2013 Posted April 29, 2013 ...so what is Obama supposed to do? Oh, I don't know. Maybe evaluate reality before making a promise he could never keep. Fortunately for us, it was just a little promise and most people forgot it once he kept his other promise to cut the deficit in half.
3rdnlng Posted April 29, 2013 Posted April 29, 2013 You forgot to mention that Congress has forbidden to let the the Gitmo detainees on American soil, no country will take them so what is Obama supposed to do? There is no real solution here as far as I can see. I guess you could let the doors open and release them in Cuba. We used to get boat people from Cuba, maybe put them in a boat and let them land on shore in Havana? This is a real **** sandwich created by Bush. As I recall, they have been prevented by Congress from being detained on American soil. So, it's a real schit sandwich created by Bush, or the detainees themselves? If Bush is at fault then doesn't Obama have some responsibility too? I guess the question is: What would Mitt Romney do?
Fan in San Diego Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 As I recall, they have been prevented by Congress from being detained on American soil. So, it's a real schit sandwich created by Bush, or the detainees themselves? If Bush is at fault then doesn't Obama have some responsibility too? I guess the question is: That's an interesting question, what did the detainees do to find themselves at Gitmo? Wrong place and the wrong time or were they caught with bombs ready to explode? It would be interesting to know what they are accused of.
IDBillzFan Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 That's an interesting question, what did the detainees do to find themselves at Gitmo? Wrong place and the wrong time or were they caught with bombs ready to explode? It would be interesting to know what they are accused of. It doesn't matter because the President renewed his commitment to close Gitmo during his press conference today.
3rdnlng Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 It doesn't matter because the President renewed his commitment to close Gitmo during his press conference today. Well if he can somehow convince the rest of them to go on a hunger strike too then in time the problem of what to do with the detainees will be solved and Gitmo can be shut down.
IDBillzFan Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 Well if he can somehow convince the rest of them to go on a hunger strike too then in time the problem of what to do with the detainees will be solved and Gitmo can be shut down. Why doesn't he just kill them with drones? I mean, he does it all the time outside Gitmo. Plus, he has the added benefit of not having to search them out.
OCinBuffalo Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 (edited) That's an interesting question, what did the detainees do to find themselves at Gitmo? Wrong place and the wrong time or were they caught with bombs ready to explode? It would be interesting to know what they are accused of. You must have missed it. We may or may not have caught them red handed. That is not the issue. We did catch some of them hanging out at the Terrorist Club, parked next to the guys we know are guilty. Even if their home country wanted them back, should we let those guys go? Are you willing to bet your life on that answer? Or...are you only willing to bet somebody else's life on it? Edited April 30, 2013 by OCinBuffalo
Nanker Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 Take 'em 500 miles out to sea and then release them one at a time.
DC Tom Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 That's an interesting question, what did the detainees do to find themselves at Gitmo? Wrong place and the wrong time or were they caught with bombs ready to explode? It would be interesting to know what they are accused of. That's part of the problem, we don't know...because they're at Gitmo. Generally, if you're at Gitmo you've done something to get you there, not just been at the wrong place at the wrong time. But we can't be certain, since there's no oversight. And that's a better argument for habeus corpus than any the Supreme Court gave.
Fan in San Diego Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 That's part of the problem, we don't know...because they're at Gitmo. Generally, if you're at Gitmo you've done something to get you there, not just been at the wrong place at the wrong time. But we can't be certain, since there's no oversight. And that's a better argument for habeus corpus than any the Supreme Court gave. I've heard on the news that 81 people are cleared for release but they can't release them for some reason. I missed that part. What a mess!
dayman Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 I've heard on the news that 81 people are cleared for release but they can't release them for some reason. I missed that part. What a mess! Where would they go?
Just Jack Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 Where would they go? "Hey suspected terrorist prisoner, you've just been released from Gitmo, where are you going now?" "I'm going to Disney World!"
KD in CA Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 I hate that this is even a story. I'd like it better if they started dying. IMO they should encourage more hunger strikes.
Fezmid Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 You forgot to mention that Congress has forbidden to let the the Gitmo detainees on American soil, From the article: "This may soon change as the US Supreme Court is about to reach a verdict on whether the Guantanamo Bay area is de facto American soil. If so, the US Constitution does apply and the men will have the right to a fair and speedy trial." So, if the Supreme Court rules that Guantanamo is US soil... But the law says the prisoners can't be on US soil... What happens?
Just Jack Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 So, if the Supreme Court rules that Guantanamo is US soil... But the law says the prisoners can't be on US soil... What happens? Well, they are in Cuba....
Bronc24 Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 I'd like it better if they started dying. IMO they should encourage more hunger strikes. That would not bother me one bit.
/dev/null Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 So, if the Supreme Court rules that Guantanamo is US soil... But the law says the prisoners can't be on US soil... What happens? Absolutely nothing. All military bases, consulates, and embassies have always been considered to be US soil. They wrote the law that the prisoners couldn't be on US soil knowing full well that the prisoners were already on US soil Well, they are in Cuba.... That's been my solution for awhile. We're not supposed to have them and their host countries don't want them. I say open the gate and shoo them away. Let the Castro clan worry about them
dayman Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 Absolutely nothing. All military bases, consulates, and embassies have always been considered to be US soil. They wrote the law that the prisoners couldn't be on US soil knowing full well that the prisoners were already on US soil That's been my solution for awhile. We're not supposed to have them and their host countries don't want them. I say open the gate and shoo them away. Let the Castro clan worry about them If you shoo then away they can just swim to miami
/dev/null Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 If you shoo then away they can just swim to miami They're from the desert, i doubt they're very good swimmers
Recommended Posts