# Dictators Mock Obamas Ignorance



## CityGirl

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nligvgv3Rfw"]YouTube - Dictators Mock Obama's Ignorance[/ame]


----------



## Locutus

Unfortunately, too close to the truth to be funny!


----------



## fogtender

Because he is a gifted speaker of speaches written by other people, his lack of ablity to lead will be showing itself in the coming weeks and months.

We are in grave danger as a nation IMHO...  He showed the first misstep in starting to close GitMo when we are still at war... no concept of what he has done...

The "Change" he touts, isn't what most were going to be hoping for....


----------



## RedRocker

Just hunker down and hope our country doesn't go completely down the tubes in the next four years.


----------



## Locutus

Remember that in the 1930s, the people of Italy and Germany voted for  CHANGE!  

And, they certainly got it!!!!!


----------



## Deadly Sushi

Locutus said:


> Remember that in the 1930s, the people of Italy and Germany voted for  CHANGE!
> 
> And, they certainly got it!!!!!




They voted for change..... 5 singles and a $5 from a $10 


See what happens when you brake a ten


----------



## eggshell_vendeta

fogtender said:


> He showed the first misstep in starting to close GitMo when we are still at war.



We never should have been in Guantanamo to start with. I'm glad he closed it down.


----------



## RedRocker

eggshell_vendeta said:


> We never should have been in Guantanamo to start with. I'm glad he closed it down.



Why?


----------



## The Tourist

It was reported in local pper that one of the guys they released was already back workign for A-Quaida.  I wonder where his work is going to show up.


----------



## Locutus

eggshell_vendeta said:


> We never should have been in Guantanamo to start with. I'm glad he closed it down.


 
Perhaps you can explain to us what we should have done with these monsters???


----------



## thcri RIP

The Tourist said:


> It was reported in local pper that one of the guys they released was already back workign for A-Quaida.  I wonder where his work is going to show up.




Actually 2 of them


----------



## fogtender

eggshell_vendeta said:


> We never should have been in Guantanamo to start with. I'm glad he closed it down.


 
So what was the other option... Cut their heads off on camera and post the video on the internet to show how we treat prisoners...

Oh wait, that would make us like them...

Obama won't close GitMo, he won't know what to do with the "Guests" and bringing them to a prison near you won't be an option when the public starts to find out... Just because he signed a paper that gives no direction on how, means he doesn't know either, and was quite clear at his press conferance when he had to ask his buddy if that was all there was or was there a second page....  So much for knowing what he is doing.


----------



## eggshell_vendeta

RedRocker said:


> Why?


oh idk, how about the Cuban Missile crisis, Cuba is our enemy, we shouldn't be stationed on their land.



Locutus said:


> Perhaps you can explain to us what we should have done with these monsters???



Bullet to the head, simple, clean, doesn't waste taxpayer money, and guarantees they won't come back to haunt us.

TAKE NO PRISONERS!


----------



## daedong

thcri said:


> Actually 2 of them



Murph while this maybe true, there are/were many detainees at  Guantanamo that have committed no crime and worse still have never had a fair and just trial. I hope you never find yourself in the position that you deserve fair justice and are denied it!


----------



## fogtender

daedong said:


> Murph while this maybe true, there are/were many detainees at Guantanamo that have committed no crime and worse still have never had a fair and just trial. I hope you never find yourself in the position that you deserve fair justice and are denied it!


 
Really hate to pop your bubble, but upwards of "almost" 100% of them were taken off the battlefield with a rifle in their hands, setting booby traps or other fun stuff that endangers someone's life that doesn't believe in Allah.  

They are the worst of the worst, not just "Misplaced" as the left wants you to believe being held without a trial.  That is why there are about 250 of them there, not because the were "Maybe" doing something wrong.  

I would bet that if they were all released tomorrow, they would be back to killing within a month once back home.


----------



## daedong

fogtender said:


> Really hate to pop your bubble, but upwards of "almost" 100% of them were taken off the battlefield with a rifle in their hands, setting booby traps or other fun stuff that endangers someone's life that doesn't believe in Allah.
> 
> They are the worst of the worst, not just "Misplaced" as the left wants you to believe being held without a trial.  That is why there are about 250 of them there, not because the were "Maybe" doing something wrong.
> 
> I would bet that if they were all released tomorrow, they would be back to killing within a month once back home.



You obviously do not know the facts, Its time you actually did  some home work, and found the facts, and stop believing all the crap that your Government has fed you. 
And for a nation that prances the world preaching democracy to all, the least you could do is at least be seen to be fair and just.


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy daedong,
why dont you open up a half-way house for them.  You seem to be of the opinion that these are poor abused folks.  You obviously have never spent any time around these vermin.  Better yet, why dont you go over to Iraq and hug all the poor Al Queda and Taliban to make them like us.  Have a goodun!!!


----------



## RedRocker

Facts from where? Move on dot ugh?


----------



## Milspec

Move'em into the White House...place has lot's of guest rooms and really good security... 

Milspec


----------



## Locutus

eggshell_vendeta said:


> oh idk, how about the Cuban Missile crisis, Cuba is our enemy, we shouldn't be stationed on their land.
> 
> Sure we should! Think how insulting it is to the monster Castro to have an "enemy base" on his soil!
> 
> 
> 
> Bullet to the head, simple, clean, doesn't waste taxpayer money, and guarantees they won't come back to haunt us.
> 
> TAKE NO PRISONERS!


 
That's the real answer. They aren't prisoners of war, they're spies, sabatouers, and guerillas. summary execution has always been the just and proper course of action.


----------



## Locutus

daedong said:


> You obviously do not know the facts, Its time you actually did some home work, and found the facts, and stop believing all the crap that your Government has fed you.
> And for a nation that prances the world preaching democracy to all, the least you could do is at least be seen to be fair and just.


 
Fair and just would have been a bullet to the head immediately following interrogation, and burial face down in the middle of main street wrapped in a pigskin!


----------



## thcri RIP

daedong said:


> Murph while this maybe true, there are/were many detainees at  Guantanamo that have committed no crime and worse still have never had a fair and just trial. I hope you never find yourself in the position that you deserve fair justice and are denied it!



Vin,

I won't disagree with your statement.  The OP stated one person has shown up.  I just added that I read two and gave a link.  And no I would never want to be falsely accused of something.  But every person there had their fingers in the cookie jar one way or another.  I just can not believe the United States just went out and found people to throw in there without there being some kind of justification for putting them there.  And yes maybe some of them should have had a speedy trial and I do agree that is wrong that they didn't get a fairly fast trial.  Again if they would have never messed with the cookie jar they probably wouldn't be there.

murph


----------



## mtntopper

I believe it is time to do something at Git-Mo. The detainees being held there either need to be charged, prosecuted or returned to the country where they were captured to stand trial. They have been having a good life at our expense and that needs to end. If we have not gathered all of the current terrorist info possible from the detainees in 5+ years we never will. Returning them to the country where they were captured is probably cruel and inhumane punishment as I would bet most will be killed by the current sympathetic US sponsored government upon returning home. Then our hands are clean and the problem is solved. If anything, I view this as a positive step to get foreign allies in our camp and make terrorism the bad guy instead of the US.


----------



## bczoom

mtntopper said:


> The detainees being held there either need to be charged, prosecuted or returned to the country where they were captured to stand trial.


My vote is not to put them on trial.  Just drop them off at the terrorist camp from which they came.  A C130 at about 10,000 ft over their camp, wish them well in their future endeavors as you assist/guide/push them out the door.


----------



## RedRocker

mtntopper said:


> I believe it is time to do something at Git-Mo. The detainees being held there either need to be charged, prosecuted or returned to the country where they were captured to stand trial.




You left out my favorite option, executed.


----------



## Ray

Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth in this spoof.


----------



## daedong

thcri said:


> Vin,
> 
> I won't disagree with your statement.  The OP stated one person has shown up.  I just added that I read two and gave a link.  And no I would never want to be falsely accused of something.  But every person there had their fingers in the cookie jar one way or another.  I just can not believe the United States just went out and found people to throw in there without there being some kind of justification for putting them there.  And yes maybe some of them should have had a speedy trial and I do agree that is wrong that they didn't get a fairly fast trial.  Again if they would have never messed with the cookie jar they probably wouldn't be there.
> 
> murph



Murph I am glad that we have some common ground on this subject, I would encourage you to read this article to start with, If you care to, do some searches and you will find many other articles regarding the injustice of Guantanamo detainees. 

I am rather intrigued by the responses in this thread, the very people that seem to be blinded by their government are the very ones on many other subjects that declare they do not trust governments one little bit, odd don't you think! 

             Tuesday, January 27, 2009







                             Published on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 by CommonDreams.org *Kafka and Uighurs at Guantanamo*

                                                               by Ray McGovern

   “There is no right to due process  for an alien who is not here,” insisted the 44th Solicitor  General of the United States, Gregory G. Garre, proudly representing  the President of the United States.  Garre is a teacher of the  law, you see, and was attempting to show a three-judge panel of the  U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit why one of their colleagues  had overreached. Garre claimed that U.S. District Judge  Ricardo Urbina had exceeded his authority on Oct. 7, 2008 in ordering  that 17 men held in Guantanamo for almost seven years be brought to  his court for a fair hearing on the modalities of their release.    Urbina wanted government lawyers to face the 17 prisoners and present  the government’s argument as to why they should remain in detention.  
 “Aliens have no rights,” Garre  kept repeating.  And they REALLY have no rights, he seemed to be  saying, if they are “not physically in the United States.”  
 And that, of course, was precisely  the reason former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his clever band  of Mafia lawyers wanted to keep such “aliens” offshore in the prison  created at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo, Cuba.  Garre was  determined to prevent their feet from “touching our soil,” as he  put it, on the chance they might then persuade some judge to let them  appear before an impartial court.
*NON-Enemy-Combatants* 
 Never mind that the detainees had been  deemed NON-enemy-combatants; never mind that the U.S. government had  already conceded that, despite initial suspicions that they were terrorists,  the U.S. government could adduce no evidence to support that accusation. 
 Never mind that they had been unlawfully  incarcerated for almost seven years.  Garre spoke of “unlimited  Executive power” in these matters.  He kept insisting, “We  have the authority to detain them.”  Garre added that the Justice  Department had tried hard to find a country willing to accept them but  failed.
  The unfounded suspicion of terrorism,  for which the U.S. was responsible, did not make them attractive candidates  for immigration.  And besides, no country wanted to risk antagonizing  China.
 You see, these prisoners are Uighurs,  a Turkic people of Central Asia, five million of whom live in China’s  northwestern province of Xinjiang.  The Han Chinese have suppressed  the Uighurs, their culture, and their strong sense of nationalism for  decades.  The Chinese government is fond of referring to Uighur  nationalists as “terrorists,” and has been pleased to use the U.S.-led  global “war on terrorism” as an additional pretext to suppress them. 
 An ancient and gifted people, Uighurs  (WEE’-gurz) created a “Uighur empire” that stretched from the  Caspian Sea to Manchuria and lasted from 744 to 840 CE.  They considered  trying to conquer China, but chose instead an exploitative trade policy  to drain off its wealth into Uighur coffers.
 Compared to Europeans of the time,  Uighurs were considerably more advanced.  Documents show, for example,  that a Uighur farmer could write down a contract, using legal terminology.    Some western scholars contend that acupuncture was not a Chinese, but  rather a Uighur discovery.  Famine and civil war brought down the  Uighur empire in the middle of the 9th century, and they  were then overrun by other central Asian peoples. 
*Wrong Place, Wrong Time*
 So how did Uighurs get to Guantanamo?   Fleeing Chinese oppression, many Uighurs found their way to Afghanistan  where they were living in a self-contained camp when the U.S. attacked  in October 2001.  They were captured in the wake of the fighting,  many of them by Pakistani bounty hunters who proceeded to sell them  to U.S. forces.  Twenty-two Uighurs ended up in Guantanamo, joining  others with the undeserved Rumsfeldian sobriquet “the worst of the  worst.”
  After “interviewing” them extensively,  by late 2003 U.S. interrogators had concluded that few, if any, were  a threat.  Under international law, the only country required to  accept displaced persons is their country of origin.  But China  had been making a practice of incarcerating Uighurs with little if any  proof of any involvement in violent acts.  The Uighurs in Guantanamo  did not want to trade one prison for another.  No third country,  however, would accept them—except Albania, which welcomed five in  2006.
 Some American judges have agreed with  the two senior U.N. investigators, who have said that, under international  law, the U.S. must immediately release the Uighur detainees.  In  Dec. 2005 District Judge James Robertson ruled unequivocally in favor  of releasing the Uighurs, asserting, “This indefinite imprisonment  at Guantanamo Bay is unlawful.”  He wanted them released in the  U.S., but ended up deciding that existing law did not give him “the  power to do what I believe justice requires.”
 It was not until almost three years  later that Judge Ricardo Urbina, on Oct. 7, 2008 took the bull by the  horns and ordered the 17 Uighurs brought to the Washington, D.C. area  where local Uighur families were prepared to shelter them, and Lutheran  churches were eager to assist in the resettlement process.  But  U.S. government lawyers appealed, arguing that letting them come to  the U.S. would set a bad precedent with respect to others still held  at Guantanamo, and the appeals court stayed Urbina’s order.  
 On Monday morning a three-judge appeals  court met to hear arguments as to whether or not Urbina’s decision  should be overturned.  Judge Judith W. Rogers, appointed by President  Bill Clinton, had objected strongly to the stay, pointing out, “The  government can point to no evidence of dangerousness” from the Uighurs.   On Monday, she subjected Barre to strong questioning.  Her colleagues  Karen Henderson and A. Raymond Randolph, both appointed by President  George H. W. Bush, seemed much more sympathetic to the government’s  position that the Uighurs should not set foot in the United States. 
 It was the tone of the Solicitor General’s  argument that hit me strongest.  Here is an unmitigated tragedy  for which the U.S. (together with Pakistani bounty hunters) is responsible.   Small wonder that on Oct. 7, Judge Urbina shouted, “Enough.   Six-plus years is enough. Bring them here and let the government defend  its extraordinary position.”
  There has been no information on what  the three-judge panel that met on Monday will eventually decide, or  when.  It may take weeks, we were told. 
 Meanwhile?  For the Uighurs, more  languishing in Guantanamo.  Don’t be overly concerned, though,  said Barre.  He told the court that they had been moved to a “less  restrictive part of the prison in Guantanamo, where there are amenities  like DVD players.” (sic)
*Aliens Have No Unalienable Rights?* 

 I thought the Declaration of Independence  was what we were all about as Americans:_“We hold these truths  to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed  by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are  Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” _ ​Where does it say “except for Uighur  aliens?”
 When we were a younger country and  much closer to our roots, France decided to mark the centenary of the  Declaration of Independence by giving us the Statue of Liberty to watch  over the streams of immigrants coming to our shores.  Aliens like  my grandparents were not turned back—so long as they were found to  be sound of body.  The statue was not actually emplaced until October  1886, less than two years before my grandparents arrived in New York  from Ireland.
 My grandparents were aliens—but fortunate  ones.  They could go to Liberty Island; they could read Emma Lazarus’  sonnet and rejoice at the words:
 "…Give me your tired, your poor,
  Your huddled masses yearning to breathe  free,
 The wretched refuse of your teeming  shore.
 Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed  to me,
 I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" 
*Guantanamo An Abomination* 
 Maybe we need to pause this Thanksgiving.   The Uighur prisoners should be at table with us, not in confinement  watching DVDs.  What has happened to us?  Have we lost our  soul?
  Guantanamo is an abomination—a violation  of the spirit and letter of the Constitution bequeathed to us and to  our children.  A negation of the Judeo-Christian heritage many  of us claim.  It could hardly be clearer:_“You shall not violate  the rights of the alien.”  (Deuteronomy 24:17)_ ​My friend and mentor, Dean Brackley,  S.J., distilled the Bible, long before he left for El Salvador to take  the place of one of his brother Jesuits slain in November 1989, into  this observation:_“It all depends on  who you think God is, and how God feels when little people get pushed  around.”_​*Thanksgiving?* 
 Yes, there is still much to celebrate  this Thanksgiving.
 A new president-elect, a lawyer with  a sense of justice—and a new beginning.  A person who not only  claims to be, but also seems, so far, to be what he claims—a follower  of Jesus of Nazareth, who was tough on hypocrisy:  “How terrible  for you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites…” (Matthew  23: 13ff)
 What we can be grateful for is a Constitution  that provides for a change in government on a periodic basis, so that  even when a president is allowed by cowardly politicians to ignore that  precious gift of our Founders and amass king-like power, he can be dethroned  by vote of the people.
 We can be thankful for Barack Obama’s  pledge to close the Guantanamo prison, and for the fact that we are  free to keep pressing him to proclaim liberty to captives and set free  the oppressed—including, of course, Uighurs and others in similar  circumstances.
 As the National Lawyers Guild has urged,  Obama must ensure that all prisoners at Guantanamo are released, repatriated,  resettled, or (if there is probable cause to believe any have committed  a crime) brought to trial, in strict accordance with international and  national law, and the principles of fundamental justice regarding criminal  proceedings.
 I would add the suggestion that we  as a country make an open apology and ask the rest of the world for  forgiveness for our straying so far from the ideals upon which our country  was founded.  Then there can be true thanksgiving for real closure,  and an end to a particularly disgraceful chapter in our country’s  history.
  And then we shall ALL be set free—not  only the Uighurs.
  Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington, where he also teaches at the Servant Leadership School. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).This article first appeared on Consortiumnews.com.


----------



## fogtender

daedong said:


> You obviously do not know the facts, Its time you actually did some home work, and found the facts, and stop believing all the crap that your Government has fed you.
> And for a nation that prances the world preaching democracy to all, the least you could do is at least be seen to be fair and just.


 
Facts are there were about 1100 there at one time, all the others were released due to the level of threat that the military felt that they were. Of those, some 57 have either been killed in battle (the second time) or were captured again trying to kill.... kind of a "Catch and release" program that isn't working.

That doesn't count those that haven't been killed or caught yet, there are some that went home and are staying low.

But the last 245 that are left are the worst of the worst, why do you think that no other country wants them either... 

If you feel that they are all oppressed, call your Parliament and ask them to bring down under...

So what do you think the facts are?  You clearly haven't looked them up at all...


----------



## daedong

Foggy at least read the article above before you go on a rant.


----------



## fogtender

daedong said:


> Foggy at least read the article above before you go on a rant.


 
I did, not to mention it has been all over the news of late....  I was pretty much telling you facts, not the fiction you hear.

They didn't get to GitMo because they were really good guys that got caught up in a dice game.  These guys were either trying to kill people by shooting at them and got caught or killed people and got caught.  The ones that didn't make it are dead on the same battle field that most of these guys came from.  What part of that don't you understand?


----------



## daedong

fogtender said:


> I did, not to mention it has been all over the news of late....  I was pretty much telling you facts, not the fiction you hear.
> 
> They didn't get to GitMo because they were really good guys that got caught up in a dice game.  These guys were either trying to kill people by shooting at them and got caught or killed people and got caught.  The ones that didn't make it are dead on the same battle field that most of these guys came from.  What part of that don't you understand?





> Never mind that the detainees had been deemed NON-enemy-combatants; never mind that the U.S. government had already conceded that, despite initial suspicions that they were terrorists, the U.S. government could adduce no evidence to support that accusation.
> Never mind that they had been unlawfully  incarcerated for almost seven years.



Must be this bit I don't understand!


----------



## fogtender

daedong said:


> Must be this bit I don't understand!


 
Well when you get stories off the net that are written by folks from the far left, you won't understand them either. They just rant... Facts don't have any merit.

The reason the folks that are in GitMo "are" in GitMo is because it "IS" not on US soil and the criminals that are held there are not accountable to the same rights as people "ON" US soil. Now Obama wants to change that as well as the fools on the left that can't grasp these are bad men.

Once they set foot on US soil, they can't be charged with a US crime because there is no law that they are guilty of in a US Civil Court because the crime they committed happened outside of the US on a battlefield.... Thus the Military Tribunals which is not a US civil court.   That is because they are at War with us, not just doing criminal things like the thugs in local neighborhoods.


----------



## daedong

fogtender said:


> Well when you get stories off the net that are written by folks from the far left, you won't understand them either. They just rant... Facts don't have any merit.
> 
> The reason the folks that are in GitMo "are" in GitMo is because it "IS" not on US soil and the criminals that are held there are not accountable to the same rights as people "ON" US soil. Now Obama wants to change that as well as the fools on the left that can't grasp these are bad men.
> 
> Once they set foot on US soil, they can't be charged with a US crime because there is no law that they are guilty of in a US Civil Court because the crime they committed happened outside of the US on a battlefield.... Thus the Military Tribunals which is not a US civil court.   That is because they are at War with us, not just doing criminal things like the thugs in local neighborhoods.



Typical of you to dismiss the facts, its not just that article if you are open minded enough to go and do some homework.


----------



## daedong

The right winged media that also supported GWB and his administration are not likely to tell you the facts, go figure! 

I do understand your beliefs to some extent because when I was in the USA I could not believe how biased the media there is, be it left or right. I guess I did not realize until I visited the USA how lucky we are with the relatively unbiased media we have compared to you.


----------



## rc2james

I don’t see a problem (from my point of view) with closing the Guantanamo Bay facility and moving these people to American soil. Yes, these are dangerous people but we have a large number of extremely dangerous people housed in our prison system right now. 

Prisoners of war are no stranger to American soil. My father met my mother while he was stationed at a prison camp for German POWs in Gaydon, Louisiana during the final months of WWII. 

It isn’t like the majority of these people are going to escape and blend into society. We have made the mistake of putting these people in a location that looks as if we are hiding them. 

The area between prisoner of war and war criminal seems to have become a grey area. If they are truly war criminals, then execute them, but if they are prisoners of war, then treat them accordingly. 

As far as the dictators mocking Obama, they must mock other leaders in order to demonstrate how superior they are. Traditionally, most dictators (that appear weak) leave office carried out feet first.


----------



## Locutus

daedong said:


> The right winged media that also supported GWB and his administration are not likely to tell you the facts, go figure!
> 
> I do understand your beliefs to some extent because when I was in the USA I could not believe how biased the media there is, be it left or right. I guess I did not realize until I visited the USA how lucky we are with the relatively unbiased media we have compared to you.






Thanks, Vin.  That's the best laugh I've had in weeks!  Pravda and the BBC are unbiased.


----------



## daedong

Locutus said:


> [/color]
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Vin.  That's the best laugh I've had in weeks!  Pravda and the BBC are unbiased.



You show your ignorance or lack of English comprehension once again, but I will let you work out why!


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy daedong,
you are about as intelligent as the fly that I just swatted off my old dogs butt!!  Your posts are full of effluvium!!!  Keep on making me smile though cause you are a good source of laughs!!!


----------



## daedong

Ross 650 said:


> Howdy daedong,
> you are about as intelligent as the fly that I just swatted off my old dogs butt!!  Your posts are full of effluvium!!!  Keep on making me smile though cause you are a good source of laughs!!!





Would you like to be a bit more specific, so I can at least respond appropriately?
At this point I guess you too think Pravda and the BBC are Australian?


----------



## The Tourist

There has to be a door or gateway which connects the prison to a road in Cuba proper.

If these guys want freedom, turn 'em loose in Havana.


----------



## RedRocker

daedong said:


> The right winged media that also supported GWB and his administration are not likely to tell you the facts, go figure!




Now that's funny right there, I don't care who ya are.


----------



## daedong

RedRocker said:


> Now that's funny right there, I don't care who ya are.



I have know idea whats so funny could you please enlighten?


----------



## RedRocker

Well, it's a pretty well known fact that the MSM is in the tank for Obama, to the point of embarrassment. Had they been honest in their coverage I doubt Obama would have been nominated, much less elected. Talk radio is about the only conservative outlet, so it's pretty funny to hear the word Conservative media.


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy daedong,
you are so liberal that you make Obummah seem conservative.  Your posts speak for themselves and are not worth commenting on.  You seem to think that the vermin in Gitmo are people.  They are animals that should have been shot on sight.  You obviously have never had hands on association with radical muslims.  I would do anything in my power to keep one of them from harming one American.  They are so repugnant, all they want is all infidels dead.  As a died in the wool infidel I am their arch enemy and will be til my last breath!!!!  By the way, have a goodun!!!


----------



## daedong

Ross 650 said:


> Howdy daedong,
> you are so liberal that you make Obummah seem conservative.  Your posts speak for themselves and are not worth commenting on.  You seem to think that the vermin in Gitmo are people.  They are animals that should have been shot on sight.  You obviously have never had hands on association with radical muslims.  I would do anything in my power to keep one of them from harming one American.  They are so repugnant, all they want is all infidels dead.  As a died in the wool infidel I am their arch enemy and will be til my last breath!!!!  By the way, have a goodun!!!



I am probably not any more liberal than the majority of Americans that elected Mr Obama. Have you ever thoughtfully considered that you are in the minority?


----------



## AndyM

daedong said:


> I am probably not any more liberal than the majority of Americans that elected Mr Obama. Have you ever thoughtfully considered that you are in the minority?



I don't believe Mr. Obama was necessarily elected because of his socially and fiscally liberal political views, but rather because he was NOT a member of the party associated with the miserable failure of the previous president.


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy,
I am proud to be in the American minority!! I am sure that you know that the popular vote isnt what elects our president? It is the electorial college. It is an antiquated system. Yes sir, I am proud to be an American who considers the radical muslims just one step lower on the food chain than an amoeba. I will do all that I can to eliminate them and will also try to keep my America free from them and their threats!! I was born before Pearl Harbor was bombed.  I grew up during the last war that America won. I remember that the popular thought back then was to win at all costs and not to worry whether the enemy was comfortable and happy.  An enemy of America has only one future and that is elimination at all costs. Where I live in South Texas we use pictures of Osama Been Losin for targets!! Have a goodun!!


----------



## daedong

AndyM said:


> I don't believe Mr. Obama was necessarily elected because of his socially and fiscally liberal political views, but rather because he was NOT a member of the party associated with the miserable failure of the previous president.



Yep I would agree, none the less Mr Obama was elected with everyone being aware of his "leftist" views.


----------



## daedong

Ross 650 said:


> Howdy,
> I am proud to be in the American minority!! I am sure that you know that the popular vote isnt what elects our president? It is the electorial college.



Yeah but he won that too, I would have thought a highly intellectual American would have known that




RedRocker said:


> Well, it's a pretty well known fact that the MSM is in the tank for Obama, to the point of embarrassment. Had they been honest in their coverage I doubt Obama would have been nominated, much less elected. Talk radio is about the only conservative outlet, so it's pretty funny to hear the word Conservative media.



But my point was if you choose to ignore the "left" winged media and only believe the "right", you will never come to a balanced conclusion. As you acknowledge, your media is biased one way or the other, you can't just ignore the side you don't agree with.


----------



## RedRocker

It's hard to ignore the left wing media, except for Fox, they're all left. An example of how they operate is how they treated Rev. Wright. Had Bush or McCain or any Republican had a preacher that screamed "God Damn America" along with all the other crap that comes from his mouth for twenty years, they would have been crucified every day.
Obama goes there for twenty frikken years and gets a pass, no problem, he said he didn't know he said those things. Anybody else would have been buried alive in the uproar, Obama? Nuthin, Ayers? Nuthin, Birth certificate? Nuthin. You say the people that voted for him knew he was liberal? I disagree, the people that voted for him knew he was black and promised the moon. Black folks got to elect one of theirs and white folks got to relieve themselves of their white guilt. Most voters are uninformed, some are just plain stupid and the rest vote like me. That's a joke


----------



## mtntopper

*Contrary to popular belief the closing of Git-Mo is not a get out of jail free card. *Closing Git-Mo is not going to allow these detainees to run loose. Git-Mo is/was a symbol that needs to be changed as it is viewed by the rest of the world and many potential allies on the war on terror as just another form of terrorism. The detainees as I stated before need to be charged, prosecuted or if found to be innocent released back to authorities in the country where they were captured. If we have not already broken the will of the detainees and gained what knowledge they have about terrorism another year is not going to gain any more current info. From the reports I have read most will be transferred to maximum security institutions until they are handled properly by authorities.


----------



## Locutus

Daedong,

You're begining wo make me believe that the Aussie version of the BBC is even farther out on the extreme left wing than the British version. (If that's possible)

I don't know you, but after reading a few of your posts, I'd bet a pint of Victoria Bitter that you're with either the labour party, or the socialist workers party.


----------



## daedong

Locutus said:


> Daedong,
> 
> You're begining wo make me believe that the Aussie version of the BBC is even farther out on the extreme left wing than the British version. (If that's possible)
> 
> I don't know you, but after reading a few of your posts, I'd bet a pint of Victoria Bitter that you're with either the labour party, or the socialist workers party.



Your statements make no sense, you obviously know nothing about Australia or Australians so why try to pretend that you do, you are ignorant on all matters above mate except some folks here do drink VB.

Any folks that believe it is fair and just to just lock people up without some sort of justice/trial/judiciary in a modern world are a danger to the free and just society that my ancestors fought for. People that support/condone such behavior are no better than the terrorists that we (the western world) are fighting. You are entitled to call me what you like, but believe me, folks that don't see it this way are threat to our freedom more than any radical Muslim will ever be, you are simply sinking to their level, shame on you.


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy,
well we finally agree on something.  You are right those folks who were taken off the battlefield while trying to kill Americans shouldnt be locked up without a trial.  They should have been shot on sight!!!  I love to agree sometimes!!!!


----------



## mtntopper

daedong said:


> Any folks that believe it is fair and just to just lock people up without some sort of justice/trial/judiciary in a modern world are a danger to the free and just society that my ancestors fought for. People that support/condone such behavior are no better than the terrorists that we (the western world) are fighting. You are entitled to call me what you like, but believe me, folks that don't see it this way are threat to our freedom more than any radical Muslim will ever be, you are simply sinking to their level, shame on you.


 
Good reasoning and thoughts from downunder.............

If this detainment is allowed to continue as is happening now what is going to protect our own citizens freedoms from being handled the same way at our governments whim and fancy in the future. Giving up someone else's rights is just a road map to giving up your own rights and freedoms. The just because they did it, we can do it is a path to personal freedoms being taken away as the precedent has been set for it to happen in the future by our own government. It is the enemy this time but next time it may be you, your family or your neighbor.


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy,
as far as I am concerned those American hating and killing animals do not have any rights.  How do you think they would treat American prisoners?  I think you have seen them on t.v. cutting their heads off.  I just saw an interview with the past commander of Gitmo.  He likened the treatment of the prisoners as to being in an old folks home.  Why are people so worried about the comfort and happiness of people who want to kill you??  That is not the way to win a war!!  The only way is to aggressivly wage the war and take no prisoners.  Well have a goodun!!!!


----------



## RedRocker

Key words, "our own *Citizens*" "*Rights*". Those folks aren't and have none.


----------



## daedong

Ross 650 said:


> Howdy,
> as far as I am concerned those American hating and killing animals do not have any rights.



How do you know that they are "American hating and killing animals" They have never had the opportunity to defend themselves. You are simply believing what GWB and his cronies have told you. Why have there not been an open proccess to try these people, now come on even you must wonder why.


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy DingDong,
first off they were taken off the battle field trying to kill Americans!!!!  That right there ends any rights they may have had!!!!  These asses didnt attend a tea and get hauled into detention..  They were combatants and that erases any rights that they may have!!!  Anyone who tries to kill Americans needs to meet Allah and immediately!!!!  The only reason that I reccomend a .45 is because they dont make a .46!!!!  These animals arent human.  You need to live amongst them for a while and see what the real world holds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Oh, yeah, have a goodun!!!!!


----------



## fogtender

daedong said:


> How do you know that they are "American hating and killing animals" They have never had the opportunity to defend themselves. You are simply believing what GWB and his cronies have told you. Why have there not been an open process to try these people, now come on even you must wonder why.


 
Well you could try something novel.... Like counting the caskets of dead Americans that they did kill.... not to mention the ones they wounded.

The more you rant about liberty and the detainees at Git Mo, the less you clearly understand what it costs....

Had it not been for the Americans, you would be speaking Japanese even though a lot of your Countrymen died defending Britain and your homeland during WWII. Simply put, you didn't have the manpower or equipment to withstand their onslaught... The British would also be speaking German about now...

The fact that we went after these scum before there was any more "9/11's", and hasn't been any since, is a really good chance that what GWB did was the right thing to do, take the war to them instead. Had we taken your view and that of the left, we would have clearly lost a lot more Americans and other Nationalities Worldwide along the way in terror bombings.

These scum sucking bottom feeders love to kill infidels, (that is you by definition) could care less if you don't believe in God or not, you clearly don't believe in theirs, that makes you an enemy.

I get really tired of listening to folks like you complain about some guys that are truly bad apples and you bleed your heart out to give them compassion, when they in turn would slit your throat in less time that it would take you to try to shake their hand. If they want peace, then they can quit blowing up men, women and children at bus stops, schools and market places. The only reason they have tapered off is that we have killed tens of thousands of them first and they are running low on supplies and volinteers... Fact of war, kill the enemy...

Nope, I don't look forward to a positive ending with Obama as our President, but I would really like to believe he may wake up and smell the Napalm before it lights off, but I don't see it when we are at war with a religion that has no boundaries of a country to claim as the focal point. Closing Git Mo, will be a very stupid mistake since no "Truce" has been established with the enemy (and we are at war), and nobody to make Peace with... What some guy that has been dead 1400 years now that left notes to kill all those that don't believe?


These are the guys that we are fighting, they have been doing this for Centuries, we are now just catching on....


----------



## daedong

Foggy, Ross you do not Know whether or not  the past and present prisoners of Guantanamo bay where in fact guilty of any crime, "taken off the battle feild" you don't even know that. The vast majority were captured by bounty hunters not even by the military, the bloody US goverment paid thousand of dollars to these bounty hunters, do you think they would have cared about who they grabed, of course not, all they wanted was your tax money and run.  

BTW Ross please spell my name correctly, in future simply cut and paste so you get it right Daedong


----------



## Locutus

Uhhh.....  you posted that I am ignorant and dastardly and know nothing about Australia.

Well,*  Mate,* I actually have nearly a dozen relatives in the Perth area!

But you still didn't answer the question!

Are you a labourite or a socialist or a member of some other far left anti-American extremist group like Amnesty International???  I'd kind of like to know just where this inane far-left drivel is coming from.


----------



## daedong

Locutus said:


> Uhhh.....  you posted that I am ignorant and dastardly and know nothing about Australia.
> 
> Well,*  Mate,* I actually have nearly a dozen relatives in the Perth area!
> 
> But you still didn't answer the question!
> 
> Are you a labourite or a socialist or a member of some other far left anti-American extremist group like Amnesty International???  I'd kind of like to know just where this inane far-left drivel is coming from.



It is irrelevant whether I belong to any group, but I do not belong to any political group, never have and probably never will.
I only produce facts and logic mate.

BTW "socialist workers party" I don;t think have existed for 20 odd years mate.

I have dozens of relatives in the USA, so what does that mean?


----------



## fogtender

daedong said:


> Foggy, Ross you do not Know whether or not the past and present prisoners of Guantanamo bay where in fact guilty of any crime, "taken off the battle feild" you don't even know that. The vast majority were captured by bounty hunters not even by the military, the bloody US goverment paid thousand of dollars to these bounty hunters, do you think they would have cared about who they grabed, of course not, all they wanted was your tax money and run.
> 
> BTW Ross please spell my name correctly, in future simply cut and paste so you get it right Daedong


 
You are correct, I do not know the case history of each person there, nor do I care.  I do know that the Guards are US military, and if the assertions that you claim if true, would have leaked out long before this time and place, for false imprisonments of innocents.  

Having been a police officer in my youth, I can tell you that if you go into the jail system, by the inmates statements, they were all framed that are incarerated...

What is clear, is that you have no clue at all what Git Mo is about and for.


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy fogtender,
I agree that he has no clue as to these vermins wishes for his death.  I have lived through WWII and the Korean conflict.  Never did either side have concern for the comfort and happiness for the enemy.  It was kill or be killed.  I cannot fathom where this concern comes from for the people who have one wish and that is that we need to die.  They are the lowest life form on this planet.  I for one only wish them discomfort and a quick trip to meet allah.  Have a goodun!!!!!


----------



## daedong

fogtender said:


> You are correct, I do not know the case history of each person there, nor do I care. I do know that the Guards are US military, and if the assertions that you claim if true, would have leaked out long before this time and place, for false imprisonments of innocents.
> 
> Having been a police officer in my youth, I can tell you that if you go into the jail system, by the inmates statements, they were all framed that are incarerated...
> 
> What is clear, is that you have no clue at all what Git Mo is about and for.



Foggy hate to break this to you but your experience as a cop has no relevance in this issue, as all the people you would have dealt with had an opportunity to a judiciary. Git Mo folks have not had that opportunity. 

If there is only one person held at Guantanamo that is innocent it is a travesty. You have been privleged to live in a nation of fainess and justice yet you are content to deny others of some sort of fairness, why?  

It is clear that you have no idea of the potential consequence to what has happened at Guantanamo,  I know you won't listen to me so read what mtntopper posted, just maybe you will listen to him.


----------



## fogtender

daedong said:


> Foggy hate to break this to you but your experience as a cop has no relevance in this issue, as all the people you would have dealt with had an opportunity to a judiciary. Git Mo folks have not had that opportunity.
> 
> If there is only one person held at Guantanamo that is innocent it is a travesty. You have been privleged to live in a nation of fainess and justice yet you are content to deny others of some sort of fairness, why?
> 
> It is clear that you have no idea of the potential consequence to what has happened at Guantanamo, I know you won't listen to me so read what mtntopper posted, just maybe you will listen to him.


 
Well which one is being held at Git Mo that is innocent?  That is the spin of the far left that has no clue to what is real and not and you fall into that spin.

You are correct though, these people were not caught wearing a uniform on the battlefield.  They should have been asked questions and shot as spies.  

That has been the "Norm" all throughout history, if you are caught killing the soldiers and are not identified as a soldier by uniform, you are a spy and are summarily executed.  Even the Geneva Convention addresses this fact.

You are right I suppose, execute the prisoners as spies, then close Git Mo since it will be empty.

Our enemy doesn't run any kind of "Prisoner holding system", they yell "God is Great" and cut off their heads after a battery of real torcher that doesn't include "water boarding"....  That is who you are defending, the same guys that will blow themselves up in the name of God taking out a school full of children?


----------



## daedong

fogtender said:


> Well which one is being held at Git Mo that is innocent?



To that we do not know as none have had a fair trial to put their case.



fogtender said:


> You are correct though, these people were not caught wearing a uniform on the battlefield.  They should have been asked questions and shot as spies.


You have no more idea than I whether they were even from the battle field as they were simply handed to the US military by bounty hunters, they could have taken them from anywhere



fogtender said:


> That has been the "Norm" all throughout history, if you are caught killing the soldiers and are not identified as a soldier by uniform, you are a spy and are summarily executed.  Even the Geneva Convention addresses this fact.


How do you know they were killing other soldiers, you know nothing about many of the folks that are/were in Guantanamo?


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy,
I think it would be in the poor prisoners best interest if you would go to Gitmo and interview them and hold their hands for comfort!!!  You are the most clueless liberal that I have ever heard of.  Can you not understand what Foggy said???  Those animals will kill themselves , you, and children .   Your liberal line of effluvium is completely baseless and inane.  However you are good for a laugh so keep on with the feces spreading!!!


----------



## mtntopper

The closing of Git-Mo has nothing to do with putting them back in the battle or handing them their freedom. They will be moved to other secure locations that will most likely provide less comfort and be prosecuted if evidence is available to prosecute and convict them in the end. *Read the details on the closing of Git-Mo as it is not a get out of jail free card*. It is just a change in how the detainees will be handled now and most likely others in the future. *If they are guilty they will be punished as they should be but if no war crime is found they should be set free.* Let the courts decide as none of us have the knowledge to know if they are guilty or not as we do not have the details available to judge. Most of you are judging without any facts in the matter and that is what Vin and I keep saying. *How can you be judge, jury and executioner when you have no facts on the people you condemn?*

Get your heads out of the sand and start making some sense of the situation and forget about your preconceived guilt by association because they are Muslims.....


----------



## BigAl RIP

mtntopper said:


> The closing of Git-Mo has nothing to do with putting them back in the battle or handing them their freedom. They will be moved to other secure locations that will most likely provide less comfort and be prosecuted if evidence is available to prosecute and convict them in the end. *Read the details on the closing of Git-Mo as it is not a get out of jail free card*. It is just a change in how the detainees will be handled now and most likely others in the future. *If they are guilty they will be punished as they should be but if no war crime is found they should be set free.* Let the courts decide as none of us have the knowledge to know if they are guilty or not as we do not have the details available to judge. Most of you are judging without any facts in the matter and that is what Vin and I keep saying. *How can you be judge, jury and executioner when you have no facts on the people you condemn?*
> 
> 
> Get your heads out of the sand and start making some sense of the situation and forget about your preconceived guilt by association because they are Muslims.....


 

Good Points Bill . Reps are on the way .  
  I agree guys , that If these guys are found guilty ..... fry them , but If an *American jury* finds otherwise are you willing to accept the outcome ???? I doubt it .


----------



## RedRocker

Why would they get a jury trial? Why would they be in our court system?
It's a military matter and should be dealt with by them.


----------



## BigAl RIP

RedRocker said:


> Why would they get a jury trial? Why would they be in our court system?
> It's a military matter and should be dealt with by them.


 

Ok Fair enough RR ... Change my "American Jury" wording to Military jury . Now I pose the same question again ???


----------



## BigAl RIP

RedRocker said:


> Why would they get a jury trial? Why would they be in our court system?
> It's a military matter and should be dealt with by them.


 

 Ok RR Thats fair . Now change my words from American Jury to Military Jury . I pose the same question again.


----------



## mtntopper

RedRocker said:


> Why would they get a jury trial? Why would they be in our court system?
> It's a military matter and should be dealt with by them.


 
*The military does not have omnipotent power when it comes to situations such as Git-Mo and the handling of US foreign policy.* We can be very thankful that they have to report to the electorate through the president and cannot go out and just a declare war or make policy on their own. Also keep in mind that the congress of the US must declare war and that is not something a president can invoke without congressional approval. An authorization of force is not a declared war according to our constitution. So in reality these detainees most likely fall under the jurisdiction of a civilian court and not a military court....

If you want to live in a military state I can suggest Venezuela or North Korea as a good destination.


----------



## RedRocker

Damn, what a spinner. Dealing with enemy combatants is already established policy, nobody is making it up or suggesting that American citizens want a "military state",
what a ignorant thing to suggest. These guys are a military matter, not a civilian law matter. Maybe if they robbed a 7-11 you'd have a point.


----------



## daedong

Ross 650 said:


> Howdy,
> I think it would be in the poor prisoners best interest if you would go to Gitmo and interview them and hold their hands for comfort!!!  You are the most clueless liberal that I have ever heard of.  Can you not understand what Foggy said???  Those animals will kill themselves , you, and children .   Your liberal line of effluvium is completely baseless and inane.  However you are good for a laugh so keep on with the feces spreading!!!



Ross could you explain to me the circumstances of  how and why the Uighurs ended up in Guantanamo.


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy,
now is it not true that these people were attempting to kill Americans and were not wearing any uniforms??  That, I believe, classifies them as spies.  Spies are to be executed. For my part they should be put on t.v. and decapitated as they would treat American prisoners.  Why would you try to give a bone to a mad dog??  You obviously have never been around this ilk of animals. Try and back up and realize they want you and all of us dead!! I will never be of the opinion that they have any rights. With them it is kill or be killed.  There is no cohabitation of this planet with them.  Have a goodun!!!!


----------



## fogtender

mtntopper said:


> *The military does not have omnipotent power when it comes to situations such as Git-Mo and the handling of US foreign policy.* We can be very thankful that they have to report to the electorate through the president and cannot go out and just a declare war or make policy on their own. Also keep in mind that the congress of the US must declare war and that is not something a president can invoke without congressional approval. An authorization of force is not a declared war according to our constitution. So in reality these detainees most likely fall under the jurisdiction of a civilian court and not a military court....
> 
> If you want to live in a military state I can suggest Venezuela or North Korea as a good destination.


 

The US Congress did authorize the war, we are "at war", and when the public opinion of the far left started "squeaking", the Democrats in Congress tried to say that they didn't mean to authorize the war, just the threat of it.  Under those provisions, the President can do such things as Git Mo, and should.

Can't have it both way, the guys at Git Mo are in fact a product of war, taken off a battlefield. They should be shot since as per the Geneva convention (which they are not signers), they were captured on the battlefield not wearing a uniform which makes them spy's by definition shooting at our soldiers.

When they capture our soldiers or other allies, they butcher them and hang bodies off of bridges, post them getting their throats slit and screaming. Do you have any idea of just how bad these people are? What part of any of that don't you grasp?

Some hopped up junkie goes into a seven eleven to rob it so he can get more dope, that is a "civil issue". When an organized operation to attack another country or it's people happens, that is "war".

9/11 is one such event. Saddam attacking another country (twice) is another and we invaded Iraq not just because of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", (which by the way he had stocks of the nerve gas that has been showing up here and there) but because of his failure to adhere to the treaty he signed to end Hostilities that ended his invasion to the south.

By the end of Obama's term, and the way he is backing down against this enemy, we will be attacked again by the same scum ideology that attacked us a number of times before 9/11 and on 9/11...

Then the far left will be wondering how this could have happened..... Not destroying our enemy is how, because they are willing to kill themselves to kill us...


----------



## fogtender

daedong said:


> Ross could you explain to me the circumstances of how and why the Uighurs ended up in Guantanamo.


 
Seems they were doing some killing and got caught on the Battlefield, but China is willing to take them in...  because nobody else wants them, why is that?

Seems they are not just people that were sitting there doing nothing and picked up for littering... as the left claims..



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aN6plLhoeOIs&refer=asia

China Asks for Return of Uighurs Held in Guantanamo (Update1) 


By James Peng
Jan. 23 (Bloomberg) -- China called for the early return of 17 Chinese Uighurs from the U.S. Guantanamo Bay prison as President Barack Obama ordered the closure of the detention center holding suspected terrorists within a year. 
“We oppose other nations taking these suspects and they should be repatriated to China immediately to be dealt with by Chinese law,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yusaid yesterday, according to the ministry’s Web site. The issue should be handled according to international law, she said. 
China blames the separatist East Turkistan Islamic Movement for bomb attacks in the predominantly Muslim far western region of Xinjiang. Police detained almost 100 people there before the Beijing Olympic Games in August for allegedly plotting attacks, the official Xinhua News Agency reported in July. 
Uighurs, who are mainly Muslim, make up half of Xinjiang’s 20.5 million people, according to the provincial government’s office in Beijing. While the Chinese Uighurs were originally cleared for release in 2004, the U.S. government said it couldn’t find any country willing to accept them and was concerned they would be persecuted if they returned to China. 
The Uighurs were living in a self-contained camp in Afghanistan when the U.S.-led coalition’s bombing campaign to oust the Taliban regime began in October 2001. They fled to the mountains and were turned over to Pakistani authorities, who then handed them to the U.S. 
Enemy Combatants 
A U.S. court ruled in October that former President George W. Bush’s administration must immediately release the detainees, saying they should no longer be considered enemy combatants in the war on terrorism. A second court blocked the order later that month. 
The U.S. lists the East Turkistan Islamic Movement as a terrorist organization because of alleged links to al-Qaeda. 
Obama said he will form an inter-agency government task force to advise him on how to deal with the 245 detainees now at Guantanamo. 
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said yesterday a number of legal issues must be resolved with the Justice Department regarding Guantanamo, including where some of the detainees will go after the prison is closed. 
China’s suppression of dissidents, especially rights advocates in Tibet and Xinjiang regions, remains a source of tension in relations with major trading partners including the U.S. and European Union. 
To contact the reporter on this story: James Peng in Hong Kong at jpeng7@bloomberg.net 
_Last Updated: January 23, 2009 00:22 EST_


----------



## Ross 650

Good post Foggy,
alas and alack, I am afraid your words of wisdom are lost on a liberal leftist.  Have a goodun!!!


----------



## mtntopper

fogtender said:


> The US Congress did authorize the war, we are "at war", and when the public opinion of the far left started "squeaking", the Democrats in Congress tried to say that they didn't mean to authorize the war, just the threat of it. Under those provisions, the President can do such things as Git Mo, and should.


 
The authorization of war and a declaration of war are two different entities. Only five times in our history has war been declared. There have been twelve times military engagements have been authorized by Congress. The last actual declaration by the US Congress of war was for World War II.

Foggy you can not have it both ways, the two are not the same. Here is what I said very clearly for you to read again:





> Also keep in mind that the congress of the US must declare war and that is not something a president can invoke without congressional approval. *An authorization of force is not a declared war according to our constitution.* So in reality these detainees most likely fall under the jurisdiction of a civilian court and not a military court....


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy,
call it what you want but we were attacked on 9/11.  We are or were doing all in our power to prevent more innocent American deaths.  Call it a war or an engagement of war, it makes no difference.  We need to take the death and destruction to the enemy and you can call it what you want. It is a matter of words which in this case are useless.


----------



## fogtender

mtntopper said:


> The authorization of war and a declaration of war are two different entities. Only five times in our history has war been declared. There have been twelve times military engagements have been authorized by Congress. The last actual declaration by the US Congress of war was for World War II.
> 
> Foggy you can not have it both ways, the two are not the same. Here is what I said very clearly for you to read again:


 
We elected Bush, just like Obama. They both have the power of the Office of the President of the United States of America. The Constitution gives the powers of war to the President exclusively. Also, like it or not, additionally to act against Saddam back as far as 1991 (Public Law 102-1, January 14, 1991). But having Congress declaring war is helpful to say the least, neither was done in Korea or Vietnam, both were Presidential Decrees at best for them.

"Our invasion of Iraq was not based on a public relations drive; it was based on Public Law 107-243, otherwise known as the _Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq_, passed by the 107th Congress in October of 2002 [FONT=times new roman,times]. (Herein referred to as the "Authorization".) It passed the House with a vote of 296 to 133 (by 69%) and the Senate with a vote of 77 to 23 (by 77%), including 58% of Senate Democrats. In short, it was overwhelming; it was bipartisan; and it was law."[/FONT]
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/who_lied_about_iraq.html

President Bush was clearly given the Authority by the Congress unlike the Korean or Vietnam era's, not a "Maybe".  The Democrats that voted for the bill, did just that, voted for it.  The use of force was authorized and President Bush used it.

Here is some more data to read, bit long, but not the "Sky is falling" stuff the left puke's out...


http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/bg1600.cfm

October 2, 2002
Presidential Authority in the War on Terrorism: Iraq and Beyond
by Jack Spencer
_Backgrounder #1600_


The President of the United States has no greater responsibility than protecting the American people from threats, both foreign and domestic. He is vested by the Constitution with the authority and responsibility to accomplish this essential task. In taking his oath of office, the President swears to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," the Preamble of which makes providing for the "common defense" a top priority. Congress must now make its voice heard on a key issue of national security and bring to a vote support for President George W. Bush's strategy for pursuing the war on terrorism in the way that he, as commander in chief, deems necessary.​

As the nature of the threats to the United States changes, so must the nation's approach to its defense. To fulfill his constitutional responsibility, the President must have the flexibility to address these threats as they emerge; and, given the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by nations hostile to America, in an increasing number of cases, this may require applying military power before the United States or its interests are struck. In situations where the evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that behavioral trends, capability, and motives all point to imminent threat, it may be necessary for the President to attack preemptively.


While there has been little argument over the use of armed force in Afghanistan to retaliate against an act of aggression, preemptive action is also clearly justifiable because the following principles apply:


*PRINCIPLE #1: The right to self-defense is codified in customary international law and in the charter of the United Nations.* The most basic expression of a nation's sovereignty is action taken in self-defense. Traditional international law recognizes that right,1 and the United Nations Charter is wholly consistent with it. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter states: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."​

*PRINCIPLE #2: The right of "anticipatory self-defense" allows for preemptive strikes.* 2 The right to self-defense incorporates the principle of anticipatory self-defense, which is particularly salient in the war on terrorism. The reality of international life in the 21st century is that nations or organizations that wish to challenge America or Western powers increasingly are seeking weapons of mass destruction to achieve their political objectives. The only effective response may be to destroy those capabilities before they are used. The tenet of traditional, customary international law that allows for this preventive or preemptive action is "anticipatory self-defense."


An oft-cited incident that validates the practice of anticipatory self-defense as part of international law occurred in 1837. That year, British forces crossed into American territory to destroy a Canadian ship, anticipating that the ship would be used to support an anti-British insurrection. The British government claimed its actions were necessary for self-defense, and the United States accepted that explanation.3


While there is debate as to whether or not this principle of international law survived the adoption of the U.N. Charter, the fact is that neither the charter nor the actions of member states since the charter came into force outlaw the principle.4 Israel has invoked the right of anticipatory self-defense numerous times throughout its history, including incidents in 1956 when it preemptively struck Egypt and in 1967 when it struck Syria, Jordan, and Egypt as those nations were preparing an attack.


The United States has also asserted its right to anticipatory self-defense. A classic example occurred in 1962 when President John Kennedy ordered a blockade of Cuba--a clear act of aggression--during the Cuban missile crisis. Although no shots had been fired, President Kennedy's preemptive action was imperative for the protection of American security. During the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan invoked this right at least twice: first, in 1983, when he ordered an invasion of Grenada to protect U.S. nationals from potential harm, and again in 1986, when he ordered the bombing of terrorist sites in Libya.


When any nation that is overtly hostile to America or its allies is developing weapons of mass destruction, has ties to international terrorist, and intelligence data give reason to believe that there is an intent to attack, the threshold of the United States' right to invoke a response based on anticipatory self-defense has clearly been passed.


*PRINCIPLE #3: The United States government alone has the authority to determine what constitutes a threat to its citizens and what should be done about it. *Under the U.S. Constitution, the authority to determine when it is appropriate for the United States to invoke and exercise its right to use military force in its own defense is vested in the President, as commander in chief of the armed forces, and Congress, which has authority to raise and support armies and to declare war. No treaty, including the U.N. Charter, can redistribute this authority or give an international organization veto power over U.S. actions that would otherwise be lawful and fully in accord with the Constitution.5


*PRINCIPLE # 4: The President as commander in chief has the authority to use America's armed forces to "provide for the common defense."* The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war but makes the President commander in chief. Since the birth of the nation, this division of power has given rise to tension between the executive and legislative branches of government regarding who can authorize the use of force.6


Debate regarding this matter gave rise to the War Powers Resolution,7 which states that the President can use force to protect the nation without congressional authorization for 60 to 90 days. Many, including every President since this resolution came into force in 1973, have regarded the document as unconstitutional. Most, however, agree that the President has the authority to defend America from attack, even in the absence of congressional authorization.8 It should be noted that if Congress is truly opposed to any military action authorized by the President, it has the power to defund that mission, making it impossible to carry out.


*Learning From the September 11 Attacks*​


The President is justified in applying preemptive military force to fight the war on terrorism. To fail to do so in spite of a threat of imminent attack would be to ignore the lessons learned from September 11 regarding the nature of the threats that face America in the 21st century. Before those attacks, U.S. authorities were aware of Osama bin Laden, his resources, and his hatred for America. They knew that he was a terrorist and that he had attacked America in the past. They were also aware that he was running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan with the blessing of the Taliban regime.9 Despite this information, neither the United States nor the international community took decisive action to address bin Laden's imminent aggression.


In the post-September 11 world, such complacency is not acceptable. A series of lessons can be learned from the September 11 attacks and the initial prosecution of the war on terrorism. These lessons must be taken into consideration when future action against terrorists and terrorist states is contemplated.


*LESSON #1: Deterrence alone is not sufficient to suppress aggression.* Both Osama bin Laden and the Taliban could have predicted that the United States would respond to their attacks, yet they acted anyway. Although numerous reports and studies warned of the growing threat of catastrophic terrorism, the United States, for the most part, ignored those warnings. The activities of a worldwide, organized terrorist network were treated instead as criminal behavior.


The conclusion of recent studies10 has been that the risk of America's being struck with a weapon of mass destruction has increased: In other words, the effectiveness of deterrence has decreased. Such massive acts of terrorism could be perpetrated by an organization acting alone, an organization working with a nation, or a nation acting alone. It would be nearly impossible to deter all of these hostile entities, given that each state and each organization has a different motivation.


*LESSON #2: Attacks can occur with little or no warning. *The emergence of global communications, advances in technology, and the globalization of terrorism have significantly decreased the time it takes not only for a potential threat to be identified, but also for that threat to emerge as an act of aggression. In many instances, a specific threat may not be identified until the act of aggression has taken place, rendering preventive measures irrelevant.


In this world of drastically shortened time lines, it is essential that the President have the authority to act decisively, in short order, to defeat aggressors when a preponderance of information points to a threat of imminent attack. For example, although the President did not have information that al-Qaeda operatives were going to commandeer four passenger jets and use them as guided cruise missiles, there was ample evidence that threats to the United States would likely emerge from Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda, an organization responsible for past attacks on America, was present and supported by the Taliban.


*LESSON #3: The use of a weapon of mass destruction is reasonably likely. *On September 11, Americans were killed on a massive scale. Hostile entities increasingly view weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as political assets. North Korea may have two nuclear weapons;11 Iran has active chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs; and Iraq has not only active WMD programs, but also a history of using such weapons. All three countries have ballistic and cruise missile programs.12


Even terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaeda, are involved in developing and using WMD, as was evidenced by recently revealed videos in which al-Qaeda was experimenting with chemical weapons on dogs.13 Other reports link Osama bin Laden to the pursuit of a nuclear or radiological device.14 In 1995, terrorists in Japan used sarin gas to kill civilians in a Tokyo subway.


*LESSON #4: A deadly synergy is created when hostile state and non-state agents conspire.* While hostile states continue to threaten America and its interests, the threat of non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda, is growing. The danger increases when states and non-state actors work together. States have resources--including territory, finances, an international diplomatic presence, and trade--that non-state actors do not have. On the other hand, non-state actors are able to operate globally and can act largely undetected.


The reality of the 21st century is that a state like Iraq can harness its resources to develop a weapon of mass destruction and collude with non-state actors to deliver that weapon. This symbiotic relationship can operate undercover, possibly without the knowledge of the American government. Thus, a state hostile to the United States may appear to be acting within the bounds of normal diplomatic behavior while at the same time covertly supporting aggressive endeavors of its non-state allies.


*LESSON #5: The future envisioned by America's enemies is incompatible with U.S. security. *Prior to September 11, "soft diplomacy"--including multilateral arms control, aid incentives, and appeals to reason--was the preferred approach in dealing with hostile regimes. Although the ideals of those regimes and those of the West are in direct contrast, there was hope that, eventually, these despots would transform, fall, or simply discontinue their threatening activities. This policy continued as the approach of choice even though it has been demonstrably ineffective: North Korea continues to sell ballistic missiles, Iran continues to support terrorism, and Iraq continues to develop nuclear bombs.


On September 11, however, the idea that such hostile regimes and the United States could simultaneously pursue their respective interests lost all credibility. It was clear that America's enemies were willing to use unprovoked violence to achieve their objectives. The United States could no longer postpone acting against terrorists and nations that support them.​


*The Case Against Iraq*​


Under Saddam Hussein's rule, Iraq is a direct threat to the United States, its interests, and international peace and stability throughout the world. Although the United States had recognized Saddam as a threat ever since his invasion of Kuwait in 1991, it was never compelled to take decisive action against him. Given what the September 11 attacks revealed about the nature of the threats facing the nation, the United States can no longer afford to wait to take action regarding Iraq.


Saddam Hussein's hostility to U.S. interests, proven intent to act against those interests, WMD acquisition, continued pursuit of WMD, history of using WMD to achieve foreign policy objectives, and ties to international terrorists combine to make him uniquely dangerous to the United States. When his behavior is juxtaposed with the lessons learned through the September 11 attacks, it becomes clear that Saddam poses a threat that must be dealt with immediately. The foregoing five lessons apply to Iraq in the following ways:


*APPLIED LESSON #1: Warnings have not deterred Iraq from overtly hostile actions that threaten the United States and its interests. *Saddam Hussein, like so many other dictators throughout the world, is a danger to his own people. However, he is different in that he is also a direct and near-term threat to the United States and its interests. A recent video released by the U.S. Department of Defense showing Iraqi missiles firing on U.S. aircraft enforcing the United Nations no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq demonstrates Saddam's belligerence.15 President George W. Bush described the threat aptly when he said,
We can harbor no illusions. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians and 40 Iraqi villages.16​This aggressive behavior is a clear attempt to dominate the region through intimidation and coercion. However, the most direct threat that Saddam poses to the United States is his WMD activities, coupled with his involvement in international terrorism. Many warnings and obstacles have been put forward to coerce Saddam into behaving in a less aggressive way, yet none have deterred him.



*APPLIED LESSON #2: Iraq's ongoing development of weapons of mass destruction means that the United States or its interests could be the targets of an attack with little or no warning.* 17Iraq has a 30-year history of WMD programs. In defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq continues to build and develop its biological, chemical, nuclear, and long-range ballistic missile programs. As stated so clearly by President Bush,
Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program--weapons design, procurement logs, experimental data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.18​Recent evidence, supported by a wealth of Iraqi government contracts, concludes that Iraq has at least 20 covert facilities where chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are produced.19 Moreover, Saddam Hussein continues to seek dual-use infrastructure to conceal his plans to build a robust WMD arsenal. As President Bush noted, recent reports contend that Saddam Hussein has aggressively sought to import thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes that can be reconfigured to enrich uranium, a necessary component for a nuclear device.20



*APPLIED LESSON #3: Iraq's history of using WMD demonstrates the likelihood that it will use them in the future.* 21 Iraq is not only actively seeking WMD, but also has a history of using them to achieve military aims. In 1982, Iraq used riot-control agents against Iranian attacks. From that point, Iraq quickly began to use more deadly agents, including mustard gas in 1983 and tabun in 1984, becoming the first nation to use a nerve agent in a war. The State Department lists 10 incidents of Iraqi chemical attacks between August 1983 and March 1988. All were launched against Iranian and Kurdish populations, resulting in casualty tolls in the tens of thousands.22


Not only did Saddam Hussein test his biological weapons on animals, especially large mammals, but it is suspected that testing was done on humans as well. Although Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz adamantly denies human testing, the United Nations Special Commission, known as UNSCOM, reported that investigative teams discovered two human-size inhalation chambers.23 Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter explained the program in detail. In 1995, according to Ritter, live tests of binary biological and chemical weapons were conducted on nearly 50 subjects taken from Abu Ghaib prison.24


*APPLIED LESSON #4: Iraq's aggression and ties to international terrorism comprise a deadly combination that must be confronted. *25 U.N. Security Council Resolutions 687 and 1373 prohibit Saddam Hussein from supporting terrorism or allowing terrorist cells and organizations to operate within the boundaries of Iraq. Yet Saddam continues to flout these resolutions. When President Bush made his case against Iraq to the U.N. General Assembly, he cited several instances in which Iraq was found to be involved in terrorist acts. According to President Bush,
in violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.26​Recognized by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, Iraq is believed to provide shelter to several terrorist groups, including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO) and several Palestinian-sponsored groups responsible for deadly attacks on Israel. More ominously, Saddam Hussein overtly provides money to relatives of terrorist suicide bombers sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Through graduated rewards, this program actively encourages these suicide murderers. Reward amounts are linked to the injury sustained by each bomber; dying as a "martyr" receives the greatest reward. Furthermore, testimonies obtained from defected Iraqi military officers describe an elite training facility in Iraq commonly referred to as Salman Pak, where Arabs with terrorist inclinations can receive extensive training.27



*APPLIED LESSON #5: Iraq's blatant disregard for its 1991 cease-fire agreement makes it clear that its vision of the future is incompatible with America's security. *Saddam Hussein has defied at least 16 Security Council resolutions, including the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that should have ended hostilities between the U.S.-led United Nations coalition and Iraq.28 Such flagrant violations--including his refusal to comply with weapons inspectors; his continued development of robust biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs; and his efforts to rearm Iraq through an elaborate oil-for-arms smuggling ring--pose a grave threat to the United States, its allies, and its interests in the Middle East.


The list of Saddam's systematic violations of Security Council resolutions includes disregarding resolutions that required him to cease the torture and unnecessary imprisonment of opposition groups; to provide for the immediate repatriation of prisoners of war and other political detainees; to cease amassing and destroy all chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programs and associated infrastructure; to cease sheltering terrorists and terrorist groups; and to allow for monitoring and inspection to verify Iraqi compliance. He has complied with none of these resolutions.​


*Next Steps*​


A year after the terrorist attacks of September 11, the United States remains at war. Indeed, according to Vice President Richard Cheney, "We are still closer to the beginning of this war than to its end."29 Although the Taliban has fallen and al-Qaeda is on the run, the reality is that the United States and its interests abroad remain directly threatened by global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorist states.


The next priority in the war on terrorism must be to address the threat posed by Iraq. The domestic and international legal authority for such action is in place.


*Congress.* Congress has already given its support for the use of force against Saddam Hussein.30 Nevertheless, the President has said that he would consult Congress again before committing armed forces against Iraq.31 Indeed, the Administration has submitted a draft resolution on the matter.


This consultation, however, is a useful action aimed at consensus-building and not a legal necessity. In 1991, Congress passed the Authorization to Use Force Against Iraq Resolution. This legislation authorized the use of force against Iraq to enforce the Security Council resolution related to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and specifically cited Saddam Hussein's involvement in weapons of mass destruction as a threat to be addressed. Again in 1998, the Senate passed legislation that urged the President "to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."32 The threats addressed by these two resolutions remain in place as Saddam continues to develop and amass weapons of mass destruction.


*The United Nations. *The United Nations has already given its support for the use of whatever means are necessary to enforce its resolutions, but the Secretary General has done nothing to enforce them. The Security Council has passed nearly 60 resolutions on Iraq and Kuwait since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Resolution 678, passed on November 29, 1990, authorizes "member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait...to use all necessary means" to (1) implement Security Council Resolution 660 and other resolutions calling for the end of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and (2) "restore international peace and security in the area."


In the Persian Gulf War, U.S.-led forces accomplished the first objective swiftly; the second, however, has never been achieved. U.S. and allied air forces have been in nearly constant conflict with Iraqi forces since Iraq's aggression against Kuwait was repelled. Resolution 678 has not been rescinded or nullified by succeeding resolutions. Its authorization of the use of force against Iraq remains in effect. Furthermore, Iraq's refusal to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to fulfill their mandate is a violation of its 1991 cease-fire agreement--a clear indication that peace has never been achieved.33


Since September 11, 2001, President Bush has shown remarkable leadership, and Congress generally has supported his efforts to ensure the security of the nation. The time has now come to move beyond attacking the terrorist infrastructure that executed last year's attacks and to begin taking steps to prevent a future attack. To do this:

*The President must remain steadfast in his approach to Iraq. *The President has taken the right approach in his policy on Iraq. He is moving thoughtfully and deliberately, making his case to Congress, America's friends and allies, and the American people. By addressing the U.N. General Assembly on September 12, 2002, and providing that body with a plan for enforcing its own resolutions, he has given the U.N. an opportunity to fulfill its responsibility to promote peace and stability. 
However, by making it clear that if the United Nations does not take action, the United States will, President Bush underscored America's right to self-defense. Furthermore, he has submitted a draft resolution to the U.S. Congress that would allow him to take whatever action he deems necessary to prosecute the war on terrorism in Iraq. As he urged in his speech, the President now must insist that the Security Council act responsibly by voting on a resolution that holds Iraq accountable for its commitments.34 The President must make it clear to Congress that only a resolution that gives him ample flexibility to prosecute the war on terrorism will be acceptable.

*Congress should vote now to show its support for the President. *Congress owes the American people a public debate and vote on the application of military force in Iraq. American citizens deserve to know where each of their elected representatives stands on this life-and-death issue. 
To wait until the United Nations votes on a resolution, as some have suggested, would be cowardly. The leaders of both the House and Senate must bear in mind that they have a responsibility to defend America from threats, both foreign and domestic, and that this responsibility is theirs regardless of what any international body believes. For the sake of the nation, Congress should immediately begin to debate and vote on supporting the President in the use of whatever means he deems necessary to defend America from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.​


*Conclusion*​


Now is the time to take decisive action against Saddam Hussein. The President began this process with his address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 12. However, if the U.N. balks at taking action to address Saddam's violation of its resolutions, the President still has full legal authority, both from the United Nations and from the United States Congress, to take whatever actions may be necessary. Both bodies have already documented their support for the United States to take all necessary action to enforce existing U.N. Security Council resolutions. While a new resolution and a congressional vote might add political momentum to the effort to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, neither is legally necessary for the President to use military force.


On September 11, 2001, America came to a new awareness of its own vulnerability and the nature of the threats that now face the nation. No longer can the United States wait passively while hostile regimes foment terrorism, build weapons of mass destruction, and propagate hatred for America. The war on terrorism will be long and difficult, but the President has the authority to prosecute this just war and the responsibility to do so, using whatever means are at his disposal.


_--Jack Spencer is Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation. _​


1. For a detailed historical discussion of the power of nations to declare war, see Brien Hallett, The Lost Art of Declaring War (Champaign, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1998), pp.27-57.​


2. For a full legal and historical analysis of anticipatory self-defense, see Lee A. Casey and David B. Rivkin, Jr., "`Anticipatory' Self Defense Against Terrorism is Legal," Legal Opinion Letter, Washington Legal Foundation, December 14, 2001, and David B. Rivkin, Jr., and Darin R. Bartram, "The Law on the Road to Baghdad," National Review Online, August 28, 2002.​


3. Congressional Research Service, International Law and the Preemptive Use of Force Against Iraq, RS21314, September 23, 2002 (updated).​


4. Ibid.​


5. For a complete analysis of the United States' right to defend itself against aggression see, Brett D. Schaefer, "U.N. Authorization for War With Iraq is Unnecessary," Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum No. 831, September 5, 2002.​


6. Hallett, The Lost Art of Declaring War, p. 3.​


7. Public Law 93-148, 93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542, November 7, 1973.​


8. Congressional Research Service, Response to Terrorism: Legal Aspect of the Use of Military Force, September 13, 2001.​


9. James Phillips, "Defusing Terrorism at Ground Zero: Why a New U.S. Policy Is Needed for Afghanistan," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1383, July 12, 2000.​


10. See National Commission on Terrorism (Bremer Commission), Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism, Washington, D.C., 1998, and Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction (Gilmore Commission), Toward a National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, Washington, D.C., December 2000.​


11. Congressional Research Service, North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Program: U.S. Policy Options, CRS94-470F, June 1, 1994.​


12. "Executive Summary," Report of the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, published pursuant to Public Law 201, 104th Cong., July 15, 1998.​


13. CNN, "Tapes Shed New Light on bin Laden's Network," at www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/18/terror.tape.main/index.html (September 13, 2002).​


14. Natalie Malinarich, "Analysis: Bin Laden's Nuclear Threat," BBC News, October 26, 2001.​


15. Rowan Scarborough, "U.S. Offers Proof of Iraq Defiance," The Washington Times, October 1, 2002, p. A1.​


16. President George W. Bush, address on Iraq to opening of the United Nations General Assembly.​


17. For descriptions of the current state of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and ballistic missile capabilities, see U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions, 1 January Through 30 June 2001, January 20, 2002, at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/bian/bian_jan_2002.htm#4; U.S. National Intelligence Council, Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015, December 2001, at http://www.cia.gov/nic/pubs/other_products/Unclassifiedballisticmissilefinal.htm; "Executive Summary," Report of the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States.​


18. President George W. Bush, address on Iraq to opening of the United Nations General Assembly.​


19. "A Decade of Deception and Defiance: Saddam Hussein's Defiance of the United Nations," White House Report, September 12, 2002.​


20. Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller, "Threats and Responses: The Iraqis; U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts," The New York Times, September 7, 2002.​


21. For a complete overview of Iraq's WMD history, see Baker Spring and Jack Spencer, "In Post-War Iraq, Use Military Forces to Secure Vital U.S. Interests, Not for Nation-Building," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1589, September 25, 2002.​


22. U.S. Department of State, Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs, U.S. Government White Paper, February 13, 1998.​


23. Laurie Mylroie, "Special Report: Iraq in the Absence of Weapons Inspectors," Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, July 1, 2000, at http://www.meib.org/articles/0007_me1.htm.​


24. Scott Ritter, Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem--Once and For All (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999), p. 105.​


25. For documentation on Iraq's involvement in terrorism, see U.S. Department of State, Patterns of Global Terrorism 2001, May 2002; Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, The Assessment of the British Government; testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the House Armed Services Committee regarding Iraq, September 18, 2002; and "Rice on Iraq, War and Politics," NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, transcript, September 25, 2002.​


26. President George W. Bush, address on Iraq to opening of the United Nations General Assembly.​


27. "A Decade of Deception and Defiance."​


28. Ibid.​


29. Joseph Curl, "Bush Aides Press Case for Pre-Emption," The Washington Times, September 11, 2002, p. A1.​


30. Public Law 102-1, January 14, 1991.​


31. Mike Allen and Karen DeYoung, "Bush to Seek Hill Approval on Iraq War," The Washington Post, September 5, 2002, p. A1.​


32. Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, "Condemning Iraq's Threat to International Peace and Security," January 28, 1998.​


33. Brett D. Schaefer, "U.N. Authorization for War With Iraq Is Unnecessary," Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum No. 831, September 5, 2002.​


34. For a full analysis of what the United Nations resolution should include to be effective, see Brett D. Schaefer and Baker Spring, "Bush Is Right on Iraq: The Issue Is Compliance, Not Inspections," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1592, September 19, 2002.​


----------



## mtntopper

Foggy, I just said authorizing war and a declaration of war are two separate entities and done different within the US government. I never said that Bush was not authorized by congress to invade Iraq. It is not just the wording of the two as there is a valid difference between authorizing and a clear declaration of war. Do you know the difference? Maybe you need to do some research as to the differences.


----------



## fogtender

BigAl said:


> Ok RR Thats fair . Now change my words from American Jury to Military Jury . I pose the same question again.


 
That is the whole reason that Bush set up Git Mo, he knew that as soon as the "Left" got the Detainees on US soil, they would sue to enter the world of "Civil" rights that is afforded to someone whom robs a bank or other crime related issues.

They are prisoners of a war, not one a stop shop heist.

In war, there are Prisoners that have/had access to US Intel that would not want to be exposed in a Civil courtroom that could endanger our troops or allies elsewhere. Or classified information that again, could compromise our Country, where a "hop head" robbing a store isn't going to be an issue. A military trial is secret and the information reveled is classified.

Mark my words though, as soon as these guys are on US soil, they will be assigned big buck lawyer's (at our expense) and will be released because their crimes weren't committed on U.S. soil and we have no domestic laws that will apply to them.


----------



## fogtender

mtntopper said:


> Foggy, I just said authorizing war and a declaration of war are two separate entities and done different within the US government. I never said that Bush was not authorized by congress to invade Iraq. It is not just the wording of the two as there is a valid difference between authorizing and a clear declaration of war. Do you know the difference? Maybe you need to do some research as to the differences.


 
In protecting the Country, there is no difference between the two.

Congress gave the green light in writing, not a yellow or red, a green.

So your version of Authority is "Yeah, you have the authority to kick his A$$".

Verses a Declaration as "Yeah, we are telling you its OK to kick his A$$"....

Pretty much a mute point with the same end result.... 

There is no Grey area there, unless Congress put "Exceptions" in the law, but they didn't, it was very clear.  

It wasn't until later the Dem's tried to back stroke on the issue after the fact, and the sheeple clearly bought it.


----------



## BigAl RIP

fogtender said:


> That is the whole reason that Bush set up Git Mo, he knew that as soon as the "Left" got the Detainees on US soil, they would sue to enter the world of "Civil" rights that is afforded to someone whom robs a bank or other crime related issues.
> 
> They are prisoners of a war, not one a stop shop heist.
> 
> In war, there are Prisoners that have/had access to US Intel that would not want to be exposed in a Civil courtroom that could endanger our troops or allies elsewhere. Or classified information that again, could compromise our Country, where a "hop head" robbing a store isn't going to be an issue. A military trial is secret and the information reveled is classified.
> 
> Mark my words though, as soon as these guys are on US soil, they will be assigned big buck lawyer's (at our expense) and will be released because their crimes weren't committed on U.S. soil and we have no domestic laws that will apply to them.


 
 Easy there big fella .. Take a valium . Not everyone is planning to overthrow the U.S . I was just askin a question .


----------



## mtntopper

fogtender said:


> In protecting the Country, there is no difference between the two.
> 
> Congress gave the green light in writing, not a yellow or red, a green.
> 
> So your version of Authority is "Yeah, you have the authority to kick his A$$".
> 
> Verses a Declaration as "Yeah, we are telling you its OK to kick his A$$"....
> 
> Pretty much a mute point with the same end result....
> 
> There is no Grey area there, unless Congress put "Exceptions" in the law, but they didn't, it was very clear.
> 
> It wasn't until later the Dem's tried to back stroke on the issue after the fact, and the sheeple clearly bought it.


 
Foggy, read the CRS report and tell me again the powers and scope of an authorization and a declaration of war are the same. Quit guessing, learn and understand the differences..........

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf

Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications
​​*Summary*
From the Washington Administration to the present, Congress and the President have
enacted 11 separate formal declarations of war against foreign nations in five different wars.
Each declaration has been preceded by a presidential request either in writing or in person
before a joint session of Congress. The reasons cited in justification for the requests have
included armed attacks on United States territory or its citizens and threats to United States
rights or interests as a sovereign nation.​ 
Congress and the President have also on a number of occasions enacted authorizations
for the use of force instead of declarations of war. Most commonly, such measures have
authorized the use of force against either a named country or unnamed hostile nations in a
given region. In most cases, the President has requested the authority, but Congress has
sometimes given the President less than what he asked for. In contrast to the declarations of
war, not all authorizations for the use of force have resulted in actual combat. Both
declarations and authorizations require the signature of the President in order to become law.
In contrast to an authorization, a declaration of war in itself creates a state of war under
international law and legitimates the killing of enemy combatants, the seizure of its property,
and the apprehension of enemy aliens. At one time, a declaration was deemed a necessary
legal prerequisite to a war and was also thought to terminate diplomatic and commercial
relations and most treaties between the combatants. In the modern era, the international legal
consequences of declarations have become less determinate; in fact, declarations have rarely
been issued since World War II. Perhaps most important, neither a declaration nor an
authorization is necessary to trigger application of the laws of war, such as the Hague and
Geneva Conventions; for that, the fact of armed conflict is the controlling circumstance.​ 
With respect to domestic law, a declaration of war automatically triggers many standby
statutory authorities conferring special powers on the President with respect to the military,
foreign trade, transportation, communications, manufacturing, alien enemies, etc. In
contrast, no standby authorities appear to be triggered automatically by an authorization for
the use of force. Most standby authorities do not require a declaration of war to be actualized
but can be triggered by a declaration of national emergency or simply by the existence of a
state of war. Declarations of war and authorizations for the use of force waive the time
limitations otherwise applicable to the use of force imposed by the War Powers Resolution.​ 
This report provides historical background on the enactment of declarations of war and
authorizations for the use of force and analyzes their legal effects under international and
domestic law. It also sets forth their texts in two appendices. Because the statutes that
confer standby authority on the President and the executive branch potentially play such a
large role in an armed conflict to which the United States is a party, the report includes an
extensive listing and summary of the statutes that are triggered by a declaration of war, a
declaration of national emergency, and/or the existence of a state of war. The report
concludes with a summary of the congressional procedures applicable to the enactment of
a declaration of war or authorization for the use of force and to measures under the War​Powers Resolution. The report will be updated as circumstances warrant.


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy,
post all the double speak words that you want.  I dont give a damn about the differences between an authorization and declaration of war.  Just rely on facts.  We were attacked without warning.  Innocent Americans died!!!  The vermin that did this need to die without any comfort or jumbled words over why we are killing them.  Have a goodun!


----------



## daedong

Ross, you have contributed absolutely nothing to this thread other than to bad mouth me, you have not even presented one remotely reasonable rebuttal. You could not even answer my question about the Uighur people. You obviously understand nothing other than Redneck rhetoric. I don't laugh at you, but rather pity you for your obvious display of naivety of the world. 

By watching the following video you may begin to understand some of the complexities of this issue.

Foggy, just to start with, the innocent probably are the Uighur people. It's a long stretch to try and tie these people to having the slightest interest in terrorism against the western world. They have been persecuted by a Communist regime and they have political problems of their own, they have no motivation whatsoever in terrorist activities against the western world. They were not combatants, nor on the battlefield to fight the US or any other western nation. Many of the Uighur people have even been determined to be no longer enemy combatants. And now the USA has found themselves in a bind because they cannot send them back to China as they will be persecuted. 

GWB and his administration stuffed this whole Guantanamo fiasco up, and this is just one example. 

This clip may just enlighten everyone, not just Foggy and Ross, 
http://current.com/items/89221794/china_s_wild_west.htm
and just another enlightening news article.*

The View From Guantanamo*

»
*The View From Guantánamo*
    By Abu Bakker Qassim
    The New York Times
      Sunday 17 September 2006
      Tirana, Albania -- I have been greatly saddened to hear that the Congress of the United States, a country I deeply admire, is considering new laws that would deny prisoners at Guantánamo Bay the right to challenge their detentions in federal court.
      I learned my respect for American institutions the hard way. When I was growing up as a Uighur in China, there were no independent courts to review the imprisonment and oppression of people who, like me, peacefully opposed the Communists. But I learned my hardest lesson from the United States: I spent four long years behind the razor wire of its prison in Cuba.
      I was locked up and mistreated for being in the wrong place at the wrong time during America's war in Afghanistan. Like hundreds of Guantánamo detainees, I was never a terrorist or a soldier. I was never even on a battlefield. Pakistani bounty hunters sold me and 17 other Uighurs to the United States military like animals for $5,000 a head. The Americans made a terrible mistake.
      It was only the country's centuries-old commitment to allowing habeas corpus challenges that put that mistake right - or began to. In May, on the eve of a court hearing in my case, the military relented, and I was sent to Albania along with four other Uighurs. But 12 of my Uighur brothers remain in Guantánamo today. Will they be stranded there forever?
      Without my American lawyers and habeas corpus, my situation and that of the other Uighurs would still be a secret. I would be sitting in a metal cage today. Habeas corpus helped me to tell the world that Uighurs are not a threat to the United States or the West, but an ally. Habeas corpus cleared my name - and most important, it let my family know that I was still alive.
      Like my fellow Uighurs, I am a great admirer of the American legal and political systems. I have the utmost respect for the United States Congress. So I respectfully ask American lawmakers to protect habeas corpus and let justice prevail. Continuing to permit habeas rights to the detainees in Guantánamo will not set the guilty free. It will prove to the world that American democracy is safe and well.
      I am from East Turkestan on the northwest edge of China. Communist China cynically calls my homeland "Xinjiang," which means "new dominion" or "new frontier." My people want only to be treated with respect and dignity. But China uses the American war on terrorism as a pretext to punish those who peacefully dissent from its oppressive policies. They brand as "terrorism" all political opposition from the Uighurs.
      Amnesty International reports that East Turkistan is the only province in China where people may face the death penalty for political offenses. Chinese leaders brag about the number of Uighur political prisoners shot in the head. I was punished for speaking against China's unjust policies, and I left because of the threat to my life. My search for work and refuge took me from Kyrgyzstan to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
      I heard about the Sept. 11 attacks for the first time in Guantánamo. I was not aware of their magnitude until after my release, when a reporter showed me images online at an Internet cafe in Tirana. It was a terrible thing. But I too was its victim. I would never have experienced the ordeal and humiliation of Guantánamo if this horrific event had not taken place.
      I feel great sadness for the families who lost their loved ones on that horrible day five years ago. And I would be sadder still to see the freedom-loving American people walk away from their respect for the rule of law. I want America to be a strong and respected nation in the world. Only then can it continue to be the source of hope for the hopeless - like my people.


http://www.truthout.org/article/the-view-from-guantanamo


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy,
just more efflurial wordese.  I dont give a damn about the Uighur folks.  You are nothing but empty words.  Like I stated just go to the facts of 9/11,  Innocent Americans died.  I dont give a hoot about your fancy words and leagalese.  Those words were crafted by slick suited lawyers.  They cant change the fact that we were attacked and for my part the instigators and all their allys can go straight to see Allah and I would like to assist them in their journey and ,just to placate your feelings of hurting their poor downtrodden beliefs, make it a quick trip.


----------



## CityGirl

Evidently the "Kill 'em all. Let God sort them out." mentality is alive and well.  Prior to Vin's post, how many had ever heard of this people called Uighers?  This was educational for me.    I can certainly believe the US was duped into paying bounty hunters for innocent people.


----------



## mtntopper

Ross 650 said:


> Howdy,
> post all the double speak words that you want. I dont give a damn about the differences between an authorization and declaration of war. Just rely on facts. We were attacked without warning. Innocent Americans died!!! The vermin that did this need to die without any comfort or jumbled words over why we are killing them. Have a goodun!


 
*Being attacked by a foreign power/nation does not change the laws set forth in the Constitution, our rights or responsibilities as a nation.*

Ross, it is not double speak when we follow the laws of the land laid out by the US Constitution and our government. You can not change the basic laws of the US government as you want to fit your views of the world. If you cannot understand and see a difference in authorizing a war and a clear declaration of war, you need to re-read my post earlier and study the laws as they are not the same. The Constitution was written to handle events as they unfold in a method to benefit the common good of the nation and not to be changed on a daily basis to justify the events.


----------



## fogtender

mtntopper said:


> Foggy, read the CRS report and tell me again the powers and scope of an authorization and a declaration of war are the same. Quit guessing, learn and understand the differences..........
> 
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf
> .


 
The report was interesting, but not accurate.  The President of the United States has the soul authority to attack any country to protect the United States.  That point pisses off some of those in Congress and the "Left" that feel that they should be involved in that choice, fact is, they aren't the President, just "Want to Be's".

Having Congress declare an act of "War" verses Authorizing the use of "War" is not much of a concern to the enemy that just got blown off the planet.

You might note that the President carries the "Football" with him everywhere he goes.  It is the main control for ording and firing all the Nuclear weapons in the arsenal.  That requires no input from Congress.  More than likely, if that were to happen, the war would be over by the time they found out about it anyway.

I don't care for war, but I also realize there are people that want to kill Americans and destroy our country.  It seems to me that there are a lot of folks that don't get that at all, and would rather "Chat" about the pros and cons verses doing what is right for the Country.

Regardless of anyone's view if Bush had the "Right" or not to invade Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter, we haven't been attacked as a Nation since 9/11.  Before that, we were getting hit about every six months and lost thousands of Americans long before 9/11 was front page news.

President Clinton, did nothing to avert the threat against America other than toss a missile here and there and say "That will teach them".

War is not pretty, it never has or will be.  But you have one person in charge that was voted into office to protect us, not a bunch of congressmen that are so divided they can't do what is right for the country, and when they do, they back out of what they did because the water got cold.... I just hope that Obama has the sense to use the power in the best interst of the United States, which I still am in doubt of but would love to have my views changed.

Obama closing Git Mo, doesn't instill much faith.


----------



## fogtender

CityGirl said:


> Evidently the "Kill 'em all. Let God sort them out." mentality is alive and well. Prior to Vin's post, how many had ever heard of this people called Uighers? This was educational for me. I can certainly believe the US was duped into paying bounty hunters for innocent people.


 
They are not the innocents that are being portrayed as.  Had they been mistakenly picked up on the field of battle, they would have been released a long time ago.  They are in Git Mo because they have been giving information out that has been used on the battlefield to save our soldiers lives.  

The ones that were not deemed "not" a threat, have long since been released and returned home, and many of those went right back to killing and blowing up civilians and our soldiers, and those were the "Good Guys".  Just imagine what is left in Git Mo coming to a prison near you....  These guys make a local serial killer look like a pretty decent guy...


----------



## RedRocker

That's it in a nutshell Foggy, war is normal, we chose not to participate for twenty years or so and it cost us 3000 people in one day. Human nature is always the same, the bully will pick on you till you make him pay, being nice is not an option. Barry will regret his ass kissing speech because the ones that hate us see it as weakness and will act accordingly.


----------



## mtntopper

fogtender said:


> They are not the innocents that are being portrayed as. Had they been mistakenly picked up on the field of battle, they would have been released a long time ago. They are in Git Mo because they have been giving information out that has been used on the battlefield to save our soldiers lives.
> 
> The ones that were not deemed "not" a threat, have long since been released and returned home, and many of those went right back to killing and blowing up civilians and our soldiers, and those were the "Good Guys". Just imagine what is left in Git Mo coming to a prison near you.... These guys make a local serial killer look like a pretty decent guy...


 
You are telling us after five plus years of captivity these detainees are still able to give valuable info to help in the battle against terror? Trying to justify holding without proper charges for so long is just ludicrous. Either they are guilty and need to be dealt with or let go if the proof is not there to charge and convict.



> The report was interesting, but not accurate.


 


> They are in Git Mo because they have been giving information out that has been used on the battlefield to save our soldiers lives.


 
Foggy, can you provide any proof or factual information to the validity of your above statements? Where is it? Post a link, give some facts that can be proven or quit running an unsubstantiated rumor mill in this thread.


----------



## daedong

fogtender said:


> The ones that were not deemed "not" a threat, have long since been released and returned home,



SIMPLY NO TRUE


----------



## Locutus

daedong said:


> SIMPLY NO TRUE


 
*You* have contributed nothing truthful to this thread!


----------



## Barnyard Bob

daedong said:


> SIMPLY NO TRUE


You sure have a lot to say about what this Country does or should do,You Being from a liberal country that is now disarmed and on the way to being a utopia, I sure as hell don't care what you think!


----------



## daedong

Barnyard Bob said:


> You sure have a lot to say about what this Country does or should do,You Being from a liberal country that is now disarmed and on the way to being a utopia, I sure as hell don't care what you think!




I think I am entitled to an opinion. As the actions taken by GWB and his administration have directly involved citizens from around the globe.

As to the rest of your post I think you show how narrow minded  you are, and obviously lack any intelligence, so I will make no further reply to you.


----------



## mtntopper

Barnyard Bob said:


> You sure have a lot to say about what this Country does or should do,You Being from a liberal country that is now disarmed and on the way to being a utopia, I sure as hell don't care what you think!


And Mr. Bob, your contribution to the resolution of the problem is to say you don't care what others think. This is in the debate topic area. It shows a total lack of knowledge and ability to communicate/debate any  meaningful facts or ideas to the topic of this thead. Take your a$$ elsewhere where you can have an impact and impress those who see you as knowledgeable a$$ person and let the debate over Git-Mo continue.


----------



## fogtender

mtntopper said:


> You are telling us after five plus years of captivity these detainees are still able to give valuable info to help in the battle against terror? Trying to justify holding without proper charges for so long is just ludicrous. Either they are guilty and need to be dealt with or let go if the proof is not there to charge and convict.


 
No, the ones that are now left are the worst of the worst. About 245 of them. You are trying to make them civil criminals, when in fact they are War Criminals...



> Foggy, can you provide any proof or factual information to the validity of your above statements? Where is it? Post a link, give some facts that can be proven or quit running an unsubstantiated rumor mill in this thread.


 
Well considering that the information is/was classified, there is no way to prove that other than what was released in Press releases. But there is no way to verify that poor innocent people are prisoners there either and highly suspect to common sense, which seems to be the object of those wanting to close Git Mo... 

When left starts screaming about "facts", very few are really facts other than the "Sky is falling", they have no clue to whom is in Git Mo any more than I do, but I fully lean to the facts that they were taken in battle trying to kill American Soldiers as a whole, not some poor schmuck that was sweeping a sidewalk and captured as an enemy combatant as some here claim...

I would assume that in twenty years, the left will start saying that 9/11 was caused by inferior construction, not the "Claimed" terrorist flying into it. The same way that they claim the Holocaust didn't happen now.

There are really bad people out there in the World, and it wasn't because they had a bad childhood and a group hug will change their mind...

The left is going to keep pushing the limits until we have a major US city go up in a Mushroom cloud... At which point they will again wring their hands and wonder how that could have happened, just as they did with 9/11. It happened because there are bad people in the world that don't like us because we simply don't believe in Allah, that is the only reason they need.

With Obama going the way he is, it will be sooner than later we lose a major city. He has been in office about two weeks, hired tax cheats and lobbist that he swore won't have any place in his office, that isn't "Good" Change. If any one of us didn't pay 100,000 grand in back taxes, we would be sitting in jail... Obama's closing of Git Mo is bad, and he has no idea of why.


----------



## mtntopper

fogtender said:


> No, the ones that are now left are the worst of the worst. About 245 of them. You are trying to make them civil criminals, when in fact they are War Criminals...
> 
> Well considering that the information is/was classified, there is no way to prove that other than what was released in Press releases. But there is no way to verify that poor innocent people are prisoners there either and highly suspect to common sense, which seems to be the object of those wanting to close Git Mo...
> 
> When left starts screaming about "facts", very few are really facts other than the "Sky is falling", they have no clue to whom is in Git Mo any more than I do, but I fully lean to the facts that they were taken in battle trying to kill American Soldiers as a whole, not some poor schmuck that was sweeping a sidewalk and captured as an enemy combatant as some here claim...
> 
> I would assume that in twenty years, the left will start saying that 9/11 was caused by inferior construction, not the "Claimed" terrorist flying into it. The same way that they claim the Holocaust didn't happen now.
> 
> There are really bad people out there in the World, and it wasn't because they had a bad childhood and a group hug will change their mind...
> 
> The left is going to keep pushing the limits until we have a major US city go up in a Mushroom cloud... At which point they will again wring their hands and wonder how that could have happened, just as they did with 9/11. It happened because there are bad people in the world that don't like us because we simply don't believe in Allah, that is the only reason they need.
> 
> With Obama going the way he is, it will be sooner than later we lose a major city. He has been in office about two weeks, hired tax cheats and lobbist that he swore won't have any place in his office, that isn't "Good" Change. If any one of us didn't pay 100,000 grand in back taxes, we would be sitting in jail... Obama's closing of Git Mo is bad, and he has no idea of why.


 
Vin and I are not trying to make them civil criminals. I never mentioned that they should be considered civilians. I said if the evidence is there to charge and prosecute them for crimes of any kind against the US it should be done otherwise it is time to return them to their country to handled by the authorities of that country.

*You admit you have no way to back up what you claim to be 'the facts' because it is/was classified info then you have no right to make a statement that has no factual evidence.* Vin and I never claimed that they were all innocent That is a statement you and others are inserting into this thread and saying we said which is not true. We are saying if guilty take care of the problem by prosecuting or let them go if there is no evidence to convict. It is very simple and not a leftist only conspiracy as you continually allude to on this thread. 

The rest of your post is just another diatribe of the left is going to destroy the USA. I see no reason to even respond to your rant on this as it does not add to the this thread topic of Git-Mo closure. It is only a diversion from your inability to back up your unprovable statements you claim to be factual.


----------



## jpr62902

Crap.  It's against my better judgment to post in this thread, but I can't resist, so here goes .....

Vin, God love ya man, but your first "factual" reference here was an article replete with scripture quotations.  Haven't you posted many a times, questioning organized religion?  And your repeated assertion that Gitmo denizens are there because of bounty hunters is largely unsubtantiated (quoting an article from a former detainee is hardly a believable source).

That said, Gitmo is a diplomatic nightmare.  We need to put our money where our mouth is.  Subject those left there to military tribunals and justice.  The Geneva Conventions do not apply, as I understand, as there has been no formal declaration of war, but basic human rights still apply.  Are some of the Gitmo detainees akin to animals worthy of life-imprisonment and\or execution?  Seems likely to me.  But give 'em justice first, then do the rest of us justice.

If the U.S. (we) are going to walk our talk, we need to practice what we preach.  Some here have espoused summary executions.  Wrong.  It's wrong because it will only unite more against us, but more importantly, it's wrong because of what we stand for.  See above.

Back to Vin.  Not to sound arrogant, but U.S. Presidents have been influencing world politics for over 200 years.  Let's not just pick on G-Dub.   History will judge him much more appropriately than you can.

P.S.:  Can I come visit so's I can dive the Great Barrier Reef?


----------



## mtntopper

jpr62902 said:


> That said, Gitmo is a diplomatic nightmare. We need to put our money where our mouth is. Subject those left there to military tribunals and justice. The Geneva Conventions do not apply, as I understand, as there has been no formal declaration of war, but basic human rights still apply. Are some of the Gitmo detainees akin to animals worthy of life-imprisonment andor execution? Seems likely to me. But give 'em justice first, then do the rest of us justice.
> 
> If the U.S. (we) are going to walk our talk, we need to practice what we preach. Some here have espoused summary executions. Wrong. It's wrong because it will only unite more against us, but more importantly, it's wrong because of what we stand for. See above.


 
Very well said jpr62902. You confirm the case, real reasons to close it down and do it soon by prosecuting the guilty ones.


----------



## daedong

jpr62902 said:


> Crap.  It's against my better judgment to post in this thread, but I can't resist, so here goes .....
> 
> Vin, God love ya man, but your first "factual" reference here was an article replete with scripture quotations.  Haven't you posted many a times, questioning organized religion?  And your repeated assertion that Gitmo denizens are there because of bounty hunters is largely unsubtantiated (quoting an article from a former detainee is hardly a believable source).
> 
> That said, Gitmo is a diplomatic nightmare.  We need to put our money where our mouth is.  Subject those left there to military tribunals and justice.  The Geneva Conventions do not apply, as I understand, as there has been no formal declaration of war, but basic human rights still apply.  Are some of the Gitmo detainees akin to animals worthy of life-imprisonment andor execution?  Seems likely to me.  But give 'em justice first, then do the rest of us justice.
> 
> If the U.S. (we) are going to walk our talk, we need to practice what we preach.  Some here have espoused summary executions.  Wrong.  It's wrong because it will only unite more against us, but more importantly, it's wrong because of what we stand for.  See above.
> 
> Back to Vin.  Not to sound arrogant, but U.S. Presidents have been influencing world politics for over 200 years.  Let's not just pick on G-Dub.   History will judge him much more appropriately than you can.
> 
> P.S.:  Can I come visit so's I can dive the Great Barrier Reef?



Just to make it clear I did not say any of the links or articles were fact but were of interest, none the less they are  just as believable as what GWB and his mates have told.

Anyway I am glad you also agree with me that they deserve justice.

Yep you are welcome any time mate.


----------



## fogtender

mtntopper said:


> Vin and I are not trying to make them civil criminals. I never mentioned that they should be considered civilians. I said if the evidence is there to charge and prosecute them for crimes of any kind against the US it should be done otherwise it is time to return them to their country to handled by the authorities of that country.


 
None of their "Home" countries want them, because of who/what they are.



> *You admit you have no way to back up what you claim to be 'the facts' because it is/was classified info then you have no right to make a statement that has no factual evidence.* Vin and I never claimed that they were all innocent That is a statement you and others are inserting into this thread and saying we said which is not true. We are saying if guilty take care of the problem by prosecuting or let them go if there is no evidence to convict. It is very simple and not a leftist only conspiracy as you continually allude to on this thread.


 
I admit that I have no way of telling, for the same reasons you guys keep stating there is a travesty of justice, you have no idea. Vin has implied there were "innocents" being held there.


As far as a fair trial, the military has been having on going military trials and Obama just ordered them stopped. They were being charged and given a military trial up until about a week ago.



> The rest of your post is just another diatribe of the left is going to destroy the USA. I see no reason to even respond to your rant on this as it does not add to the this thread topic of Git-Mo closure. It is only a diversion from your inability to back up your unprovable statements you claim to be factual.


 
The day the detainees set foot on US soil, they will be given full constitutional rights, and they will be set free because they broke no US laws in "this" country. Which is what the "left" has been trying to do all along. You consider that a "Diatribe", but that is what is happening in the big picture. Even tonight there was a short bit on both Fox News and CNN on getting them their Constitutional rights to a "Fair" trial... They are foreigners, they have no Constitutional rights as war criminals on Foreign soil, that is why Bush set up Git Mo.

This is an article that most of us already know about, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the detainees have Constitutional Rights... Well guess what, the U.S. Supreme Court has no Jurisdiction outside of the United States Boarders and people seemed to have forgot that little issue.

Which is another case of the Courts making laws that they have no rights to make.

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/landmark-win-guantanamo-detainees!


----------



## mtntopper

fogtender said:


> None of their "Home" countries want them, because of who/what they are.
> 
> I admit that I have no way of telling, for the same reasons you guys keep stating there is a travesty of justice, you have no idea. Vin has implied there were "innocents" being held there.
> 
> As far as a fair trial, the military has been having on going military trials and Obama just ordered them stopped. They were being charged and given a military trial up until about a week ago.
> 
> The day the detainees set foot on US soil, they will be given full constitutional rights, and they will be set free because they broke no US laws in "this" country. Which is what the "left" has been trying to do all along. You consider that a "Diatribe", but that is what is happening in the big picture. Even tonight there was a short bit on both Fox News and CNN on getting them their Constitutional rights to a "Fair" trial... They are foreigners, they have no Constitutional rights as war criminals on Foreign soil, that is why Bush set up Git Mo.
> 
> This is an article that most of us already know about, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the detainees have Constitutional Rights... Well guess what, the U.S. Supreme Court has no Jurisdiction outside of the United States Boarders and people seemed to have forgot that little issue.
> 
> Which is another case of the Courts making laws that they have no rights to make.
> 
> http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/landmark-win-guantanamo-detainees!


 
*Justices: Gitmo detainees can challenge detention in U.S. courts*


Story Highlights
*NEW:* President Bush says he disagrees with ruling but he'll abide by it
*NEW:* Court says separately it won't rule on case of U.S. citizens convicted in Iraq
Justice Scalia: U.S. "will live to regret what the court has done today"
Justice Kennedy: Constitution should "remain in force, in extraordinary times"
From Bill Mears
CNN Supreme Court Producer
*WASHINGTON (CNN)* -- Suspected terrorists and foreign fighters held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to challenge their detention in federal court, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The decision marks another legal blow to the Bush administration's war on terrorism policies.
The 5-4 vote reflects the divide over how much legal autonomy the U.S. military should have to prosecute about 270 prisoners, some of whom have been held for more than six years without charges. Fourteen of them are alleged to be top al Qaeda figures.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system reconciled within the framework of the law."
Kennedy, the court's swing vote, was supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, generally considered the liberal contingent.
At issue was the rights of detainees to contest their imprisonment and challenge the rules set up to try them. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			
		
		
	


	


Watch how the 5-4 ruling is a major blow for the Bush administration »
A congressional law passed in 2006 would limit court jurisdiction to hear so-called habeas corpus challenges to detention. It is a legal question the justices have tackled three times since 2004, including Thursday's ruling.
Each time, the justices have ruled against the government's claim that it has the authority to hold people it considers "enemy combatants."

Read the rest of the story here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/12/scotus/index.html

*You can disagree with the Supreme Court decision and call it illegal but the decision has been to the court 3 times and each time it is the same outcome*. It is time to follow through on the Supreme court decision and that is what Obama is doing with the closing and processing of detainees. Agree or not Foggy, that is a decision of the court system period. The courts have said is illegal and needs to be corrected. *You can argue all day that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction but the law and Suprem Court is saying otherwise.* Now its time to just get over this and follow the directions set forth by the courts and law which is exactly what Obama is doing. That is why it is called the Supreme Court as it is the final decision making authority and its decisions need to be considered final and not arbitrary to your interruption.

Your link goes no place. I was not able to find any current report on Fox or CNN to substantiate your statements again. *You need to post links or info to substantiate your claims which you have not done*. It is only your opinions and nothing more if you can not back it up somehow.

As to the detainees set free only if tried and found not guilty. The process of trial has never been set aside. Give me facts where the home country of those captured will not take them back. China wants theirs back to deal with them which cleans our hands of the situation according to links already posted on this thread. 

*As to innocence or guilt only a fair trial will prove or disprove their guilt or innocence.* *If they are so guilty, why are you and others afraid of a court system trail to make that decision?* I have never said they were innocent. I only want to provide justice as the Supreme Court has already ruled should be done.


----------



## fogtender

mtntopper said:


> *Justices: Gitmo detainees can challenge detention in U.S. courts*
> 
> 
> Story Highlights
> *NEW:* President Bush says he disagrees with ruling but he'll abide by it
> *NEW:* Court says separately it won't rule on case of U.S. citizens convicted in Iraq
> Justice Scalia: U.S. "will live to regret what the court has done today"
> Justice Kennedy: Constitution should "remain in force, in extraordinary times"
> From Bill Mears
> CNN Supreme Court Producer
> *WASHINGTON (CNN)* -- Suspected terrorists and foreign fighters held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to challenge their detention in federal court, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
> The decision marks another legal blow to the Bush administration's war on terrorism policies.
> The 5-4 vote reflects the divide over how much legal autonomy the U.S. military should have to prosecute about 270 prisoners, some of whom have been held for more than six years without charges. Fourteen of them are alleged to be top al Qaeda figures.
> Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system reconciled within the framework of the law."
> Kennedy, the court's swing vote, was supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, generally considered the liberal contingent.
> At issue was the rights of detainees to contest their imprisonment and challenge the rules set up to try them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch how the 5-4 ruling is a major blow for the Bush administration »
> A congressional law passed in 2006 would limit court jurisdiction to hear so-called habeas corpus challenges to detention. It is a legal question the justices have tackled three times since 2004, including Thursday's ruling.
> Each time, the justices have ruled against the government's claim that it has the authority to hold people it considers "enemy combatants."
> 
> Read the rest of the story here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/12/scotus/index.html
> 
> *You can disagree with the Supreme Court decision and call it illegal but the decision has been to the court 3 times and each time it is the same outcome*. It is time to follow through on the Supreme court decision and that is what Obama is doing with the closing and processing of detainees. Agree or not Foggy, that is a decision of the court system period. The courts have said is illegal and needs to be corrected. *You can argue all day that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction but the law and Suprem Court is saying otherwise.* Now its time to just get over this and follow the directions set forth by the courts and law which is exactly what Obama is doing. That is why it is called the Supreme Court as it is the final decision making authority and its decisions need to be considered final and not arbitrary to your interruption.
> 
> Your link goes no place. I was not able to find any current report on Fox or CNN to substantiate your statements again. *You need to post links or info to substantiate your claims which you have not done*. It is only your opinions and nothing more if you can not back it up somehow.
> 
> As to the detainees set free only if tried and found not guilty. The process of trial has never been set aside. Give me facts where the home country of those captured will not take them back. China wants theirs back to deal with them which cleans our hands of the situation according to links already posted on this thread.
> 
> *As to innocence or guilt only a fair trial will prove or disprove their guilt or innocence.* *If they are so guilty, why are you and others afraid of a court system trail to make that decision?* I have never said they were innocent. I only want to provide justice as the Supreme Court has already ruled should be done.


 
Their is no where inside the Constatution or any other source that allows the U.S. Supreme Court to have jurisdiction over the Military outside of the U.S. Boarders. Just like a "County Court" can't mandate laws for the State, and the State can't mandate laws for the Fed's.

Had President Bush had the "Balls" of doing his job in total, he should have told them to pound Salt. I think he was in the wind down mode and just wanted to pass it off to the new president.

Now Obama stopped the trial for the USS Cole Bomber that was underway in Git Mo... He is burning his bridges before he gets to them.


----------



## mtntopper

fogtender said:


> Their is no where inside the Constatution or any other source that allows the U.S. Supreme Court to have jurisdiction over the Military outside of the U.S. Boarders. Just like a "County Court" can't mandate laws for the State, and the State can't mandate laws for the Fed's.
> Now Obama stopped the trial for the USS Cole Bomber that was underway in Git Mo... He is burning his bridges before he gets to them.


 
*Supreme Court of the United States*
*III. **



**Jurisdiction *Article III gives the Supreme Court two types of jurisdiction. The Court’s most important jurisdiction is _appellate, _the power to hear appeals of cases decided in lower federal courts and state supreme courts. *Under Article III, the Court’s appellate jurisdiction extends to seven classes of cases: (1) cases arising under the Constitution, federal law, or treaty; (2) those involving admiralty and maritime matters; (3) those in which the United States itself is a party; (4) cases between two or more states; (5) cases between citizens of different states or foreign countries; (6) cases between a state and individuals or foreign countries;* and (7) cases between citizens of the same state if they are disputing ownership of land given by different states. The first category is the most important. In these cases, part of the _federal question jurisdiction, _the Court issues its most far-reaching constitutional decisions and other major rulings involving federal law. 

For further info that disputes your unsubstantiated claim again that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction of: 





> Their is no where inside the Constitution or any other source that allows the U.S. Supreme Court to have jurisdiction over the Military outside of the U.S. boarders.


http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574302/supreme_court_of_the_united_states.html


----------



## fogtender

mtntopper said:


> *Supreme Court of the United States*
> *III. **
> 
> 
> 
> **Jurisdiction *Article III gives the Supreme Court two types of jurisdiction. The Court’s most important jurisdiction is _appellate, _the power to hear appeals of cases decided in lower federal courts and state supreme courts. *Under Article III, the Court’s appellate jurisdiction extends to seven classes of cases: (1) cases arising under the Constitution, federal law, or treaty; (2) those involving admiralty and maritime matters; (3) those in which the United States itself is a party; (4) cases between two or more states; (5) cases between citizens of different states or foreign countries; (6) cases between a state and individuals or foreign countries;* and (7) cases between citizens of the same state if they are disputing ownership of land given by different states. The first category is the most important. In these cases, part of the _federal question jurisdiction, _the Court issues its most far-reaching constitutional decisions and other major rulings involving federal law.
> 
> For further info that disputes your unsubstantiated claim again that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction of:
> http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574302/supreme_court_of_the_united_states.html




When a foreign Country has business in the US, that applies, not from non citizens that are in a different country.  The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over any other country outside of our boarders.

No where do you make that link.  That is why Git Mo was established.  It is on foreign soil and deals with non U.S. personnel, the detainees... The fact that the politicians caved to that fact, I can't help.


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy fogtender,
I am afraid that you are wasting your time.  These folks want the killers and terrorists who kill Americans and children to be treated with kid gloves and made comfortable at all costs.  I am starting to agree about making them comfortable.  When they are executed it should be with soft point ammo so they will not feel hard rounds hitting their empty gourds.  Have a goodun!!!!


----------



## Doc

Ross 650 said:


> Howdy fogtender,
> I am afraid that you are wasting your time.  These folks want the killers and terrorists who kill Americans and children to be treated with kid gloves and made comfortable at all costs.  I am starting to agree about making them comfortable.  When they are executed it should be with soft point ammo so they will not feel hard rounds hitting their empty gourds.  Have a goodun!!!!



Ross, I disagree.  It is not all so black and white.  We have rules.  We are civilized.  We can choose to break the rules of the world alliances, but we have to accept the consequences.  We all know Alkaida has slit the throat of people they have held, and they have been called every name in the book for it.  Still, I would prefer to work within our law rather than ignore our law and stoop to the level of those people.  For I believe ignoring our laws will be our downfall.  That does not mean to treat them with kid gloves or make them comfortable at all costs.   There has to be a better way.  Perhaps giving them back to their own people where they will take them put them on trial and most likely kill them is the answer.  Maybe not.  I hope they never set foot in our country and be given a US trial.  But ..even though I don't want that, I believe the rules as written should be followed.


----------



## thcri RIP

Two wrongs don't make a right


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy,
these animals dont follow rules and laugh at us for being so kind to them.  Yep, let them go back home and return to the battle field to kill some more American soldiers.  That is really a good solution.  These vermin view us as stupid and weak for being kind to them.  These arent folks like we are familiar with.  They are more like a pack of mad dogs.  Dont offer them bones just a quick trip to visit with allah.


----------



## fogtender

Doc said:


> Ross, I disagree. It is not all so black and white. We have rules. We are civilized. We can choose to break the rules of the world alliances, but we have to accept the consequences.


 

Some how along the way, these detainees at Git Mo who are basically prisoners of war/spies, have warped into individual citizens with full Constitutional rights, from which they have been treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention for which they don't subscribe.

Nowhere in our history of war, has POW's been promoted during war to a U.S. Citizen's rights. No POW's caught on the battlefield received a trial until after the war, unless they were spies and were then excuted after the Military trial proved them to be whom they were. The German POW's were brought to the United States and went into makeshift prisons both here, Britain and elsewhere.  The thought of them having "Rights" other than what the Geneva Convention provided, is obscene for those that do live under civil law. At no time did the Supreme Court rule on that issue in the past, not until the "Left" started pushing the issue.

The Prisoners at Git Mo were taken off the field of battle in one form or another and deserve no trial until the war is resolved. If never, then so be it. They were the ones that took up arms against the United States.

The day they step foot on U.S. soil, my words will be pretty prophetic in that they will be released because they have committed no crime against the U.S. Constitution civil law. And to make up new laws that apply are not Constitutional after the fact and can't be applied retroactively.

So before too many people think that justice is served with them coming to American Shores, you joy is going to be very short lived.


----------



## mtntopper

fogtender said:


> When a foreign Country has business in the US, that applies, not from non citizens that are in a different country. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over any other country outside of our boarders.
> 
> No where do you make that link. That is why Git Mo was established. It is on foreign soil and deals with non U.S. personnel, the detainees... The fact that the politicians caved to that fact, I can't help.


 
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over US citizens and the military via Constitutional law that I have given already. Read below specifically number 3 and tell me again how it does not apply. 

*Under Article III, the Court’s appellate jurisdiction extends to seven classes of cases: (1) cases arising under the Constitution, federal law, or treaty; (2) those involving admiralty and maritime matters; (3) those in which the United States itself is a party; (4) cases between two or more states; (5) cases between citizens of different states or foreign countries; (6) cases between a state and individuals or foreign countries;*

Again, substantiate your claim with real facts/law or case law precedents at least and not your opinions.


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy,
why should we treat these animals with compassion??  They dont have any concept of compassion.  If we follow rules that were written to cover a war with regulations we are laughed at in their country.  Seems like you cant get the idea that these folks want you dead. I dont think that I would read a rule book to them to give them a good laugh.  Like I stated before, lets show them kindness by using soft nosed bullets to help them to see allah!!!!


----------



## fogtender

mtntopper said:


> The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over US citizens and the military via Constitutional law that I have given already. Read below specifically number 3 and tell me again how it does not apply.
> 
> *Under Article III, the Court’s appellate jurisdiction extends to seven classes of cases: (1) cases arising under the Constitution, federal law, or treaty; (2) those involving admiralty and maritime matters; (3) those in which the United States itself is a party; (4) cases between two or more states; (5) cases between citizens of different states or foreign countries; (6) cases between a state and individuals or foreign countries;*
> 
> Again, substantiate your claim with real facts/law or case law precedents at least and not your opinions.


 

No, it is a waste of my time trying to change your view, I will just wait til they get here and sadly will have proven my point the hard way.

Already Obama stopped the trial of the USS Cole bomber. And under US Civil law, as soon as he gets to the US in a civil court, he will be released because he was "Falsely imprisonned" without a speedy trial. And the second trial will be forced to set him free.


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy,
as close as I can put this to reality is like giving landing instructions to a kamakazi pilot. I have been in the middle East where the main entertainment on Fridays was the beheadings in head chopper square.  These folks live in a completely different world than we do and consider rules as weakness.


----------

