If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Miami Herald)   Obama administration releases list of Guantanamo's 'indefinite detainees', 48 men who will never stand trial nor go free   (miamiherald.com) divider line 152
    More: Scary, Obama, Guantanamo, GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Obama administration, Human Rights First, Nashiri, Yale Law School, indefinite detention  
•       •       •

1999 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jun 2013 at 8:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



152 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-17 09:25:26 PM  

cman: The Why Not Guy: cman: Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally...

I love how you act like that will surprise anyone.

Nice cherry pickings there


It's a statement you made.

Here. I'll quote the entirety of it:

"WOW what undue rage
Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally, but I turned against it in 2006 BEFORE Bush left office."


You were for the US PATRIOT Act, despite the fact that it had been shot down in pieces before 9/11 again and again, as too authoritarian, and too intrusive as measures go, and THEN when you saw it in action, you realized it was a bad idea, in practice.

So, essentially, you're admitting that you simply hadn't thought the whole thing through.

Which doesn't really surprise folks here all that much. It was a reactionary, panicked measure and cobbled together from the wet dream dribblings of authoritarian asshats who dislike privacy, dislike the limitations of our courts, and REALLY dislike any measure of checks and balances, but you were FOR it, before it actually got into practice. You just liked the idea. You liked the thought of being tough and with a Fed full of power, without a lot of oversight, but when put into practice, it was suddenly revealed to be the stinker that folks had said it was, long before it was signed into law, and who had been warning folks about since pieces of it were showing up in all sorts of bills as riders and addendum.

That's not cherry picking, that's simply noticing that you're a reactionary pile of kuso...
 
2013-06-17 09:26:45 PM  

Hetfield: cman: I was for the Patriot act originally

Disgusting.


Just about all of our elected officials were for it, too.

And yet we still keep on voting for our favorite teams.

Disgusting.
 
2013-06-17 09:27:26 PM  
This is yet another example of the evils of communist Cuba under the Castro family.

We should do something about these communists.
 
2013-06-17 09:28:23 PM  

2wolves: flucto: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Ummm no. The administration has tried to bring them to NYC for trial and the House GOP keeps raping the chicken.


This.  And I wish someone would bathe the chicken every once in a while.
 
2013-06-17 09:29:54 PM  

RanDomino: Bonzo_1116
Nope, it's the recent congresses that have been too chickenshiat to sign off on moving the detainees to the US for trial. The Obama administration has had a raging boner to try these guys in court, and congress gave them the finger.

Then the only remotely Constitutional thing to do would be to release them. That's what happens when people that you just know must be guilty of something can't be brought to trial. They walk.


Yep, they need to officially charge them and try them, or get off the pot.  There's ugly details, though---like these guys aren't US nationals, and some of their nominal home countries don't want them either, so if we just play catch and (illegally imprison) and release they won't have anyplace to go.  Like those Uighyr guys who ended up going to Bermuda or some shiat, because China didn't want them back

The whole thing was stupid from the get-go.
 
2013-06-17 09:31:48 PM  
 
2013-06-17 09:31:59 PM  

Bonzo_1116: Phony_Soldier: Farking Bush!

/Oh wait...

Nope, it's the recent congresses that have been too chickenshiat to sign off on moving the detainees to the US for trial.  The Obama administration has had a raging boner to try these guys in court, and congress gave them the finger.  Bush and the cowering post-9/11 congress started this ugly stone down the curling lane, true---but ever since then rightwing assholes have been out there with the little brooms making sure that the stone just keeps going and going because they know what we will find when we actually try these guys in court is going to be bad.  Like a finding a dead skunk under your porch bad.


One internet to you good sir for for a very excellent curling analogy.
 
2013-06-17 09:32:59 PM  
We could send them to Syria.
 
2013-06-17 09:33:08 PM  

hubiestubert: cman: The Why Not Guy: cman: Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally...

I love how you act like that will surprise anyone.

Nice cherry pickings there

It's a statement you made.

Here. I'll quote the entirety of it:

"WOW what undue rage
Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally, but I turned against it in 2006 BEFORE Bush left office."

You were for the US PATRIOT Act, despite the fact that it had been shot down in pieces before 9/11 again and again, as too authoritarian, and too intrusive as measures go, and THEN when you saw it in action, you realized it was a bad idea, in practice.

So, essentially, you're admitting that you simply hadn't thought the whole thing through.

Which doesn't really surprise folks here all that much. It was a reactionary, panicked measure and cobbled together from the wet dream dribblings of authoritarian asshats who dislike privacy, dislike the limitations of our courts, and REALLY dislike any measure of checks and balances, but you were FOR it, before it actually got into practice. You just liked the idea. You liked the thought of being tough and with a Fed full of power, without a lot of oversight, but when put into practice, it was suddenly revealed to be the stinker that folks had said it was, long before it was signed into law, and who had been warning folks about since pieces of it were showing up in all sorts of bills as riders and addendum.

That's not cherry picking, that's simply noticing that you're a reactionary pile of kuso...


Who gives a shiat if he once supported it? So care more about maintaining some smug sense of superiority rather than seeing more people that originally supported it change their minds and swing the political pendulum
enough to change it? I was always against it, bug I'm not goin to rub people's noses in it. People here will twit every which way to make excuses for the President who voted on the renewal and has embraced every facet of Executive power it confers, but heaven forbid some here admit they once supported it. I swear, I think some people would rather see this crap continue if changing it would look like a political defeat for their own party. It's farking pathetic.
 
2013-06-17 09:36:29 PM  

Nabb1: Who gives a shiat if he once supported it? So care more about maintaining some smug sense of superiority rather than seeing more people that originally supported it change their minds and swing the political pendulum


Considering he just had to go with an Obama jab...it seems kind of silly to say "I supported it at first, but I'm totally better now".

He's knocking the Administration that tried to close GITMO while admitting that he originally supported the Administration that made it what it is today.

Does that seem just a tiny bit idiotic to you?
 
2013-06-17 09:37:15 PM  
FTFA: According to the list, the men designated for indefinite detention are 26 Yemenis, 12 Afghans, 3 Saudis, 2 Kuwaitis, 2 Libyans, a Kenyan, a Moroccan and a Somali.

Well, at least Obama doesn't play favorites.

/ not serious
 
2013-06-17 09:43:00 PM  

2wolves: flucto: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Ummm no. The administration has tried to bring them to NYC for trial and the House GOP keeps raping the chicken.


Excuses. If he truly wanted it done then it would be done.
I remember good old dubya. For all his stupidity if he wanted something done then it was done.
 
2013-06-17 09:44:14 PM  

Nabb1: Who gives a shiat if he once supported it? So care more about maintaining some smug sense of superiority rather than seeing more people that originally supported it change their minds and swing the political pendulum


Perhaps if our Beamish Boy hadn't himself been trying to make a smug jape at someone who wasn't responsible for the mess we're in, and who openly admitted that he just simply hadn't thought things through, I might take his opinion a bit better. Instead, it's just the same partisan bullsh*t and dumbasshattery that we keep seeing. "My side!" "Your side!" Nope. WE let this happen, and collectively as a nation, we are going to have to figure something out, but instead, we've got a bunch of folks who simply haven't really thought their clever plans through, again and again, pointing fingers and not really doing much.

Yes. It makes me angry, because it's the same bullsh*t that got us into this mess: better be seen doing something, than something smart. And in the meantime, we're wasting a lot of time, money, and letting a good number of folks get killed because Congresscritters don't want to look stupid, so instead they'll just vote for stupid measures that do very little...
 
2013-06-17 09:44:56 PM  
Bonzo_1116
like these guys aren't US nationals, and some of their nominal home countries don't want them either, so if we just play catch and (illegally imprison) and release they won't have anyplace to go. Like those Uighyr guys who ended up going to Bermuda or some shiat, because China didn't want them back

They could apply for asylum as political refugees. After all, with pardons they would have a clear criminal record. It would be worth it just to see the right-wing rage.
 
2013-06-17 09:48:27 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: 2wolves: flucto: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Ummm no. The administration has tried to bring them to NYC for trial and the House GOP keeps raping the chicken.

Excuses. If he truly wanted it done then it would be done.
I remember good old dubya. For all his stupidity if he wanted something done then it was done.


That's kind of how we got here, though.
 
2013-06-17 09:52:25 PM  
Here's why it matters.

The Patriot Act didn't contain any surprises. All of the things that make it disgusting were on display, front and center. A lot of people, myself included, were saying "this is a really bad idea" and "you won't be so thrilled with all this Executive power when a Democrat is in the White House."

So why did people like cman change their minds? The Patriot Act sure didn't change, so it must be that they finally gave it some thought and decided they didn't like it so much.

Except that once something like the Patriot Act is in place, good luck getting rid of it. The time for that thought was BEFORE it was enacted, not years later.
 
2013-06-17 09:56:53 PM  

Mugato: Guantánamo is the most farked up thing we've done against everything we claim to stand for since the Japanese internment camps.


We've never stood for the things we claim to stand for.  The history of the US is one long string of the world being disappointed with us as we lag decades behind in various areas of human rights, economic policies, and basic provision of welfare services such as universal healthcare.

You know how we always talk about how the rest of the country is dragging the South into the 20th century kicking and screaming?  We are to the rest of the civilized world what the South is to the rest of the US...except the rest of the world lacks the power to drag us anywhere, which somehow makes us the winners.  Or something.
 
2013-06-17 09:58:00 PM  

Emposter: Mugato: Guantánamo is the most farked up thing we've done against everything we claim to stand for since the Japanese internment camps.

We've never stood for the things we claim to stand for.  The history of the US is one long string of the world being disappointed with us as we lag decades behind in various areas of human rights, economic policies, and basic provision of welfare services such as universal healthcare.

You know how we always talk about how the rest of the country is dragging the South into the 20th century kicking and screaming?  We are to the rest of the civilized world what the South is to the rest of the US...except the rest of the world lacks the power to drag us anywhere, which somehow makes us the winners.  Or something.


Errr...21st century, although really, they both kinda work.
 
2013-06-17 09:58:30 PM  

2wolves: flucto: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Ummm no. The administration has tried to bring them to NYC for trial and the House GOP keeps raping the chicken.


Nice try 2wolves but the correct answer is both democrats and republican voted to keep gitmo open.
 
2013-06-17 10:01:42 PM  
The existence of "indefinite detainees" is a blight on what should be a free country. If we can't charge them, then we should set them free. End of story.

Yet another legacy of the Bush administration.
 
2013-06-17 10:02:46 PM  

RanDomino: Bonzo_1116
like these guys aren't US nationals, and some of their nominal home countries don't want them either, so if we just play catch and (illegally imprison) and release they won't have anyplace to go. Like those Uighyr guys who ended up going to Bermuda or some shiat, because China didn't want them back

They could apply for asylum as political refugees. After all, with pardons they would have a clear criminal record. It would be worth it just to see the right-wing rage.


I think the worst part is that these guys now have a legitimate beef with the US.  Blinding rage and strapping on the vest kind of anger.  It's too late to let a guy go after holding him for a week or two with an apology and bus fare back to Herat.  If they've been falsely imprisoned we actually owe them an *apology* and recompense for losing upwards of ten years of their lives in a cell.

Any of these guys could come back on the US with a massive civil lawsuit.
 
2013-06-17 10:06:32 PM  

djkutch: way south: djkutch: The rational choice without throwing my vote away.

I don't understand why people do this.
You should vote for who you want to win, not who a political party says has a winning chance.

Unskewed polls called it for Romney. How'd that work out?

I voted for Obama because Romney would have been a disaster I didn't want to experience. Voting for Johnson would have been symbolic.


If more people turned their symbolic votes into actual support, maybe others would believe in the alternatives.
As it is you end up throwing your vote away on a man who only partially represents your ideals.

/Sometimes he doesn't represent them at all.
 
2013-06-17 10:06:40 PM  

bullwrinkle: 2wolves: flucto: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Ummm no. The administration has tried to bring them to NYC for trial and the House GOP keeps raping the chicken.

Nice try 2wolves but the correct answer is both democrats and republican voted to keep gitmo open.


Anybody got a link to the most recent vote for Senate/House for this issue? (I think they've done it more than once.)  I want to know if there's biatches that needs to be primaried.
 
2013-06-17 10:07:45 PM  
FTFA:
Amnesty International's Zeke Johnson called "fundamentally flawed" the notion of classifying captives as indefinite detainees. "Under international human rights law," he said, "all of the detainees should either be charged and fairly tried in federal court, or released."

Obama promise: I'll close GITMO.

Obama reality: took a dump on international law like a farking rogue, increasing sentiment of American hegemony, and probably inciting terrorist against us, just like Clinton did when he targeted that baby milk factory.
 
2013-06-17 10:11:55 PM  

Nabb1: Who gives a shiat if he once supported it? So care more about maintaining some smug sense of superiority rather than seeing more people that originally supported it change their minds and swing the political pendulum
enough to change it? I was always against it, bug I'm not goin to rub people's noses in it. People here will twit every which way to make excuses for the President who voted on the renewal and has embraced every facet of Executive power it confers, but heaven forbid some here admit they once supported it. I swear, I think some people would rather see this crap continue if changing it would look like a political defeat for their own party. It's farking pathetic.


www.motherjones.com

Being for it, then against it means there's a good chance that one will some day be for it again on a whim.
 
2013-06-17 10:12:54 PM  
Jesus... just airdrop them over whatever hole we plucked them from.

Sure, it's fifty hardened America-hating masterminds.  That's bad.

But, they'd be landing in places with thousands if not tens-of-thousands of equally America-hating terrorists already.  50 more is just sorta a rounding error in the whole deal.
 
2013-06-17 10:13:05 PM  

way south: djkutch: way south: djkutch: The rational choice without throwing my vote away.

I don't understand why people do this.
You should vote for who you want to win, not who a political party says has a winning chance.

Unskewed polls called it for Romney. How'd that work out?

I voted for Obama because Romney would have been a disaster I didn't want to experience. Voting for Johnson would have been symbolic.

If more people turned their symbolic votes into actual support, maybe others would believe in the alternatives.
As it is you end up throwing your vote away on a man who only partially represents your ideals.

/Sometimes he doesn't represent them at all.


Oh good, another person who think's we live in a parliamentary system.
 
2013-06-17 10:14:14 PM  
Lots of other countries have Gulags like Gitmo.

North Korea, Syria, Russia...

Bonzo_1116: RanDomino: Bonzo_1116
like these guys aren't US nationals, and some of their nominal home countries don't want them either, so if we just play catch and (illegally imprison) and release they won't have anyplace to go. Like those Uighyr guys who ended up going to Bermuda or some shiat, because China didn't want them back

They could apply for asylum as political refugees. After all, with pardons they would have a clear criminal record. It would be worth it just to see the right-wing rage.

I think the worst part is that these guys now have a legitimate beef with the US.  Blinding rage and strapping on the vest kind of anger.  It's too late to let a guy go after holding him for a week or two with an apology and bus fare back to Herat.  If they've been falsely imprisoned we actually owe them an *apology* and recompense for losing upwards of ten years of their lives in a cell.

Any of these guys could come back on the US with a massive civil lawsuit.

 
2013-06-17 10:15:24 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: I remember good old dubya. For all his stupidity if he wanted something done then it was done.


He didn't have a congress obstructing everything he tried to do. He had a 90+ approval rating immediately after the worst terrorist attack this country has seen.
 
2013-06-17 10:16:19 PM  

BSABSVR: Being for it, then against it means there's a good chance that one will some day be for it again on a whim.


Well, it seems you can perhaps trust 1/3 of Democrats and 1/4 of Republicans to be consistent, and not put team first.

More than I thought, really.
 
2013-06-17 10:17:33 PM  

HempHead: Lots of other countries have Gulags like Gitmo.

North Korea, Syria, Russia...


USA is the #1 third world country in several categories!
 
2013-06-17 10:20:58 PM  

sendtodave: BSABSVR: Being for it, then against it means there's a good chance that one will some day be for it again on a whim.

Well, it seems you can perhaps trust 1/3 of Democrats and 1/4 of Republicans to be consistent, and not put team first.

More than I thought, really.


The problem being that at any given point, roughly half the country is going to be for it, thereby ensuring that despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, it's not going to go anywhere any time soon.
 
2013-06-17 10:22:10 PM  

way south: djkutch: way south: djkutch: The rational choice without throwing my vote away.

I don't understand why people do this.
You should vote for who you want to win, not who a political party says has a winning chance.

Unskewed polls called it for Romney. How'd that work out?

I voted for Obama because Romney would have been a disaster I didn't want to experience. Voting for Johnson would have been symbolic.

If more people turned their symbolic votes into actual support, maybe others would believe in the alternatives.
As it is you end up throwing your vote away on a man who only partially represents your ideals.

/Sometimes he doesn't represent them at all.


I have to be honest, the only thing that fired me up about Gary was pot. My choices are still Obama and Romney. Obama represented far more of my ideals, if even only partially. Obama was the right of center moderate for me.
 
2013-06-17 10:25:14 PM  

BSABSVR: sendtodave: BSABSVR: Being for it, then against it means there's a good chance that one will some day be for it again on a whim.

Well, it seems you can perhaps trust 1/3 of Democrats and 1/4 of Republicans to be consistent, and not put team first.

More than I thought, really.

The problem being that at any given point, roughly half the country is going to be for it, thereby ensuring that despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, it's not going to go anywhere any time soon.


Hmm.

What was the percentage of colonists still loyal to King George?
 
2013-06-17 10:26:26 PM  

KeatingFive: Hetfield: cman: I was for the Patriot act originally

Disgusting.

Look, he got better. Some people still haven't. Some people learn at a slower pace than others.

/Also, you're supposed to reward good behavior. Give him a treat when he does right. Don't yell at him for past mistakes, he doesn't understand why you're upset NOW.


I'm confused but willing to poop on the floor because I love you!!!
 
2013-06-17 10:27:44 PM  
For a country that supposedly abides by our Constitution, we're a bunch of farking hypocrites.  Try them in military or civil court...but try them.  Right now they're nothing more than political prisoners.  Do I like that they waged war on the U.S.?  No.  Would I be happy if they're free to do so again?  No.  But dammit, we're supposed to stand for something...we're supposed to be better than this.

While I know it doesn't apply...it's still relevant.

5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
 
2013-06-17 10:28:58 PM  
Will never stand trial, will never be released.

So farking wrong.
 
2013-06-17 10:34:24 PM  

sendtodave: What was the percentage of colonists still loyal to King George?


Never compare things again.
 
2013-06-17 10:35:56 PM  
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
 
2013-06-17 10:49:15 PM  

way south: djkutch: The rational choice without throwing my vote away.

I don't understand why people do this.
You should vote for who you want to win, not who a political party says has a winning chance.


Should he have unskewed the polls?

Maths. How do they work?
 
2013-06-17 10:50:21 PM  

cman: Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally, but I turned against it in 2006 BEFORE Bush left office.


Well, I guess good on you, but 5 years to figure out it was a bad idea? Sheesh.
 
2013-06-17 10:50:42 PM  

way south: djkutch: The rational choice without throwing my vote away.



I don't understand why people do this.
You should vote for who you want to win, not who a political party says has a winning chance.


That was a long-winded way of saying "I don't understand game theory."
 
2013-06-17 10:55:01 PM  

BSABSVR: sendtodave: What was the percentage of colonists still loyal to King George?

Never compare things again.


Support the status quo versus support radical change is right out?
 
2013-06-17 10:57:17 PM  
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
2013-06-17 11:01:09 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Terrorists should be executed instead of being given free cable.


This.  If they're terrorists then give them a fair trial (military or civilian), present your case, and if they're guilty have them shot.  Problem solved.  Alternatively, give them a fair trial, present your case, and if they're guilty hold them in prison for life.  You're either going to save money by killing them, or maintain the status quo, so what's the god damn point of violating their basic human rights with this "indefinite detention" bullshiat.
 
2013-06-17 11:13:48 PM  
Most people seem to be against this sort of crap, so why does it still happen. Maybe we should "indefinitely detain" some congressmen and a couple of presidents.
 
2013-06-17 11:15:04 PM  

Mugato: Guantánamo is the most farked up thing we've done against everything we claim to stand for since the Japanese internment camps.


and yet the house won't fund closing it. and given some of the chicken hawks in the senate they might not either. as a person let alone a citizen of the United States this is sickening.
 
2013-06-17 11:20:11 PM  
So... anyone cool on the list?

Like Don Rickles?
 
2013-06-17 11:23:51 PM  

feckingmorons: Send them home. If they try to attack us kill them, if not let them herd goats or whatever if is those people do.


Their countries won't take them.

/been there, done that.
 
2013-06-17 11:28:07 PM  

bulldg4life: because the evidence was too tainted.

Torture. Go America!


That's right, no Miranda means torture.  Everything the Boston Bomber said prior to Miranda warning is inadmissible in civilian court.  Fortunately there is enough untainted evidence that his confession is not needed.
 
Displayed 50 of 152 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report