On May 21st, 2009 at 3:39 pm, Major O said: #32

That’s manifestly wrong. Obama did MORE than “talk” about releasing detainees–he vilified the entire concept of holding detainees indefinitely, he dismissed the idea of military tribunals as Bush had set up and he added his voice to the false portrayal of Gitmo as a place where the US tortured people.

If you actually believe that there was “no plan” for what to do with the detainees, I have a senate seat in Illinois I want to sell you…

I will agree that then Sen Obama challenged how Pres Bush was handling the situation at Gitmo. Many people were, because there was no clear plan initialy of how to deal with those individuals. There were flip flops and reversals that went through the courts. And the Bush Administration tapped danced.

We (yes, I said we) dismissed the Geneva Conventions because the terrorists did not fit the definitions set forth therein. OK, then what? The Bush Administration tapped danced around every issue raised when challenged. We (yes, I said we) are a nation of laws, and it is not about the detainees, it is about us.

The point, and question, is, what should be done about the detainees? It should not have take seven years to convict three individuals at Gitmo. As I said, I trust our systems of justice, that is plural, civil and military.

I am not particularly interested in the detainees. I am interested in how we deal with them. It is, what it says about us. Try them, shoot them, let them go, but resolve the issue one way or the other. I do not agree with indefinite detainment. I trust us, and stop kicking the can down the road. We are a good people and there is nothing that we cannot resolve.

Moreover, you missed this from my post #26, the detainees should have been dealt with a long time ago. But, alas . . . there was no plan. And, when it did eventually come, it was late and flawed. There was no original plan other than stating that the Geneva Conventions did not apply. Fine. Again I ask, then what?

Repeating for effect, I oppose indefinte detentions and support action to deal with the detainees. Have a plan and implement it.

Before you respond to this post, please address how many detainees Pres Obama released, and how many detainees Pres Bush released. Of the released detainees how many recidivists were the result of Pres Bush’s actions, and how many recidivists were the result of Pres Obama’s actions?

Finally, not sure if a Senate seat from any state is yours to sell. I get the hyperbole, but when it is so easily dismissed, it diminshes your arguement.

Yes, the Obama Administration has discussed releasing some detainees. This will happen one way or the other, and sooner or later. Had there been a plan to deal with the detainees we would not be in this position now. That is, some seven years after the first detainee arrived at Gitmo.

That’s manifestly wrong. Obama did MORE than “talk” about releasing detainees–he vilified the entire concept of holding detainees indefinitely, he dismissed the idea of military tribunals as Bush had set up and he added his voice to the false portrayal of Gitmo as a place where the US tortured people.
If you actually believe that there was “no plan” for what to do with the detainees, I have a senate seat in Illinois I want to sell you…

May 20th, 2009 at 7:23 pm, sonofdy said: O/T but the feel good story of the day

Congrats x2 sonofdy and family!

On May 20th, 2009 at 7:23 pm, sonofdy said:

Twins – double congrats!! You’re a lucky man, to have twice the happiness. Best wishes and life-long joy!

Apparently, we’re having quite the baby boom at MM.com. Zero, you’re next!

On May 21st, 2009 at 12:03 am, Major O said: #24

It’s to protect Obama because he’s now having to backtrack on his reckless promise given during the heat of his campaign, to close Gitmo and his AG, Eric Holder has talked about releasing them.

This report shows just how wrongheaded and reckless his promise was.
If President Bush had his way, those detainees would still warrant the title.

What is reckless and wrongheaded about Pres Obama is closing Gitmo without a stated plan.

The recidivism of the released detainees is the result of whose decision? Acknowledging the potential for recidivism of yet unreleased detainees is a concern that Pres Obama has to deal with.

OK, Pres Obama should learn from Pres Bush’s recklessness and wrongheadedness, and that is what the report will show in detail. Pres Bush will be embarassed for what he actually did, and maybe Pres Obama will have to alter his plans. The former is far more embarassing than the latter.

Yes, the Obama Administration has discussed releasing some detainees. This will happen one way or the other, and sooner or later. Had there been a plan to deal with the detainees we would not be in this position now. That is, some seven years after the first detainee arrived at Gitmo.

I have great confidence in our systems of justice, civil and military, and the detainees should have been dealt with a long time ago. But, alas . . . there was no plan. And, when it did eventually come, it was late and flawed.

/sarc

Not releasing the report sounds more like an attempt to protect the Bush Administration. Especially, since the Obama Administration hasn’t released any detainees.

It’s to protect Obama because he’s now having to backtrack on his reckless promise given during the heat of his campaign, to close Gitmo and his AG, Eric Holder has talked about releasing them.
This report shows just how wrongheaded and reckless his promise was.
If President Bush had his way, those detainees would still warrant the title.

The Bush-hating Left has been very big on the victims of the War on “Terror.” The American involvement at least. When Saddam was killing thousands, the Left didn’t seem to care. When al Qaeda and the Taliban were waging jihad on the enemies of Is…