41
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2014 09:42 am
@revelette2,
Disagreeing with Oralboy is what decent people do.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2014 10:42 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Disagreeing with Oralboy is what decent people do.


So you are agreeing with him?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2014 11:26 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
Needless to say, I disagree on all points.

Can you point out any fact that I am wrong about?

Note also that Mr. Obama doesn't intend to set any of these detainees free (unless someone becomes willing to take the low-level Yemenis). His version of "closing Guantanamo" just means building a new facility in the US that duplicates Guantanamo in every respect other than location.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2014 11:46 am
@oralloy,
You're always wrong. LOL
As a matter of fact, several countries have consented to accept prisoners from gitmo. The article is in this morning's San Jose Mercury News.

Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2014 11:59 am
@cicerone imposter,
The release brings the total prison population to 143.
There are now 74 prisoners at Guantanamo who have been cleared and are awaiting resettlement. Another 36 have been designated for continued detention without charge. There are 23 who have been slated for prosecution and 10 are either facing trial by military commission or have already been convicted or sentenced.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2014 12:12 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
The release brings the total prison population to 143.

Did someone accept some of the low-level Yemenis?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 10:12 am
@oralloy,
When the US is no longer occupying a country then that portion of the convention no longer applies so the only applicable one left is hostilities. What part of the Geneva convention lets us pretend there is a battlefield when no such battlefield exists?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 10:15 am
@oralloy,
Quote:

At the end of 2016, we will still be at war, and the POWs will still be detained as POWs.

Where will these hostilities be taking place? Without an actual place being occupied or fought over how does the Geneva convention apply?
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 10:20 am
@BillRM,
You're not decent, nor really a person, more of a slobbering baboonesque type throwback.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 10:52 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
A federal judge has passed up a Guantánamo detainee's demand for an order that he be released when the U.S. war in Afghanistan ends, but the jurist suggested that U.S. officials have an "apparent" legal duty to let such prisoners go when hostilities there conclude.

In a ruling issued Sunday, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly turned aside Kuwaiti detainee Fawzi al-Odah's plea, calling it an "abstract disagreement" at this point since thousands of U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan. However, her language indicated she was amenable to arguments that the U.S. government's authority to hold detainees concludes when the fighting in Afghanistan is over, or at least the U.S. role in such fighting is over.

"Petitioner’s anticipated injury is, at present, based entirely upon speculation that federal government officials will refuse to carry out their apparent legal responsibilities," Kollar-Kotelly wrote in a 21-page decision (posted here).

Kollar-Kotelly said she didn't need to and should not resolve the legal question in part because indications are that the Obama administration plans to shut down the Guantánamo facility and has invoked the wind-down of the Afghan war as part of the urgency for doing so.

"Petitioner does not credibly contend, nor is there any evidence in the record to suggest, that the President or any other United States government agent intends to detain designated enemy combatants unlawfully beyond the cessation of hostilities. Rather, various statements in the record, cited by Petitioner, support the conclusion that the President and other federal government officials do not intend to detain Petitioner once hostilities in Afghanistan cease," the judge wrote.

Citing al-Odah's court filings, Kollar-Kotelly quoted President Barack Obama saying, "[W]ith the Afghan war ending, this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prison at Guantanamo Bay," and, “In Iraq, we turned over thousands of prisoners as we ended the war.” However, she also quoted seemingly more ambiguous statements from Obama, such as, "To the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries."

The dispute about al-Odah's release could wind up being academic. A U.S. military review board cleared al-Odah for transfer to Kuwait, his attorney announced last month.

The Obama administration has been vague about the scope of its authority to detain prisoners at Guantánamo after the U.S. withdraws combat troops from Afghanistan.

When controversy erupted earlier this year over Obama's decision to swap five Taliban leaders for captured Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, some administration officials suggested the Taliban prisoners were of diminishing negotiating value to the U.S. since they might be required to be released anyway as hostilities concluded.

Last month, Obama White House counterterrorism adviser Lisa Monaco also straddled on the issue, while acknowledging there's a valid argument to be made for release of the prisoners. "To the extent we’re no longer in a conflict with the Taliban, there may not be a basis to hold those individuals," she said.

In a key 2012 speech, Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson (now secretary of Homeland Security) also said authority to detain prisoners was linked to the "cessation of active hostilities." But he also noted that some prisoners in World War II were held onto for a time after the war ended.

One question that remains is whether the end of combat in Afghanistan impacts or limits the U.S. government's ability to detain prisoners affiliated with Al Qaeda, so long as that group remains effectively at war with the U.S.

Al-Odah, the prisoner whose petition was ruled on Sunday, was captured on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border near Tora Bora in December 2001. Earlier court rulings found him to be part of Al Qaeda and Taliban forces.

Some legal experts believe the U.S. could retain authority to hold Al Qaeda prisoners, while losing the ability to detain those simply affiliated with the Taliban.

source

So, it would seem to me, as best as I can figure, those who are merely Taliban will be released, but those who are AQ might not be.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 01:32 pm
@revelette2,
Quote:
So, it would seem to me, as best as I can figure, those who are merely Taliban will be released, but those who are AQ might not be.


I would not hold my breathe as it just been announce that we will have combat troops in Afghanistan for the next few years instead of withdrawing.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 01:59 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
What part of the Geneva convention lets us pretend there is a battlefield when no such battlefield exists?

There is no pretending. The entire world is a battlefield.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 01:59 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Where will these hostilities be taking place?

The entire world.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 02:00 pm
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
So, it would seem to me, as best as I can figure, those who are merely Taliban will be released, but those who are AQ might not be.

There is no might about it. We will not be releasing any dangerous al-Qa'ida terrorists.

It is true though that we'd likely release any Taliban at the end of the Afghan war, so long as there were a place where we could release them to.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 02:36 pm
@BillRM,
When and where? I can't find any announcement.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 02:42 pm
@revelette2,
Published yesterday. White House, I suppose.
Quote:
President Obama decided in recent weeks to authorize a more expansive mission for the military in Afghanistan in 2015 than originally planned, a move that ensures American troops will have a direct role in fighting in the war-ravaged country for at least another year.

Mr. Obama’s order allows American forces to carry out missions against the Taliban and other militant groups threatening American troops or the Afghan government, a broader mission than the president described to the public earlier this year, according to several administration, military and congressional officials with knowledge of the decision. The new authorization also allows American jets, bombers and drones to support Afghan troops on combat missions. ... ... ...
Source
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 03:02 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I was pissed at Obama when he increased our troops by 50,000 in Afghanistan, and he's now expanding that war for Americans who don't want to be involved in being the world's police.

Will he consider sending his daughters there to fight this war? He's willing to send other people's children there!
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 03:14 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Thank you, I couldn't find it.

I read the whole thing, from what I can understand, the US will involved with training and help for the Afghanistan Army during the year 2015 with the war ending in 2016, before Obama leaves office. From what I gather, the allies forces are there as well.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 03:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
he's now expanding that war for Americans who don't want to be involved in being the world's police.


Take note that the 911 attack was planned and control from Afghanistan and there is no reason to assume that Afghanistan would not once again become a base for further attacks on our soil if we would allowed the same groups to regain control of Afghanistan.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 04:21 pm
@BillRM,
The biggest problem you're overlooking is your fear against the reality of any Middle Eastern individual getting a VISA to come to the US. We have more violence by Americans against Americans than from terrorists.

From CDC.
Quote:
National Violent Death Reporting System
Tragically, more than 39,000 people died by suicide in the United States in 2011. Homicide claimed another 17,000 people1. Violence is preventable; we know these numbers can be lowered.



 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 594
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 04:09:43