41
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2014 02:55 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
Both the Bush and Obama administrations have failed to apply the substantial body of law that does apply to the Guantanamo prisoners: the four Geneva Conventions apply to the Guantanamo prisoners as well as international human rights treaties.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2014 03:07 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Ok, so what's the plan? To wait for the inmates to die?

Obama could close this thing if he had some courage and moral fortitude. But he doesn't care.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2014 03:16 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
To be fair West Germany did not have a good record in treating terrorists under it laws with special note of the Baader-Meinhof Group IE the Red Army terrorists.

Neither Bush or Obama for example went after the lawyers for the Guantanamo terrorists.

Quote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction


Several special laws were voted hastily in order to be used during the Stammheim trial. For the first time since 1945 lawyers were excluded from trial, after being accused of various things, like helping the formation of criminal organisations (Section 129 - Criminal Law). In that case the authorities invaded and checked their offices for possible incriminating material. Minister of Justice Hans-Jochen Vogel stated proudly that no other Western state had such an extensive regulation to exclude defense attorneys from the trial. Klaus Croissant, Hans-Christian Ströbele, Kurt Groenewoldwere, who had been working preparing for the trial for three years were expelled the second day of the trial. On 23 June (1975), Croissant, Ströbele (who had already been expelled) and Mary Becker were arrested, and in the meantime police invaded several defense attorneys' offices and homes, seizing several documents and files. Ströbele and Croissant were remanded and held for 4 weeks and 8 weeks accordingly. Croissant had to pay 80,000 DM, to report himself weekly in a police station and had his transport and identity seized.[28]:545-572

revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2014 03:30 pm
@Olivier5,
Congress will not let him close it. He would have to use the same legal reasoning as he did when he traded hostages for our military hostage. He would probably have to wait until almost time for him to be out so that congress couldn't do anything to stop it and then the next president would have to deal with it.

(at least that is what my link said)

I don't think you who live outside the US understand about three branches of government, nor the toxic political climate Obama has been dealing with.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2014 03:37 pm
@revelette2,
Does congress decide on matters of war? If the president wants to fight a particular battle a particular way, will the congress try to intervene? Cause Gitmo is a military prison and a liability in the war on terror. It's a battle field.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2014 03:41 pm
@revelette2,
Quote:
He would probably have to wait until almost time for him to be out so that congress couldn't do anything to stop it and then the next president would have to deal with it.

Ergo, Obama could close Gitmo if he wanted to... Sign the papers and send the inmates back home. Then let the Congress whine.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2014 03:46 pm
@BillRM,
Well, Ströbele now (actually since years) supports these laws - Croissant was a Stasi agent ... and the sources for (English) wikipedia entry are ... well, at least just seen from one side. (The German report is totally different - gives all sources, for instance.)
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2014 03:50 pm
@Olivier5,
Someone else likely know all the executive war powers the president has, what I know couldn't fill a thimble. I just know congress is supposed to be involved, but they put a ban on any transfers from gitmo to the US.

If I was a betting person, I would bet he does it regardless sometime before leaving office, probably close to that time.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2014 04:01 pm
@BillRM,
The law (§ 129a StGB) has been slightly changed in 2005, because ("only"!) the "eavesdropping measures in residential rooms" were unconstitutional.
Walter Hinteler wrote:
(The German report is totally different - gives all sources, for instance.)
... and it gives the names correctly: the female lawyer is not a "Mary Becker" but Marie-Louise Becker.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2014 04:10 pm
@revelette2,
Right. And if he doesn't, they'll rot in there until they die.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2014 05:21 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Both the Bush and Obama administrations have failed to apply the substantial body of law that does apply to the Guantanamo prisoners: the four Geneva Conventions apply to the Guantanamo prisoners as well as international human rights treaties.

Look again. Those conventions allow us to detain captured enemy fighters until the end of the war.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2014 05:22 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
Ergo, Obama could close Gitmo if he wanted to... Sign the papers and send the inmates back home. Then let the Congress whine.

You wish. We are not about to set the terrorists free.

If we ever close Guantanamo, we will first kill all the prisoners (as is our right under international law).
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2014 05:56 am
@oralloy,
Why don't you burn their bodies too?
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2014 07:25 am
@oralloy,
Well, then Obama could declare the war with AQ over as we now fighting IS anyway.

Or he could do one of the two of following.

Quote:
White House officials have concluded Mr. Obama likely has two options for closing Guantanamo, should Congress extend the restrictions, which it could do after the midterm elections.

He could veto the annual bill setting military policy, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, in which the ban on transferring detainees to the U.S. is written. While the veto wouldn’t directly affect military funding, such a high-stakes confrontation with Congress carries significant political risks.

A second option would be for Mr. Obama to sign the bill while declaring restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners an infringement of his powers as commander in chief, as he has done previously. Presidents of both parties have used such signing statements to clarify their understanding of legislative measures or put Congress on notice that they wouldn’t comply with provisions they consider infringements of executive power.


source
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2014 08:47 am
Quote:
Snowden haters may have blocked the USA Freedom Act, but the clock is ticking before the law that justifies vacuuming your phone records blows up in the face of newly conservative Washington^

>Full report<
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2014 08:51 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
Well, then Obama could declare the war with AQ over as we now fighting IS anyway.

That would be the end of the Democratic Party. There is no surer way to get another 9/11 than to stop defending ourselves while the enemy still seeks to attack us.


Quote:
A second option would be for Mr. Obama to sign the bill while declaring restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners an infringement of his powers as commander in chief, as he has done previously. Presidents of both parties have used such signing statements to clarify their understanding of legislative measures or put Congress on notice that they wouldn’t comply with provisions they consider infringements of executive power.

If Mr. Obama wants to needlessly close Guantanamo only to set up an identical facility on US soil, I demand that this pointless transfer be paid for by a special tax on people who oppose Guantanamo, so the rest of us don't get charged for any of this nonsense.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2014 09:04 am
@Walter Hinteler,
The vote required a 60% majority, they didn't get it. A shame really as I thought a bill a pretty good start.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2014 09:07 am
@oralloy,
It is not nonsense, we need to close the place as it represents a shameful point in our history.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2014 09:39 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
It is not nonsense, we need to close the place as it represents a shameful point in our history.

There is nothing even remotely shameful about anything related to Guantanamo.

And closing a necessary facility for no reason and then spending a ton of money setting up an identical facility to replace it, is very much nonsense.

If we paid for it by levying a stiff tax on anti-war protesters, that would be one thing. But this is not something that regular taxpayers should have to pay for.
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2014 09:55 am
@oralloy,
If you think there is nothing shameful of the history of Guantanamo, there is no sense talking to you about it. I don't remember the exact quote, but I think it goes something like, "a country is judged on how it keeps it's prisoners." Well, no wonder we are judged so harshly concerning this situation.

We pay taxes right now for Guantanamo. From what I understand the conditions are horrible because the place is decaying, many of the inmates are aging and getting sick. Obama is receiving no help from congress in trying to make situation better. He has been trying transfer some prisoners to lead new lives in other countries, but it is hard to find a country willing to accept them. It is a terrible shameful and against all international laws to keep this situation ongoing.

Decaying Guantánamo Defies Closing Plans
 

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 587
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 06/30/2024 at 10:17:07