Obama gives terrorist at Guantanamo

[VOLatile]

Read the article, it mentions that location makes everything twice as expensive. Makes sense.





I think that was exactly what it was. Naive. I imagine there is a WHOLE lot coming out of there that only the military and the POTUS are aware of.

I find it ironic that the right would bash him over this, since it is clear that his leaving it open is about preventing more terrorism.

I mean, make fun of him I suppose for breaking his promise on closing it, but at least respect that once in the office he has the stones to change his mind in the interests of national security.

$325k is still $315k more than I'd spend on a soccer field for unconvicted terrorists.

I don't care how much info is coming out of Gitmo, I'd still rather have it closed.

 

[lawgator1]

$325k is still $315k more than I'd spend on a soccer field for unconvicted terrorists.

I don't care how much info is coming out of Gitmo, I'd still rather have it closed.

The difference is that you don't know what that information might be. Obama didn't either, got in and found out, and changed his mind. I can think of no other reason on Earth that he would leave it open than because there is some substantial value to it in terms of national security -- enough to abandon his promise even at some cost, politically.

Like I said, make fun of him for being wrong in the first place and/or breaking the promise, but give the guy some credit for being willing to take on that political fallout in the interests of national security.

 

[utvolpj]

The difference is that you don't know what that information might be. Obama didn't either, got in and found out, and changed his mind. I can think of no other reason on Earth that he would leave it open than because there is some substantial value to it in terms of national security -- enough to abandon his promise even at some cost, politically.

Like I said, make fun of him for being wrong in the first place and/or breaking the promise, but give the guy some credit for being willing to take on that political fallout in the interests of national security.

- people in the previous admin said the same and were shouted down by the lefties claiming it was only a torture hut

- there has been little to no fallout since it is Obama keeping it open and not a Repub

to claim anything else is dishonest

 

[BearCat204]

Gitmo was a lot of fun before those mooslems got there

 

[GAVol]

Any fallout is coming from the left.

 

[volsforever27]

The hypocrisy in this thread is mind-blowing.

Gitmo was never the torture fest that some claimed it to be.

 

[lawgator1]

- people in the previous admin said the same and were shouted down by the lefties claiming it was only a torture hut

- there has been little to no fallout since it is Obama keeping it open and not a Repub

to claim anything else is dishonest

I don't disagree with that. I think that is in part why it is so tough for Obama to have broken that promise.

Any fallout is coming from the left.

That's my point. It would appear that he got into office, found out that in fact Gitmo is getting results, results that even US Senators don't routinely know about (or maybe even candidates don't know about), and so changed his mind at some political cost to him.

I just don't understand why the right can't bring themselves to, even grudgingly, give him credit for that.

Very discouraging.

 

[txbo]

That's my point. It would appear that he got into office, found out that in fact Gitmo is getting results, results that even US Senators don't routinely know about (or maybe even candidates don't know about), and so changed his mind at some political cost to him.

I just don't understand why the right can't bring themselves to, even grudgingly, give him credit for that.

Very discouraging.

I'd give him credit if he was forthright in saying that.

 

[YorkVol]

Read the article, it mentions that location makes everything twice as expensive. Makes sense.





I think that was exactly what it was. Naive. I imagine there is a WHOLE lot coming out of there that only the military and the POTUS are aware of.

I find it ironic that the right would bash him over this, since it is clear that his leaving it open is about preventing more terrorism.

I mean, make fun of him I suppose for breaking his promise on closing it, but at least respect that once in the office he has the stones to change his mind in the interests of national security.

The fact is that he really didn't have a choice, there just is not a lot we can do with the detainees at this point.

We had a number or Gitmo detainees returned to us in Bagram when I was there. All but a handful were turned over to the Afghan Govt and released per our agreement with them. Of those, a small percentage returned to the battlefield and rejoined the fight against us. Fortunately, it was a bit different and they didn't last long, but I'm sure most on this board can remember the fall out when the press learned about them.

Anyway, that wasn't the biggest challenge. We had a small handful of non-Afghans in the bunch that we had to repatriate to their home countries or a third party nation. All of them had been taken from the battlefield, all of them admitted to jihading against us and the Afghan govt and all of them had said they were done fighting.

Getting them out of our control was a nightmare. One refused to return home because he knew that he would be tortured and then executed by his beloved homeland simply because he had been in our custody and they would want to exploit him for intelligence purposes. The others were slowly repatriated but it took months and none returned to their home, all went to other countries.

The legal challenges in handling people you take off the battlefield are immense, especially in this type of conflict. The Geneva Convention just doesn't apply no matter how much we tried to make it apply. We tried as often as we could to simply hold them for a while, get them to agree to stop jihading and then release them to their village elder. Many times this worked out okay, some times they lied and ended up caught or dead a few weeks later.

Most often, though, the detainees would tell us if we released them they would rejoin the fight. We kept those guys, but in a very mirky legal state. They aren't POWs in the legal sense because they don't belong to a national army, wear uniforms etc. We couldn't parole them ala the civil war because we had no one to deal with. We couldn't use the International Red Cross/Cresent because they also had no national level authorities to contact on the other side...on and on.

The guys in Gitmo are enemies of us and are under our control. If Obama were to close it down and send them home, he would either have to release them in Cuba, return them to their home countries, or what? There is no good answer for Obama or any other president.

 

[volinbham]

I mean, make fun of him I suppose for breaking his promise on closing it, but at least respect that once in the office he has the stones to change his mind in the interests of national security.

As soon as he comes out and says he's leaving it open in the interest of national security and that promising to close it was a mistake I'll give him tremendous credit.

Somehow I'm guessing he'll never admit to this and will instead blame it on Republicans.

 

[BeecherVol]

As soon as he comes out and says he's leaving it open in the interest of national security and that promising to close it was a mistake I'll give him tremendous credit.

Somehow I'm guessing he'll never admit to this and will instead blame it on Republicans.

Exactly. Doubtful that this happens. He was pretty much forced to do something he didn't want to do, and had promised the left that he would. Im sure he will let that dog lie as long as possible, and hope it fades away.

 

[lawgator1]

I'd give him credit if he was forthright in saying that.

As soon as he comes out and says he's leaving it open in the interest of national security and that promising to close it was a mistake I'll give him tremendous credit.

Somehow I'm guessing he'll never admit to this and will instead blame it on Republicans.

Exactly. Doubtful that this happens. He was pretty much forced to do something he didn't want to do, and had promised the left that he would. Im sure he will let that dog lie as long as possible, and hope it fades away.

And if he said anything like that you and Hannity et al would bash him for disclosing too much.

My guess is that it comes up in the debates and he is very vague about it and its a non-issue.

 

[BigPapaVol]

And if he said anything like that you and Hannity et al would bash him for disclosing too much.

My guess is that it comes up in the debates and he is very vague about it and its a non-issue.

nobody would bash him for saying too much now. He'd get bashed for talking out his ass in the election process, in which he made up almost everything he uttered.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

If there were corporate sponsors, then why would the US need to front the money for the stadium?

Honey, its the govt

 

[lawgator1]

nobody would bash him for saying too much now. He'd get bashed for talking out his ass in the election process, in which he made up almost everything he uttered.

Ok, good luck with that approach. Many votes will I am sure shift over Gitmo close or no-close.

 

[BeecherVol]

And if he said anything like that you and Hannity et al would bash him for disclosing too much.

My guess is that it comes up in the debates and he is very vague about it and its a non-issue.

Disclosing what? That he had no idea (along with a lot of the base that was pushing the idea) as to what he was really gonna try to do if elected? He doesn't have to, that was pretty evident from the getgo.

As to the bottom part. I agree. He's gonna steer away from talking about his 4 years as the POTUS because that will not win him re election. That would include Gitmo amongst most everything else.

 

[volinbham]

And if he said anything like that you and Hannity et al would bash him for disclosing too much.

Not true and comparing me to Hannity is an insult.

My guess is that it comes up in the debates and he is very vague about it and its a non-issue.

So if he's vague about it I should congratulate him for keeping it open?

your premise is that he was wrong, realized it and really supports keeping it open. I question the second part of that premise.

 

[volinbham]

Ok, good luck with that approach. Many votes will I am sure shift over Gitmo close or no-close.

Not the point - you are calling us out for not congratulating him for keeping it open. If he won't say he's in favor off it because it's necessary why the heck should we be impressed with a politician doing something political?

 

[RespectTradition]

450,000 Dollar soccer field!
While cutting defense budget!
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Hrm.

Soccer field is stupid.

However, to say that military spending is getting decreased by Obama is totally and patently false.

On to other points:

Does anyone else have a problem with a candidate talking out of the side of his head? To strongly advocate shutting down Gitmo and then, after getting in office, decide that it needs to stay means that you are talking about things that you have no idea about. Why doesn't that bother people? We vote for people to do what we want them to do, not to get into office and then say 'oh, the status quo was right after all'. If you don't know why a base exists and you think there may be reasons that you could learn later to change your mind, then shouldn't you keep your mouth shut about it to begin with?

 

[Scotty's Flat Top]

- people in the previous admin said the same and were shouted down by the lefties claiming it was only a torture hut

- there has been little to no fallout since it is Obama keeping it open and not a Repub

to claim anything else is dishonest

Sorry PJ but talking dishonesty to a lawyer.. You lose that battle, you lose that battle 10 out of 10 times

 

[TheDeeble]

As to the bottom part. I agree. He's gonna steer away from talking about his 4 years as the POTUS because that will not win him re election. That would include Gitmo amongst most everything else.

Agreed. The only thing he can say he's done in 4 years is increase govt spending.

His platform will be not on what he's done. We saw what "Hope and Change" brought. Another 4 years of Bush presidency.

It will be attack ads and more crap on what he plans to do with another term. Problem is enough people will likely believe it.

 

[gsvol]

I could have, but it's more of the principle behind it. I wanted the OP to post a link. The claim just sounded GS-outrageous.

Unlike you I back up what I have to say with facts.

450,000 Dollar soccer field!
While cutting defense budget!
Posted via VolNation Mobile

» Obama Slashes Soldiers’ Benefits to Pay Back Healthcare Industry Donors - Big Government

Just when America believed the US government health scandal couldn’t get worse, President Obama’s handlers go one step further—increasing service members’ and veterans’ medical premiums. This move is designed to push service members and veterans to opt out of Tricare and find a new insurance provider.

President Obama’s new medical proposal seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget and $12.9 billion by 2017, the latter amount adding up to 0.99% of the $1.3 trillion deficit for a single year built into Obama’s proposed budget. To accomplish this spending reduction, service members should expect a 30% to 78% increase in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. In five years, service members will expect an increase ranging from 94% to 345%.

The average annual salary for a four year single enlistee is approximately $34k. If that service member were married with dependents, the salary increases to approximately $42k. Are those numbers enough to make any sane person want to enlist today, knowing they will likely ship off to some foreign land to fight a losing war like that in Afghanistan? Are those numbers enough to justify risking one’s life–enough to afford an increased medical premium that could be raised by 78% just this year or 345% by the time their initial enlistment is over?

Make no mistake; the President is downsizing our military, and this new military medical initiative is one sure way he will see volunteers leave the military knowing their benefits are jeopardized. At a time when Iran threatens the free world, Afghanistan’s violence is on a rise, and North Korea remains unstable, is now the time to play with our service members’ well-being?

Doesn't have the same feel when GS isn't the one spewing haha

I spew every time I see one of your dumb posts.

You could google it but

Guantanamo Bay soccer field pricey addition to prison | The Columbus Dispatch

Actually, it was 750K; not 450K

I know some people who didn't spend that much on the world's best polo field, Prince Charles has playeed there.

It will be a boon for the Castro's though when and if BHO should win a second term, declare the terrorists to be rehabilitated and cede Quantanamo to Cuba ans his mentor Carter gave up the Panama Canal.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

wtf

 

[hohenfelsvol]

Soccer bonds the world.

 

[YorkVol]

GS, active duty service members don't pay tricare premiums, that is left for us retirees. Currently our free health care for life is around $500/year for a military retiree family. Pretty good deal, we expect to pay over $1000 next year...pensions haven't gone up since I retired...oh well.