Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 20 Jun '13 17:06 / 2 edits
    The House passed the the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 about a week ago. The House rejected an amendment 174-249 to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. (172 Democrats in favor, 228 Republicans against).

    whodey, no difference?




    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll237.xml

    http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/06/2014-ndaa-passes-the-house-with-many-amendments/

    http://blog.livableworld.org/story/2013/6/14/154341/091

    http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/2013/06/ndaa-roundup-afghanistan-victory-and-budget-ignominy/
  2. 20 Jun '13 17:09 / 2 edits
    Vote on Amendment to close detention facility at Guantanamo.

    Yes
    Democrats -- 172
    Republicans -- 2

    No
    Democrats -- 21
    Republicans -- 228


    whodey, no difference?
  3. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    20 Jun '13 18:05
    Originally posted by moon1969
    The House passed the the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 about a week ago. The House rejected an amendment 174-249 to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. (172 Democrats in favor, 228 Republicans against).

    whodey, no difference?




    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll237.xml

    http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/06/2014-ndaa-p ...[text shortened]... http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/2013/06/ndaa-roundup-afghanistan-victory-and-budget-ignominy/
    This would save a lot of money, it costs a lot to keep this facility open when any maximum facility would be just as secure. Not sure why the GOP won't cooperate. For a group that claims that wants to cut out government waste, the GOP is not practicing what they preach (a lot like billions in subsidies to wealthy oil companies, and other corporate welfare.)
  4. 20 Jun '13 18:29
    Originally posted by bill718
    This would save a lot of money, it costs a lot to keep this facility open when any maximum facility would be just as secure. Not sure why the GOP won't cooperate. For a group that claims that wants to cut out government waste, the GOP is not practicing what they preach (a lot like billions in subsidies to wealthy oil companies, and other corporate welfare.)
    Yep. It could pay down at least 2 seconds of compounding interest on the national debt!!
  5. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    20 Jun '13 19:27
    Originally posted by bill718
    This would save a lot of money, it costs a lot to keep this facility open when any maximum facility would be just as secure. Not sure why the GOP won't cooperate. For a group that claims that wants to cut out government waste, the GOP is not practicing what they preach (a lot like billions in subsidies to wealthy oil companies, and other corporate welfare.)
    There's a very good reason that these folks cannot be transferred into the federal system, and Obama knows it. (He clearly knows it, because five years after he campaigned on the promise to close Guantanamo, he still hasn't done it.)

    These people are too dangerous to be transferred back, and they cannot be tried in the justice system because in many cases, the evidence against them was obtained through coercive methods or would reveal sources and methods. They clearly cannot be released back into the wild, where they will inevitably come to be regarded as heroes and may face release under pressure from Islamofascists in their home country.

    They are held, then, as enemy combatants, and subject to treatment under modified Geneva Convention protocols.

    The Guantanamo quagmire exposes one of liberalism's basic flaws. Promises to change a situation always run up against reality. Promises get made, money gets spent, without any attempt to understand the situation before acting. It's also an example of how conservatives and realists get pilloried by liberals puffed up with righteous outrage and indignation, only to be vindicated later when the once-hated policy gets reaffirmed by the liberal faced with the choice of ending or continuing that policy.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    20 Jun '13 20:10
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    There's a very good reason that these folks cannot be transferred into the federal system, and Obama knows it. (He clearly knows it, because five years after he campaigned on the promise to close Guantanamo, he still hasn't done it.)

    These people are too dangerous to be transferred back, and they cannot be tried in the justice system because in ma ...[text shortened]... cy gets reaffirmed by the liberal faced with the choice of ending or continuing that policy.
    Typical ignorance and misinformation. Many of the detainees have already been cleared for release as not being dangerous but their countries don't want them.

    If there is insufficient evidence that someone has committed crimes, basic principles of justice demand that they be released. One would think someone who complains so incessantly about the power of government wouldn't be so complacent about said government asserting the power to forever deprive someone of their liberty without a trial, but sas is nothing if not ideologically inconsistent.

    "Liberalisms basic flaw" in this case was not defeating enough ideologically rigid Republicans to prevent the House of Representatives from closing Gitmo. Your last paragraph is typical right wing nonsense.
  7. 20 Jun '13 21:00
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Typical ignorance and misinformation. Many of the detainees have already been cleared for release as not being dangerous but their countries don't want them.

    If there is insufficient evidence that someone has committed crimes, basic principles of justice demand that they be released. One would think someone who complains so incessantly ab ...[text shortened]... e of Representatives from closing Gitmo. Your last paragraph is typical right wing nonsense.
    I happen to agree that holding them indefinitely without trail is absurd. The fact that Obama continues this speaks volumes. Neither party will release them.....ever.
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    21 Jun '13 01:04 / 1 edit
    Question for ya, Moon (and others): Why did Obama the candidate promise to close Guantanamo, protect civil liberties and privacy, stop drone strikes, etc. etc. etc. and President Obama is basically backtracking on a lot of it?

    Because he was always a wolf in sheep's clothing who was pretending to be more liberal than he is? Unlikely.

    I'll tell you the more likely reason: When you're a candidate and a Senator (and certainly when you're a pundit) you can whine about anything you like. What you say doesn't really matter so you can afford to be as idealistic as you like.

    When you get in the big chair and your decisions have real impacts on real people's lives, you no longer have the luxury of talking in simplistic jingles and soundbites. All of a sudden you're given the real facts by the real people who know what's really going on. And your decisions can cost lots of real people their real lives. All of a sudden it's not a game but a reality.

    I'm guessing Obama had every intention of telling the NSA to avoid questionable surreptitious spying operations (I know this thread is about Gitmo, but bear with me). But then he went into the sit room and 6 officials with 150 years of experience all concurred that these domestic spying operations probably saved thousands of lives in thwarted terrorist attacks in the last decade and showed him the reports to back it up.

    Really. Why else would Obama have allowed it to go on? Because he gives a damn whether the government knows what Americans are communicating? Because he's really aiming to become Emperor for life? Get real. He okayed it because he was sincerely convinced that it was necessary to save lives. There's no other reason that makes any sense to me. As a candidate in 2008 he simply didn't have access to the info that he does now.

    So, you'll pardon me if I show a slight lack of faith in your Dem congressional heroes, but I'll accept the judgment of a self-styled liberal rights agitator to maintain these measures over the judgment of politicians who are more akin to Obama '08.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    21 Jun '13 01:36 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Question for ya, Moon (and others): Why did Obama the candidate promise to close Guantanamo, protect civil liberties and privacy, stop drone strikes, etc. etc. etc. and President Obama is basically backtracking on a lot of it?

    Because he was always a wolf in sheep's clothing who was pretending to be more liberal than he is? Unlikely.

    I'll tell you the mor these measures over the judgment of politicians who are more akin to Obama '08.
    Some people get convinced to go against their principles (if they are insufficiently held) by "experts in the room". JFK went ahead with the Bay of Pigs despite his sincere doubts because a bunch of really bright CIA and State Department guys told him it was a really good idea and would easily succeed because Castro was so unpopular in Cuba. JFK came to realize that he had been foolish to do go along with such a harebrained scheme and adopted a reluctance to accede to a roomful of "experts" in the future. This served him well during the Cuban Missile Crisis when his military experts on the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously called for a full scale invasion which would have been decimated by Soviet short range nuclear missiles leading almost certainly to a full nuclear exchange. LBJ never learned that lesson and kept plowing ahead in Viet Nam as the military kept telling him we were winning - he told others basically the same thing you are saying "If you could only see the information I have, you'd agree with me".

    So, sorry, I don't trust Obama's judgment on these matters forged by exposure to the groupthink of those who's job it is to be excessively paranoid.
  10. 21 Jun '13 01:44
    Originally posted by moon1969
    The House passed the the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 about a week ago. The House rejected an amendment 174-249 to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. (172 Democrats in favor, 228 Republicans against).

    whodey, no difference?




    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll237.xml

    http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/06/2014-ndaa-p ...[text shortened]... http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/2013/06/ndaa-roundup-afghanistan-victory-and-budget-ignominy/
    What took them so long if they really wanted to close Gitmo? Obama promised to close it in his campaign, and had the House and Senate. Why did he wait till he no longer controlled the House?

    Perhaps the issue is more important than solving it?
  11. 21 Jun '13 01:48
    Originally posted by sh76
    Question for ya, Moon (and others): Why did Obama the candidate promise to close Guantanamo, protect civil liberties and privacy, stop drone strikes, etc. etc. etc. and President Obama is basically backtracking on a lot of it?

    Because he was always a wolf in sheep's clothing who was pretending to be more liberal than he is? Unlikely.

    I'll tell you the mor ...[text shortened]... these measures over the judgment of politicians who are more akin to Obama '08.
    You have a point that real problems are understood better by the guy in the office than the candidate. Despite that, I believe the issue is more important than solving it. It could have been closed in a day when he controlled both houses of Congress.

    Closing Gitmo wasn't a priority for him.
  12. 21 Jun '13 05:37
    Originally posted by sh76
    Question for ya, Moon (and others): Why did Obama the candidate promise to close Guantanamo, protect civil liberties and privacy, stop drone strikes, etc. etc. etc. and President Obama is basically backtracking on a lot of it?

    Because he was always a wolf in sheep's clothing who was pretending to be more liberal than he is? Unlikely.

    I'll tell you the mor ...[text shortened]... these measures over the judgment of politicians who are more akin to Obama '08.
    Please. The man simply told his sheep what they wanted to hear. Deep down I think he could care less.
  13. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    21 Jun '13 16:30
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Some people get convinced to go against their principles (if they are insufficiently held) by "experts in the room". JFK went ahead with the Bay of Pigs despite his sincere doubts because a bunch of really bright CIA and State Department guys told him it was a really good idea and would easily succeed because Castro was so unpopular in Cuba. JFK came to ...[text shortened]... ged by exposure to the groupthink of those who's job it is to be excessively paranoid.
    That the experts in the room were wrong on the Bay of Pigs doesn't mean they aren't usually right.
  14. Standard member empovsun
    Adepto 'er perfectu
    21 Jun '13 18:09 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Question for ya, Moon (and others): Why did Obama the candidate promise to close Guantanamo, protect civil liberties and privacy, stop drone strikes, etc. etc. etc. and President Obama is basically backtracking on a lot of it?
    sometimes i think (some) democrats vote dem because they love the color blue...
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    21 Jun '13 22:25
    Originally posted by sh76
    That the experts in the room were wrong on the Bay of Pigs doesn't mean they aren't usually right.
    The same type of experts have given Presidents consistently bad advice for decades. When one of your job requirements is excessive paranoia, it's best for the Chief Executive to approach their recommendations with a barrel, not a grain, of salt.