Julian Assange Lie

C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
cool copy paste.

The reason why you're such a parrot when it comes to repeating what you're fed about obama is that you lack the ability to form a coherent thought of your own.

So you think it should be ok to just keep them in limbo?

The story is complete shit by the way, there are 779 (among the very leak at the center of this thread) cables pertaining to this very subject which paint a different picture. The white house wanted to torture some of the detainees to extract int. That is why obama extended protection to those water boarding agents. This is verifiable by the way and google will show plenty of results. The cables do however support part of the narrative. Both senate and house vigorously aided obama by giving him an excuse to renege on his promise to close gitmo.
Click to expand...

ron paul lost
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
How about just giving him the authorization and money to close GITMO.

They already have a prison lined up in Illinois and are willing to let them go or put them on trial in a civilian court


By Lynn Sweet on December 17, 2010 9:52 AM| 1 Comment WASHINGTON--

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) on Friday threatened to place a "hold' on the Defense Appropriation bill if it includes a provision to allow the transfer of detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba military prison to the United States. Under Senate rules, any Senator can stall a piece of legislation--and the freshman Kirk is flexing his new senate muscle for the first time.
The issue flared up earlier this year when the Obama administration moved to buy an underused state prison in Thomson, Ill. in part to use to house Guantanamo detainees. As a House member from Illinois--until he was sworn into the Senate on Nov. 29--Kirk opposed any transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S.
Closing Guantanmo was a central Obama pledge that the president has not been able to keep--a promise made during his campaign on his first day in office. Congress needs to give permission for any transfer of a Guantanamo prisoner to the U.S.
Click to expand...
You want the congress to give the commander in chief of all of the US armed forces the authority to close a US military facility? Seems a bit redundant.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
You want the congress to give the commander in chief of all of the US armed forces the authority to close a US military facility? Seems a bit redundant.
Click to expand...
Sure we can close it down.
Then what?
Let them roam around Cuba? Castro dont want them either and to get them out of there takes money that congress controls the purse strings of.

BTW it's against the law to move them. You can thank the Republicunts for that
 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
ChesusRice said:
Sure we can close it down.
Then what?
Let them roam around Cuba? Castro dont want them either and to get them out of there takes money that congress controls the purse strings of.

BTW it's against the law to move them. You can thank the Republicunts for that
Click to expand...
Just put em back into circulation... It won't be long until you come full circle and end up supporting, funding and re-arming them AGAIN...

Just like in Libya, YOU CAN'T PUT AQ IN CHARGE.....
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Sure we can close it down.
Then what?
Let them roam around Cuba? Castro dont want them either and to get them out of there takes money that congress controls the purse strings of.

BTW it's against the law to move them. You can thank the Republicunts for that
Click to expand...
Well, the Patriot Act was quite bi-partisan. Obama was one of the few that just sat there.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
How about just giving him the authorization and money to close GITMO.

They already have a prison lined up in Illinois and are willing to let them go or put them on trial in a civilian court

.
Click to expand...
That would make that prison available for tango attacks to free people. Why would a State go along?

It gives them the rights of US citizens. Why would WE go along with that? Why do we want these foreign fighters in a State in the US. Why do we want them in a special prison that another President can put US citizens and ignore habeas corpus?

Why is Warring on America a civil and not a military crime?

GITMO is a symbol of what hard asses we are, even though we whine and moan about it. Moderate Jihad wants that closed. No reason for that at all.

Do you think it will mellow Jihad? Come on!
 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
Doer said:
That would make that prison available for tango attacks to free people. Why would a State go along?

It gives them the rights of US citizens. Why would WE go along with that? Why do we want these foreign fighters in a State in the US. Why do we want them in a special prision that another President can put US citizens and ignore habus corpus?

Why is warring on America a civil and not a military crime?

GITMO is a symbol of what hard asses we are, even though we whine and moan about it. Moderate Jihad wants that closed. No reason for that at all.

Do you think it will mellow Jihad? Come on!
Click to expand...
Texas Bikers.... 601716d1327429269-my-email-was-hacked-do-not-open-one-from-me-that-has-hello-in-the-title-gay-bi.jpg
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
500 Improvised Explosive Devices
1000 kilos of uranium
organophosphates
17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent
1,000 radioactive materials - ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
500 munitions
294 biological weapons
3,300 tons of mustard gas
And plenty of facilities used to create biological and chemical weapons

So OIF justified?

It needed to be justified, we needed the oil.
Click to expand...
FYI this is not verified, I just copy pasted the first list I found.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top