Skip to comments.Petraeus Backs Closing Gitmo
Posted on 05/28/2009 6:27:52 AM PDT by ksen
click here to read article
Joe Biden looks to be either perpetually drunk or brain damaged and nary a word is said by the MSM.
Oh yeah, where's the tape of his daughter doing coke?
Imagine if that was one of Sarah Palin’s children? Holy f*c*i*g s*i*, we'd NEVER, EVER hear the end of it. You might think her daughter was the first teenage girl to get pregnant.
Then tell me what you glean from my posts and I’ll tell you if you’re right. ;)
A suckup in the making.
When Obama is forced to relent, and decides Gitmo will remain open, Petraeus will agree with that too.
After reading other posters negative comments, too many of which manifest culpable ignorance, I can only conclude I overreacted to your relatively innocuous comment.:-)
Heck, send them to Sherrif Joe....make them wear pink and eat bologna. And if they’re acting up.....bacon!
Bingo. In fact, to do so would put him in violation of the UCMJ. Which is why asking his opionon about this matter is a cheap shot by the press (what a shock).
“The only good enemy is a dead enemy.” - General George S. Patton
Waterboarding was never done at GITMO. No interrogations were done at GITMO. They were sent elsewhere.
This link below is about Nancy Pelosi and her thugs destroying san joaquin farmers but also a senator speaking on GITMO. Go to 5/26/09
Obama has said he refuses waterboarding or harsh interrogations but there may come a time it is needed. Cheney said as much in his speech. Obama has not ruled it out under extreme circumstance. Bush felt 9/11 was extreme. He wanted to keep America safe.
Prisoners are sent elsewhere to other countries for interrogations. Obama will still allow prisoners to be sent out.
Eric Holder has been called on the carpet to answer how much he knew when as part of the Clinton administration they sent prisoners to other countries for torture. True to the democrat party he has stammered and acted all pelosi.
Holder Was Aware of Clinton-Era Renditions
As Eric Holder decides whether or not to prosecute former Bush officials, he now finds himself facing some tough questions of his own.
Thursday, Senate Republicans questioned Holder on whether or not he was aware renditions were used during his tenure as Bill Clinton’s deputy attorney general. Renditions is a practice used by the CIA to transport prisoners to other countries that some say sanction torture.
So did Eric Holder in his previous role have knowledge that torture was taking place?
SENATOR RICHARD SHELBY, R-ALA.: During your tenure as the deputy attorney general of the United States ‘97 to 2001 did you know about these renditions?
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: Yes. No, I’d have to look back. I don’t know the exact numbers that Senator Alexander...
SHELBY: No. Did you know about them? I didn’t say how many.
HOLDER: I certainly know that generally that there were renditions that were occurring. I can’t honestly say that I knew about specific interrogation techniques that were being used at that time.
Nothing has changed except obama wants everyone to believe he has made change. There is no change.
Does everyone know it was Bill Clinton who signed the order for harsh interrogations if needed?
If their country doesn't want them back after tribunal, send them to Egypt. I have no doubt as to the kind of questioning and incarceration the Egyptians would give them. They would be begging to return to Gitmo.
obama was told when he took office he had to keep gates. He had no choice. And yes all the progressives were figthing mad as well as obama. I cannot tell you who told me this. It was a father of someone close to Gates. So take it for whatever second hand information is worth.
But it made me wonder if they could do that to Obama then what is up? How is that possible to say he had no choice? Are we being set up? Why is Gates so important? Then when Gates started cutting expenses I wondered again, are we being set up with something that has been planned for years?
Then I'd say finish the job and Iraq (regadless if it was right or wrong in the first place, that decision was made) and Afghanistan (which was needed), then go home, and not get tied up in foreign entanglements in the future unless it is a very last resort.
In the final analysis, the question of Gitmo is more about housing terrorists in US prisons, IN WHICH CASE THEY WILL GET JURY TRIALS AND CITIZENS RIGHTS (insisted upon by ACLU and fellow travelers)WHEN THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SUCH. They should have military tribunals, and if found guilty, punished appropriately--firing squad anyone?
And that is why we have GITMO. They are not American citizens. They are lying they were not involved. They do not belong in our courts alongside American citizens. And you are right, once they hit our soil they will get all rights. They will get reparations and welfare. obama will say he is sorry and bow to them.
I see no problem with GITMO. obama says 100 of the terrorists can never be released so he plans to build a prison or house them here until the war on terrorism is over anyway. What's the difference? The difference is he promised to close gitmo. The difference is he needs to slam Bush as much as possible and remind everyone they voted for him for change. Remind everyone to keep him in power and vote for him and his thugs.
The other day on the news they said, get this, 40,000 a year were being reformed to Islam in prisons. Can you even imagine the terrorists and how they would recruit in our prisons?
bump! bump! bump!
Whaddya mean "in the making?" Becoming a 4-star general in today's military pretty much means you have sucking up down to an art form.
Colonel Hackworth didn't call them perfumed princes for nothing. ;)
We already are. The Geneva Convention does not apply to illegal combatants. They are not rebels, which it does apply to, they are stateless terrorists, which it explicitly does not apply to. If they wore uniforms, even an armband, they'd be legal combatants. Instead, they dress like the people, hide in religious facilities, along with their weapons, and kill innocents as a matter of preference, not just accidentally when going after opposing combatant forces.
They should have been put on the converted WW-II troop transport, the USS Vandenberg. They'd be sleeping with the fishes now, since it was sunk for an artificial reef a few days ago.
I'll take 20. Make that 40, I've got two houses.
Both built on slabs.
Actually what they have been doing has been just the opposite. They've concentrated on the federal government. Making it stronger, making if more influential, making more people "dependent", in one or another, on it. Then they took it over as completely as it's possible to do, using our current system. Now that they have it, and the power that goes with it, they aren't likely to give it up, democratically or otherwise, unless they are forced to do so.
Generals will not be backstabbing their Chief. What is happening lately is that obambi is requiring Public Loyalty Oaths from his Generals, before he sacrifices and surrenders the military overseas.
obambi is trying to forestall a Coup. He know he doesn’t have the guts to fight NK or Iran or even Venezuela. AND he knows that America’s enemies have the >blackmale< goods on him and Larry Sinclair and Donald Young....telephone calls, photos and emails.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.