Eric Holder: We aim to close Gitmo before Election Day

You sure have no problem presenting your opinions as the end all be all fact.

And then add in a little arrogance and avoidance like icing on the cake.

A military prison outside of the United States violates the Constitution? Please do point me to that portion of the Constitution that supports your claim... excuse me. Your opinion.

 

I can't see the point in even trying to bring this up. People care more about 9% unemployment, crippling debt (personal and national) and about 5000 other things at the moment. This is just another stupid move by an inept administration. Go figure?

 

you make more sense when you make the statements in my sig

 

Read the Sixth Amendment. You will find your answer there.

 

So suddenly with an election looming, they decide to take a three year old campaign promise seriously?

PATHETIC!

 

We already have a right leaning president.

Remember, Obamacare is unconstitutional because national health care is not in the constitution. Show me where in the constitution it support torturing humans and keeping people (who haven't been convicted of a crime) in jail.

An election is looming? No, what I see is a farce. You think we have a system where the politicians go on the campaign trail to "listen" to the American people when in reality we have a few people who are so insanely rich that they literally don't have to do a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing but tour the country and give speeches. They raise millions of dollars in order to obtain an office that allows them to take billions from the American people and dole it out to whomever they choose. And then they have foolish people believing an election is looming in fact we have an exhibition of how gullible the American people can really be.

 

Clinton had nothing to do with the Computer revolution in this country, that boosted the economy and created a 5 trillion dollar industry.

Clinton has 2 years to do anything domestically to keep Americans safe considering the credible threats, what did he do? Bush inherited a double economic whammy, the dot.com bubble bursting and the 9/11 attacks. You need to be honest in the debates as well. I don't think you can.

 

I really respect conservatives that can be intellectually honest in a debate and despise those that spew nothing but horse sh**. One one hand you say Clinton had nothing to do with the computer revolution, but had it been a Republican president, your argument would be that he laid the framework for innovation and entrepreneurship to take place. Then you proceed to say that Bush inherited the dot.com bubble. I guess from Clinton? So Clinton was responsible for creating the tech bubble but not the tech revolution? Ok, then you ask the question what did he do to keep America safe? Well considering 9/11 happened under Bush's watch, I'd say he must have done a lot. So being the Democrat he is responsible for all that went wrong during his administration but for nothing that went right. He was the first president to pass real welfare reform. Oh, I know, it was because he had a Republican congress to do that for him. Wow, there is just no credit due to a Democrat among you hardcore, partisan Republicans.

I've never dismissed the fact that Clinton was the benfactor of the IT revolution. There is no one that would disagree with that. But judge them all the same way. We are a results based society. Based on the results, Clinton was the bomb, Obama sucks and Bush sucked worse. No matter what spin you want to put on it, the proofs in the pudding.

 

I just love it when anyone talks about intellectual honesty then commences to tell me what I will say. That's real honest. Why don't you let me speak for myself. I guess that wouldn't fit your agenda would it.

 

You've said enough. It doesn't take intellect to understand the point you made. Everything negative that happened under Bush was Clinton's fault. Everything positive that happened under Clinton was not due to anything Clinton did. Pretty much sums up your argument.

 

So the decision about Gitmo should be determine by political expediencies?

 

Only to you.

 

If that were so he would have closed it two years ago, he didn't, he is as complicit in any assertions you make.

 

He will get the extreme rads vote. Good job....and moderates and indy will see so right through it and lose him significantly more than the rads gain.

 

No, but can you blame the guy. He's a politician.

Agreed. But just as conservatives are not honest about needing government regulations, taxes, etc, liberals can be just as bad about needing to sometimes step on the rights of others. I don't agree with Gitmo still being open but if we are going to continue to occupy countries and make enemies around the world, I'd suggest you do more than read a person their rights.

 

wow, what a coWINKY DINK LOL. yeah right at the elections you say? how friggin typical lol.

whats next is Obama gonna declare that everyone is gonna get $1000 in the mail, as long as they vote for him hahaha.

 

Yes I can blame him, he is the President and if he is putting his own political future about the best interest of the country on a matter of national security all the more reason to see him removed from office, one way or the other.

One has nothing to do with the other, the fact as Obama learned was that Gitmo is the best solution for the situation. And POW's, even illegal Combatants, can be held until we decide hostilities have ended and they are no threat to return to the battlefield. As this administration has learned.

 

Name me one president that hasn't (maybe Carter). Let's not get all self righteous now that we have a Democratic President.

No, but it shows that both sides tend to be dishonest to protect their ideology.

 

The difference is that the Republicans got their asses beat so bad in 2006-2008 that they had no choice but to straighten up their act and fly right. The Democrats have had no such reformation within their ranks. The GOP is being watched so closely right now that they simply cannot engage in outright scandal the way Obama is.

This isn't your daddy's GOP anymore, it's an entirely different beast and unlike Democrats, it holds itself accountable.

 

As the Church Lady would say - How connnnveeeenient!

 

Really? So what proof do you have of that? Because they won't sign a single piece of legislation submitted by Dems? Nothing has changed in the GOP, just look at the front runners for their presidential nomination.

Actually my father is still a Republican, but has nothing to do with the new act. Hold itself accountable? I believe it is a part of the Democratic party that is looking for a new candidate. The Repubs did no such thing in 2004 and will never do anything like that.

 

So IF he can bring them here,it will bring about a heavy burden on our already maxed out judicial system.Then,we will have to pay for the trials.These TERRORISTS waged war against the United States and deserve to be tried in military tribunals and punished .Not tried in our "civilian" courts.
This is a very VERY stupid move.And they dont even bother consulting military officials,or Congress,and I already know Congress will say HELL NOOO.

 

I hate getting my hopes up just to have them shattered.

They better pull through this time. I want to sleep more peacefully at night (Which I've been having trouble sleeping after I learned they were re-trying the prisoners -- double jeopardy!!).

But, I'm not a fool. This is just going to die in congress isn't it? Republicans love their secret, illegal prisons.

 

By Venezuelan standards.

 

Good, then you can put them up at your own expense in your home! Because even Nancy Pelosi says hell no.

These bastards made war against us, we don't owe them (*)(*)(*)(*) but a swfit bullet in the brain. Chinese Style. I have no pity for enemies of my nation and you shouldn't either.