Yes, let's decrease our military presence in a communist country located 90 miles off our mainland. Cuba maintains diplomatic relations with Russia, the United States does not have diplomatic relations with Cuba. US-Russian relations are "complicated" at best. Cuba's governmental stability is iffy. Guantanamo remains the only US military base located in a country where we have no diplomatic relations and sits a stones throw from the Keys. Seems like a smart idea NOT to shrink our footprint where sketchy neighbors hang out with questionable influences. This is not conspiratorial, it is merely in our best interest to look past the detention facility alone and take in the whole geopolitical picture.
The question, and the proposal it refers to, is not to have US forces leave Guantanamo, but whether to close the detention facility there. Those are two different issues. The President has not proposed the removal of US forces from Guantanamo, only the closing of the detention facility.
James, I realize that, but Guantanamo's main function at this point is the support of the detention facility. If that closes and is not replaced with another purposed entity, then the only thing we would maintain over there would be a two rarely used airstrips, 4 windmills, some beaches, and a McDonalds. Closing the detention facility would significantly reduce our presence and boots on the ground there, without question. We have bases and troops in areas where it can be argued we don't belong, Cuba is one where we should maintain as many as justifiable, it is literally our backyard.
Really, Jeff you are worried about Cuba attacking us? Or Russia? What we should be doing after closing the detention facility is opening trade and diplomatic relations with Cuba. Do that and watch their communism dissolve rapidly. I know there are many Cuban immigrants here who lost land, property and family members to the Castro regime and they should be recompensed somehow, that can be done diplomatically or through an international court of some sort. Other than that, there is no reason for us to continue to boycott Cuba. But this is a digression.
Dave, I knew someone would read the absurd into it. Relations with Cuba and Russia are a two way street. My only point is that lowering our profile in Cuba absent any replacement change in diplomatic relations, alternative presence, or political epiphany from both sides (all three sides) is unnecessary and a potentially harmful exposure. Cuba could or may already be a gateway for individuals and/or groups who harbor ill will towards the US to gain entry. Remember, Cuba is a place from which a group of people can launch in a rusted out hull of a '57 Chevy floating on pontoons made of oil drums and disappear into the streets of Florida virtually undetected. For the larger picture, let's keep our presence in Cuba at it's current level, for whatever reason, since lowering it could have unintended consequences.
You knew someone would read the absurd into your comments because it is hard not to. Anyway, holding individuals without charges and torture is not a very good argument for supporting your belief that we need to continue to intimidate Cuba against allowing criminal or terrorists to sneak into our country. Holding these people in a detention facility in addition to just being plain wrong and contrary to our American Constitution, means that we are in effect calling them Enemy Combatants instead of the proper term "criminal terrorists". All it does is feed their own delusions of grandeur of being holy warriors at war with Satan or whatever. It is my belief (which I'm sure you will ridicule, and be wrong again) that this is propagated by the shadowy military-industrial complex which seeks to continue to profit both monetarily and politically from keeping this nation in a state of near-continuous war. They need those bogey-men to keep stealing our money and encroaching on our freedoms. Obama can do this by reversing the Executive Orders which allow this pox on our country, he's just using Congress as an excuse because he wants to continue foreign involvements. Release the 86 or so who have been determined to pose no threat or have no connection to terrorist groups, have trials for the others, present evidence and make a damn decision. If they are guilty then the appropriate sentence needs to be carried out, execution, imprisonment in America or deportation to another country. Personally, I don't really give a crap if Yemen tortures them, that's on Yemen. We should not be doing any of this, we are supposed to be guided by our Constitution, regardless of the accused being a citizen or not.
Dave, I will not ridicule your beliefs, you obviously have me mixed up with someone else. My track record on here will support that I don't resort to ridicule. We do disagree that people who are a threat to our country and are not citizens do not get to enjoy the priveliges afforded those who are natural born citizens or who have judiciously completed the process of becoming one. I also don't seek to create or support bogeymen as a way to drive a war machine, I do however choose to recognize that the Boston bombers, Major Hassan, the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the Toronto train bombers, etc. are not bogeymen. They are real, they are dangerous, and they are not all gone. I know I am mixing citizen examples with non-citizen examples, but the concept is the same. There are ideologies that hate us and seek our destruction. Having some of them locked up in Gitmo is perfectly ok with me. Having Gitmo afford us an opportunity to maintain a significant presence in a country so close and with a tenuous history with ours is a bonus.
Ok, Jeff. Fair is Fair. I will take back the ridicule remark.
All those home-grown terrorists you mention are indeed real, I agree. They are criminals and murderers and should be dealt with accordingly. What I cannot agree with is that we should have different standards for how we deal with terrorist criminals depending on citizenship. Our Constitution has a Bill of Rights, not a list of privileges for citizens only. This is not about what's right or should be afforded to the criminal, it's about who we are as a nation, what this country truly stands for and how we deal with those who do harm to others.
By bogeyman, I should clarify. I'm referring to the notion that we need to be proactive in the world through attacks, drone or otherwise and keeping suspects in an offshore detention facility so we can torture them and get information to thwart further attacks, because they will attack us if we don't. I believe our policies, like Gitmo are causing more problems for us than they solve.
Here. Try some of these berries. At first you'll puke your guts out, but after awhile you'll see things differently. You'll forget what Cuba was like under Batista. You won't be able to tell the difference between Russia and the Soviet Union. You'll convince yourself that the military should operate extra-jurisdictional prisons. Great stuff!
Dave, i can't argue with your assertion that we as a country do tend to reach and create the bogeymen you talk about and yes, it is counterproductive to our standing in the world. However, we face a real and present threat by Fundamental Islamic extremists who are not going to be influenced by an olive branch and a handshake. By the diligent efforts of our men and women in uniform, we capture these people and thus need a place ot put them. Guantanamo offers a win, win ,win as far as I'm concerned. Close by, out of our borders, and the bonus of a watchful eye on their government and goings on in a country whose resident are fleeing from it, not vice versa.
The reason Cuba and Guantanamo are suddenly back in the spotlight is thanks to the efforts of our President dispatching our duly appointed ambassadors Beyonce and Jay Z for some much needed photo ops holding hands with cute little school children and laughing smiling citizens following them around like pied pipers of peace. Now all of a sudden Cuba is cool and Obama has capitlaized on policy by pop culture. Instead of leading in the efforts to somehow forge new relations with Cuba, he as he always has, tried it in the court of public opinion first. Now that he laid the groundwork with a little hip-hop Havana, positive press photos, and warm anecdotes of a people who live peacefully under their beloved government , Gitmo suddenly comes to the forefront.
Like I said before, absent some major policy change, paradigm shift in thinking by both governments, or a plausible reuse for Gitmo militarily, closure right now or in the near future could prove short-sighted.
C.M. are you implying that just because there was a break off of a few satellites that Russia and the old Soviet Union are really all that different? We would not be well served to think that Putin and the rest of the old KGB guard all had wholesale, paradoxical reversals in policy and process.
Jeff the reason why this is back in the lime light is because most of the prisoners at gitmo have been on a hunger strike for the last 66 days and re being force fed. Two reporters asked the President about it and that is when he came up with the trying to close it again speech.
Beyoncé and Jay Z are just media fodder
BTW. I was stationed at the Marine Barracks at gitmo in the 80's, those beaches ae among the best in the world ;)
Got as close as the bay, Mark. The senior officers CDR and above got to go to the base, but us knuckleheads got to stay and find something to clean or paint. LOL. That was 1983 or 84, don't remember exactly. The beaches looked pretty nice and that water was the bluest, clearest I've ever seen.
I was on the USS Saratoga, aircraft carrier. But you guys probably had 2 or 3 a year through there, so I can't blame you if you don't remember it. Big grey, airplanes on the deck, 5,500 sufferin' bastards
My question is this for those who voted yes. What shall we do with these detainees if, we close Guantanamo? Do we set them free so, they can attack Americans again? Do we put them into our prison systems so, they can recuit our violent and mentally unstable criminals to assist in attacks on a society that has turn their back on them? Most of their home countries do not want them returned. So, what do we do with them and still keep our citizens safe from their hatred? Heck, why not just let them end their life if, that is what they want? (sarcasm or not)
Man,not to get too far off topic, but I can remember how damn hot it would get. we were playing war games and they would simulate a biological attack and close off all ventilation systems and then I had to put on a friggin' rubber suit and mask and go out and wash down exterior surfaces with a mop. It was about 100 degrees and 90% humidity. Be good for my old fat butt nowadays. I can imagine you went snorkeling every chance you got. not much else to do anyways. I know people who have traveled in Cuba, (no rap singers) and I'm told it really is some beautiful country
They are proposing to build a high security Federal prison in Illinois to contain this terrorist, Muslim scum. Personally I do not want these people in the borders of the lower 48 states.
Wonderful in a state with a high volume of muslims and in Obama's political backyard. That is all we need, to put these scumbags in our country and risk escapes of such. Hey, maybe Obama is going to recuit more democratic voters by granting them Citizenship. Why not? Democrats and Liberals do not care to validate immigrants coming into America. They do not care that we are allowing immigrants in with no intentions/nor skills to work /support themselves. They do not care that they are allowing immigrants who are coming here with the intention to harm America.
I am not saying we need to close our borders but, as I mention we need to CONTROL OUR BORDERS and who we allow in. No skills and no way to support yourself equals NO ENTRY! Broken pledges of alligance equals revoking citizenship.
Oh I forgot. Why not treat the Boston Bomber as a enemy combatant? Yes, he was naturalize US citizen who took a pledge of alligance to the USA. His betrayal should be an automatic dismissal as a US citizen. Innocent until proven guilty has already been displayed not to mention led to more individuals being questioned for making false statements and hindering an investigation.
Here is what Jay Leno had to say about Obama's press conference the other day. Sounds about right.
"President Obama held a press conference today. He said he still wants to close the Guantanamo Bay prison facility, but he doesn't know how to do it. He should do what he always does. Declare it a small business and tax it out of existence." - Jay Leno
I think his pants are
I think his pants are actually on fire in one of these clips
[video:www.youtube.com/watch?v=8USRg3h4AdE]
Yes, let's decrease our
Yes, let's decrease our military presence in a communist country located 90 miles off our mainland. Cuba maintains diplomatic relations with Russia, the United States does not have diplomatic relations with Cuba. US-Russian relations are "complicated" at best. Cuba's governmental stability is iffy. Guantanamo remains the only US military base located in a country where we have no diplomatic relations and sits a stones throw from the Keys. Seems like a smart idea NOT to shrink our footprint where sketchy neighbors hang out with questionable influences. This is not conspiratorial, it is merely in our best interest to look past the detention facility alone and take in the whole geopolitical picture.
The question, and the
The question, and the proposal it refers to, is not to have US forces leave Guantanamo, but whether to close the detention facility there. Those are two different issues. The President has not proposed the removal of US forces from Guantanamo, only the closing of the detention facility.
James, I realize that, but
James, I realize that, but Guantanamo's main function at this point is the support of the detention facility. If that closes and is not replaced with another purposed entity, then the only thing we would maintain over there would be a two rarely used airstrips, 4 windmills, some beaches, and a McDonalds. Closing the detention facility would significantly reduce our presence and boots on the ground there, without question. We have bases and troops in areas where it can be argued we don't belong, Cuba is one where we should maintain as many as justifiable, it is literally our backyard.
Really, Jeff you are worried
Really, Jeff you are worried about Cuba attacking us? Or Russia? What we should be doing after closing the detention facility is opening trade and diplomatic relations with Cuba. Do that and watch their communism dissolve rapidly. I know there are many Cuban immigrants here who lost land, property and family members to the Castro regime and they should be recompensed somehow, that can be done diplomatically or through an international court of some sort. Other than that, there is no reason for us to continue to boycott Cuba. But this is a digression.
Dave, I knew someone would
Dave, I knew someone would read the absurd into it. Relations with Cuba and Russia are a two way street. My only point is that lowering our profile in Cuba absent any replacement change in diplomatic relations, alternative presence, or political epiphany from both sides (all three sides) is unnecessary and a potentially harmful exposure. Cuba could or may already be a gateway for individuals and/or groups who harbor ill will towards the US to gain entry. Remember, Cuba is a place from which a group of people can launch in a rusted out hull of a '57 Chevy floating on pontoons made of oil drums and disappear into the streets of Florida virtually undetected. For the larger picture, let's keep our presence in Cuba at it's current level, for whatever reason, since lowering it could have unintended consequences.
You knew someone would read
You knew someone would read the absurd into your comments because it is hard not to. Anyway, holding individuals without charges and torture is not a very good argument for supporting your belief that we need to continue to intimidate Cuba against allowing criminal or terrorists to sneak into our country. Holding these people in a detention facility in addition to just being plain wrong and contrary to our American Constitution, means that we are in effect calling them Enemy Combatants instead of the proper term "criminal terrorists". All it does is feed their own delusions of grandeur of being holy warriors at war with Satan or whatever. It is my belief (which I'm sure you will ridicule, and be wrong again) that this is propagated by the shadowy military-industrial complex which seeks to continue to profit both monetarily and politically from keeping this nation in a state of near-continuous war. They need those bogey-men to keep stealing our money and encroaching on our freedoms. Obama can do this by reversing the Executive Orders which allow this pox on our country, he's just using Congress as an excuse because he wants to continue foreign involvements. Release the 86 or so who have been determined to pose no threat or have no connection to terrorist groups, have trials for the others, present evidence and make a damn decision. If they are guilty then the appropriate sentence needs to be carried out, execution, imprisonment in America or deportation to another country. Personally, I don't really give a crap if Yemen tortures them, that's on Yemen. We should not be doing any of this, we are supposed to be guided by our Constitution, regardless of the accused being a citizen or not.
Dave, I will not ridicule
Dave, I will not ridicule your beliefs, you obviously have me mixed up with someone else. My track record on here will support that I don't resort to ridicule. We do disagree that people who are a threat to our country and are not citizens do not get to enjoy the priveliges afforded those who are natural born citizens or who have judiciously completed the process of becoming one. I also don't seek to create or support bogeymen as a way to drive a war machine, I do however choose to recognize that the Boston bombers, Major Hassan, the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the Toronto train bombers, etc. are not bogeymen. They are real, they are dangerous, and they are not all gone. I know I am mixing citizen examples with non-citizen examples, but the concept is the same. There are ideologies that hate us and seek our destruction. Having some of them locked up in Gitmo is perfectly ok with me. Having Gitmo afford us an opportunity to maintain a significant presence in a country so close and with a tenuous history with ours is a bonus.
Ok, Jeff. Fair is Fair. I
Ok, Jeff. Fair is Fair. I will take back the ridicule remark.
All those home-grown terrorists you mention are indeed real, I agree. They are criminals and murderers and should be dealt with accordingly. What I cannot agree with is that we should have different standards for how we deal with terrorist criminals depending on citizenship. Our Constitution has a Bill of Rights, not a list of privileges for citizens only. This is not about what's right or should be afforded to the criminal, it's about who we are as a nation, what this country truly stands for and how we deal with those who do harm to others.
By bogeyman, I should clarify. I'm referring to the notion that we need to be proactive in the world through attacks, drone or otherwise and keeping suspects in an offshore detention facility so we can torture them and get information to thwart further attacks, because they will attack us if we don't. I believe our policies, like Gitmo are causing more problems for us than they solve.
Here. Try some of these
Here. Try some of these berries. At first you'll puke your guts out, but after awhile you'll see things differently. You'll forget what Cuba was like under Batista. You won't be able to tell the difference between Russia and the Soviet Union. You'll convince yourself that the military should operate extra-jurisdictional prisons. Great stuff!
Dave, i can't argue with your
Dave, i can't argue with your assertion that we as a country do tend to reach and create the bogeymen you talk about and yes, it is counterproductive to our standing in the world. However, we face a real and present threat by Fundamental Islamic extremists who are not going to be influenced by an olive branch and a handshake. By the diligent efforts of our men and women in uniform, we capture these people and thus need a place ot put them. Guantanamo offers a win, win ,win as far as I'm concerned. Close by, out of our borders, and the bonus of a watchful eye on their government and goings on in a country whose resident are fleeing from it, not vice versa.
The reason Cuba and Guantanamo are suddenly back in the spotlight is thanks to the efforts of our President dispatching our duly appointed ambassadors Beyonce and Jay Z for some much needed photo ops holding hands with cute little school children and laughing smiling citizens following them around like pied pipers of peace. Now all of a sudden Cuba is cool and Obama has capitlaized on policy by pop culture. Instead of leading in the efforts to somehow forge new relations with Cuba, he as he always has, tried it in the court of public opinion first. Now that he laid the groundwork with a little hip-hop Havana, positive press photos, and warm anecdotes of a people who live peacefully under their beloved government , Gitmo suddenly comes to the forefront.
Like I said before, absent some major policy change, paradigm shift in thinking by both governments, or a plausible reuse for Gitmo militarily, closure right now or in the near future could prove short-sighted.
C.M. are you implying that
C.M. are you implying that just because there was a break off of a few satellites that Russia and the old Soviet Union are really all that different? We would not be well served to think that Putin and the rest of the old KGB guard all had wholesale, paradoxical reversals in policy and process.
Jeff the reason why this is
Jeff the reason why this is back in the lime light is because most of the prisoners at gitmo have been on a hunger strike for the last 66 days and re being force fed. Two reporters asked the President about it and that is when he came up with the trying to close it again speech.
Beyoncé and Jay Z are just media fodder
BTW. I was stationed at the Marine Barracks at gitmo in the 80's, those beaches ae among the best in the world ;)
Got as close as the bay,
Got as close as the bay, Mark. The senior officers CDR and above got to go to the base, but us knuckleheads got to stay and find something to clean or paint. LOL. That was 1983 or 84, don't remember exactly. The beaches looked pretty nice and that water was the bluest, clearest I've ever seen.
83-84, I was probably
83-84, I was probably snorkeling while you were painting Dave LOL
I was on the USS Saratoga,
I was on the USS Saratoga, aircraft carrier. But you guys probably had 2 or 3 a year through there, so I can't blame you if you don't remember it. Big grey, airplanes on the deck, 5,500 sufferin' bastards
I was there for 13 months, I
I was there for 13 months, I remember when the Saratoga poked in, and you are right 2 to 3 a year but we always knew which ones.
My question is this for those
My question is this for those who voted yes. What shall we do with these detainees if, we close Guantanamo? Do we set them free so, they can attack Americans again? Do we put them into our prison systems so, they can recuit our violent and mentally unstable criminals to assist in attacks on a society that has turn their back on them? Most of their home countries do not want them returned. So, what do we do with them and still keep our citizens safe from their hatred? Heck, why not just let them end their life if, that is what they want? (sarcasm or not)
Man,not to get too far off
Man,not to get too far off topic, but I can remember how damn hot it would get. we were playing war games and they would simulate a biological attack and close off all ventilation systems and then I had to put on a friggin' rubber suit and mask and go out and wash down exterior surfaces with a mop. It was about 100 degrees and 90% humidity. Be good for my old fat butt nowadays. I can imagine you went snorkeling every chance you got. not much else to do anyways. I know people who have traveled in Cuba, (no rap singers) and I'm told it really is some beautiful country
They are proposing to build a
They are proposing to build a high security Federal prison in Illinois to contain this terrorist, Muslim scum. Personally I do not want these people in the borders of the lower 48 states.
Wonderful in a state with a
Wonderful in a state with a high volume of muslims and in Obama's political backyard. That is all we need, to put these scumbags in our country and risk escapes of such. Hey, maybe Obama is going to recuit more democratic voters by granting them Citizenship. Why not? Democrats and Liberals do not care to validate immigrants coming into America. They do not care that we are allowing immigrants in with no intentions/nor skills to work /support themselves. They do not care that they are allowing immigrants who are coming here with the intention to harm America.
I am not saying we need to close our borders but, as I mention we need to CONTROL OUR BORDERS and who we allow in. No skills and no way to support yourself equals NO ENTRY! Broken pledges of alligance equals revoking citizenship.
Oh I forgot. Why not treat
Oh I forgot. Why not treat the Boston Bomber as a enemy combatant? Yes, he was naturalize US citizen who took a pledge of alligance to the USA. His betrayal should be an automatic dismissal as a US citizen. Innocent until proven guilty has already been displayed not to mention led to more individuals being questioned for making false statements and hindering an investigation.
Here is what Jay Leno had to
Here is what Jay Leno had to say about Obama's press conference the other day. Sounds about right.
"President Obama held a press conference today. He said he still wants to close the Guantanamo Bay prison facility, but he doesn't know how to do it. He should do what he always does. Declare it a small business and tax it out of existence." - Jay Leno
Hmmm, only 3 negative votes
Hmmm, only 3 negative votes between #22-#23? Obviously very few can't handle the truth.