"moral high ground"? this coming from Obama? puh-leeze

Before you close it, can you put Mitt Romney in there for a week. He believes it should have been doubled in size and capacity, rather than closed. I just wonder if he truly knows what the fuck that place was.

kthxbye

That constant barrage of sounds of cameras being snapped really makes anything anyone says seem very important.

I think I'm going to start carrying around a tape recorder that just plays that sound in a loop any time I talk to anyone. I could probably get out of a traffic ticket or get a free cheeseburger.

Terrorists will do nothing differently because of this egregious mistake.

The message being sent to the enemy is: "We are weak."

^You are so brainwashed. Terrorism is a boogieman designed to frighten gullible citizens like yourself. Never let imaginary foes keep you from doing what is right.

what business do we have building prisons or military bases in other countries?

He's only closing the prison I believe, the base stays. Be silly to close Gitmo itself, it's a hub AND a buffer.

Can't upvote until I see him actually saying those words ("... to that effect, we are finally closing Guantanamo prison"), or signing the order.

quantumushroom,

Weakness was exactly the message we sent to them when our previous administration broke our country's own rules.

Doing what is wrong, but easy, is weakness.
Doing what is right, but hard, is strength.

Our weakness was letting those who brought the twin towers down have 8 years to regroup, rearm, recruit. It's time to make those who owe, pay.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Terrorists will do nothing differently because of this egregious mistake.
The message being sent to the enemy is: "We are weak."


"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

>> ^BisH0p69
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Hear hear!

I heart you, Obama.

Great stuff. Deep bow to that man (I live in Korea, that's how we do things).

>> ^Bfresh:
Our weakness was letting those who brought the twin towers down have 8 years to regroup, rearm, recruit. It's time to make those who owe, pay.

You're searching for a specter...we've spent a lot of money looking for this imaginary "organization".

"Fighting a war on terror is like fighting a war on jealousy" -David Cross

Terrorists will do nothing differently because of this egregious mistake.

The message being sent to the enemy is: "We are weak."

You know and I know it's not weakness to treat an enemy humanely. However, what WE think doesn't count, because the terrorists from Russian and Arabic cultures view all concessions and negotiations as weakness.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's little use debating the dangers of a suicidal, homicidal enemy with folks who deny evil exists or believe jihadists can be reasoned with. It's quite obviously a very dangerous world and Democrats have a terrible track record of protecting America.

You fellows like to pretend Bush has somehow shut down or taken away your rights. Bullshit. Name ONE of YOUR rights being affected, and I don't mean cut-n-paste hearsay from the Daily Komatose. How has YOUR life been affected? Taps on your phone? Waterboarding suspects at the local library? Credit score? Resume? The very act of typing anti-Bush or anti-government sentiment shows you don't believe you're in any danger whatsoever. Even the presses of the traitorous New York Slimes continue to roll.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Think of the Franklin quote the next time you want government to take over your health care and give vote-buying "tax cuts" to people who don't pay taxes.

Obama makes noises like Robocop

No one is debating the dangers of a suicidal, homicidal enemy. It's quite obviously a very dangerous world and the previous administration has a terrible track record of compromising morals and human rights in the name of protecting America.

Guantanmo is a symbol that represents a moment of weakness for our country. We lowered our standards for what is right, in the name of combating these enemies; that's a victory for our enemies, not for us.

The existence of interrogation and holding facilities at Bagram Airbase, Abu Graib and Guantanmo has been a vital recruitment tool for terrorist organizations.

Its not a sign of weakness to dismantle these facilities and increase the legal international standing of the war on terror amongst international allies.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Terrorists will do nothing differently because of this egregious mistake.
The message being sent to the enemy is: "We are weak."
You know and I know it's not weakness to treat an enemy humanely. However, what WE think doesn't count, because the terrorists from Russian and Arabic cultures view all concessions and negotiations as weakness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's little use debating the dangers of a suicidal, homicidal enemy with folks who deny evil exists or believe jihadists can be reasoned with. It's quite obviously a very dangerous world and Democrats have a terrible track record of protecting America.
You fellows like to pretend Bush has somehow shut down or taken away your rights. Bullshit. Name ONE of YOUR rights being affected, and I don't mean cut-n-paste hearsay from the Daily Komatose. How has YOUR life been affected? Taps on your phone? Waterboarding suspects at the local library? Credit score? Resume? The very act of typing anti-Bush or anti-government sentiment shows you don't believe you're in any danger whatsoever. Even the presses of the traitorous New York Slimes continue to roll.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Think of the Franklin quote the next time you want government to take over your health care and give vote-buying "tax cuts" to people who don't pay taxes.


You're having a conversation with yourself. You don't even listen to what people say right here in this thread, you just respond to Rush Limbaugh inspired straw men that bear no resemblance to the people on "the left".

The best part is how you can't even go 2 straight responses without stooping to childish name calling, as if it makes your argument stronger.

You even recycled the Ben Franklin quote, without responding to the critique that it applies to your position on foreign policy more readily than health care.

Franklin was talking about limits on search and seizure, freedom of speech, and habeas corpus, not the freedom to have your medical treatment denied by pencil pushers, and I think deep down you know that.

Oh, and BTW, if criticism of Bush was anti-government and treason, any and all criticism of Obama is now anti-government treason. Turn yourself in, or we'll be forced to dispatch black helicopters (now with black pilots) to collect you, and send you to experience "enhanced interrogation" as an "unlawful combatant".

Don't like it? Well, I'm sure at some point, years later, someone will give you a show trial to air your complaints, dismiss them, and then send you back to your cell indefinitely.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Terrorists will do nothing differently because of this egregious mistake.
The message being sent to the enemy is: "We are weak."


The fact is that many "terrorists" are inspired to do fanatical things to end a regime that does the fanatical. Guantanamo is a internationally known as a place where a government tortures people even against its own laws. In some respects, anyone who works to put an end to such terror can be viewed as trying to put an end to terror no matter how they go about doing it. If you want to put an end to terrorism, give them less to fight against.

By closing Guantanamo (on pretty much the first day of business no less), Obama has sent a clear message to the world, and "terrorist" will have a harder time recruiting to fight what they perceive as injustices--like torture.

>> ^Bfresh:
Our weakness was letting those who brought the twin towers down have 8 years to regroup, rearm, recruit. It's time to make those who owe, pay.


The people who brought down the twin towers died in the cockpits of planes. If you want to search the world to find someone to pay for that crime beyond what has already been done, you will only inspire people to repeat it.

You're having a conversation with yourself. You don't even listen to what people say right here in this thread.

To the contrary, I know EXACTLY what is being said here. I'm trying to poke and prod the insanity that allows some to ignore the atrocities Muslims have inflicted on the world throughout the centuries in favor of exploiting and getting hysterical over what amount to minor infractions which likely saved innocent lives.

Why do liberals act appalled when it is suggested they hate America? What other conclusion could anyone reach observing such fault-finding? What kind of madness prompts the victims of violence to ask "What did we do to make them hate us?"

Franklin was talking about limits on search and seizure, freedom of speech, and habeas corpus, not the freedom to have your medical treatment denied by pencil pushers, and I think deep down you know that.

What's the more likely scenario, black helicopters and stormtroopers or some bureaucrat deciding you go to the back of the waiting list for a heart transplant? When you let government nationalize once-free markets, you are giving up freedom for an assumed quality of health security. Per the quote, in the end you get neither.

By closing Guantanamo (on pretty much the first day of business no less), Obama has sent a clear message to the world, and "terrorists" will have a harder time recruiting to fight what they perceive as injustices--like torture.

History does not support this conclusion. There have been over 12,000 attacks by Islamic terrorists since 9/11 and no news anywhere that Obama's election has given terrorists pause.

Call it a personality defect, but I feel nothing for people sworn to kill me for being an American or infidel. These scum are not part of a legitimate fighting force so they can't be sent home, nor do they qualify for protection under the Geneva Conventions, which they ignore completely. The best we can do for them is send them to Allah, postage paid.

Oh, and BTW, if criticism of Bush was anti-government and treason, any and all criticism of Obama is now anti-government treason.

It's only treason to question The One's judgment and secrecy here at liberalsift.

For now. :0)

>> ^quantumushroom:
I'm trying to poke and prod the insanity that allows some to ignore the atrocities Muslims have inflicted on the world throughout the centuries

Atrocities were committed by Christians and other religious dominations for centuries as well, you are connecting a religion with a political conflict. Islamic terrorism uses Islam simply as a tool not as a idealogical cornerstone.

in favor of exploiting and getting hysterical over what amount to minor infractions which likely saved innocent lives.

Minor infractions to someone who doesn't respect the moral and ethical standing of the US in the international arena. Americans won World War 2 and the Cold War because it did not succumb to the same thinking that drove oppressive regimes like that, the entire American ideology is built around Law and respect for Civil Liberties. You are supporting a means to a end that would basically bring down the America you seek to save.

When you let government nationalize once-free markets, you are giving up freedom for an assumed quality of health security.

This is just stupid Right wing alarmist rubbish, if the socialization of health care means that people do not receive health care please explain the high health rates amongst 'socialist' states like Japan, England, Canada and most of Europe. Thanks.

Health care is not a commodity thus you cannot create a free market around it, you can create a free market in it's provision but not in its supply. Corporations don't care about social health and welfare, they care about profits.

History does not support this conclusion. There have been over 12,000 attacks by Islamic terrorists since 9/11 and no news anywhere that Obama's election has given terrorists pause.

It's fucking January 24th 2009. How long has Obama been in power?

Call it a personality defect, but I feel nothing for people sworn to kill me for being an American or infidel.

Am muslim. I never really had the need to kill you because you are a kaffir. You are too amusing to be lost.

These scum are not part of a legitimate fighting force so they can't be sent home, nor do they qualify for protection under the Geneva Conventions, which they ignore completely.

Under Geneva Conventions Article 3 they are covered for capture. The Geneva Conventions give no coverage in the face of crimes, thus your allegation that they are given blanket protection is ill informed.

It's only treason to question The One's judgment and secrecy here at liberalsift.

Says the person who would vehemently defend each and every decision that Bush would make, even claiming that questioning his thinking was treason, before reversing course and calling him a soft Conservative and a RINO half way through 2007.

>> ^BisH0p69:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Terrorists will do nothing differently because of this egregious mistake.
The message being sent to the enemy is: "We are weak."

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin


Yeah, that's horseshit. Freedom means freedom of thought. And most Americans lost that a long time ago.

to QM
You cannot justify Kinnapping, Torture and Illegal (read:Unjust) Imprisonment on a bogeyman. 'Terrorism' exists, but not in the loony manner Rumsfeld wanted you to believe. Living in caves, hating freedom....

>> ^NetRunner:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Franklin was talking about limits on search and seizure, freedom of speech, and habeas corpus...

most likely not the case, but you might find discussion of the quote's origins and possible meanings interesting

http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605

Quantummushroom,

by bringing health care nationalization into this discussing as reponse to my Franklin quote you have effectively labeled me as pro groverment intervention. This wholly incorrect and seems to indicate your lack of understanding of different points of view on the world (not everyone is either conservative or liberal). I am in fact a classical liberal in the mould of your founding fathers(libertarian in today's terms) meaning I am for small and responsible goverment that let's its citizens get on with their own matters as far as possible and does not involve itself with our lives. But the fact is this is not really part of the main discussion.

You can word it any which way you want, but the fact remains: You CANNOT lock people up indefinitely without trial and torture some and then try to worm your way out of responsibilities by claiming they're "illegal combatants" and by redefining torture. It is obscene and it is wrong, plain and simple.

*Quantumushroom

>> ^Farhad2000:
>> Health care is not a commodity thus you cannot create a free market around it, you can create a free market in it's provision but not in its supply.


Health care contains both services and goods, but even if it was just a service, a service is still an asset, which means it's subject to the normal processes that govern free markets (e.g. supply and demand). You can reduce supply, not just its provision, by training fewer doctors, producing/researching fewer treatments, etc.

I believe the argument that the industry contains greater inefficiencies when not socialized derives from other factors.

>> ^quantumushroom:
By closing Guantanamo (on pretty much the first day of business no less), Obama has sent a clear message to the world, and "terrorists" will have a harder time recruiting to fight what they perceive as injustices--like torture.
History does not support this conclusion. There have been over 12,000 attacks by Islamic terrorists since 9/11 and no news anywhere that Obama's election has given terrorists pause.

And how many of those 12,000 attacks by "Islamic terrorists" occurred while the Guantanamo Bay Prison was operational? Have the number of such attacks increased or decreased compared to the total number of attacks in the 8 years prior to its operation?

I believe you will find a sharp increase in the number of attacks against the U.S. and its citizens right around the same time as the prison's founding. It's existence represents totalitarianism in the world. Its presence makes the world a more dangerous place for all those aforementioned citizens, and the state that ran it.

>> ^Diogenes:
http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605

Interesting, so it had more to do with migration of power from the legislative branch to the executive for "national security" than anything else.

It's more directly supportive of my argument than I thought.


>> ^quantumushroom:
What's the more likely scenario, black helicopters and stormtroopers or some bureaucrat deciding you go to the back of the waiting list for a heart transplant?

In Franklin's time? Redcoats with general warrants; the black helicopter stormtroopers of the day.

Reread the 3rd amendment, and try to imagine a time when that shared parity of importance with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

>> ^quantumushroom:
To the contrary, I know EXACTLY what is being said here.

No, you really don't. Let me try to clarify the central misunderstanding you have about us that seems to be a running thread to all of your critiques of Democrats: we think the strategy of accusing a loyal opposition of disloyalty is a slippery slope to the end of what this country stands for.

It's what's galvanized our side against people like you.

We think this country is as much about ideals as it is about the land and people. By dismantling the ideas in the misguided attempt to safeguard the land and people you are destroying the country.

When you disregard the values set forth in the Constitution, like habeas corpus, and protections from illegal search and seizure (which covers both torture and wiretapping), we object, strongly.

When you then question our patriotism for speaking out against your destruction of our country, you are just shredding one more of our ideals we hold sacred (that whole 1st amendment thing), while trying to justify the shredding of others.

I will gladly say that your ideas and goals will destroy the country; but I won't accuse you of hating the country and attempting to intentionally destroy it the way you do of me.

^ that's how i took it as well, heh heh