The President wants the detention center closed within a year. Now the search is on to find new places to hold detainees while they await trial.
One of the places under consideration is Fort Bragg. It's not hard to image the base being considered a possibly site to relocate Gitmo detainees. In the past, Bragg has sent PAO teams and military police units to the detention center in Cuba.
North Carolina congressman David Price says the center should have been shut down long ago.
"it's just unacceptable to have that facility remaining open with people detained indefinitely with no resolution of their cases, no rights at all to even know what they're accused of," he offered.
But Price isn't sure that Bragg should be a serious consideration.
"It will have to be a very high security facility and my understanding of Fort Bragg is there is nothing like the kind of facility that would be required, but I don't know. I'm not going to presume what facilities will be chosen," he said.
Price is right. Right now, soldiers awaiting trial at Fort Bragg on a variety of charges are held in the Cumberland County detention center. Folks who live in Fayetteville have mixed views about bringing suspected terrorists to the community.
"That can be kind of scary actually... having that type of element here in our homeland and where we live," Offered resident Marco Clark.
"Well, we've got to put them some place and in that case Fort Bragg wouldn't be a bad idea," said David McCune.
Military leaders have a year to figure out where they're going to put the detainees. Sources say Camp Pendleton, Charleston Naval Base, and Fort Leavenworth might be better choices than Fort Bragg. Leavenworth may be the number one choice because it's the military's only maximum security prison.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
But the republicans....whoa Nellie, they're run out of town, tarred and feathered, and made to resign in disgrace.
I don't know who upsets me most. The liberal democrats who perpetuate these hypocritical double standards, or the so-called conservative republicans who let the dems run them over with a cement truck and leave them in the middle of the road like roadkill.
They WILL get a free pass unless the news gets put out
--
What free pass? Give examples
You definitely live in an alternate universe.
Blessings from Obama. Free pass?
Here's the article. Judge for yourself. Abd Al-Rahim will remain in custody. Charges dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE will be brought against him AGAIN once the reviews of Gitmo operations are completed and policies regarding their detainment and trials are determined. As usual, we have scandal mongering where there is no scandal to monger.
Why should they have locked the doc up?
He wasn't doing anything illegal. Abortion is LEGAL in this country. Work to change it if you don't like it, but don't call the murder of a doctor G-d's work, that is total blasphamy.
Don't forget about free broadband, free gas, free healthcare, hey they are "rights" now YIP
xxx
But while you are awaiting the perfect bill
This bill plans to use taxes from cigarettes to pay for it, and if it uses tax dollars in other areas that is fine with me too. On some issues you have to compromise, and when it comes to children's health and saving lives, this is one of those times. Children need coverage. You say you want them covered too - well, this bill is a great step in that direction. Why wait 5 more years for a bill that EVERYONE agrees on? Who knows how many kids will die due to lack of healthcare in that time. Can you live with their little lives on your conscience? I can't.
Where is the line for free college, free healthcare...
mortgage paid for, free gas and ability to sit on my rear and let everyone else take care of me? Wow, now I see the light...this prez elect will be great!!
Did he have a trial
This admin. doesn't ALLOW itself to be put on trial.
What a copout! - it's only accusations! And that's all it's ever likely to be because this administration with the help of its corrupt and partisan congressional majority simply refuses to allow any independent inquiry into its crooked dealings. Let's not pretend that we actually have a balance of power in the federal govt. sufficient to allow normal due process to occur. So go on with your just accusations simpering - try these crimes in an international court and see how long they stay that way.
I should have said Lunsford *investigation*, not trial...sm
I don't think that crumb cake has had his trial yet.
They haven't been brought to trial yet....(sm)
because a) some of them would be innocent and would have to be set free, and b) Bush obviously had no plan for those who would be found guilty. Actually, about half of them haven't even been charged yet, much less had a trial. I honestly think the whole point of Gitmo is torture. I think that Bush actually thought it was a viable means for gaining information, which has been proven to be incorrect. Basically, the longer they can keep them there, the longer they can torture.
Free speech is alive and well, as is free will...
people can take anything out of context and do with it what they want; it still doesn't make it a McCain/Palin issue.
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 25 (OneWorld) - A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting aggressive wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime, the 87-year-old Ferenccz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council.
Ferenccz said that after Nuremberg the international community realized that every war results in violations by both sides, meaning the primary objective should be preventing any war from occurring in the first place.
He said the atrocities of the Iraq war--from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs--were highly predictable at the start of the war.
Which wars should be prosecuted? Every war will lead to attacks on civilians, he said. Crimes against humanity, destruction beyond the needs of military necessity, rape of civilians, plunder--that always happens in wartime. So my answer personally, after working for 60 years on this problem and [as someone] who hates to see all these young people get killed no matter what their nationality, is that you've got to stop using warfare as a means of settling your disputes.
Ferenccz believes the most important development toward that end would be the effective implementation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is located in the Hague, Netherlands.
The court was established in 2002 and has been ratified by more than 100 countries. It is currently being used to adjudicate cases stemming from conflict in Darfur, Sudan and civil wars in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
But on May 6, 2002--less than a year before the invasion of Iraq--the Bush administration withdrew the United States' signature on the treaty and began pressuring other countries to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender U.S. nationals to the ICC.
Three months later, George W. Bush signed a new law prohibiting any U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. The law went so far as to include a provision authorizing the president to use all means necessary and appropriate, including a military invasion of the Netherlands, to free U.S. personnel detained or imprisoned by the ICC.
That's too bad, according to Ferenccz. If the United States showed more of an interest in building an international justice system, they could have put Saddam Hussein on trial for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
The United Nations authorized the first Gulf War and authorized all nations to take whatever steps necessary to keep peace in the area, he said. They could have stretched that a bit by seizing the person for causing the harm. Of course, they didn't do that and ever since then I've been bemoaning the fact that we didn't have an International Criminal Court at that time.
Ferenccz is glad that Saddam Hussein is now on trial.
Kurdish authorities put the number even higher, saying 182,000 Kurdish civilians were killed in a matter of months.
Everyone agrees innumerable villages were bombed and some were gassed. The surviving residents were rounded up, taken to detention centers, and eventually executed at remote sites, sometimes by being stripped and shot in the back so they would fall naked into trenches.
In his defense, Saddam Hussein has disputed the extent of the killings and maintained they were justified because he was fighting a counter-insurgency operation against Kurdish separatists allied with Iran. When asked to enter a plea, the former president said that would require volumes of books.
Ferenccz said whatever Saddam's reasons, nothing can justify the mass killing of innocents.
The offenses attributable to ex-President Hussein since he came to power range from the supreme international crime of aggression to a wide variety of crimes against humanity, he wrote after Saddam was ousted in 2003. A fair trial will achieve many goals. The victims would find some satisfaction in knowing that their victimizer was called to account and could no longer be immune from punishment for his evil deeds. Wounds can begin to heal. The historical facts can be confirmed beyond doubt. Similar crimes by other dictators might be discouraged or deterred in future. The process of justice through law, on which the safety of humankind depends, would be reinforced.
trial date set for muzzammil hassan
The "moderate Muslim" who beheaded his wife right here in New York because she served him with with divorce papers and an order of protection. And it's only second degree murder????
This woman, Phyllis, is a friend and former
co-employee of a very good friend of mine. My friend went to her trial on
Monday. We'd been following this for the past year. I was surprised
they found here guilty so easily, but I guess rules are rules. Now
remember, Phyllis is a retired teacher from Fox Valley Technical
College and her description was that the guard kept touching her breasts and
crotch over and over like she was enjoying it. Now bear in mind that this
guard was investigating the privates of a 62-year-old gray-haired retired
schoolteacher from Appleton at the Appleton, Wisconsin airport - a very
small airport. Wondered what you all thought --- as for me I'm
undecided. I see this made the national headlines.
Woman Convicted of Groping Screener
GREEN BAY, Wis. (AP) - A woman who was upset over
being searched bodily at an airport was convicted Tuesday of assaulting a
security screener by grabbing the federal officer's breasts.
A federal jury heard the case against retired
teacher Phyllis Dintenfass, who also allegedly shoved the screener during the
search at the Outagamie County Regional Airport in Appleton in September 2004.
Dintenfass, 62, faces up to a year in federal prison
and $100,000 in fines. The judge set sentencing for Nov. 1.
12px>On Monday, Transportation Security Administration screening supervisor
Anita Gostisha testified that Dintenfass activated metal detectors at a
checkpoint, and she heard Dintenfass say she thought the problem was bobby pins
and barrettes in her hair.
Gostisha said she took the woman to another
screening area, where she used a handheld wand. Gostisha said she was following
protocol when she also performed a ``limited pat-down search.''
Gostisha said she was using the back of her hands to
search the area underneath Dintenfass' breasts when the woman lashed out at her.
``She said `How would you like it if I did that to
you?' and slammed me against the wall,'' Gostisha testified. ``She came at me
and grabbed my breasts and squeezed them.''
Distenfass claimed she acted in self-defense.
``I said, 'What are you doing? No one's done that to
me before,''' she said. ``And she kept going ... for what felt like an
interminably long time.''
Dintenfass denied shoving Gostisha, but admitted
putting her hands on the agent's breasts.
``I was mortified that I had done that,'' she said.
``I was reacting to what felt like an absolute invasion of my body.''
U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic said TSA officers
perform a vital service and are entitled to protection from assault.
In addition to the EU and the NAU, there is also the Africa Union which was formed in 2002 and the soon-to-be Asian Union. These unions will eventually form into a one-world government with NATO as its governing body. There will be a single currency as well.
I agree....sometimes I wish I were still blissfully ignorant of all the goings on in the world today, but then I would not be aware of what to watch for and how it would affect me and my family.
Or if none of that comes to pass,
hopefully you will come to realize that the repub fearmongers have been playing on you fears and you bought into it wholeheartedly.
This, too, will come to pass............ sm
but it won't be the religion that you are probably thinking it will be. Better be careful what you wish for.
And why would we thank him when it took 217 votes for this to pass?
nm
I will pass your senitments on to those...
I know who are serving. It will come as no surprise to them. At least you admit that you could care less if it hurts them or not...or worsens their plight or makes their jobs harder...which it does. I will tell them you are of the opinion they just need to pray the protesting works in their favor (and if you think a premature withdrawal, or cut and run, is in their favor that just proves you do not know the majority of the military and how they think), and they just need to suck it up and continue to fight and die to protect your right to tell them to suck it up and just keep on serving, if the war is something they believe strongly in. For you to say that the war is something they believe strongly in also proves that you know nothing about them. They are there because their country sent them there and they believe in the mission. George Bush alone did not send them, no matter how much global amnesia the Democrats want to try to have now. They believe in honor and duty. They believe in something bigger than themselves...they believe there are still things worth dying for...like your right to blythely from your warm safe home to tell them to suck it up, pray the protesting works for them and not against them, because it is more important for you to protest than it is for them to be safer. The least you could have done was a little thank you to go with the suck it up, though.
I know what they will say...they will say *you're welcome...anyway.*
Just a final thought...just WHO do you think cheers when they hear Americans in the street protesting? The ENEMY. Do you remember the scenes of Arabs taking to the streets in celebration when 9-11 happened? They watch us. Protesting in a public way is fodder for them to recruit. Read an article today saying they are using You Tube videos for recruitment. I bet several of the leading Democratic Pres contenders are stars. But if giving Al Qaeda little moral boosts is what floats the protestors' boats, by all means...grab the sign and head for the corner. and I too had to pass on this info
http://share.triangle.com/node/13576
The questions remain :
What is Barack Husein Obama - a Senator from Illinois - doing when he is interacting with a violent rebel, muslim leader in Kenya who may have been responsible for the murder of dozens of innocent people burned to death simply because they took refuge in a church?
What is Barack Husein Obama doing when he interferes in the internal operations of a foreign nation like Kenya?
Are you going to let a well organized and well financed representative of a foreign government push his way any further into your national government?
How many more people have to die before Americans come to understand that Barack Husein Obama is not a product of the land of Lincoln?
Born in Hawaii he spent most of his life in the violent and backward nation of Indonesia – where not too long ago the Australians had to stop the Muslims from killing all the Christians in East Timor.
When will this blood soaked travesty of our national political system come to an end? When will the mocking smirk of our enemies be wiped from our television screens?
I'm sending it to my Senator and Congressman too as well as to Obama.
I was sent a newspaper clipping via e-mail, with a list of changes that, according to the actual author, most American people would very much like to see in our Government.
The actual author is Norma White of Amarillo. She is a retired network engineer for Southwestern Bell. I do not know which newspaper it came from, but after reading it, I would vote for her if she ever ran for Congress. I wanted to share them with you all.
The article's title is:
You Want Change? Try These Ideas.
1. Limit Congress from serving more than two terms. That is all that presidents are allowed.
2. Stop Congress from voting for their own raises. How did that ever get started?
3. Stop paying for lawmakers' high-priced insurance premiums. After all, they are only part-time employees. They might pass some law changes on the insurance companies, if they actually had to find one!
4. Stop paying lawmakers, or the president, their full salary after serving just one term, or when they leave office. We need to get rid of that pension plan; they've let other companies get rid of theirs. You were lucky to get 40 to 50 percent of your salary after working somewhere for 35 years, but they get 100 percent.
5. Make Congress pay into the Social Security system. They make laws for it. If they spent some of their own money, then they might be interested in making it solvent.
6. Stop handing out aid to illegal aliens. If we did, then Medicaid and the food stamp program would have enough money to aid the aged and the poor.
7. Secure our borders.
8. Stop allowing babies born to illegal aliens in the United States automatic U.S. citizenship.
9. Stop the abuse of our benevolent welfare system. We feed children free meals three times a day until they are 17. Churches give away good, clean clothes. Companies buy and donate school supplies. Emergency rooms provide health care at taxpayer expense and the food stamp program is buying food at home. What are parents doing for their children?
10. Have a computer program that cross checks Social Security numbers with finger prints to stop fraud on many fronts. Use it on voter registration too.
11. Stop bailing out mortgage companies and banks that give loans to people who cannot afford them.
12. Stop companies from paying CEOs and other executives outrageous salaries and bonuses while doing away with workers' pensions.
13. Stop all unnecessary spending so we will have the money for our nation's security, and to help needy and elderly Americans.
14. Stop permitting anyone to have a photo with their face covered on driver's licenses.
Unfortunately, no matter who won the presidency, they will not be able to make any of these changes.
Only members of Congress can do that, as they are the lawmakers.
I seriously doubt Congress is interested in changing anything, do you?
After our rather heated debate tonight, I went off in search of answers to the questions of Obama's qualifications to be POTUS, and here is what I found.
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
US Code Title 8,1401 states the following as a qualification of a natural-born US citizen. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html). This is the only qualification that Obama actually passes to qualify to be POTUS, but one is all that is needed as all the qualifications listed are exclusive of each other.
(d)a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
Since this does not specify a particular time frame in which the US citizen parent must live in the US prior to the birth of the child, it must be assumed that any one-year residency would satisfy the requirement.
Somehow crow for Thanksgiving dinner just isn't quite what I had in mind. Please make sure it is well done with lots of BBQ sauce.
Most of the time I pass over it, but it is getting very old
There could be a bunch of names I call the other side - Clinton News Network, MS No News here, etc (cant think of a proper acronym for the NBC in MSNBC right now cos it's late), but I'm just getting sick of the name calling. You don't like the news then don't watch the channel, but until you point out fault with the liberal stations then its time to lay off the others.
Most of the time I pass over it, but it is getting very old
Thanks - just is irritating hearing the name calling all the time, especially from people (not just the OP but others) who find no fault whatsoever with Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow and all the other liberal gab boxes (they are not even news casters, they only spew their opinion). There could be a bunch of names I call the other side - Clinton News Network, MS No News here, etc (cant think of a proper acronym for the NBC in MSNBC right now cos it's late), but I'm just getting sick of the name calling. You don't like the news then don't watch the channel, but until you point out fault with the liberal stations then its time to lay off the others.
I'll pass on that one, thanks!
'most of the people there was'. Or was that intentional?
We don't usually rag on hurried typo errors because we have no spell check on this forum. But not bothering to look up a spelling or making a rookie grammatical error are both noteworthy.
Okay, give him a pass on the felony...
just like other Clintonites. Just an FYI, Laura Bush has worked with the Initiative to bring water to 10 million people in Africa. Imagine that. A BUSH. Part of the Initiative is also something that George Bush asked former President Clinton and his father former President Bush to work on...Katrina Relief. Imagine that...GEORGE BUSH'S idea. Say it ain't so. I'd like to know how much of Bill Clinton's own money is in his foundation. I would be REAL interested to know that. But, I digress. Yes, is foundation is doing good work, I don't deny that. He is not doing it alone and has worked with all three of the Bushes as part of it. So, let's please not act like he is the hero for the masses all by himself and George Bush has a black soul. The way Clinton used Monica Lewinsky and then threw her under the bus when he got caught, cheated on his wife and committed a felony while a sitting President...is much more indicative of soul problems than anything Bush has done. Let's be real here. As far as Bill Clinton trying to save the world...please. Bill Clinton is trying to save his legacy.
Merely an observation. I'll pass on this and
Sam is hateful because sam is hateful. Her posts speak for themselves.
I'll pass on the kool-aid (nm)
x
Vote on the "Bailout" is going on now and not looking like it will pass.
They need 217 votes to pass, 207 FOR and 226 AGAINST and the time has run out on the clock. Dow has been ranging between -678 at one point to now -450. Not sure what is going to happen.
Vote DID NOT PASS. Just wondering
what happens next. I totally do not agree with what they want US (average person) to do. They need to go after the corporate crooks. Unbelievable. I think they tried to RUSH this package. No one knows what they are doing.
That's why it's good this didn't pass yet. - sm
People across the country have been letting their elected officials know that they want the crooks who are responsible for this mess to at least BEGIN the 'bailout' process by sacrificing their OWN wealth, before further sticking it to us. They made their bed, now they should have to sleep in it.
Also, I'm sure that if the average Joe Citizen gets stuck with the whole bill for this, then who exactly is going to remain in the stock market, 401K's, or ANYTHING, for that matter?
I'm tempted to pull everything out of my retirement account NOW, and invest it in some land, a small mobile home to park on it, a vegetable garden and some laying hens. At least I'd havea place to live and something to eat.
The stock market was always a rich-man's 'entertainment', and shouldn't be what we have to rely on for survival in our old age. That's what pensions were for, and I'm all for bringing pensions back.
If they were interested in the country they would just pass it...
they just don't want all the BLAME if it tanks. Playing politics. The Republicans did not help create this one...they, and McCain, and the Bush Admin, have been warning of this very thing for years. Dems blocked, blocked, blocked; chief among them Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. What I don't understand is why you Democrats don't want to hold them accountable. That just boggles my mind. Absolutely it does.
No, because the Republicans don't have enough votes to pass it on their own...
even if they wanted to. Only the Dems. So apparently, they just didn't want it bad enough to put their political but*s on the line. What other reason could there be? They don't want to be the majority in case it tanks. THAT is hypocritical.
THen why didn't the democrats just pass it....
they had the votes. It was the Democrat leadership that voted no...heads of the committees. Think it wasn't planned that way? Of course it was. Why? Because if it doesn't work they don't want to be the only ones out there with George Bush's failed plan. That is NOT putting the country first. That is old Washington playing politics.
As to the republicans voting no...their constituents are about 99 to 1 against it. There are many on this board against it. So they are listening to their constituents. I think a lot of people don't really realize the situation.
But again...they only needed like 11 votes to pass and 95 democrats voted against it.
I realize that; however, I did not expect it to pass....
because amending the constitution is different than voting for a law you know will be overturned. Just out of curiousity...I am not sure what I posted about the US Supreme Court will have any validity...can they challenge a state constitutional amendment?
OK, sam. Another moment in history has come to pass.
you go me ROFLMAO. LOL.
What are you talking about? Proposition 8 did pass!
I believe you are a bit confused. Proposition 8 was a measure designed to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in the State of California. The measure passed. The people in the State of California who believe that these constitutional rights should not be taken away voted against the measure.
Things coming to pass? (sm)
You aren't getting ready to break out in bible verses are you? If you're talking about the economy, EVERYONE knows it's going to get worse before it gets better -- that would be regardless of who was elected.
marks the location of current message within thread
