Obama will seek to close Guantanamo swiftly: advisers
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
Absolutely brilliant!! Instead of actually doing something, issue an executive order saying you are going to do something. Masterful politician!!!
No, he's not innocent yet, why is this so complicated for you?
We are here arguing much of the known evidence against him, which so far has been a pile of crap. I would like for him to return to Canada to get a fair trial and to have any remaining evidence against him submitted/presented to determine if there is any real case against him.
If not, then yes, he is innocent. If there happens to be any other additional information not provided to the public yet, then there remains a window of possible guilt.
But once again, if guilty, he's still a child soldier.
It isn't complicated but your mind is made up.
If you can't see the difference between a picture of Billy Bob in Alabama with his Daddy's shotgun on the mantle to a picture of Omar with an AK or tinkering with landmines then your mind is made up.
The evidence is there, he was caught and wounded in a firefight. A Canadian citizen so FLIPPING far from Canada in a warzone... but you refuse to see it or listen to it or believe it.
You're mind is made up.
So when he goes back to Canada... embrace him.
The evidence is there, he was caught and wounded in a firefight. A Canadian citizen so FLIPPING far from Canada in a warzone...
whatever... What you fail to see as do most fringe far right Americans, is if that is what you believe then it is a Canadian issue isn't it. Not American
Let the Canadians deal with it within the legal framework in Canada, not the illegal torture chambers in the US
Obama may close down the Prison at Guantanamo....but he'll not close Guantanamo ever,
and neither will any following U.S. President. That's a big bone of contention with Cubans.
The Americans pay a lease payment yearly, based on a dollar figure from 1903 that doesn't
increase. The deal is just too good for a toe-hold in that part of the world.
______________________________________
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay
The United States assumed territorial control over Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, which granted the United States a perpetual lease of the area.[1] The current Cuban government considers the U.S. presence in Guantánamo to be illegal and the Cuban-American Treaty to have been procured by the threat of force in violation of international law.[2]
The Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, established in 1898, surrounds the southern portion of the bay. Since 2002 the base has hosted a detainment camp for suspected militant combatants from Afghanistan and from around the world, but specifically not for captives taken in Iraq, who qualify for POW status.
_________________________________________
Now See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban-American_Treaty
The Cuban-American Treaty was signed on February 16, 1903 by the first President of Cuba, the American citizen[citation needed] Tomás Estrada Palma, and on February 23, 1903 by the President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt. As per the agreement, the Republic of Cuba will perpetually lease to the United States the Guantanamo Bay area (surrounding areas of land and water) for the purpose of coaling and naval stations. The United States will have absolute jurisdiction and control over the area, and in return will recognize the Republic of Cuba's ultimate sovereignty over the area. Cuban vessels involved in trade will have free passage through the waters.
The government of Cuba believes it to be in violation of article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which declares a treaty void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force.[1] However, Article 4 of the same document states that Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties shall not be retroactively applied to any treaties made before itself.[2] The treaty was part of the Platt Amendment, conditions for the withdrawal of United States troops remaining in Cuba since the Spanish-American War. Professor Alfred de Zayas also argues that the United States has broken the terms of the treaty by allowing commercial use of the land and not giving Cuba ultimate sovereignty over the area.
and neither will any following U.S. President. That's a big bone of contention with Cubans.
The Americans pay a lease payment yearly, based on a dollar figure from 1903 that doesn't
increase. The deal is just too good for a toe-hold in that part of the world.
______________________________________
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay
The United States assumed territorial control over Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, which granted the United States a perpetual lease of the area.[1] The current Cuban government considers the U.S. presence in Guantánamo to be illegal and the Cuban-American Treaty to have been procured by the threat of force in violation of international law.[2]
The Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, established in 1898, surrounds the southern portion of the bay. Since 2002 the base has hosted a detainment camp for suspected militant combatants from Afghanistan and from around the world, but specifically not for captives taken in Iraq, who qualify for POW status.
_________________________________________
Now See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban-American_Treaty
The Cuban-American Treaty was signed on February 16, 1903 by the first President of Cuba, the American citizen[citation needed] Tomás Estrada Palma, and on February 23, 1903 by the President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt. As per the agreement, the Republic of Cuba will perpetually lease to the United States the Guantanamo Bay area (surrounding areas of land and water) for the purpose of coaling and naval stations. The United States will have absolute jurisdiction and control over the area, and in return will recognize the Republic of Cuba's ultimate sovereignty over the area. Cuban vessels involved in trade will have free passage through the waters.
The government of Cuba believes it to be in violation of article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which declares a treaty void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force.[1] However, Article 4 of the same document states that Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties shall not be retroactively applied to any treaties made before itself.[2] The treaty was part of the Platt Amendment, conditions for the withdrawal of United States troops remaining in Cuba since the Spanish-American War. Professor Alfred de Zayas also argues that the United States has broken the terms of the treaty by allowing commercial use of the land and not giving Cuba ultimate sovereignty over the area.
Source: Guantanamo Bay Naval Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the war's end, the U.S. government had obtained control of all of Cuba from Spain. A perpetual lease for the area around Guantánamo Bay was offered February 23, 1903, from Tomás Estrada Palma, an American citizen, who became the first President of Cuba. The Cuban-American Treaty gave, among other things, the Republic of Cuba ultimate sovereignty over Guantánamo Bay while granting the United States "complete jurisdiction and control" of the area for coaling and naval stations.
A 1934 treaty reaffirming the lease granted Cuba and her trading partners free access through the bay, modified the lease payment from $2,000 in U.S. gold coins per year, to the 1934 equivalent value of $3,086.36 in U.S. dollars, and made the lease permanent unless both governments agreed to break it or the U.S. abandoned the base property. Since the Cuban Revolution, the government under Fidel Castro has cashed only one of the rent checks from the US government. The Cuban government maintains this was only done because of "confusion" in the heady early days of the leftist revolution, while the US government maintains that the cashing constitutes an official validation of the treaty. The remaining uncashed checks made out to "Treasurer General of the Republic" (A position that has ceased to exist after the revolution) are kept in Castro's office stuffed into a desk drawer.
_______________________________________
Sorry....I guess the dollar figure for the Lease Payment changed once, to
U.S.Dollars from Gold...I bet 'ya that's a cheque that will be sent forever!!!
_______________________________________
By the war's end, the U.S. government had obtained control of all of Cuba from Spain. A perpetual lease for the area around Guantánamo Bay was offered February 23, 1903, from Tomás Estrada Palma, an American citizen, who became the first President of Cuba. The Cuban-American Treaty gave, among other things, the Republic of Cuba ultimate sovereignty over Guantánamo Bay while granting the United States "complete jurisdiction and control" of the area for coaling and naval stations.
A 1934 treaty reaffirming the lease granted Cuba and her trading partners free access through the bay, modified the lease payment from $2,000 in U.S. gold coins per year, to the 1934 equivalent value of $3,086.36 in U.S. dollars, and made the lease permanent unless both governments agreed to break it or the U.S. abandoned the base property. Since the Cuban Revolution, the government under Fidel Castro has cashed only one of the rent checks from the US government. The Cuban government maintains this was only done because of "confusion" in the heady early days of the leftist revolution, while the US government maintains that the cashing constitutes an official validation of the treaty. The remaining uncashed checks made out to "Treasurer General of the Republic" (A position that has ceased to exist after the revolution) are kept in Castro's office stuffed into a desk drawer.
_______________________________________
Sorry....I guess the dollar figure for the Lease Payment changed once, to
U.S.Dollars from Gold...I bet 'ya that's a cheque that will be sent forever!!!
_______________________________________
Shotguns / AK's..... a firearm's a firearm, different cultures, different countries, different weapons of choice. Do you even realize how many AK's are in the average household in Afghanistan?
And what's the big deal with land mines? The US stayed out of the ban agreement on land mines and cluster bombs.... in your guys's view, there's nothing wrong with them.
And I bet if I take a photo shot of me taking all the little giblets out of a Commadore 64 Keyboard with a bunch of tins holding many of the smaller pieces, it'd look like I was working on a bomb too.
Who was shot twice in the back while he coward in the corner of the compound like any other teenager probably would.
Oh wait, that's right, the US troops edited their reports claiming they shot him after he chucked a grenade and killed your medic...... interesting that the US troop who shot him must have already been inside the compound to shoot him twice in the back if he was tossing a grenade towards the troops outside.
Oh well excuse me, I didn't know Canadian citizens wern't allowed to travel the world..... I suppose that confuses you guys when you see real Canadians with maple leafs stitched to their luggage who arn't really Americans hiding their true nationality.
Your logic is flawed and will remain flawed until you understand the basic logical common senses of the situation.
• For starters, do you think he went over there on his own free will and his father had nothing to do with the decision?
• How about the fact that a 14 year old can't get a job in Canada, let alone enough money without a job to save up for a plane ticket to fly out there to fight at his own free will?
• How about the fact that even if he is guilty of the crimes he is accused, he's still a friggin child soldier, which defeats the whole purpose of you guys holding him in the first place?
You have continually avoided those points..... why?
Too hard to explain without falling into the common sense trap in admitting that you have no real grounds to hold him in the first place?
I know.... I just want to hear you actually admit it.
Don't worry, I'll get him good and drunk and smoke a giant blunt with him..... that poor kid.... missed his 19th birthday at the bars too..... you evil monsters
So you think he is just an innocent kid. You would not make a good juror anymore than I would at his trial. He is already innocent.
What does the landmine agreement have to do with it? Just because we use them doesn't mean he gets a pass with using them too. They are weapons of war. Your point is so flawed. Him laying out landmines makes him a combatant. Plain and simple. That is one of the reasons why he is sitting in Cuba.
No, it would look like you are tinkering with Commodore electronics. If you had a stack of anti-vehicle mines behind you like Omar had it would look like you are working on landmines...like he was.
Evidence? You seem to need photos and I have yet to see him getting shot in the back while cowering.
No... different troops saw it differently. You chose the one that suits your belief in his innocence.
Sure they can. They can even travel to war torn countries and fight against other Canadians. But if they get caught...quite trying to baby them and whine about them.
Ahhh...the old myth made by Canadians for Canadians to make other Canadians feel better about themselves.
Common sense is what you are lacking in this. Saying their is nothing wrong with him in those pictures, where he was at the time, who he was with... all innocent.
Nope... I bet his dad had A LOT to do with it.
See above
You never brought them up as thus far you have been saying he is pretty much innocent. And it isn't like he is 9... he was 15. If they are old enough to pick up a gun and fight... then they are old enough for Guantanamo.
Too hard to explain without falling into the common sense trap in admitting that you have no real grounds to hold him in the first place?
I know.... I just want to hear you actually admit it.
Nothing to admit to. You fail to use any common sense in this issue. Dismissal of all evidence as you want him free. All those pictures and evidence are dismissed by you as irrelevant because you are emotionally attached to the boy.
Don't worry, I'll get him good and drunk and smoke a giant blunt with him..... that poor kid.... missed his 19th birthday at the bars too..... you evil monsters
It's going to be great! :smile:
Don't worry, I'll get him good and drunk and smoke a giant blunt with him..... that poor kid....
missed his 19th birthday at the bars too..... you evil monsters
Intoxicants were forbidden in the Qur'an through several separate verses revealed
at different times over a period of years. At first, it was forbidden for Muslims to
attend to prayers while intoxicated (4:43). Then a later verse was revealed which
said that alcohol contains some good and some evil, but the evil is greater than the
good (2:219). This was the next step in turning people away from consumption of it.8O
Finally, "intoxicants and games of chance" were called "abominations of Satan's
handiwork," intended to turn people away from God and forget about prayer, and
Muslims were ordered to abstain (5:90-91). (Note - the Qur'an is not arranged
chronologically, so later verses of the book were not necessarily revealed after
earlier verses.)8O
In the first verse cited above, the word for "intoxicated" is sukara which is derived
from the word "sugar" and means drunk or intoxicated. That verse doesn't mention
the drink which makes one so. In the next verses cited, the word which is often
translated as "wine" or "intoxicants" is al-khamr, which is related to the verb "to
ferment." This word could be used to describe other intoxicants such as beer,
although wine is the most common understanding of the word.8O
Muslims interpret these verses in total to forbid any intoxicating substance -- whether
it be wine, beer, gin, whiskey, or whatever. The result is the same, and the Qur'an
outlines that it is the intoxication, which makes one forgetful of God and prayer,
which is harmful. Over the years, the list of intoxicating substances has come to
include more modern street drugs and the like.8O
The Prophet Muhammad also instructed his followers, at the time, to avoid any
intoxicating substances -- (paraphrased) "if it intoxicates in a large amount, it is
forbidden even in a small amount." For this reason, most observant Muslims avoid
alcohol in any form, even small amounts that are sometimes used in cooking. 8O
Maybe Omar doesn't swing that way though. :lol::lol::lol: