search results matching tag: guantanamo

» channel: nordic

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (90)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (1)     Comments (308)   

joe scarborough on wednesday jan 6 2021 maga riot

newtboy says...

*promote identifying and prosecuting every single traitor involved in this attack on democracy to the absolute fullest extent of the law. They should all go to Guantanamo and have their citizenship striped.

In the unlikely event that, as the right is claiming with no evidence whatsoever, some were ANTIFA dressed as trump chumps, prosecute them too and put them under the prison.

Hey, Republicans Who Supported This President...

newtboy says...

*doublepromote *quality

@bobknight33 , how are you going to spin this treason at Trump’s specific direction to be Democrats fault? I hope you were there, every person who can be identified is an accomplice to murder (the woman who died is on your hands), a treasonous traitor who attacked America, and a person guilty of vandalizing federal property which Trump claims he made a minimum 10 years by itself. Your party went from anti American to enemies of the state yesterday, you might want to burn all that MAGA crap you own before they enter your home and drag you off if you ever want out of prison....granted most of these terrorists deserve the firing squad, their supporters just deserve a decade in Guantanamo.

That goes for the capitol police too, they were at least in part complicit, not deploying ahead of the well advertised riot, not using force when they were beaten, pepper sprayed, and threatened at gunpoint. Compared to their BLM response they were cheering on this attack on democracy and showing the kind of restraint that doesn’t border on being complicit, it dives over the line into the deep end of the treason pool.

Trump himself is guilty of directly instigating these riots. How do you like the way he lied to you, saying he’s going to be there then slinking off home instead to watch his mob do their thing? Don’t think for a second that not going excuses his leading of the group, instructing them where and when to attack, or his self serving lies he’s told you to rile them up into a murderous rage. He’s going to be prosecuted over this, maybe removed from office too.

Enjoy, the world now agrees, Trump leads a terroristic, unpatriotic mob of morons willing to commit violence against police and the federal government if they can’t have their way. You should all be put in re-education camps like China did with the uighers with Trump’s explicit support....since you’re incapable of being educated, that’s for life.

Traitor.

Steve Schmidt on Trump 'Stoking And Inciting' Worst Among Us

newtboy says...

Today Trump announced an executive order (unconstitutionally) rewriting the constitution so that babies born in America will no longer be citizens.
One more ignorant attempt to dehumanize any non American....this one totally unconstitutional according to all constitutional law scholars besides Trump and Giuliani, but he doesn't know that, he's never read it and wouldn't care if he did, he's anti constitution.
So much for his oath to support and defend the constitution, he'll wipe his ass with it if it will rile up his base of racists and secessionists. Let's hope this blatant unAmerican and unconstitutional move is enough for impeachment.

At this point, supporting Trump makes you an anti American terrorist just as certainly as supporting Bin Laden, ISIS, or the Taliban. They are all extremist terrorist organizations. Trump's entire platform is and has always been fear and terror and now his followers are trying what he told them to do, take out the liberals before they come take your guns.

Lock him up, lock him up, lock him up, lock him up, lock him up, lock him up, lock him up.....and waterboard him in Guantanamo for the remainder of his short time in earth.....along with his immediate family and entire administration.

McCain defending Obama 2008

bobknight33 says...

I agree there has been a F load of change in personnel. The real question is does this turnover occur in in business life?

If so then one could consider Trump as some kind of dickhead to work for .

If not then what is the reason for the difference?


I think there is much more going on behind the scenes. Why would one have a military General as your chief of staff?

With Obama's top level FBI as example --
Comey -- fired
McCabe- Fired
James Baker, general counsel -- Fired
James Rybicki Chief of staff -- Fired
Perter Strozk -- Fired
Lisa Page -- ???

If Hillary was elected not of their wrong doings would have come to light. All gunning to get Trump. Still that is just the FBI.


No wonder Trump is cleaning house so much. Some bad guys found? Some paranoia?
There isn't a day goes by without something big occurring.

There is still 3 big reports to come out.
Mullers findings.
The 2nd OIG report and Huber's findings

AG Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber will be the ‘top federal prosecutor’ who will be investigating FISA abuses . Huber's staff is over 400.


Also Guantanamo Bay, Cuba-- Expanding like mad...

$14 million to expand the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This is a "strategically critical time-sensitive expansion project". DOD justification states the "current trial support facilities are incapable of handling the large number of personnel .
https://insidedefense.com/insider/pentagon-expand-gitmo-after-trump-orders-it-remain-open

The place can hold some 2300 prisoners, currently Gitmo is currently holding 41 prisoners.. Also the 137th, 428th, and 514th was deployed this month to Gitmo for a year . Rotating people out - possible, but some 500 troops for 41 prisoners?

What is so time sensitive for to handle trial support facilities are incapable of handling the large number of personnel .-- Where are these people coming from? What is coming down the pike?

Like I said above:
I think there is much more going on behind the scenes. Why would one have a military General as your chief of staff?

MilkmanDan said:

I appreciate your response to my question earlier, @bobknight33.

I don't mean to try to drag you back into the thread here if you're trying to disengage -- I dunno what you mean by #walkaway. Anyway, this doesn't require a response.

the value of whataboutism

bcglorf says...

In a way Scahill is like a less educated\refined version of Noam Chomsky. He does good investigative work, and dedicates enormous energy into exposing and spotlighting the bad things that America does. That has a place, but without a similarly harsh and critical light being cast on America's targets/enemies it becomes propaganda.

Jeremy says he wouldn't work with Charles Manson to oppose trump, fair enough. What about kind of working with Stalin to defeat Hitler? Say, at least agreeing not to attack Stalin while you both deal with Hitler?

The world is incredibly complicated and the singular and lone focus on American mistakes paints a deceptive picture. Pointing out the problems with America's war in Iraq, like torture and Quantanamo and declaring these as so immoral we needn't even look at Saddam's past is propaganda. Saddam waged two campaigns of genocide against his own people. When America saw the abuses at Abu Ghraib, they shut it down and attempted to punish those responsible. When Saddam's brother used chemical weapons to exterminate Kurdish civilians Saddam commended him for it. Guantanamo is bad, but it doesn't mean we should fail to acknowledge the concentration camps that Saddam operated during his genocide of the Kurds. It doesn't mean it's unfair to observe that conditions in Saddam's prisons across the country were far more cruel during his entire reign.

There's a nuanced place here that Scahill and Chomsky and pundits like them just fail to acknowledge and encourages inaction at times were the lesser evil may well be for America to do something, even if aborting Gadafi's genocide doesn't make Libya a paradise after.

Even Comey's Firing Was All About Trump

RFlagg says...

If Comey was fired after the investigation was over, then nobody would have been upset. It is the timing that upsets people, and should upset those on the right too who want to put the Russian thing behind them.

There is clear evidence that Russia interfered with the election. Now does that mean, Trump, or people closely connected to him and his campaign, were directly involved? No. And most liberals would be okay if that was the end result of an independent investigation, so long as we found the means and methods of the interference and were able to learn actions to prevent further interference with future elections from any outside nation. However, the Republicans refuse to take the investigation into Russian interference seriously. The House investigation led by a guy who was on Trump's transition team, the Senate investigation seems more concerned about who leaked info about Trump than the fact a foreign threat to the security of the United States interfered with the election. They worry about leaks in a White House that looks at top secret information in a very public place, but the actions of a hostile state doesn't seem to concern them like it should.

Now we got Comey, who Trump and his people praised up and down during the campaign and soon after election, being fired right after he says he's going to devote more resources to the Russian investigation. We got a President who broke clear ethical rules (though perhaps no laws) in asking if he was under investigation, in a call which may have been about if he'd keep Comey on. Even the hint of Clinton being involved in even a far less serious offence made the right shout "lock her up", but for Trump the reaction seems to be "he's the greatest President ever, let me suck the chrome off his cock".

He, and the Republicans keep trying to distract the American people from the Russia investigation, which let's remind everyone, is mostly about the interference, and only possibly about his administration's complacency. It is more about the actions of a hostile state than him. It's almost as if they know the Russians interfered, and don't care because they won. If Democrats had won, thanks to the actions of an outside state, especially one as hostile to the US as the Russians, and there was even less proof that Clinton or her team may have been involved, the size of the committee and the depth of the investigation would be many times bigger than it is now. The outrage on the right would be larger than the outrage on the left as it stands now.

And, then right after the firing, Trump goes the extra step of letting only Russian official state media in on the meetings between him and Russian officials. He won't release visitor logs to the White House. He won't release visitor logs to the far more accessible Mar-a-logo, where he looks at top secret documents in the wide open. (Side note, he's cost the American tax payers about a 1/4 of what Obama's vacations cost in 8 years, in just 100 days, and all those people who bitched about Obama vacations, including Trump who complained about how much Obama played golf, are perfectly fine with what Trump has cost the American tax payers in his vacations.) So without those logs, and those of Trump Tower, we can't be sure there aren't more clandestine meetings like that blatant one in the White House. The refuse ANY degree of transparency. Again, if this was Clinton, the right would be demanding she be sent to Guantanamo Bay, and that's only a slight exaggeration, either way they'd demand she be locked up for the very things Trump is accused of.

Then there's his clear violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, and the people who claim to be all about the Constitution, saying how the left have zero respect for it, who were in a furor over Clinton's possible violation of it with her foundation, don't care about Trump's violation of it. Suddenly, the Emoluments Clause, doesn't matter to the same people who cited it as a concern during Clinton's campaign.

Also, keep in mind, he made the decision to fire him, before the reasons why letters were penned, and were written to help defend it. Further, as pointed out, his own letter was about him, the guy is such a clear narcissist, he could have been like Sanders and I'd personally oppose him. Plus, Trump didn't have the guts to let Comey know in person, Comey had to find out on TV and think it was a practical joke. Again, if Clinton fired somebody like that, the right would be in arms, calling her chicken, and saying a real man would fire another person in person.

TLDR: If Trump fired Comey after the investigation into a hostile state's interference with the election, nobody would have cared, in fact he may have gotten mad props for letting the investigation go on without interference. It's the timing that is suspect.

John Oliver - Guantánamo

iaui jokingly says...

*Promote.

Y'know, I think it's good to shut Guantanamo down just for principle's sake but as far as being worried about John being sent to prison there... I mean, it's not like either one of the Presidential candidates have actively advocated for sending their political foes to prison like a dictator, right?

Right?

.

.

New Poll Numbers Have Clinton Far Behind And Falling

Colbert Takes the Gloves Off: Gun Control

SDGundamX says...

It broke down along party lines with each party voting for its own measure and against the opposition's. To be honest all the proposals were shit and didn't deserve to be passed, so yea for democracy actually working. Passing knee jerk legislation in the wake of a tragedy is how we got the TSA, Guantanamo, and massive NSA data collection.

eric3579 said:

Anyone know where i can find the names of the senators who voted for and against the particular gun bills?

Samantha Bee on Orlando - Again? Again.

Mordhaus says...

That is not the point. Government works a certain way and rarely is it in the favor of individual liberties. We knee jerked after 9/11 and created the Patriot Act, you know, the set of rules that gave us torture, drone strikes/raids into sovereign nations without their permission, and the NSA checking everything.

If you ban people from one of their constitutional rights because they end up on a government watchlist, then you have set a precedent for further banning. Then next we can torture people in lieu of the 5th amendment because they are on a watchlist (oh wait, we sorta already did that to a couple of us citizens in Guantanamo). The FBI fucked up and removed this guy from surveillance, even though he had ample terrorist cred. That shouldn't have happened, but should we lose our freedom because of their screw up?

ChaosEngine said:

Nirvana fallacy

"We can't fix it perfectly so we should do nothing".

And it wasn't just browser history, the guy was under investigation by the FBI. He made statements to his co-workers supporting IS and he had previously abused his spouse (that on its own should be enough to ban him from owning a weapon).

Two Veterans Debate Trump and his beliefs. Wowser.

RedSky says...

When you veer into talking about changing the Geneva Conventions I think your argument loses logic. Without getting into whether military action is actually justified in the first place, maybe it's worth admitting that there are some thing the US military simply can't do and therefore shouldn't try to?

To suggest that the US should forego international norms to achieve its goals feels like it's channeling the neo-conservative myth of the US as this omnipotent superpower that it never was, and certainly isn't now. What evidence is there that acting like the terrorists (which once you give up international norms you will eventually get to) would actually help achieve its objectives in the first place?

The Bush administration basically took that approach with torture (the "well they did it to us!" approach). When the news of secret rendition, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo broke (as it inevitably would), we know that almost certainly recruited a whole bunch of new terrorists. Meanwhile torture confessions led to a whole bunch of wild goose hunts.

Civilian resistance has been around since the dawn of armies invading foreign lands. International norms geared around state v. state warfare don't really address them, not because they didn't envisage them but because occupying and pacifying foreigners was never a good idea in the first place. Drone strikes, surgical strikes on the likes of Bin Laden should be a rare exception but once you start 'normalizing' them, and giving occupying soldiers wider latitude with civilians that's when you start getting into serious trouble.

Mordhaus said:

I think you will find that most veterans, and currently serving men and women, simply want a clear objective that allows them to win the conflict and return home. Unfortunately the nature of terrorism means that while we follow long held rules that prevent collateral damage, or seek to limit it, the enemy we are fighting do not.

Just as we learned to our sorrow in Vietnam, as the British learned in fighting the IRA, the Russians in fighting the Mujaheddin, and we are learning again in our current battles, terrorists do not feel the need to adhere to the laws of warfare. They use civilians to support them, protect targets, or provide them escape methods. They attack civilians gleefully, knowing we cannot respond in kind.

While I do not support Trump, I do think we seriously need to have a new Geneva Convention to clarify how to treat terrorists and their civilian supporters. I think that is what the ex-Seal meant at the heart of his argument, that fighting terrorists using the old "Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we have rules here" is an absolute losing proposition. Even Obama found that we needed to work outside the rules sometimes to be successful, hence his invasion into a sovereign allied nation to kill or capture Bin Laden, and his current extremely heavy use of drone attacks on suspected targets.

As far as the second veteran, I feel it is absolutely valid to question his integrity. He could have claimed CO status prior to going to conflict or simply not joined the military in the first place. Instead, he decided to claim it after experiencing combat, something my friends who have served noticed happening in the first gulf war. You really don't want a recap of some of the things they called people who left the service after seeing combat.

Why Obama is one of the most consequential presidents ever

ChaosEngine says...

I doubt he'll be remembered as anything other than a massive disappointment

Edit: Re-reading that, it came across harsher than I had intended. I think Obama was a good guy with mostly good intentions (still not keen on his policy of murdering brown people in other countries without due process).

But his healthcare was half-assed, he did nothing about gun control, and he STILL hasn't closed Guantanamo. Meanwhile, privacy rights have further eroded under his watch, and whatever legislation he apparently put in place around Wall Street is clearly not working. I'm not sure he's even looked at campaign finance reform.

Granted, a lot of that is down to an increasingly intractable (read: borderline retarded) republican congress, but the fact remains, he didn't achieve nearly as much as was hoped for.

Military will refuse to obey unlawful orders from Pres Trump

Drachen_Jager says...

"The administration of George W. Bush attempted to portray the abuses as isolated incidents, not indicative of general U.S. policy. This was contradicted by humanitarian organizations such as the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. After multiple investigations, these organizations stated that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were not isolated incidents, but were part of a wider pattern of torture and brutal treatment at American overseas detention centers, including those in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. There was evidence that authorization for the torture had come from high up in the military hierarchy, with allegations being made that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had authorized some of the actions." - Wikipedia

bcglorf said:

Abu Ghraib wasn't exactly standard procedure as ordered by the President. In point of fact, those involved at Abu Ghraib were put on trial and tossed out of the military for the express reason that their actions there went AGAINST how the military was ordered to conduct itself.

It's dishonest in the extreme to point to Abu Ghraib as an example of guys just following orders when the reality is they were put on trial for FAILING to follow orders.

Oregon Occupiers Rummage Through Paiute Artifacts

newtboy jokingly says...

OK...I can make a semi-serious argument for capital punishment for these morons (except they would have to be tried in Texas, the only state that executes the mentally challenged).

They are terrorists.

They themselves are likely exactly the people who would say we should just hang those in Guantanamo (and any other Muslim terrorists we find) because...terrorist! If THEY advocate for the execution of terrorists, it's only fair to use their own 'reasoning' on them....which would really mean executing their families too, right? Just because they're too dumb to understand they ARE terrorists doesn't excuse them, and if THEY can advocate for executing terrorists, I can agree with them on a case by case basis, right? Turnabout's fair play, guys. ;-)

enoch said:

capital punishment? like actually hanging these people?
for what exactly?

look,i think their whole protest is mired in ignorance and hyper-patriotism with little or no basis in reality.

i find them to be a bunch of hypocritical right wing zealots,who should be called what they actually are:terrorists.

i find their circular logic and lack of integrity infuriating,and those who support them to be equally frustrating.that when they stated they would leave if the community asked them to leave,and when the community ASKED them to leave..they refused.

i also find the federal governments response to be a brilliant tactic:hang back and allow this gaggle of retards to self-implode.which is EXACTLY what is happening.their support is dwindling incredibly fast,because they are being exposed for the hypocritical radical fascists they are,bunch of assholes with guns.

but to actually hang them? to end their existence?
or am i just missing the sarcasm in your comment?

because the way things are going,and the exposure they are receiving,which was fairly positive at one time in some circles,is creating an atmosphere where these nimrods will never been taken seriously again...ever.

so no need to end their lives.they have effectively destroyed their own credibility as some kind of arbiter of freedom and justice.they are quickly becoming a joke.

that is a form of death isn't it?
and far more satisfying in my opinion.

if i misunderstood your comment,please forgive.

enoch (Member Profile)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon