# Obama acts, without thinking things thru...dangerous action!



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

We're Not in Kansas
By Dan Ephron | NEWSWEEK
Published Jan 31, 2009 
From the magazine issue dated Feb 9, 2009
Recommended (6) Zakaria: Economy Needs a Bold, Massive Jolt Pentagon Report May Complicate Obama's Gitmo Plans Terror Watch: Obama's Torture Dilemma Rumsfeld, Ashcroft Could Soon Face Legal Jeopardy Four Reasons Obama Won't Close Gitmo Soon The Politics of Gitmo See All Topics (3) Barack Obama Guantanamo Bay Kathleen Sebelius See All 
15 Comments Add Yours Share: Buzz up! Type Size Print 
Email Links to this article 
Sponsored by Email To A Friend Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Your Email Address Recipient's Email Address 
Separate multiple addresses with commas

*She's a Democrat and an Obama pal, so that might explain why Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius was slow to join the fight. But last week, the governor added her name to the list of politicians angling to make sure Guantánamo detainees are not relocated to their states when the Obama administration shutters the detention center.* Topping the list of possible new homes for Gitmo prisoners: Fort Leavenworth, located in Sebelius's state. "I'm happy to find a solution, but I would make a strong argument that this isn't it," she told NEWSWEEK. In a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, *she said putting terrorist suspects there would undermine the base and pose a danger to the community.*

It might undermine Obama instead. Leavenworth is one of at least three sites under examination by the Department of Defense as alternatives to Gitmo. NEWSWEEK has learned that Pentagon survey teams have visited Leavenworth and Camp Pendleton in San Diego since Obama was elected; the U.S. Naval brig in Charleston, S.C., is also on the list. In response, members of Congress representing the districts where the three facilities are located have each proposed NIMBY ("not in my backyard") bills that would prevent the government from dumping Gitmo suspects on them. *"Not only is the brig within walking distance of sensitive military facilities ... but it is less than two miles away from surrounding civilian suburban neighborhoods," Republican Rep. Henry Brown of South Carolina said in a statement.*

Taking a stand was surely a tougher call for Sebelius, who was briefly touted as a possible Obama running mate during the campaign. After the election, her name was mentioned in connection with a number of cabinet positions. In her letter to Gates, *Sebelius worried that absorbing the prisoners might have a "negative economic impact on the community." *In the short run, though, it could also create jobs: the medium-security brig at Leavenworth would require expansion and reinforcement, and it's likely that more policemen would need to be hired to patrol the area. If the economy keeps tanking, inheriting Gitmo detainees could come with a silver lining.

*Obama appears to be one who makes decisions without thinking of the consequences.......his actions are dangerous, especially when it comes to protecting Americans.....this is not good.*


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

So let me get this straight, first you are mad that he is closing gitmo and now you are mad because he actually wants to lock these people up in high security prisons. So much for just letting them go free huh :eyeroll:

It makes way more sense from a global perspective to lock these animals up here in a legal manor, where we have less red tape and can do with them as we please. When they are locked up at gitmo every a-hole lawyer in the world can have a crack at them, when they are here they are a prisoner under our control. There are certainly some downsides to having them here also but welcome to war.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

I dont think he's saying he's mad they wont bring em over. I think what hes saying is that everyone that wanted to see Gitmo closed is also stating that they should come to the states, just not their state.

In other words.......

"Close down that unconstitutional prison! But for the love of god, put them in someone elses state!!!"


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

The problem though with moving them to the states people are going to defend them and they will say they have the same rights as us. Also would it really creat more jobs. I mean yeah a few more cops get hired but aren't they paid by tax dollars and where do those dollars come from? Then they will appeal and eat up more tax dollars!

Maybe Osama...wait...Obama will put that right next to the free condoms! Leave them in GITMO and dunk'em in water. Then.... :sniper:


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

It is just stupid that the president or any U.S. citizen is worried about these scum bags when we have people in this country who aren't criminals living in terrible conditions. And, our economy is screwed but yeah thats a good idea waste more of our money, resources, and time on these pieces of shiznits.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

There are a number of things we can do with these scum bags. .45,.40,9mm, 5.56,7.62 or my favorite the 40mm grenades.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KurtR said:


> There are a number of things we can do with these scum bags. .45,.40,9mm, 5.56,7.62 or my favorite the 40mm grenades.


Would you use vaseline or KY with those grenades?


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

Plainsman said:


> KurtR said:
> 
> 
> > There are a number of things we can do with these scum bags. .45,.40,9mm, 5.56,7.62 or my favorite the 40mm grenades.
> ...


Nothin costs too much we can't afford to buy any! :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bustem36 said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > KurtR said:
> ...


So, just stick with the old two pound hammer????


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> Bustem36 said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...


Naa, 40mm grenades are self propelled. Get the picture?


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

> Naa, 40mm grenades are self propelled. Get the picture?


So....we could call it the "Whistling Butthole"

Whitling Butthole as a tourcher method is a trade mark of Bustem36inc. This phrase may not be copied, used, or sold without the written consent of Bustem36inc. and its associates


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

TK33 said:


> So let me get this straight, first you are mad that he is closing gitmo and now you are mad because he actually wants to lock these people up in high security prisons. So much for just letting them go free huh :eyeroll:
> 
> It makes way more sense from a global perspective to lock these animals up here in a legal manor, where we have less red tape and can do with them as we please. When they are locked up at gitmo every a-hole lawyer in the world can have a crack at them, when they are here they are a prisoner under our control. There are certainly some downsides to having them here also but welcome to war.


*surprisingly you missed the point here.....advocating the prison closure is one thing, but it damn sure looks poorly thought out when NOW we are shopping around to find a stateside facility to house 100's of the most dangerous, despicable criminals in the world.....and no one, not one governor stepped forward to voluntarily take them in their state prison...so what wet-dream did Obama have when he was advocating the closure, with obviously no commitment, not even from a foreign government to repatriate these a$$holes?? time is up.......yeah, i thought so, we all know the answer......all this window-dressing by Obama to enhance our worldwide image is just that, with no concern for the end game of handling, placing, these people....and i use THAT term lightly!*


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Bustem36 said:


> > Naa, 40mm grenades are self propelled. Get the picture?
> 
> 
> So....we could call it the "Whistling Butthole"
> ...


Whackem and stackem


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

huntin1 said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > Bustem36 said:
> ...


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

KurtR said:


> Whackem and stackem


If thats Obamas plan after Gitmo closes, than for once, I agree with the man.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> surprisingly you missed the point here


I didn't miss any point because there is no point.

what would be a viable solution? Keep gitmo open because it has been such a tremendous success and who cares what the rest of the world thinks? Keep in mind that after 9/11 we had the support of most of the world and the rest were scared out of their minds, including Iran. Those days are gone thanks in part to gitmo

Very few people on here I think realize how controversial this prison is, very few people also realize that we cannot continue going it alone when it comes to protecting our nation. We are getting stretched too thin, financially and practically. There was a post on here over the weekend that was great, the writer said that al-qaida wants to destroy us from within, and gitmo is one example of how they are starting to do it. Pile on some secet wiretaps, domestic spying, and digging through financials and the like of natural born americans what do you have? It has to stop somewhere.

As for the solution of where to put them, these govs will more than likely come around when they get their own stimulus package or whatever else. I am not all the way sure that they can fight this if they are in a military operated prison.

The other solution is to take no prisoners :sniper:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Keep gitmo open because it has been such a tremendous success and who cares what the rest of the world thinks?


> If the rest of the world is upset it's because the liberals tried to get the world upset with the way Bush was running the war. They wanted him to fail and tried every way possible including tainting what the world thinks of us. I seriously believe some of them should be hung in the streets for treason. Start with Harry the traitor Reid.
> 
> The hatred of Bush and the cry baby attitude of liberals after they lost in Florida have been far more dangerous than the terrorists. If they want to destroy us from within just give money to campaigns for people like Obama. Oh, wait, they did that. A few more Harry Reids and Nancy Pelosi would about do it too.
> 
> ...


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> For a North Dakota guy TK your a good distance into left field. You didn't spend any time out on the left coast did you?


You apparently missed the part about taking no prisoners, here it is:


> The other solution is to take no prisoners


I even threw the little sniper guy in there so you didn't miss it.

You think that it is OK to continue to fight the war on terror by ourselves?
You think that it is OK to violate the 4th amendment but not the 2nd amendment?

You still never answered the question on where it ends. You also don't give the rest of the world's leaders very much credit when you think that the liberals can have such a large influence on them. I will stick to my original statements when we break from our own rules and our own values whether liberal or conservative the terrorists win.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

You think that it is OK to violate the 4th amendment but not the 2nd amendment?

You have to be legal residents of the USA for that to matter. The only right they have is to a dirt nap.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

There have been a few instances where they have been americans. And also they have not had anything to do with terrorism.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> And also they have not had anything to do with terrorism.


Is that common knowledge or simply what you think. I don't think they can wire tap unless they have found other ways to associate them with terrorists. They don't just wire tap you and I.

I have news for you about the rest of the world. They will always hate the top dog, just like liberals hate anyone who has money. Well, not the politicians, they are the rich, they just have some people suckered into thinking they are for the little guy. 
No the rest of the world doesn't like us, but they would like to be us. The liberals just give them more reasons to complain, and more reasons to shirk their responsibility. Our socialist friends like France are more than willing to complain. They are looking for reasons not to go to Iraq. Let America do it and complain is a win win for them. 
The take no prisoners isn't a conservative view point. Look at the communists they are far more ruthless, even the liberals are more ruthless when it comes to lying to hurt someone politically. Well actually the take no prisoners when it comes to terrorists is unliberal like. If it was take no conservative prisoners I am sure some would have no problem dropping the hammer on a couple of us.  
You appear to be a mixed bag alright TK, but you sure are willing to give Obama every benefit of doubt.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

TRADERS HANG THEM HIGH :beer:

or just :sniper:

I just think it's sad that anybody in this worl cares how these things/prisoners are treated. They conspire/kill thousands of people and people actually think about them as humans. Government should never say a thing when they capture someone and get whatever they can outta these terrorists then turn them into worm food.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

There have been a few cases, all be it not many where the feds have called their surveillance homeland security and the cases were thrown out of court because they had not followed the protocol or whatever to meet the standard. Once again, where does it end, I know damn well that your opinions and for that matter everyone elses' on this site would change dramatically if the gov't was looking at your guns or ammunition stockpiles without following the bill of rights wouldn't it? I think it was on nightline or 20/20, I don't remember.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

TK, your right, if they messed with my guns I would be ticked, and I think Obama will.
As far as violation of other rights that would tick me off also. The thing is I don't believe the liberal propaganda that was spread to hurt Bush. I don't think the constitution is violated when you have probable cause, and information that conversations are being carried on with known terrorists. I know all the hullabaloo that we heard on tv, but I don't believe it. If I did I would be in agreement with you.

I guess I just have the tv liberals in my mind as mostly liars, and not to be trusted about anything. I will not defend most conservative politicians either. If I had to put a value to it I would say liberals 90% liars, conservative 50% liars. Inaccuracy = liberals 95% conservatives 70% Our politicians are a sorry bunch indeed, only to be outdone by our liberal biased media. I know the staunch liberals hate FOX news, but I think they hate it because it's the only truthful news outlet. They don't want the truth getting out. I seriously think the liberals that hate FOX hate the truth getting out. Why else? They have conservative and liberal anchor people. They do present both sides. I think the only difference is they have some -----some conservatives and the other media have no conservatives.


----------

