• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Another blow for King George

Mike

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
fff said:
Clinton couldn't do it because he had a Republican dominated Congress. .

Did Clinton try and could not get it passed through congress or are you just speculating and he never tried?

Frankie,

I'd be interested to hear about Clintons relationship with Cuba and Guantanamo Bay.

What would he have done with all the Cuban & Haitian refugees sent there?

Tell us all about how Clinton promised to shut it down during his campaign but changed his mind once in office.

Tell us all about how Clinton used it for a concentration camp for refugees and HIV patients and gave them no "Habeas Corpus" rights.

Tell us more Frankie. We're all ears........................... :roll:
 

fff

Well-known member
Mike said:
BTW, Sandhusker, Jimmy Carter was in the process of giving GitMo back to Cuba when he lost re-election

Like he gave back the Panama Canal that was built with lots of U.S. blood and money?

The world is laughing their azz off at that clown. :roll:

Why would a Pres. even think about giving something back that is so strategically important? :shock:

Because it's also outmoded and will require big bucks to modify it to fit the bigger ships today. It could not be defended if a militant group decided to blow it up. Giving it to the Panamanians was a great move by Carter. It made us look good to the rest of the world AND it took a big possible expenditure off our financial books. It no longer has the strategic importance it did when it was built. Neither does GitMo.
 

Mike

Well-known member
fff said:
Mike said:
BTW, Sandhusker, Jimmy Carter was in the process of giving GitMo back to Cuba when he lost re-election

Like he gave back the Panama Canal that was built with lots of U.S. blood and money?

The world is laughing their azz off at that clown. :roll:

Why would a Pres. even think about giving something back that is so strategically important? :shock:

Because it's also outmoded and will require big bucks to modify it to fit the bigger ships today. It could not be defended if a militant group decided to blow it up. Giving it to the Panamanians was a great move by Carter. It made us look good to the rest of the world AND it took a big possible expenditure off our financial books. It no longer has the strategic importance it did when it was built. Neither does GitMo.

Globalsecurity.org

US FACES SURPRISE ATTACK WITH CANAL GIVEAWAY: ANALYST

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

Washington, Nov. 17 (CNA) The United States faces the possibility of a nuclear "Pearl Harbor" after President Bill Clinton okayed the ceding of US control over the Panama Canal and with seemingly growing Chinese influence there, warned Thomas H. Moorer, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Wednesday.

Pointing to the fact that Panama has signed a 50-year lease for two ports at each end of the Canal with Hong Kong's Hutchison Whampoa company, run by Li Ka-shing, who is closely associated with the Beijing regime, Moore said this "gives China's Communist Party de facto control over the most strategic waterway in the West."

Moorer, illustrating a scenario where the US Navy is blocked from moving through the Panama Canal and Communist Chinese missiles and J-11 attack jets are poised to launch from Panama, said that Beijing could intimidate the US into surrendering Taiwan, Panama and other strategic concerns without a shot being fired.

The retired admiral wrote in an analysis titled "America Risks a Nuclear Pearl Harbor" that just a few months ago, the official Communist Chinese newspaper warned the United States that Beijing was willing to use nuclear bombs against American aircraft carriers if they interfered in Communist Chinese plans to invade Taiwan.

When Taiwan conducts its national elections next spring, less than six months from now, Communist China could make good on its threat of war against the United States, he said.

"The notion that a US president and Congress could allow the Panama Canal to fall under the control of our avowed enemies, the Red Chinese -- without a shot being fired -- is incredible. Yet we are just days away from that nightmare," wrote the admiral, who served under six US presidents and completed two terms as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Moorer stressed that unless the American people raise a terrific outcry, Communist China will take control of the strategic waterway on December 31 and begin to occupy US military facilities which are now being abandoned by American troops.

The Clinton administration has been quick to dispatch American troops all over the world, to places like Kosovo, Haiti and East Timor which are not vital to American interests. Yet the administration won't allow any continued American military presence in Panama even though the Panama Canal is vital to US national security, said the admiral.

Fortunately, the admiral said, a few in Congress like Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) have finally begun protesting the seemingly imminent Communist Chinese takeover of the Panama Canal. He called on the American people to do everything they could to encourage the government to hold congressional hearings and stop the giveaway. (By Nelson Chung)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Quote of the Century: :roll:
A senior CIA lawyer at the meeting, John Fredman, explained that whether harsh interrogation amount to torture "is a matter of perception." The only sure test for torture is if the detainee died.

"If the detainees dies you're doing it wrong," Fredman said.



Democrat: Pentagon sought abusive interrogations
By ANNE FLAHERTY – 4 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Military officials tasked with training U.S. troops to evade enemy interrogations provided Pentagon lawyers a list of abusive tactics that could be used in prisons like Guantanamo Bay, a top Senate Democrat disclosed Tuesday.

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the harsh techniques were then pursued despite strong objections in November 2002 by the military's uniformed lawyers.

"If we use those same techniques offensively against detainees, it says to the world that they have America's stamp of approval," said Levin, D-Mich., at the onset of a committee hearing.

"That puts our troops at greater risk of being abused if they're captured. It also weakens our moral authority and harms our efforts to attract allies to our side in the fight against terrorism."
------------------------------

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the administration's legal analysis on detainees and interrogations following the Sept. 11 attacks will "go down in history as some of the most irresponsible and shortsighted legal analysis ever provided to our nation's military and intelligence communities."

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

Levin said these techniques were approved despite fierce objections a month earlier by the military services' lawyers. In separate memos, the lawyers told the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the techniques warranted further study and could be illegal.

The committee also released previously secret and privately held memos dating from the 2002 inception of the harsh interrogation program at Guantanamo.

In one of them, the top military lawyer at Guantanamo, Lt. Col. Diane Beaver, explains that the Defense Department had made a practice of hiding prisoners who were being treated harshly, even abusively, from the International Committee of the Red Cross, a non-governmental body empowered to monitor compliance with Geneva Convention rules for the treatment of military prisoners.

Beaver also confirmed that the military was secretly using previously forbidden techniques, such as sleep deprivation, but hiding them so as not to draw "negative attention," according to minutes of the meeting.

"Officially it is not happening," Beaver said, according to minutes from the meeting. "It is not being reported officially. The ICRC is a serious concern. They will be in and out, scrutinizing our operations, unless they are displeased and decide to protest and leave. This would draw a lot of negative attention."

Beaver said interrogators should "curb the harsher operations while ICRC is around."

Beaver was speaking at an Oct. 2, 2002 meeting between CIA and military lawyers and military intelligence officials on how to counter the resistance of Guantanamo detainees to military interrogation.

Beaver's comments suggest that the CIA's practice of hiding unregistered "ghost detainees" from the ICRC at military jails may have been as much in service to the Pentagon's interrogation program as it was to the CIA's.

A senior CIA lawyer at the meeting, John Fredman, explained that whether harsh interrogation amount to torture "is a matter of perception." The only sure test for torture is if the detainee died.

"If the detainees dies you're doing it wrong," Fredman said.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jlcklXVQaqEKan6SFvWXydTqGtkAD91BVM180
 

Mike

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Does the Chinese connections of the Clinton's ever end?

I guess we'll never know. The Libs just change the subject and go on like nothing happened. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Latest posts

Top