Al Jazeera English: US 'to miss Guantanamo deadline'

[SealLion]

.....the US president, has admitted that his administration will miss the January 2010 deadline set for closing the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba.

I wonder why??

Here's what he had to say about it:

,,,,we had a specific deadline that was missed,"

even though .....

Obama (said that).....the prison does not adhere to US standards on human and civil rights.

I wonder if it has anything to do with wanting to continue to keep the detainees in prison.


There's more though:

...The White House has said that it will continue to push for the facility's closure, and is moving to repatriate some of the detainees....

I can't help but think that, that is all not true.
Holding people in jail, torturing, abusing them, and so on and so on...

Here's the link:

Al Jazeera English - Americas - US 'to miss Guantanamo deadline'

I think that a great part of it also includes the known idea that these people just don't know what to do with them either.
they're ashamed of shipping them elsewhere b/c, probably not that much info was gotten from them, and so they're just ashamed of this subject over and over.
that's my opinion.

[slikrapid]

right, whats the big deal - to close a single facility, doesn't seem like a heavy-duty project, besides there are always many possible solutions without having to let the prisoners free, which is likely the actual government goal

they're ashamed of shipping them elsewhere b/c, probably not that much info was gotten from them, and so they're just ashamed of this subject over and over.

imo the only ones ashamed of these facilities (of those having a direct connection to the events) are low ranked soldiers or non-pro's involved in torture, ie. those with some decency/moral left in them - politicians, generals, pro-torturers are surely not even slightly ashamed - some believe its the right thing to do & some know its wrong but don't give a damn,...

[SealLion]

maybe they'll actually give a damn if it actually all happens to them, then.
You know what I mean??

Well, if it isn't the government that wouldn't be ashamed or embarrassed about it ( I would tend to think that perhaps they are to some point. Afterall, government officials are people)
, then I don't know who would be other than the ones you spoke of.

I would say that it takes courage for any government to actually, literally, disable this ridiculous jail, or holding pen, or what-ever they want to call it. \
It is a jail.
Regardless of what others call it.
And the people inside it....they're prisoners.

One can call them what-ever they wish: enemy combatants or what-ever.

That term, enemy combatants, was conjured by someone in the US government b/c in the Geneva Conventions for handling prisoners, that specific term didn't exist and therefore, someone in government, most likely Cheney and company (at that time), decided that in order to circumvent such a convention violation, the prisoners had to be called something else.

Plain and simply put.

And that's the truth, Ruth!!

You can look all that up that I just spoke of.
TV - investigative journalism- makes all this known to the reader or viewer.

[slikrapid]

maybe they'll actually give a damn if it actually all happens to them, then.
You know what I mean??

oh yeah, that would be another story alltogether: two eyes for an eye...things like that

Afterall, government officials are people)

maybe i could rephrase that:

if absolute power corrupts absolutely, then the lack of moral/regret at high positions of power may very well be close to absolute

I would say that it takes courage for any government to actually, literally, disable this ridiculous jail

just as your example with that prisoner definition word-play, so there are numerous ways to make it appear as if the prison is shut down or reformed, whereas it actually continues operating (moving to another location or even country far from prying eyes, opening it to the media while moving the most important prisoners elsewhere and leaving the unimportant ones or even giving freedom to 'small fish',...), other methods may include staging suicides, prison breaks with deadly outcomes & so on, all with plausible deniability...all it takes is to change the strategy, put on a smoke screen or kill Michael Jackson, if you know what i mean

[SealLion]

...
maybe i could rephrase that:

if absolute power corrupts absolutely, then the lack of moral/regret at high positions of power may very well be close to absolute

...

I don't understand what your saying here.

YOur saying that a person, holding absolute power, has become tolerated to the point whereby he/she is corrupt to the point where his lack of moral sense or regret of his own actions is at the point of absolute lack of regret.

If that's what your saying and correct, then I'm thinking that it would be safe to assume the want or desire for continues power to hold absolute power.

And that's being said on the basis that some people in that country's former government are now not in the same positions that they had in the previous government.

Even though most of them still (probably, I'm guessing as I haven't gone to the website: Project for The New American Century, to check), may hold Chairs on the Board there.

Therefore, the desire to hold absolute power in a continued environment.

We're getting philosophical here.

[slikrapid]

I don't understand what your saying here.

but you did understand it:

YOur saying that a person, holding absolute power, has become tolerated to the point whereby he/she is corrupt to the point where his lack of moral sense or regret of his own actions is at the point of absolute lack of regret.

We're getting philosophical here.