Obama: Kills Women & Children, Lies About It Then ...

Brown Bomber

... Locks up the who exposed his lies. I am referring to Abdullah Haider Shaye, the Yemeni journalist who is currently behind bars after a sham trial. He exposed the massacre carried out by the US government which killed more women and children than Adam Lanza. He was set to be pardoned until...

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
February 03, 2011


Readout of President's Call with President Saleh of Yemen

President Obama called President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen on February 2 to welcome the significant reform measures that President Saleh had announced earlier that day, and to stress that President Saleh now needs to follow-up his pledge with concrete actions. President Obama asked that Yemeni security forces show restraint and refrain from violence against Yemeni demonstrators who are exercising their right to free association, assembly, and speech. The President also told President Saleh that it is imperative that Yemen take forceful action against Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to protect innocent lives in Yemen as well as abroad. Finally, President Obama expressed concern over the release of Abd-Ilah al-Shai, who had been sentenced to five years in prison for his association with AQAP. President Saleh thanked the President for U.S. support and committed to continuing and strengthening relations with the United States.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/03/readout-presidents-call-president-saleh-yemen

Wikipedia gives a good overview - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulelah_Haider_Shaye

Reports from two actual journalists.

Jeremy Scahill
http://www.thenation.com/article/166757/why-president-obama-keeping-journalist-prison-yemen

Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/obamas_personal_role_in_a_journalists_imprisonment/

gnfnrhead

Gee, I wonder why he expressed concern:

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is a militant Islamist organization, primarily active in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. It was named for al-Qaeda, and says it is subordinate to that group and its now-deceased leader Osama bin Laden, a Saudi citizen whose father was born in Yemen. It is considered the most active of Al-Qaeda's branches, or "franchises," that emerged due to weakening central leadership.

He is a known associate of a terrorist organisation.

But of course that's ok, Obama is the real problem :rolleyes:

Duiske

gnfnrhead wrote: »

He is a known associate of a terrorist organisation.

Have you any proof of that, other than his conviction on terrorism charges in what has been called a sham trial ? If you have more information on the case than Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and the International Federation of Journalists, perhaps you would like to share it with us ?

asherbassad

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Gee, I wonder why he expressed concern:



He is a known associate of a terrorist organisation.

But of course that's ok, Obama is the real problem :rolleyes:

Actually, by the wishy-washy definition used these days then so are you. You see with this abysmal categorisation of someone who has "knowingly, or otherwise, assisted or provided assistance to parties known or unknown who might or might otherwise at a later time present or pose a threat to the Uniited States or interests thereof" that includes you as a terrorism suspect since you more than likely bought a fcuking kebab from a guy who made a phone call once to a childhood sweetheart in Oman who ran away from a bazaar after a guy who in a mentally retarded state told her that she was an enemy of Islam because she was wearing a pair of jeans.

So, yeah....you too are a terrorism suspect. Deal with it, suspect-boy.

You know that whole 6 degrees of separation thing? Then by that alone, you and I are probably RELATED to a terrorist. See you in Gitmo, pal. We're fcuked!

Cookie_Monster

I'm confused, where exactly does it describe Obama going on a killing spree?

weisses

I'm not on Facebook...







Is that a drone I'm hearing ???

Brown Bomber

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I'm confused, where exactly does it describe Obama going on a killing spree?

I said "massacre. It was quite clearly a massacre.

Definition of MASSACRE

1
: the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty

...

Forty-one civilians died in the US attack. Fourteen members of the extended al Haydara clan were killed, along with 27 members of the al Anbouri clan. Three more people later died when they stepped on left-over cluster munitions.


As a surviving woman later told reporter Jeremy Scahill, for Al Jazeera, ‘At 6am they were sleeping and I was making bread. When the missiles exploded I lost consciousness. I didn’t know what had happened to my children, my daughter, my husband. Only I survived with this old man and my daughter.’
Among those killed that day were 22 children. The youngest, Khadje Ali Mokbel Louqye, was just one year old. A dozen women also died, five of them reportedly pregnant.


Yet these numbers mask the many individual families annihilated in the attack. Mohammed Nasser Awad Jaljala, 60, his 30-year-old wife Nousa, their son Nasser, 6, and daughters Arwa, 4, and Fatima, aged 2, were all killed.
Then there was 35-year old Ali Mohammed Nasser Jaljala, his wife Qubla (25), and their four daughters Afrah (9), Zayda (7), Hoda (5) and Sheikha (4) who all died.


Ahmed Mohammed Nasser Jaljala, 30, was killed alongside his 21-year old wife Qubla and 50-year old mother Mouhsena. Their daughter Fatima, aged 13, was the only survivor of the family, badly injured and needing extensive medical treatment abroad.


The Anbour clan suffered similarly catastrophic losses. Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye died with his wife, son and three daughters. His brother Ali Mokbel Salem Louqye’s seven-strong family were also wiped out.


Sheik Saleh Ben Fareed, a tribal leader, went to the area shortly after the attack and described the carnage to Al Jazeera reporter Scahill: ‘If somebody has a weak heart, I think they will collapse. You see goats and sheep all over. You see heads of those who were killed here and there. You see children. And you cannot tell if this meat belongs to animals or to human beings. Very sad, very sad.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/03/29/the-civilian-massacre-the-us-will-neither-confirm-nor-deny/

Cookie_Monster

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I said "massacre. It was quite clearly a massacre.

no, what you said was: "Obama: Kills Women & Children, Lies About It Then..."
only later did you bother qualifying it and nothing in your link suggests Obama did it either. I can only assume you are once again trying to sensationalise the topic.

Brown Bomber

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Gee, I wonder why he expressed concern:

He is a known associate of a terrorist organisation.

But of course that's ok, Obama is the real problem :rolleyes:

What Duiske said. Can you support this with anything resembling evidence? Or is it simpy a case of the government said it so it must be true and the assumption of innocence is out the window?

Brown Bomber

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

no, what you said was: "Obama: Kills Women & Children, Lies About It Then..."
only later did you bother qualifying it and nothing in your link suggests Obama did it either. I can only assume you are once again trying to sensationalise the topic.

I'm not sure where you are going with this.

Obama ordered the attack that "killed" small babies, pregnant women and near wiped out whole families of innocent people.

He then lied about it.

He then seen to it that one of the reporters who exposed his masacre/lies was kept behind bars on trumped up charges.

Which of the above is false?

And why do you seem to more concerned about obama's reputation than dead children and innocent men imprisoned?

Cookie_Monster

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not sure where you are going with this.

of course you're not... you don't see at all how misleading the headlines is, no?

Brown Bomber

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

of course you're not... you don't see at all how misleading the headlines is, no?

It's not anymore misleading than saying Hitler killed Jews.

Which part is misleading and why?

And again why would you feel the need to defend someone who has ordered what turned out to be an atrocity? Who then gets his puppet dictators to imprison innocent people?

Cookie_Monster

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's not anymore misleading than saying Hitler killed Jews.

no, it's not. But it's a lot more misleading than saying the Nazi's killed Jews.

Which part is misleading and why?

Prove to me Obama himself signed the document and not just some senior military official, or indeed that Obama himself pulled the trigger which is exactly what your headline implies; that he himself killed women and children, not that some US naval ship fired as per the actual news story.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And again why would you feel the need to defend someone who has ordered what turned out to be an atrocity? Who then gets his puppet dictators to imprison innocent people?

I'm not defending anyone, just sick of the ridiculous slant you need to put on it.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

no, it's not.

Exactly. By your logic Hitler didn't kill any Jews.

[QUOTE=Cookie_Monster;82988775 Prove to me Obama himself signed the document and not just some senior military official, or indeed that Obama himself pulled the trigger which is exactly what your headline implies; that he himself killed women and children, not that some US naval ship fired as per the actual news story. [/QUOTE]
Obama oversees "terror Tuesdays" in the White House every week were he decides who is going to die as he draws up his personal "kill list".

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You're welcome.

I

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

'm not defending anyone, just sick of the ridiculous slant you need to put on it.

From my perspective you are sick of the truth. The truth which shatters your illusion of Obama as some kind of altruistic saint when in fact he is just a continuation of Bush.

Cookie_Monster

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Exactly. By your logic Hitler didn't kill any Jews.

again you are putting words in my mouth, that's not what I said nor implied.

Obama oversees "terror Tuesdays" in the White House every week were he decides who is going to die as he draws up his personal "kill list".

so he does sign it but doesn't pull the trigger himself, so basically you've proved me right that your headline is just sensationalist nonsense. He signed a kill order for an individual, he didn't tell them to carpet bomb the whole area, once again it's just US incompetence that see excess civilians killed rather than a malicious need or want to do it.

From my perspective you are sick of the truth. The truth which shatters your illusion of Obama as some kind of altruistic saint when in fact he is just a continuation of Bush.

I have no illusion of Obama being an altruistic saint, again you are just putting words in my mouth.

Brown Bomber

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

again you are putting words in my mouth, that's not what I said nor implied.

Yes it is. You are making claims that I have been misleading in describing Obama's role as Chief of Staff in a massacre of innocents as murder. You then agreed that this wasn't anymore misleading than saying Hitler killed Jews.

You can't have it both ways.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so he does sign it but doesn't pull the trigger himself, so basically you've proved me right that your headline is just sensationalist nonsense. He signed a kill order for an individual, he didn't tell them to carpet bomb the whole area, once again it's just US incompetence that see excess civilians killed rather than a malicious need or want to do it.

Yeah, sure it is--- If you want to apply Holocaust denier logic then I can too.

Can you present the documents that proves that Hitler ordered the extermination of the Jews?

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I have no illusion of Obama being an altruistic saint, again you are just putting words in my mouth.

Fine then, use your own words. I'll start -- Deceptive, warmongering, spineless, lying, terrorist.

Cookie_Monster

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you present the documents that proves that Hitler ordered the extermination of the Jews?

I sure can't.

DarkDusk

I'll just add something. If Obama had any love or respect, would he order for the assassination of some rebel, KNOWING that it will most definitely result in civilian casualties and deaths. When you look at it this way, it seems that Obama doesn't care what happens to civilians as long as the "terrorists" are killed, which is basically collateral damage. That is something I, and many other people, do not agree with.

Look at what is happening in Africa right now. The US will have troops in 35 African countries before the year ends, France (and the US) have invaded Mali, and have spilled over the borders into Niger to take control of uranium mines. And people wonder why groups such as Al-Qaeda make threats against these countries. Well you know what, PAYBACK'S A BITCH. So maybe tomorrow, or next month, or next year some group that doesn't agree with Western countries invading Africa attacks the US, and are labelled terrorists. Then Obama will push for an increase in the US defense budget, making the problem even bigger (look at what has happened to the defense budget since 9/11).

I'm fed up of people who cannot open their eyes for a moment and see what actually is going on in the world, because the future is bleak unless change happens soon.

Brown Bomber

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I sure can't.

... which demonstrates the double-standard and makes a mockery of your claims that I have misrepresented anything.

Brown Bomber

DarkDusk wrote: »

I'll just add something. If Obama had any love or respect, would he order for the assassination of some rebel, KNOWING that it will most definitely result in civilian casualties and deaths. When you look at it this way, it seems that Obama doesn't care what happens to civilians as long as the "terrorists" are killed, which is basically collateral damage. That is something I, and many other people, do not agree with.

Look at what is happening in Africa right now. The US will have troops in 35 African countries before the year ends, France (and the US) have invaded Mali, and have spilled over the borders into Niger to take control of uranium mines. And people wonder why groups such as Al-Qaeda make threats against these countries. Well you know what, PAYBACK'S A BITCH. So maybe tomorrow, or next month, or next year some group that doesn't agree with Western countries invading Africa attacks the US, and are labelled terrorists. Then Obama will push for an increase in the US defense budget, making the problem even bigger (look at what has happened to the defense budget since 9/11).

I'm fed up of people who cannot open their eyes for a moment and see what actually is going on in the world, because the future is bleak unless change happens soon.

You have put this very well. I would take it a step furter. I believe that the "payback" or blowback is desired. The case of Al Shabab is a perfect example as is the arming and support of Al Qaeda's allies in Libya and Syria. Put them into positions of power, wait until they start chopping of thieves hands and so on and then you have the perfect pretext to colonise on "humanitarian" grounds.

Cookie_Monster

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... which demonstrates the double-standard and makes a mockery of your claims that I have misrepresented anything.

no, it's just I don't own any such documents and cannot be bothered searching the web for same

Brown Bomber

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

no, it's just I don't own any such documents and cannot be bothered searching the web for same

As far as I am aware you making claims and then not being arsed or capable of backing them up entitles me to abuse you. At least that's what happens here.

I won't though because I am not a ****.

DarkDusk

What is this doing in the CT forum, anyway? Innocent people die (nearly) everyday from US drone attacks, it's not conspiracy theory, it's conspiracy fact.

Run_to_da_hills

DarkDusk wrote: »

What is this doing in the CT forum, anyway? Innocent people die (nearly) everyday from US drone attacks, it's not conspiracy theory, it's conspiracy fact.

"Collateral damage" is the official term used

DarkDusk

Is collateral damage justified?

Aquarius34

DarkDusk wrote: »

What is this doing in the CT forum, anyway? Innocent people die (nearly) everyday from US drone attacks, it's not conspiracy theory, it's conspiracy fact.

Well there is a lot of conspiracies that are facts, but the best ones always get pushed aside because the truth would only clean out all the worlds psychopaths.

And of course we can't have that can we?

Cookie_Monster

Brown Bomber wrote: »

As far as I am aware you making claims and then not being arsed or capable of backing them up entitles me to abuse you. At least that's what happens here.

I'm not the one claiming Obama himself murdered Women and Children

Aquarius34

Obama is a compulsive liar. All forked tongued politicians are.

Brown Bomber

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I'm not the one claiming Obama himself murdered Women and Children

That has clearly been established. People who once lived, including women and children are now dead and in many different pieces due to him. He is a murderer in the sense that Charles Manson is also a murder and currently incarcerated for murder.

Why you look up to and defend a torturerer-pardoning, murdering terrorist with personal kill-lists and torture dungeons who has already ordered the murder of his own citizens and has given himself the power to indefinitely detain his own citizens without trial is a question you should really be asking yourself.

Not exactly MLK Jr is he?

DarkDusk

I'm speechless: http://rt.com/news/mali-konna-france-hollande-438/

SoulandForm

To be honest Im not sure how much power Obama actually has.

hooradiation

DarkDusk wrote: »

I'll just add something. If Obama had any love or respect, would he order for the assassination of some rebel, KNOWING that it will most definitely result in civilian casualties and deaths. When you look at it this way, it seems that Obama doesn't care what happens to civilians as long as the "terrorists" are killed, which is basically collateral damage. That is something I, and many other people, do not agree with.

Is that because you don't have to make decisions on the scale of someone like Obama and therefore it's remarkably easy to sit back, wring your hands and pass judgement on how others deal with situations you'll never have to?

Brown Bomber

or is it that you don't believe scores of innocent, rural peasants including women and children have the right not to be blown up into multiple bodyparts by the world's most powerful military

Brown Bomber

SoulandForm wrote: »

To be honest Im not sure how much power Obama actually has.

I'm not sure about that, he does appear to be an empty suit at times but he had the power to go to war with Libya for example without Congress approval.

Yet we are supposed to believe his hands are tied when it comes to honoring his promises such as closing Guantanamo.

Have you seen this yet?

By Michael Isikoff
National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News


A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite

or this?

'US a police state, Obama consciously allows torture' – CIA veteran John Kiriakou

Published: 01 February, 2013, 10:14

The US is rapidly moving away from freedom. Bush would have been lynched by now by the so called Obama-worshipping progressives but they give a free pass to Obama.

3ndahalfof6

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not sure about that, he does appear to be an empty suit at times but he had the power to go to war with Libya for example without Congress approval.

Yet we are supposed to believe his hands are tied when it comes to honoring his promises such as closing Guantanamo.

Have you seen this yet?




or this?



The US is rapidly moving away from freedom. Bush would have been lynched by now by the so called Obama-worshipping progressives but they give a free pass to Obama.

Do you really think this, do you reallllly think it is left down to 1 human, no imput from anyone else ? the reason the head cases have been taken out, (as in they have total control) is exactly that,

now to be a leader and to listen to opinion is possibly going let you stay in power (in name only), to think 1 human makes the decisions is to think that human is not but god as we are told, that is all.

weisses

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The US is rapidly moving away from freedom. Bush would have been lynched by now by the so called Obama-worshipping progressives but they give a free pass to Obama.

TBH BB i don't think it matters who is in power

watched a documentary called "ethos" Eye opener for me

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not sure about that, he does appear to be an empty suit at times but he had the power to go to war with Libya for example without Congress approval.

With Libya, it was limited military action. No troops were going to be lost. It was supported on many fronts, including the UN and given tacit approval by Russia and China.

Yet we are supposed to believe his hands are tied when it comes to honoring his promises such as closing Guantanamo.

Yes or else it would be closed by now.

Have you seen this yet?

They have been killing Al Qaeda members regardless of nationality for over a decade

or this?

This guy was passing secret information onto a journalist, something he pleaded guilty to and is one of the first CIA operatives to ever be charged. He was also writing a book.

As for torture, it needs to be fully and unconditionally outlawed.

The US is rapidly moving away from freedom.

Yeah I've been hearing this for 10 years, yet it remains much the same, so go figure.

DarkDusk

It's the corporations that are in control, not Obama (in my opinion). Why do you think all the big corporations meet at the Bilderburg conferences every year? It doesn't matter if Obama is in control or not, he has the power to do what is right (although he could end up like Kennedy )

SoulandForm

DarkDusk wrote: »

It's the corporations that are in control, not Obama (in my opinion). Why do you think all the big corporations meet at the Bilderburg conferences every year? It doesn't matter if Obama is in control or not, he has the power to do what is right (although he could end up like Kennedy )

There has been an increasing overlap between the State, especially the "Deep State", and Big Business since WWII but accelerating since the 80s- Hence the term Military Industrial Complex. Personally I believe the reason that Princess was murdered was because she was dating the son of a front man of a major commerical rival of the UK in the arms trade (one of the UK's biggest industries).

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... Locks up the who exposed his lies. I am referring to Abdullah Haider Shaye, the Yemeni journalist who is currently behind bars after a sham trial. He exposed the massacre carried out by the US government which killed more women and children than Adam Lanza. He was set to be pardoned until...

Why wasn't ABC news locked up then?

December 17th they reported the following : http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236

On orders from President Barack Obama, the U.S. military launched cruise missiles early Thursday against two suspected al-Qaeda sites in Yemen

If ABC news reported before him it happened then Shaye didn't expose anything. There were already local reports of civilian casualties. So everything Shaye reported was already common knowledge.

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

or is it that you don't believe scores of innocent, rural peasants including women and children have the right not to be blown up into multiple bodyparts by the world's most powerful military

I don't really care for this hand wringing, feigned sympathy for people you have no connection too.
So please, refrain from trying to lay on a guilt trip, it does not work.

The point was simple, it's easy to sit in judgement when you're never going to have to make decisions on that scale. So easy it's a popular internet hobby.
And frankly, anyone assuming that a situation on this scale (or indeed, most decisions regardless of your walk of life) has an answer whereby everyone wins and nobody is unduly affected is lying to themselves, so arguments born from the feeling that "there is negative fallout to this action, therefore it must be desired by those committing it" are not worth entertaining.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

With Libya, it was limited military action. No troops were going to be lost. It was supported on many fronts, including the UN and given tacit approval by Russia and China.

With Libya it was war. When you send in the fighter jets and the armed forces into the borders of another soveriegn nation to overthrow the government and attempt to kill it's leader it is ludicrous to suggest it is anything other than a war.

Not only that it was an illegal an unconstitutional war as it wasn't put before Congress. Something Obama admits himself when he was spitting out lies in his campaign trail.

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

From the same article. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?
No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.

... but he is okay with killing them.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yes or else it would be closed by now.

Do you actually believe that? Is that even good enough for you? Over half the people in this torture-prison are innocent, cleared for release and no danger to anyone yet they are indefinitely detained.

If they intend on closing it why then have they closed the office that was setup to facilitate it's closure?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/us/politics/state-dept-closes-office-working-on-closing-guantanamo-prison.html?_r=0

Office Working to Close Guantánamo Is Shuttered

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

FORT MEADE, Md. — The State Department on Monday reassigned Daniel Fried, the special envoy for closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and will not replace him, according to an internal personnel announcement. Mr. Fried’s office is being closed, and his former responsibilities will be “assumed” by the office of the department’s legal adviser, the notice said.

Jonny7 wrote: »

They have been killing Al Qaeda members regardless of nationality for over a decade

What's that got to do with Obama killing US citizens?

[QUOTE=Jonny7;83077409This guy was passing secret information onto a journalist, something he pleaded guilty to and is one of the first CIA operatives to ever be charged. He was also writing a book.

As for torture, it needs to be fully and unconditionally outlawed. [/QUOTE]
As for torturers they have been pardoned by President Peace Prize. The whistleblower, the man who exposed the torturers will be the only one punished and is another whistleblower targetted by Mr Hope, Change and Transparency.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yeah I've been hearing this for 10 years, yet it remains much the same, so go figure.

Yeah much the same - indefinite military detention of US citizens, targetted assasination, of US citizens, warrantless wiretapping, the ban on government propaganda lifted, surveillance drones in the skies with thousands more scheduled to arrive and so on... exactly the same.

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If they intend on closing it why then have they closed the office that was setup to facilitate it's closure?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/us/politics/state-dept-closes-office-working-on-closing-guantanamo-prison.html?_r=0

^^^
Brown Bomber sneaky edit again.

The quoted article actually says :

Ian Moss, a spokesman for Mr. Fried’s office, said its dismantling did not mean that the administration had given up on closing the prison. “We remain committed to closing Guantánamo, and doing so in a responsible fashion,” Mr. Moss said. “The administration continues to express its opposition to Congressional restrictions that impede our ability to implement transfers.”

They have closed Daniel Fried's office. Fried's mandate was to persuade European and Middle Eastern countries to allow prisoners to live in their countries. He's had them housed in France, Ireland, Hungary among other places.

So
1. The office's mandate was never to "close guantanamo" it was to negotiate the re-patriation of prisoners to new countries (ie. not their own).

and
2. It was the mainstream media and those against the closure of the camp who branded him responsible guantanamo's closure.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

With Libya it was war. When you send in the fighter jets and the armed forces into the borders of another soveriegn nation to overthrow the government and attempt to kill it's leader it is ludicrous to suggest it is anything other than a war.

In context it was intervention, by a coalition of nations, with a full UN mandate, supported by the Arab league, to prevent a larger scale tragedy, such as the likes we see in Syria.

Not only that it was an illegal an unconstitutional war as it wasn't put before Congress. Something Obama admits himself when he was spitting out lies in his campaign trail.

Not really. The US Senate passed the motion to put it to the United Nations unanimously. It was mainly Sarkozy and Cameron pushing hardest for intervention in Libya, Obama was quite cautious, seeking a full UN resolution and support from Arab nations so as not to repeat another Iraq.

There's been many wars and conflicts which many US presidents have undertaken which were made without US congressional authorisation.

In the case of Libya, time was of the essence, as Gadaffi's tanks were on the outskirts of Benghazi. Besides, there would have been little or no opposition, with heavy support for ithe no-fly zone among Republicans.

Do you actually believe that? Is that even good enough for you? Over half the people in this torture-prison are innocent, cleared for release and no danger to anyone yet they are indefinitely detained.

If they intend on closing it why then have they closed the office that was setup to facilitate it's closure?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/us/politics/state-dept-closes-office-working-on-closing-guantanamo-prison.html?_r=0

I don't think Obama has done a good enough job closing the prison, that said, there's still a lot of opposition to him doing so, or it would have happened.

What's that got to do with Obama killing US citizens?

This line is becoming a bit sensationalist and diluted. The US police can kill US citizens if they are a threat. Same almost anywhere. The debate is on the level of threat they pose.

As for torturers they have been pardoned by President Peace Prize. The whistleblower, the man who exposed the torturers will be the only one punished and is another whistleblower targetted by Mr Hope, Change and Transparency.

They can attempt to try Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, but good luck with that in the real world.