Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just heard that apparently Obama has threatened Britain with cutting intelligence sharing, if the details of alleged torture in Guantanamo Bay, currently being heard in the High Court, ever come to light.

Cheeky little er.

Essentially, this means, as it mentions in this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7588257.stm preventing embarassment the Bush administration comes way ahead of the rights of a British Citizen to a fair trial.

I'm not saying he is innocent, I'm not saying he is guilty. That is for the court to decide. But doing this prevents such a thing.

gak it's all gone tits up. quick...think! ...china, they still like us right? We could suck up to them for a bit.

There's nothing in that report to indicate that Mr. Obama is ordering a cover-up or anything at all.

So let's find out the facts before reacting.

That said, the UK government has a long history of deferring to foreign powers in a variety of issues such as the security of the Olympic flame, the bribery scandal involving the Saudis, and the extradition to the US of UK citizens on bank fraud charges.

CHannel 4 News at 7 promises to have more...

So once The Simpsons and Hollyoaks are done.....

...they launch the nukes?

relax people, i think we all know obama's assassination is well overdue
so far hes yet to do anything right.
and adding in the Guantanamo Bay incident just makes it even worse for him.

whatwhat wrote:...they launch the nukes?

Ghost reporting.

They'll never see it comming.

*edit i just remember the other thread about " the other person trying to be funny but never works"

i think its me :x im a baka

Unfortunately Obama has to deal with republicans in congress and elsewhere. Think about it, they would never work with him on anything if he sold out on thier x boss. Rush and pals would see it as selling out the US to Britain. Half of us here at home would love to see bush tossed into court for war crimes. the other half would go ape gak if it happened. He's getting hell just for closing the place as is. There won't be any war crime trials, we know people have at least a better shot at a fair trial now as opposed to before, And we know nobody will ever be sent to that place again. He had to appease the right, and they made up about 48% of voters.

I don't give a rats arse mate.

You never, EVER threaten the security of a supposedly Allied Nation just to cover up alleged Human Rights violations. It's bad enough that the Bush Administration authorised and funded the holding of people without trial or even charge.

This has genuinely disgusted me.

JD21290 wrote:relax people, i think we all know obama's assassination is well overdue
so far hes yet to do anything right.
and adding in the Guantanamo Bay incident just makes it even worse for him.

At least he has a leg up on whiny islanders who play too many games with little toys. Wheres your assassination?

doc, i share those oppinions mate, he has no true rights or basis to have started it, and im pretty confident this will snowball into something alot worse.

I have to say also, despite my tongue in cheek comments earlier, this has me on edge also. I shall watch channel 4 at 7 tentatively.

shuma, its called freedom of speach

Problem with freedom of speech is that it isn't really that free. You can't say anything these days without offending someone.

Bingo, thats why im proud to say i still do
more than happy to speak my mind, no matter who it offends.
dont see the point in keeping quiet when i have strong oppinions.

Lord Bingo wrote:Problem with freedom of speech is that it isn't really that free. You can't say anything these days without offending someone.

No, I think you're all just a bit stuck up your own. You used your freedom of speech to say something inflammatory and stupid so I used mine to say you play with little plastic men (and need a good car crashing). It goes both ways. But then its a two way street that most like yourselves forget about quickly.

Er ok?

Lord Bingo wrote:Er ok?

Welcome to the world.

sexiest_hero wrote:Unfortunately Obama has to deal with republicans in congress and elsewhere. Think about it, they would never work with him on anything if he sold out on thier x boss. Rush and pals would see it as selling out the US to Britain. Half of us here at home would love to see bush tossed into court for war crimes. the other half would go ape gak if it happened. He's getting hell just for closing the place as is. There won't be any war crime trials, we know people have at least a better shot at a fair trial now as opposed to before, And we know nobody will ever be sent to that place again. He had to appease the right, and they made up about 48% of voters.

Just out of curiosity, how do you come to the conclusion that half the country wants to see George W. Bush put on trial for criminal offenses while the other half would have a fit? Isn't that a little black and white? 48% of voters are "the right"? As far as I know, there is no party in the US called "the right". How are you defining the "right" anyhow....are you talking about nationalists, anarcho-capitalists, fundamentalists, or something else entirely. Do you think they've all come to an agreement to form a voting bloc of 48%?

Which criminal offense did Bush do 0.o?

Some people claim that the invasion of Iraq and the overthrowing of Saddam Hussien was an illegal war.

LunaHound wrote:Which criminal offense did Bush do 0.o?

Illegal wiretapping? Possibly authorizing torture? There were quite a few violations of the constitution which can be civil offenses. Doing cocaine?

Some people claim that the invasion of Iraq and the overthrowing of Saddam Hussien was an illegal war.

Well according to american government procedures it wasn't even a war. It was a police action.

Well according to american government procedures it wasn't even a war. It was a police action.

funny police action that was, im military, yet i got sent over to the sandbox.
more like a plan that seemed good at the time, but ended up getting out of hand pretty fast.


and torture?
its called people looking after thier own interests, most soldiers have spent a while out there risking thier lives.
when our boys get taken, they are tortured, yet its fine, gets swept under the carpet.
as soon as that is done in return it causes an outcry?
piss off.

JD21290 wrote:
when our boys get taken, they are tortured, yet its fine, gets swept under the carpet.
as soon as that is done in return it causes an outcry?
piss off.

Ever came up with possibilities of why it happens , even when USA is so powerful?

Urgh...using the argument of a four year old child to defend torture is hardly any way for supposed 'leaders of the free world' to behave now is it? But they started it....waaah

By 48% I ment around the % that didn't vote for obama. And since some republicans did vote for him, it would be fair to lump all of them into one group. Therefore I used right, as in not moderate or centrist. It was used in the way some pundits say America is a right center nation. As for Obama, As much as I'd like to see Bush dragged Into the light, It can't happen. He was, and still is protected by enough laws to kill a t-rex. Some things can't be released for years, and Obama has to enforce that as harshly as he can. You just can't drag out sensitive infomation on a president over something (And I say say this with pain) As small as this. We trust you to keep our dirty little secrets, if you can't we have a right to keep infomation to ourselves. That said, I feel completely where you are coming from. It's not ment as a slap In the face or as a defense to Bush. Some Infomation can not be released. Maybe somebody else can explain it better than me.

Turns out that Obama's administration is likely to back down over this.

I certainly hope so.

JD21290 wrote:

Well according to american government procedures it wasn't even a war. It was a police action.

funny police action that was, im military, yet i got sent over to the sandbox.
more like a plan that seemed good at the time, but ended up getting out of hand pretty fast.


and torture?
its called people looking after thier own interests, most soldiers have spent a while out there risking thier lives.
when our boys get taken, they are tortured, yet its fine, gets swept under the carpet.
as soon as that is done in return it causes an outcry?
piss off.

If you didn't feel like upholding the ideals of your nation you shouldn't have volunteered to "defend them". Piss off.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Just heard that apparently Obama has threatened Britain with cutting intelligence sharing, if the details of alleged torture in Guantanamo Bay, currently being heard in the High Court, ever come to light.

Cheeky little er.

Essentially, this means, as it mentions in this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7588257.stm preventing embarassment the Bush administration comes way ahead of the rights of a British Citizen to a fair trial.

I'm not saying he is innocent, I'm not saying he is guilty. That is for the court to decide. But doing this prevents such a thing.

This is nothing to do with Obama. the security embarassment is more likely to hit New Labour, which unlike Obama is complicit with Guantanamo.

I'm glad this thread hasn't veered off course at all...

Closing as its full of flamy trolly goodness at this point.