An unreleased Pentagon report concludes...

The Pentagon promised in January that the latest report would be released soon, but Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said this week that the findings were still "under review."

It's now Memorial Day. Gee, wonder who's been holding up release of this report.

Headline as it appeared in the real world:

1 in 7 Freed Detainees Rejoins Fight, Report Finds

(Emphasis added)

Anyone care to take a guess how many different numbers the government's supplied so far?

"1 Out of 7 Released Gitmo Detainees Return to Terror"

On the Bush-Cheney watch?
That's chicken feed.
They lost over 3,000 Americans in one day.

"Gee, wonder who's been holding up release of this report."

Shortage of factual information?

Anyone care to take a guess how many different numbers the government's supplied so far?

Since they've sat on the report for months now in order to help Barack not look too stupid, how would we know? Why are they still sitiing on it? Guess this is the transparency we keep hearing about.

On the Bush-Cheney watch?

Keep on deflecting, Doc. It's what you're good at.

3,000 people getting snuffed by terrorists in one day on the Bush-Cheney watch is a "deflection"? I'd hate to see what Rip Van Cookinfish's idea of a "disaster" might be.

"how would we know?"

By following the news and doing a bit of research. Give it a whirl, Rip Van Cookinfish.

Only 1 out 0f 7? I guess torture works!

Only 1 out 0f 7? I guess torture works!
#10 | Posted by shirtsbyeric at 2009-05-21 09:23 AM"

Maybe, but in WHICH way???

Meanwhile, 6 out of 7 do NOT (re)take up terrorism/millitant activities.

Question: how many of those detainees a had not taken up terrorism/militant activites prior to their detention?

Food(s) for thought...

one out of seven? wow - it's down one from a year or so ago! of course one out of any is a bad number.

Question: how many of those detainees a had not taken up terrorism/militant activites prior to their detention?

Food(s) for thought...

#11 | Posted by TrueBlue

I am sure every time you get your ass kicked you are sure it is your fault and you apologize to your assailant.

For the first time in my life, I truly despise the president of my country.

Hussein speaks of staying 'silent' about how the war on terror was prosecuted under President Bush when he sat in a radical anti American church that celebrated the attacks 4 days after 9-11 happened.

Hussein said nothing about Rev Wright's hateful and insane rants against a nation that had just been brutalized by terrorists, if fact, he drew in closer.

Hussein said nothing about a domestic terrorist, who bombed the pentagon and the white house.

It makes me sick that this lunatic blames America and President Bush for the war on terror, while seeking to coddle the very terrorists that attacked us.

Hussein was indoctrinated in anti American evil by a false prophet and schooled at the feet of domestic terrorist.

It becomes more and more obvious every day, he is the sum total of the evil people who trained him.

Even if this number turns out to be true, that means 6 out of 7 Gitmo detainees should never have been there at all.

Is there a Straight-Jackets 'R Us store we could refer Rex to before he hurts himself? Or should we just start referring to him as Tad Jr.?

Heck of a job Bushie! Aflacshaheen must be filling his drawers.

Among the 74 former prisoners that the report says are again engaged in terrorism, 29 have been identified by name by the Pentagon, including 16 named for the first time in the report. The Pentagon has said that the remaining 45 could not be named because of national security and intelligence-gathering concerns.

Chickenfukker- 16/74 (minimum) are new terrorists, That's be 21% new terrorists.

Sucker.

has returned to terrorism or militant activity

Are they returning or were they recruited and turned by their treatment in Gitmo? We will never know the answer, but it is still a very important question.

Even if this number turns out to be true, that means 6 out of 7 Gitmo detainees should never have been there at all.

#15 | Posted by rcade
* * * *

Wow. Now there's a non sequitur.

In your world, if only 15% of murderers get out to kill again, the others should never have been locked up in the first place?

Go fuck yourself Corky, you may think it's great that this smirking fuck who hijacked my country is working actively for terrorists and the defeat of my country, but I don't.

Hussein is the wet dream of terrorist all over the world, America's enemies are licking their lips and laughing at him while they devise ways to exploit his weakness.

He has turned the left wing into terrorist sympathizer who cry for the very people who murdered 1000's of Americans, Khalid shaikh Mohamed and Abu Zubaydah.

The 'brutal' techniques he bleats about saved lives and kept this country safe for the last 7 1/2 years, while Hussein studied at the feet of Wright and Ayers.

Somewhere in a cave Osama and Zawahiri are laughing and celebrating their good fortune.

"#11 | Posted by TrueBlue

I am sure every time you get your ass kicked you are sure it is your fault and you apologize to your assailant.
#13 | Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-05-21 10:15 AM"

BWAHAHAHAHA.........

Thanx for the laugh, chickenrancher!

Sorry, no flag since it's more pathetic than funny.

Only 1 out 0f 7? I guess torture works!
#10 | Posted by shirtsbyeric at 2009-05-21 09:23 AM"
Maybe, but in WHICH way???
Meanwhile, 6 out of 7 do NOT (re)take up terrorism/millitant activities.
Question: how many of those detainees a had not taken up terrorism/militant activites prior to their detention?
Food(s) for thought...

#11 | POSTED BY TRUEBLUE

OK then the old tired talking point "Err on the side of caution" should work here.

OK then the old tired talking point "Err on the side of caution" should work here.

Posted by shirtsbyeric at 2009-05-21 11:09 AM | Reply

Well, then 100% abortion rate should solve the crime, unemployment, and economic problems. No people= no problems. Better to err on the side of caution after all. Birth is the leading cause of all life's problems and the number one cause of death.

#20 | POSTED BY R_ZEITGEIST AT 2009-05-21 11:06 AM | REPLY | FLAG: CERTIFIABLE

hahaha!

One could dearly hope that the outrage was faux, just for the sake of Stumpy's assumed sanity, but methinks it is the much sadder alternative of a mind overflowing with right wing skinhead propaganda.

As a Hil supporter, I researched all the paranoid ravings you vomit on these threads, and you know what?

There was nothing there. So, I suggest that until you can come up with something more clever than a "go fuck yourself", you stop embarrassing yourself this way.

1-in-7 Gitmo Detainees Return to Terror

Posted by cookfish

Are Cookfish and his panel of Neotards here, then suggesting that detainees should never be released? I see no ideas for what to do about it. Perhaps as the "war on terror" continues we'll just have to annex the entire island of Cuba to house detainees. Would that satisfy the circle-jerk roundtable?

Has the point been brought up of the possibility that more friends and relatives of these detainees are signing up because we're holding them? Possibly at least 1 in 7 of them, no?

Go to Iraq.
Grab 100 citizens at random.
Put them in Gitmo for years.
Perform enhanced interrogation techniques on them - for years.

And only 1 out of seven want revenge?

I think not!

In your world, if only 15% of murderers get out to kill again, the others should never have been locked up in the first place?

Not if they were never criminals in the first place. Like the Chinese Dubya bought for 5 grand apiece. Or the afghan peasants the Bushies were paying 25,000 for. In your world RIR, if somebody who doesn't like you tells the cops you're a criminal for a few bucks, would you just confess?

Or maybe you're still laboring under the delusion that Bush was in any way competent?

hmmmm...did y'all notice this paragraph???

""Pentagon officials said there had been no pressure from the Obama White House to suppress the report about the Guantnamo detainees who had been transferred abroad under the Bush administration. The officials said they believed that Defense Department employees, some of them holdovers from the Bush administration, were acting to protect their jobs.""

Gee, who would ever think that the fomer members of the Bush administration would try to undermine the efforts of the Obama administration....I mean....other than the former vice president....and for what motives....jobs????.....avert investigations about WHY some detainees were waterboarded 187 times?????

Not if they were never criminals in the first place. Like the Chinese Dubya bought for 5 grand apiece. Or the afghan peasants the Bushies were paying 25,000 for. In your world RIR, if somebody who doesn't like you tells the cops you're a criminal for a few bucks, would you just confess?

Or maybe you're still laboring under the delusion that Bush was in any way competent?

#29 | Posted by northguy
* * * *

If.

***"Even if this number turns out to be true, that means 6 out of 7 Gitmo detainees should never have been there at all."***

Interesting logic. Still trying to figure out how 1 in 7 returning to terror "means 6 out of 7 Gitmo detainees should never have been there at all."***

It is nice to know that our government has the ablity to identify individual terrorists in Pakistan or Afghanistand and even know what they are doing.

Riiight.

#33 | Posted by danni at 2009-05-21 11:38 AM

We can only identify the ones that are not a threat. We let the 9/11 people in with no problem, can't find Bin Lauden, cannot control Iraq or the Taliban...but we get the harmless guys with no problem.

Not only that, but four out of five detainees recommend sugarless gum for their captors who chew gum.

So does that mean for every seven people we locked up only one was a terrorist??? Because as the right said these are people you cant reason with they will never stop untill they are dead. So if Six stopped they must not have been terrorist to begin with. How can we claim to be a country of Law and order when we are willing to lock up 6 innocent people to catch one terrorist. That to me sounds like communist China or Russia not the US.

Even if this number turns out to be true, that means 6 out of 7 Gitmo detainees should never have been there at all.

#15 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-21 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Using that illogic, every felon who does not resume criminal activity once released from incarceration obviously must have been innocent all along.

Do the wheels grind when your mind is at work?

In your world, if only 15% of murderers get out to kill again, the others should never have been locked up in the first place?

Are you suggesting that it should be U.S. policy to capture every Al Qaeda militant, no matter how small time, and hold them forever at military facilities where the U.S. Constitution does not apply?

If we snatch somebody up from a foreign country and hold his ass at Gitmo for years, and when we let him go to some other country he doesn't take up arms or terror against the U.S., the likelihood is that we got the wrong guy and he had nothing to do with terror in the first place.

We should never have set up these extraconstitutional prisons. We have terrorists in our prison system today. We should either try these people and hold them there or, if we can't make a case, send them back where we got them. Gitmo is a waste of money and a human rights violation.

September 14, 2001, Trinity United Church.

Using that illogic, every felon who does not resume criminal activity once released from incarceration obviously must have been innocent all along.

Felons in our prisons have been convicted of a crime. They had evidence presented against them, a defense attorney, and were tried and convicted by a jury of their peers.

That's vastly different than a detainee in Gitmo who was held for five or more years without being charged of anything, which is the 6-out-of-7 I talked about.

It's telling that people in this discussion take it as a given that those detainees were guilty of something. Why would you treat an American like he was innocent until proven guilty but assume that foreigners are guilty? Surely you must concede at this point that the prosecution of the war has been riddled with mistakes. If we let a detainee go, particularly the ones released while Bush was still president and eager to justify the creation of Gitmo, on what evidence do you conclude the detainee was guilty of anything?

On the Bush-Cheney watch?
That's chicken feed.
They lost over 3,000 Americans in one day.

#3 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

you people are so full of shit....(he said smiling with that wry but handsome grin that only a man of his stature could bring onto that face of chiseled granite look)

)im working on my creative writing assignment)

FENDER

you need to get a grip on reality.
you have been reading too many posts from doc and his 'ilk'

Are you suggesting that it should be U.S. policy to capture every Al Qaeda militant, no matter how small time, and hold them forever at military facilities where the U.S. Constitution does not apply?
* * * *

Al Queda is at war with the United States, so US policy should be to kill every Al Queda militant on planet earth. What do you think it should be?

Rcade, you have become an attorney for the worst terrorists in the world, atempting to devise legal strategies for their 'rights'.

Does it feel good?

Do the wheels grind when your mind is at work?

I hate time wasting sneers like this. Either bring facts and reasoning to your argument or don't bother trying.

The president spoke one day after the Senate voted resoundingly to deny him money to close the prison in Cuba, but Obama said he was still determined. And he decried arguments used against his plans.

"We will be ill-served by the fearmongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue," he declared.

"There are no neat or easy answers here," Obama said in a speech in which he pledged anew to "clean up the mess at Guantanamo." Speaking at the National Archives, Obama said he wouldn't do anything to endanger the American people.

He noted that roughly 500 detainees already have been released by the Bush administration. There are 240 at Guantanamo now.

Obama said opening and continuing the military prison "set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world."

That's vastly different than a detainee in Gitmo who was held for five or more years without being charged of anything, which is the 6-out-of-7 I talked about.
* * * *

All kinds of Japanese and German prisoners of war weren't charged with anything either. Suppose there were a program under which we released them, only to find a disturbing percentage fighting our boys a few months later.

Thus, the dilemma. Even the Dumbos who run Congress aren't stupid enough to let Obama get away with shutting down Gitmo. As soon as the first guy gets released who blows up a building with Americans inside, the Democratic majority disappears on the day the polls open again.

Rcade, you have become an attorney for the worst terrorists in the world, atempting to devise legal strategies for their 'rights'.

You live in a cartoon world where everyone we've detained in our extraconstitutional gulags is guilty of something, or otherwise they wouldn't have been held there. They're even guilty of something after they were released.

We live in a nation of laws, Rex. The presumption of innocence, habeas corpus, the right to an attorney and the right to a trial are cornerstones of our system of justice.

If you are offended by these things, there are countries that would be more to your liking, such as North Korea or Myanmar.

Cheney stomped a mudhole in Hussein's ass with his speech.

There is a deep sickness in America right now, a sickness that allowed Hussein to gain power in this country.

A sickness so evil it has turned Khalid Shaikh Mohamed into a 'victim'.

I fear and believe that many citizens will pay with their lives because of the horrible decision of the 51% who put Hussein in power.

this supposed report has already been debunked. Like cheney's "we saved thousands of lives" bullshit, it's an apologist's approach to justifying the crimes they committed. Next.

It's telling that people in this discussion take it as a given that those detainees were guilty of something. Why would you treat an American like he was innocent until proven guilty but assume that foreigners are guilty? Surely you must concede at this point that the prosecution of the war has been riddled with mistakes. If we let a detainee go, particularly the ones released while Bush was still president and eager to justify the creation of Gitmo, on what evidence do you conclude the detainee was guilty of anything?

By the very nature of him being there, of course. You don't get there unless you're a terrorist! (Or your neighbor was pissed at you for not arranging a wedding to your daughter).

Better to have tortured and lost than to never had tortured at all.

All kinds of Japanese and German prisoners of war weren't charged with anything either. Suppose there were a program under which we released them, only to find a disturbing percentage fighting our boys a few months later. Thus, the dilemma.

There's a difference between (a) detaining enemies in a war zone on a temporary basis during a war against another country and (b) jetting enemies across half the globe to hold them for five or more years during a war against a vague concept that could last forever.

Most terrorists are small time. Holding them does not stop terror networks from recruiting other small timers. It just wastes our resources and erodes our moral authority.

We live in a nation of laws, Rex. The presumption of innocence, habeas corpus, the right to an attorney and the right to a trial are cornerstones of our system of justice.
* * * *

And not a single one of those things applies to non-US citizens, particularly those who are at war with the United States. Abraham Lincoln suspended all those things for former US citizens living in Virginia and the Carolinas during the Civil War. But you want to extend them to bomb-makers and hijackers in Pakistan and Kabul?

Please.

In any case, after having been submitted to what they were, held without charges, tortured...hell, it should be 7 out of 7. Dovetails neatly with the great american quote: "if you can't FIND an enemy, CREATE one."

I guess as the u.s. tries to cling to world supremacy, this kind of shit will just intensify "in the interest of the state", of course.

)im working on my creative writing assignment)

Based on the way you type, everything is a creative writing assignment. :)

As soon as the first guy gets released who blows up a building with Americans inside, the Democratic majority disappears on the day the polls open again.

that is quite the dilema isn't it???

There's a difference between (a) detaining enemies in a war zone on a temporary basis during a war against another country and (b) jetting enemies across half the globe to hold them for five or more years during a war against a vague concept that could last forever.
* * * *

Hopefully this war is temporary too. But your history is faulty--most prisoners of war camps were right here, in the United States. And, had the war lasted five years, they would have been held for that long. Or ten. Or twenty. In fact, one of the biggest ones was in north Alabama, and hundreds of German POW's remained here, postwar.

You live in a left-wing fantasy world where terrorist who murder our people and laugh in our face, have become 'victims', just because some wet behind the ears loser is playing politics with American lives.

Do you lose sleep at night over KSM, Rogers?

Do you cry for the guy that murdered 1000's, not only here in the United States but all around the world?

You live in some backwards fantasy land where terrorists are all innocent sheep herders, and the American forces who are combating them are torture freaks.

President Bush did his level best to keep you and your family alive after 9-11, you should be thanking him, not turning the very terrorist who would cut your head off into 'hero's'.

More than 150,000 men arrived after the surrender of Gen. Erwin Rommel's Afrika Korps in April 1943, followed by an average of 20,000 new POWs a month. From the Normandy invasion in June 1944 through December 30,000 prisoners a month arrived; for the last few months of the war 60,000 were arriving each month. When the war was over, there were 425,000 enemy prisoners in 511 main and branch camps throughout the United States.

I hate time wasting sneers like this. Either bring facts and reasoning to your argument or don't bother trying.

#45 | Posted by rcade at

OH SHIT

did godfather not have that 2nd cup of coffee this morning?

Sorry--I should have provided a link to the above:

Holding them does not stop terror networks from recruiting other small timers. It just wastes our resources and erodes our moral authority.

#52 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-21 12:01 PM | Reply

Lesson Learned? Kill them as opposed to capturing them.

Let me add, the whole concept of a "small time" terrorist is quite funny. I'm sure it's not funny to the ones he's terrorizing though.

SORRY rcade..I understand your dileama this morning
you are getting pummeled by both RIR and ZEIT

excuse me

"As soon as the first guy gets released who blows up a building with Americans inside, the Democratic majority disappears on the day the polls open again."

And the probability would be that that person was released under George Bush but sorry for interrupting your fear mongering with facts.

SORRY rcade..I understand your dileama this morning
you are getting pummeled by both RIR and ZEIT

excuse me

#63 | Posted by afkabl2

Right off the bat - a delusional flag for Ish.

On one hand Al Quaeda was the morally upstanding here, at least they killed em. The US on the other hand keeps them forever and tortures them over and over.

#26 | Posted by moneywar at 2009-05-20 04:38 PM | Reply | Flag

"""And not a single one of those things applies to non-US citizens, particularly those who are at war with the United States. """

You've create a neat little black hole in the legal system and you keep justifying its virtue and to top it off, you assume they are all guilty. tsk tsk, stalin would be proud of you.

The same rules apply to all citizens of this planet. If you adopt negate this stance, then you position the u.s. as fascist state. If you are at war with these people as you state, then the rules of war apply, and you are clearly breaking those as well.

And not a single one of those things applies to non-US citizens, particularly those who are at war with the United States. Abraham Lincoln suspended all those things for former US citizens living in Virginia and the Carolinas during the Civil War. But you want to extend them to bomb-makers and hijackers in Pakistan and Kabul?

If they commit an act of terror in the U.S. or against a U.S. embassy, yes. They should be tried in our courts, and if guilty convicted and jailed alongside the '93 WTC bomber, the Shoebomber, the Unabomber and other terrorists.

If they commit an act of terror in other countries, such as Afghanistan or Iraq, they should be held in those countries and tried by those countries.

Holding them indefinitely in prisons we've created just to keep them out of our courts is not a viable long-term solution. The U.S. did not send captured Nazis to Cuba and hold them without charge for years and years. We have friendly governments in Iraq and Afghanistan now. It's their job to deal with the terrorists who commit crimes on their soil.

Here is a fact that helps explain this;

While 99 % of the United States mourned and prepared for war after 9-11, President Hussein and his church celebrated.

While most of us where saying 'God Bless America', Hussein's church, congregation, and spiritual mentor were saying 'Goddamn America'.

This really is 'Dem chickens come home to roost.'

"President Bush did his level best to keep you and your family alive after 9-11, you should be thanking him, not turning the very terrorist who would cut your head off into 'hero's'."

About 3000 people and their families would have preferred that he had done his best before the 9-11 attacks. It isn't like he wasn't warned. HE IGNORED ALL THE INTELLIGENCE, sorry I will NEVER forget that.

You live in some backwards fantasy land where terrorists are all innocent sheep herders, and the American forces who are combating them are torture freaks.

You're the one living in the fantasy world. More than half of the 775 detainees, ALL of which released under the Bush administration, have been released without being charged with anything...and without a shred of evidence of any wrongdoing. (Except being in the wrong place at the wrong time)

President Bush did his level best to keep you and your family alive after 9-11, you should be thanking him, not turning the very terrorist who would cut your head off into 'hero's'.

Based on the reality above, and not your fantasy land, are you ready to thank Bush for releasing these detainees?

I had the "fun" of supervising a small EPW site in Iraq. I can you all from experience that a large number of the people detained were not guilty of anything. Does that mean we should not detain them? No. What is does mean is that we need a system that treats them fairly and provides them with a speedy trial. Once proven guilty, slap their carcass in jail. If they aren't guilty, let 'em go.

The Bush admin was so incompetent that it managed to torture the innocent and release the guilty. That is not the way to win the war. The fact that most of those "hardened jihadists" that were released have not started jihad again is pretty good evidence that we detained innocent folks. Once again, detaining them was necessary but torturing them was not.

If you want to detain and torture people that have not done anything wrong, the Taleban are looking for a few good men.

#69 | Posted by r_zeitgeist

The hysteria and hyperbole are in high gear today. And if the truth takes a backseat, well, why fuck up a good rant, eh?

"While 99 % of the United States mourned and prepared for war after 9-11, President Hussein and his church celebrated."

You filthy liars tried that before the election, how did it work out for you????

Hopefully this war is temporary too.

The war against terror will never be over. We will never eradicate a decentralized network of radicals who use random acts of violence to achieve their goals. We can weaken them, but the conditions that led to their formation would cause any group we destroyed to be replaced with another.

So if you're holding on to the notion that we're just detaining people without charge until the war is over, I challenge you to define the terms of victory for this war.

Iraq and Afghanistan have functioning governments now. They should be prosecuting the crimes that take place on their soil.

Well, it's all Obama's and the Dems' problem now. You guys figure it out. I'm a small government conservative living in an age of multi-trillion dollar bailouts. I'm an Army veteran who believes that anyone who takes up arms against the United States should be hunted down and killed, in an age where our Commander in Chief wants to give the Bill of Rights to enemy forces captured in combat. Nobody cares what I think, nor should they. This is the ObamaGeithnerReidPelosi party, and only libbies are invited.

We'll see how things go. But, hey--Good luck!

- a sickness that allowed Hussein to gain power in this country

What Rexy thinks of as a "sickness", the rest of us like to think of as a democratically held election. Perhaps he WOULD be happier in Pyongyang.

Of course, Bush released 500 GITMO detainees already, something these rwingers don't want to talk about.

That, and the fact that many of these detainees were peasants turned in for $5000 rewards

If they commit an act of terror in the U.S. or against a U.S. embassy, yes. They should be tried in our courts, and if guilty convicted and jailed alongside the '93 WTC bomber, the Shoebomber, the Unabomber and other terrorists.

Rogers

***********

So we wait for terrorists to attack and kill us, then we fly them to America, give them rights of an American citizen, and then pay for them to hire lawyers to defend themselves and tie up the courts for decades!?!?!?

All while their US paid attorneys turn American soldiers and CIA members into the villains and the terrorists into victims?!?!

You MUST realize that is totally insane.

Right off the bat - a delusional flag for Ish.

#65 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at

"I likes to keeps my audience riveted"

MOVIE PLeASE???

I was not aware that we held as many captured POWs as we did on American soil during World War II. But we were at war with their countries and knew, when the war was over, that they would be released to those countries. That's different than holding people indefinitely until we achieve victory in our war against a vague concept.

Oh wait, that is the new policy of the Hussein regime.

The U.S. did not send captured Nazis to Cuba and hold them without charge for years and years. We have friendly governments in Iraq and Afghanistan now. It's their job to deal with the terrorists who commit crimes on their soil.

#68 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-21 12:09

maybe but didnt we also keep them for the DURATION of the war and maybe just after...well???
isnt this the same thing?

The hysteria and hyperbole are in high gear today. And if the truth takes a backseat, well, why fuck up a good rant, eh?

#73 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at

thats right AND

NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE...oh wait a min'

a dem said that...cant use it can we???

then the rules of war apply, and you are clearly breaking those as well.

#67 | Posted by panchovilla at 2009-05-21 12:09 PM | Reply |

If the rules of war applied (jihadis would be wearing uniforms, insignia, etc) then there wouldn't be a need for Gitmo.

Terrorists don't seem to want to play by the rules. If we play by these rules (rules in war are fucking stupid to begin with, but alas...) we're handicapping ourselves so some limpwristed bitch can claim some moral superiority or some other nonsense.

"""You live in a left-wing fantasy world where terrorist who murder our people and laugh in our face, have become 'victims', just because some wet behind the ears loser is playing politics with American lives."""

That's actually funny stuff. Do you write your own material or do you copy from the right wing asswipes that are destroying you country? Here, I'll give it a try just for fun:

You live with a right-wing psychosis that forces you to believe that you are good and everyone else bad, even when you provoke an illegal war, kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, kidnap and torture people. This cute little psychosis also causes you to give your undying support to a man who essentially eviscerated your country.

"""Do you lose sleep at night over KSM, Rogers?"""

Do you lose sleep at night when justice is served?? (this is even easier than I thought)

"""Do you cry for the guy that murdered 1000's, not only here in the United States but all around the world?"""

Do you laugh at the thousands of innocent civilians you killed in iraq? The rapes you committed? the murders you committed? the torture? Not only in Iraq but around the world?

"""You live in some backwards fantasy land where terrorists are all innocent sheep herders, and the American forces who are combating them are torture freaks."""

You live in a retrograde right wing fantasy were the united states is free of all wrong and is also free to commit any crime on the international stage.

"""President Bush did his level best to keep you and your family alive after 9-11, you should be thanking him, not turning the very terrorist who would cut your head off into 'hero's'.""""

Can't stop laughing long enough to write something about this ridiculous paragraph.

So if you're holding on to the notion that we're just detaining people without charge until the war is over, I challenge you to define the terms of victory for this war.
* * * *

Not my problem anymore. If you acknowledge that terror will always happen, and that as soon as we stamp out one group, another springs up, what should be the policy in such a world? It's Dems running Washington these days. And in your own mind, the war can't be won. So should it even be fought? And if so, how can you expect to win, when you've already conceded that you can't?

The Islamists were right about us. Eventually we would get tired of it all, and want to head back to the mall. It was just a matter of time, before the party politics of the United States worked in their favor.

About 3000 people and their families would have preferred that he had done his best before the 9-11 attacks. It isn't like he wasn't warned. HE IGNORED ALL THE INTELLIGENCE, sorry I will NEVER forget that.

#70 | Posted by danni at 2009-

maybe not but your damned good at forgetting about the cole and the embassys and the first WTC bombing and all of the people killed under BLOW JOBS WATCH though arent you?

Even if this number turns out to be true, that means 6 out of 7 Gitmo detainees should never have been there at all.

#15 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-21 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Using that illogic, every felon who does not resume criminal activity once released from incarceration obviously must have been innocent all along.

Do the wheels grind when your mind is at work?

#37 | Posted by MACV1972

Except, every felon got his day and court and was found guilty. The Bush/Cheney Gestapo just picked up every arab off the corner and threw him in a Gitmo, no habeas corpus, no Geneva rights. These men were treated worse than pigs even if a few of them were. Bush transformed the US into the very thing it once stood in opposition of - a tyrannical menace to the world.

To compare felons to detainees is what is illogical. Seems your gears were stripped long ago.

maybe but didnt we also keep them for the DURATION of the war and maybe just after...well???
isnt this the same thing?

Iraq has a functioning government now. The war against Saddam Hussein's regime is long over. If a terrorist blows up a restaurant in Iraq today that contains U.S. soldiers and Iraqis, anyone suspected of that attack should be dealt with in Iraq and by Iraqi authorities. We shouldn't fly the suspect to an American-run military facility somewhere else and hold them for years and years without a long-term plan for what to do with them.

when the war was over, that they would be released to those countries. That's different than holding people indefinitely until we achieve victory in our war against a vague concept.

#80 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-21 12:17 PM | Reply

The countries these mutts come from don't want them. The countries that will take them will torture them and kill them. Your ilk don't want that either.
So, why don't you clowns come up with a plan? Obama pretended to have one while campaigning, but ultimately came to realize Bush's way was the way.
I'll bet that has you guys a little disappointed, huh?

"I'm an Army veteran who believes that anyone who takes up arms against the United States should be hunted down and killed"

Which is exactly what President Obama has ordered our forces in Afghanistan to do but now let me ask you, exactly when did Iraq "take up arms" against the United States?

Hey, I'm just a lowly American citizen who has the mistaken belief that our country didn't invade countries that pose no threat to us, and that our leaders have an obligation to be truthful with us before the commit hundreds of thousands of troops to an invasion.

I read the posts of the Obama haters and they all seem to pretend that Bush somehow kept us safe by invading Iraq or else they just ignore that little detail of his presidency. It makes me understand a little better why they also didn't notice that the great Bush economy was a house of cards (referred to exactly that way many times right here), they beleve what they want to believe, truth is a completely unnecessary thing to them.

that they would be released to those countries. That's different than holding people indefinitely until we achieve victory in our war against a vague concept.

#80 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-21 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

and we have tried I believe to send some of them to thier own country

and THEY WONT TAKE THEM....WHY???

and the chinease ones it is said will be killed when they get there...so how is that humane?? if true

"""Terrorists don't seem to want to play by the rules."""

Nor does your country. You only call upon them when it suits your purpose, but throw them aside when they actually require you to hold up your end of the bargain.

In any case, the "rules" were written for classic combat scenarios and in this case, you are foregoing moral obligations because of a technical detail... I think a 2.0 is badly needed.

LOOK
I understand the problem most of you have with them being there this long as I believe most of my rightwing bros do as well
but what choice do we have?

OBAMA has found out that the choices arent NEARLY as clear cut as when he was TALKING TO THE extreme left during the campaign

choices

let them go???
put them on trial giving away EVEN MORE info?
bringing them here

EVEN DEM congressmen say NO WAY>..

so whats the answer...

If we play by these rules (rules in war are fucking stupid to begin with, but alas...) we're handicapping ourselves so some limpwristed bitch can claim some moral superiority or some other nonsense

Those U.S. soldiers who raped and murdered an Iraqi family weren't playing by any rules. Do you think it is wrong to prosecute them, since "rules in war are fucking stupid"?

Oh wait, that is the new policy of the Hussein regime.

Hey Drama Queen,

For the five thousandth time, all of these detainees were let go under Bush's watch.

And one more for good measure, ALL OF THESE DETAINEES WERE LET GO UNDER BUSH'S WATCH.

If they commit an act of terror in the U.S. or against a U.S. embassy, yes. They should be tried in our courts, and if guilty convicted and jailed alongside the '93 WTC bomber, the Shoebomber, the Unabomber and other terrorists.
* * * *

Okay. So what do you do when a foreign country sets up a non-state actor, to carry out the wishes of the Islamic World, all so said government doesn't have to get its hands dirty? Saudi Arabia financed al Queda, along with the Wahhabists. Afghanistan gave them cover and aid, even though the government itself there never really existed; it was just an appendage of the Taliban itself. So, what to do?

You guys want to beat up on Bush for not quite knowing for sure how al Queda fit into your neat little legal constructs of the Geneva Convention and the rules of war on the one hand, and the US justice system on the other. Clearly, Al Queda fits neither. So what do you do?

Tell me, please: if you were president of the United States, how would you instruct your military commanders to deal with Al Queda terrorists captured in the the field?

so whats the answer...

#94 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009

HERES ONE

find the neighborhood in the country with the most obama for president signs in the yard and pull the bus up to the middle of that neighborhood and open the door

Pancovilla, you are sick, your world view is so warped that there is no possibility of any common ground.

I could pawn off your demented sickness as some form of disease of the mind, but I think it is evil, I think you and your world view is beyond demented and insane and enters the world of real evil.

It would be nice if terrorists only killed ardent supporters of their work like yourself, but it doesn't work that way.

"maybe not but your damned good at forgetting about the cole and the embassys and the first WTC bombing and all of the people killed under BLOW JOBS WATCH though arent you?"

No, I certainly haven't forgotten those things but Dubya certainly did during the nine months he was president before 9-11. The look on his stupid face in that class room said it all, he didn't have a clue. One has to wonder, in light of the things you mentioned, just how could a president NOT READ HIS PDBs????? How could the National Security Director say "no one could ever have imagined...."

IRAQ

you have the same response as the economy

bush deficit was almost one trillion so that makes itokay to send it up to almost four

these were let out with bush in the WH so its okay to let them all out

and thats just silly

HE lets some go and THE LEFT BITCHES

HE keeps some there and THE LEFT BITCHS

MAKE up your friggin mind....

Hey, I'm just a lowly American citizen who has the mistaken belief that our country didn't invade countries that pose no threat to us, and that our leaders have an obligation to be truthful with us before the commit hundreds of thousands of troops to an invasion.
* * * *

We should have invaded Saudi Arabia. We should have gone all the way to Baghdad during the first Gulf War, in which case 9/11 might never have happened in the first place. But, unfortunately, a certain General Powell had Bush I's ear at the time, and so we didn't finish the job. Oh well.

I'm waiting on the plan too: when Al Queda operatives are captured in the field, what should Obama do with them?

Do you think it is wrong to prosecute them, since "rules in war are fucking stupid"?

#95 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-21 12:24 PM | Reply

Why did you try that lame tact when you could have addressed Hussien aka Bush Lite or the fact that giving the mutts to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc would result in their torture and murder? I thought rendition was a bad thing?

"You guys want to beat up on Bush for not quite knowing for sure how al Queda fit into your neat little legal constructs of the Geneva Convention and the rules of war on the one hand, and the US justice system on the other."

Yeah, they were trying to figure out legal consructs by waterboarding detainees 187 times demanding a false confession connecting Iraq and Al Quaeda.
I really wonder sometimes, do facts have any impact in your brain or do they just reflect off of you skull???

In any case, the "rules" were written for classic combat scenarios and in this case, you are foregoing moral obligations because of a technical detail... I think a 2.0 is badly needed.

So are we following the rules or not?

danni

you can describe that moment from now till co2 takes us all over and kills us all...

and it wont change the fact that IF it were a dem president you would talk about how "COOL" he was around the kids with the notice..we all know the double standard you guys live under and we live with........
you have NEVER read a post of mine where I let bush off the hook for not taking more action before 9/11 and we all know that if he had...YOU WOULD HAVE BITCHED because he was mistreating them.....ITs a sad and TIRED OLD STORY

"We should have invaded Saudi Arabia."

That's where the good oil is right????

Surprisingly, you don't say we should invade Pakistan where Al Quaeda really is.

I guess drilling in Pakistant isn't too enticing.

Tell me, please: if you were president of the United States, how would you instruct your military commanders to deal with Al Queda terrorists captured in the the field?

Put them in prisons in the countries in which they are captured and have them tried in justice systems in which we have helped the new respective governments set up.

When they are sitting in a prison in Afghanistan, they are being treated worse than they would in Gitmo. So the torture porn freaks can have a full release AND we don't have to pervert our justice system. Is this really that complicated?

"you can describe that moment from now till co2 takes us all over and kills us all..."

I'd prefer to only describe it until Cheney goes to jail for it. WE were a country of laws before Bush/Cheney. Does that even matter to you???

We should have gone all the way to Baghdad during the first Gulf War, in which case 9/11 might never have happened in the first place. But, unfortunately, a certain General Powell had Bush I's ear at the time, and so we didn't finish the job. Oh well.

#102 | Posted by rightisright

If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?

-Dick Cheney

Invading Iraq would create a quagmire.

-Dick Cheney

Nice dodge, Chair. Do you think it is wrong to prosecute them, since "rules in war are fucking stupid"?

Still waiting on a plan.

Danni, you're president of the United States. You've just gotten a report that 100 Taliban have been captured in battle. What do you do with them.

bush deficit was almost one trillion so that makes itokay to send it up to almost four

Who said that? Not me? Don't play the Danni game from the other side...it's tiring.

these were let out with bush in the WH so its okay to let them all out

Who said that? I have never once even suggested that it is ok to let them all out.

WE were a country of laws before Bush/Cheney.

whatever.

We have always been a nation of laws and still are now.

jesus christ

Put them in prisons in the countries in which they are captured and have them tried in justice systems in which we have helped the new respective governments set up.

When they are sitting in a prison in Afghanistan, they are being treated worse than they would in Gitmo. So the torture porn freaks can have a full release AND we don't have to pervert our justice system. Is this really that complicated?

#108 | Posted by IraqiBukkake
* * * *

Sold. Now it's just a matter of winning over the libbies, and we got ourselves a good plan. Release the Gitmo detainees back to Afghan warlords on our payroll! I like it!

Nice dodge, Chair. Do you think it is wrong to prosecute them, since "rules in war are fucking stupid"?

#111 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-21 12:32 PM | Reply

Wait, the queef that has ignored how many questions from me or RiR has just accused somebody else of dodging?

You've got some answering to do, starting with #62 before I get around to chasing your ridiculous question.

Still waiting on a plan.

Danni, you're president of the United States. You've just gotten a report that 100 Taliban have been captured in battle. What do you do with them.

Feel free to comment on my plan.

You guys want to beat up on Bush for not quite knowing for sure how al Queda fit into your neat little legal constructs of the Geneva Convention and the rules of war on the one hand, and the US justice system on the other. Clearly, Al Queda fits neither.

We're holding terrorists in our prisons today, including the 19th hijacker. If someone commits an act of terror in the U.S. or against a U.S. facility such as an embassy, we should prosecute them in our court system.

Sold. Now it's just a matter of winning over the libbies, and we got ourselves a good plan. Release the Gitmo detainees back to Afghan warlords on our payroll! I like it!

If we aren't building a sound government under rule of law then why are we there nation building? The ability to try and convict someone so obviously guilty is the perfect litmus test for a fledgling judicial system.

. Release the Gitmo detainees back to Afghan warlords on our payroll! I like it!

Sounds like a "moral highground" to me.

:-(

Chair: I will take that as an acknowledgment that you can't defend the statement that "rules in war are fucking stupid." Our military is trained to pursue wars with honor and to respect the Geneva Conventions. This is a strength, not a weakness.

When they are sitting in a prison in Afghanistan, they are being treated worse than they would in Gitmo. So the torture porn freaks can have a full release AND we don't have to pervert our justice system. Is this really that complicated?

#108 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

Apparently it is. The liberals don't like that idea.

Hell, our very own Sully had the best idea ever. Leave the captured people in Afghanistan to the devices of the Northern Alliance.

Rendition was a bad thing because the countries would torture and kill the detainees...Well, at least according to libbies.

Basically what we're getting from the Danni's and Rcades of this site is "Don't capture anyone. If you do, you must have 100% proof, and it must hold up in a court of law, otherwise we're no better than them".

Where's the question in this comment, Chair? "Lesson Learned? Kill them as opposed to capturing them. Let me add, the whole concept of a 'small time' terrorist is quite funny. I'm sure it's not funny to the ones he's terrorizing though."

You want to invent new rules Rogers, terrorists have no Geneva conventions rights, they have no rights at all.

They have the right to get brainfucked for any intel and then have a bullet put through the back of their heads.

That is the only 'right' they deserve.

Basically what we're getting from the Danni's and Rcades of this site is "Don't capture anyone. If you do, you must have 100% proof, and it must hold up in a court of law, otherwise we're no better than them".

Living under the rule of law is a bitch, ainnit?

Chair: I will take that as an acknowledgment that you can't defend the statement that "rules in war are fucking stupid." Our military is trained to pursue wars with honor and to respect the Geneva Conventions. This is a strength, not a weakness.

#121 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-21 12:38 PM | Reply

Well taking it that way would be the easy way out. You were asked questions, and you don't get to magically ignore them while demanding answers to your questions.

"""Pancovilla, you are sick, your world view is so warped that there is no possibility of any common ground."""

Hahahaha! Like in most other cases, you jump to unwarranted conclusions.

""I could pawn off your demented sickness as some form of disease of the mind, but I think it is evil, I think you and your world view is beyond demented and insane and enters the world of real evil.""

Wow, let me see: demented, sickness, disease, evil, demented, insance, evil...Jesus H Christ, are you actually Georgie Boy??? You sound like that asswipe when he was ramping up to launch his excellent iraqi adventure!

"""It would be nice if terrorists only killed ardent supporters of their work like yourself, but it doesn't work that way."""

Straw man. Match. Poof. Gone.

Please keep posting, even if most of the crap you write is pure rubbish, it's like one of those tabloid trash containers: entertaining. Wanna call me bat-boy now or something to that effect?

Living under the rule of law is a bitch, ainnit?

#125 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-21 12:41 PM | Reply

You have a very naive view of the world. Almost childlike.

Chair: I will take that as an acknowledgment that you can't defend the statement that "rules in war are fucking stupid." Our military is trained to pursue wars with honor and to respect the Geneva Conventions. This is a strength, not a weakness.

#121 | Posted by rcade
* * * *

True. And if we can get al Queda or the Taliban to sign and honor it, that would be progress. Of course, I'm hard put to remember a US soldier captured by either who hasn't been found, soon later, missing his head.

And don't forget the German saboteurs, captured in New York. They were even in German uniform. Tried before a military tribunal, two sent to prison, and six executed on the spot. Not exactly POW's, and a long, long way away from a nice court trial with Perry Mason arguing their side. Would you have been beating up on FDR, the way you've been giving W such a time, were you alive back then to protest?

So are we following the rules or not?

#105 | Posted by eberly at 2009-05-21 12:29 PM | Reply |

The sad part is the fact that you have to ask.

See how Mr. 'There is no Red State, There is no Blue State' has brought us all together....?

What a 'uniter' Hussein is, just like his mentor 'Rev' Racist.

Shortly after midnight on the morning of June 13, 1942, four men landed on a beach near Amagansett, Long Island, New York, from a German submarine, clad in German uniforms and bringing ashore enough explosives, primers, and incendiaries to support an expected two-year career in the sabotage of American defense-related production. On June 17, 1942, a similar group landed on Ponte Vedra Beach, near Jacksonville, Florida, equipped for a similar career in industrial disruption.

By June 27, 1942, all eight saboteurs had been arrested without having accomplished one act of destruction. Tried before a Military Commission, they were found guilty. One was sentenced to life imprisonment, another to thirty years, and six received the death penalty, which was carried out within a few days.

"What a 'uniter' Hussein is"

Yeah, we can see you really wanted unity.

Would you have been beating up on FDR, the way you've been giving W such a time, were you alive back then to protest?

#129 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-05-21 12:44 PM | Reply |

You fail to notice the most relevant points of your post: And don't forget the German saboteurs, captured in New York. They were even in German uniform. Tried before a military tribunal.

REad it a few times and report back to us.

I wonder if any of those FBI agents or judges are still alive who handled the German saboteurs' case. If so, maybe Obama should have them tortured and executed. Because those Germans should have been under the rule of law and given a fair tri---oh, wait a second. FDR was a Democrat.

Forget it.

Bottom line, all you left wing, terrorist loving American haters, are stil alive.

Thank you President Bush, Vice President Cheney, CIA, FBI, special ops, US Military, and others who are fighting scum terrorists killers around the world.

"One was sentenced to life imprisonment, another to thirty years, and six received the death penalty, which was carried out within a few days."

And surprisingly imprisoned inside America without any escaping, without any further activities carried out by them. Gosh, it worked then but today's terrorists are supermen and must be kept in Guantanamo, tortured, and left to rot without hearigs of any type to insure oure safety...according to FEAR MONGER Dick Cheney.

If you're not frightened Dick Cheney isn't lying enough.

"Hi. My name is Rex, and I'm a Bushaholic...."

Ya see, Tighties know that there is no such thing as an innocent Muslim, so why bother trying to sort out the terrorists from those abducted for the $5000 US bounty?

Crafty smart those Tighties....

"Thank you President Bush, Vice President Cheney"....for invading Iraq and keeping us safe from Saddam's WMD and that "mushroom cloud."

What's the plan Pancho? You're CinC. 100 insurgents captured. Inquiring minds want to know if you can think for yourself, or if you need another missive from Andrew Sullivan or Rachel Maddow before you can give an answer. Come on boy!

Well taking it that way would be the easy way out. You were asked questions, and you don't get to magically ignore them while demanding answers to your questions.

If you don't want to answer a simple direct question, that's your decision. I answer the questions I think are worth answering, but like anybody I don't suffer fools for long, which is why I stopped responding to Rex in this discussion. What's the point? He'll just launch into more weird overdramatic hysterics that are one part Dick Cheney and one part Adam Lambert.

Personally, I think I asked you a pretty simple question. If rules in war are "fucking stupid," is it wrong to charge the murderers of that Iraqi family? If you truly condone a "no rules" attitude among our troops, you allow and encourage atrocities.

I'll give up pursuing the question, but you've taken an indefensible position. War ain't Rambo. Without rules we lose.

Oh good! Danni and Cork are back! I'm sure they'd like to tell us what the new plan for captured Islamists is. Come on people! Strap it on, and let us know what you would do.

- what the new plan for captured Islamists is.

They will be sent to your house. A few servings of Cheetos and gravy and they won't live long.

Personally, I think I asked you a pretty simple question. If rules in war are "fucking stupid," is it wrong to charge the murderers of that Iraqi family? If you truly condone a "no rules" attitude among our troops, you allow and encourage atrocities.
* * *

I'll answer: it isn't wrong. The soldier should--and probably will--be found guilty of capital murder and executed.

Now, what's the plan for captured Islamists? You've got my answer: until the Taliban and Al Queda agree to follow Geneva, they're a rogue regime, and their troops get no Geneva protections, so it's "kill on sight". We close Gitmo today, and send them home to their home countries for trials there, IF we can be guaranteed there will be one.

What's yours?

Right, I'm 'the fool you won't suffer', while you prepare legal briefs for the planner of 9-11.

I wonder if KSM was wearing ill fitting gloves when he cut Daniel Pearls head off?

We already know Corky and Danni can't come up with an answer until they hear it first on Air America. The clock is ticking on Pancho and RCade, though.

Come on. Surprise me. I don't even care if it's stupid, as long as it's clear you've put some thought into it.

You have a very naive view of the world. Almost childlike.

I'm not the one who has absolute faith in daddy government to make the right decisions to detain people and hold them indefinitely without charge.

It kills me that Republicans, who distrust government to get almost anything right and constantly rail against government screwups, will believe government 100% regarding any matter of crime or war.

Looks like Rexy's "argument " is that we should have the same standards as the terrorists. Nice logic, there Stumpy.

REX LEX vs LEX REX.

It's OK, you can Google it.

I'll give up pursuing the question, but you've taken an indefensible position. War ain't Rambo. Without rules we lose.

#141 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-21 12:50 PM | Reply

What they did wasn't part of any "war". Those rapists weren't raping because it was a war, they raped because they were sick fucks.

Which by the way, has nothing to do with Al Quaeda not wearing uniforms or insignia. Nor does it have anything to do with the impossible task of trying to convict some jihadi mutt with 20 aliases, no birth certificate, finger prints on record, no home of record, paper trail, etc

Your way is "Let them go to murder even more people so I can stick to some self defeating notion of lawful warfare while the enemy doesn't".

Playing by some rules, while your opponents don't, is a sure fire way to either lose or get our people killed unneccesarily.

Some court appointed atty could get Mohammed Mohammed off on a technicality. You clowns pretend as though there's a way to take the high ground, so name it.

It kills me that Republicans, who distrust government to get almost anything right and constantly rail against government screwups, will believe government 100% regarding any matter of crime or war.

#147 | Posted by rcade
* * * *

Good thing for you, you don't have to worry about Republicans for awhile. No need to get upset.

So what's the plan there boy?

Yeppers, Tighties only like government in their bedrooms and their terrorist detention centers, not in their boardrooms or their public restrooms.

Now, what's the plan for captured Islamists? You've got my answer: until the Taliban and Al Queda agree to follow Geneva, they're a rogue regime, and their troops get no Geneva protections, so it's "kill on sight". We close Gitmo today, and send them home to their home countries for trials there, IF we can be guaranteed there will be one.

I've already answered this several times. Try the ones who committed crimes against the U.S. or U.S. embassies in our courts. Send the others back to the countries where they were captured for prosecution or release by those governments.

The idea we should not follow the Geneva Conventions unless the terrorists do is a betrayal of what this country stands for. We didn't use that excuse to mistreat Nazis and the Japanese after World War II, despite thousands and thousands of American casualties and the Holocaust. Why should we abandon our principles now?

It kills me that Republicans, who distrust government to get almost anything right and constantly rail against government screwups, will believe government 100% regarding any matter of crime or war.

#147 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-21 12:54 PM | Reply

As opposed to Democrats, that trust government to do everything including wiping their asses, will distrust our government 100% regarding any matter of crime or war.

Try the ones who committed crimes against the U.S. or U.S. embassies in our courts. Send the others back to the countries where they were captured for prosecution or release by those governments.
* * * *

So troops captured in the field in Afghanistan--are they tried in US courts? Or not? Is attacking a US convoy a crime against the US?

"Why should we abandon our principles now?"

Because they're no longer convenient, we can't make money off them, and dropping them off the side gets us hot. Gawd hasn't raised any objections so why should you?
~Rightbot Locksteppers

Send the others back to the countries where they were captured for prosecution or release by those governments.

#152 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-21 01:00 PM | Reply

Are you purposefully ignoring the fact that the liberals spotted their panties because the countries they were captured in will kill them, after torturing them?

Good thing for you, you don't have to worry about Republicans for awhile. No need to get upset.

That is a good thing, but I've never said I think Republicans will be out of power for long. I don't even regard Obama's re-election in 2012 as a given, unlike some Democrats.

Since Republicans will undoubtedly return to power someday, it would be nice to clean out the stupid before that happens. Bush and Cheney made the party embrace all kinds of dumb policies like these extraconstitutional prisons. Y'all need to recognize that the Bush years are over. You don't have to defend every incredibly stupid decision his administration made.

"Playing by some rules, while your opponents don't, is a sure fire way to either lose or get our people killed unneccesarily."

Perhaps someone should have told Gen. Washington who instructed his troops to give captives "nothing to complain about" even though it was well known that the British tortured, starved and executed Americans captured.
America has since tried to live up to the ideal that we do not have to be as evil as our enemies....well...till Bush.

"Hey Cheney, has he confessed yet???
No???
Keep torturing. I want a confession that Saddam was part of 9-11, and I want it now!!!!"

George Bush

Ah, the "unreleased report" again?

It's bullshit, btw. These numbers come from the same guys who sed that KSM had only been waterboarded for 2 1/2 minutes so take anything they say now with a large grain of salt. That a small percentage of detainees who were released after being held in Gitmo and elsewhere have taken up arms against those who held them is not a surprise. The surprise actually comes from the small numbers themselves. One would think that even if 100% of them were not terrorists going in therer would be more than just a few coming out.

You live in some backwards fantasy land where terrorists are all innocent sheep herders, and the American forces who are combating them are torture freaks.

Rex lives in a delusional fantasy land where all detainess are terrorists (the worst of the worst) and where all reports of abuse torture and murder are false.

Truth is some of the detainees were and are terrorists and a lot of them aren't. Truth is that some of the guards and translators were and are decent people trying their level best to remain good and moral people under trying circumstances and others were and are reprehensible sadists who committed war crimes.

Truth is, terrorists need to be brought to trial either in the US or in the countries they committed their terrorist acts in.

Truth is Cheny and Dumbya et al are also terrorists who need their day in court.

Truth is, Gitmo does not make America safer, indeed, quite the opposite.

Truth is anybody who takes up a one dimensional mindset on this issue is a fool.

Truth is Rex and others around here are very foolish indeed.

Be Well.

Are you purposefully ignoring the fact that the liberals spotted their panties because the countries they were captured in will kill them, after torturing them?

You're mistaken. We didn't capture terrorists in a country such as China and send them to Gitmo. If we captured a terrorist from China in Afghanistan, it's dumb to hold on to them until we can get China to take them. Either try them here or send 'em back to Afghanistan to be dealt with by that government. If a terrorist from China committed an act of terror in Iowa, we wouldn't hold them without charge until China agreed to take them. We'd try them in our courts.

Spud, the simple fact is, this is an United States problem and you don't matter.

Period.

The second we turn over any terror suspect to Afghanistan or Pakistan or whereveristan, that "suspect" is going to be tortured and murdered. I thought that's why liberals were against rendition?

What about the people we let Yemen keep? They seem to be let go immediately. What's your plan for those guys?

And when Al Quaeda tortures and holds Americans indefinitely the righties here can take credit. How can we claim moral superiority if we are doing similar actions that the terrorists are doing??
Torture has made us less safe and created more terrorists.

#19 | Posted by danni

Oh yeah right, Danni. Terrorists torture and behead Americans because we've water boarded a few of them. Our interrogations have made us no less safe. What you are saying is that if we stopped capturing and questioning terrorists then they would stop torturing and beheading Americans. That's what you just said. Damn that's just as stupid as it gets.

Posted by everlong at 2009-05-21 01:11 PM | Reply

"Send the others back to the countries where they were captured for prosecution or release by those governments."

That would work much better if we weren't trying to sell the world on the pretense that Afghanistan is becoming a modern democracy.

Had we just left the Northern Alliance in charge like we should have, they would gladly execute as many of these fools as we need.

Personally, I don't care whether Iraq or Afghanistan is a democracy. That would be great, but I don't want to spend U.S. money or lives creating democracies across the Middle East. As long as they have functioning governments that are not state sponsors of terror or free havens for terrorists, I think we've met our military goals and should get the hell out as soon as possible.

"I thought that's why liberals were against rendition?"

Except that turning a country's own citizens over to their own justice system is not rendition.
Rendition is when we turn them over for torture just so that we can pretend to not be torturers.

"Our interrogations have made us no less safe."

That is hardly a justification for turture and secondly, you do ot have any way of knowing that what you said is even true. It is actually quite likely that relatives of detainees have become radicalized after reading of or policies regarding torture.

"What you are saying is that if we stopped capturing and questioning terrorists then they would stop torturing and beheading Americans."

No that isn't what I said, I was saying that the United States loses its credibility on issues of human rights with ANY other country when we are known to allow torture. The things Al Quaeda does, or any enemy does are their responsibility but their inhumane actions do not justify our own.

I love Danni's logic, KSM planned 9-11 because he knew some day he would be waterboarded.

Strange how all the terrorists knew we were giving free hairwashings to a select 3 top terrorists, but Freak Show Nancy was in the dark.

"That would work much better if we weren't trying to sell the world on the pretense that Afghanistan is becoming a modern democracy."

I agree with that. Afghanistan will never be a real democracy.

"Strange how all the terrorists knew we were giving free hairwashings to a select 3 top terrorists, but Freak Show Nancy was in the dark."

Yeah, and that other guy Bob Graham too.

But hey, so what if the CIA doesn't even know how many times they briefed him, they can claim as many as they want....until he proved them completely wrong...or dishonest...whichever version you CHOOSE to believe.

okay sweety

lets INVESTIGATE what pelosi has accused the cia of

OOPS>...dems say ...uh...err....no thanks...

have a great day young lady

lets INVESTIGATE what pelosi has accused the cia of

OOPS>...dems say ...uh...err....no thanks...

have a great day young lady

#170 | Posted by afkabl2

Yep. As I mentioned on another thread, it sure was BRAVE of those manly Republicans to introduce this legislation on a day they knew she wouldn't be there.

"lets INVESTIGATE what pelosi has accused the cia of"

Fine as long as we include the waterboarding to get false confessions for Cheney. Let the chips fall where they may. Seems to me this shouldn't be a partisan thing....it's national security and/or constitutional overreach.

danni

pelosi is on a REAL small hook, fine line, desparate situation...et al
they will not open anything.......and as you say..if they do...EVERYTHING is out there and THATS what they arent interested in
and you notice that the SUBJECT you are most interested in having in this is CALLING FOR an open look himslef...its PELOSI and her thugs who dont want it all opened....not cheney

The spin is already full speed ahead.

The LA Times has one story on Hussein, showing a picture of him in the grand hall, looking presidential, with a full story glowingly covering what he has to say.

And a second story showing a tight shot of Cheney with his mouth agape and a few paltry paragraphs, covering almost nothing about what he had to say and besmirching what they covered.

Obama wants to release some of the detainees into the U.S.?

So what happens when one or more of them commit a terrorists attack against Americans?

I'll tell you.

The People will simply go ape-shit and the Secret Service will suddenly become very busy!

Obama wants to release some of the detainees into the U.S.?

So what happens when one or more of them commit a terrorists attack against Americans?

I'll tell you.

The People will simply go ape-shit and the Secret Service will suddenly become very busy!

Posted by BENDOR

You sure do have a fascination with violence against the government and elected officials.

By the way, can you provide a link where "Obama wants to release some of the detainees into the U.S."?

Sanantonio, you realy need to learn how to do some research on your own.

Why don't you try learning something for self study and stop waiting around for someone to tell you what to think?

"
The spin is already full speed ahead.

The LA Times has one story on Hussein, showing a picture of him in the grand hall, looking presidential, with a full story glowingly covering what he has to say.

And a second story showing a tight shot of Cheney with his mouth agape and a few paltry paragraphs, covering almost nothing about what he had to say and besmirching what they covered."

Yeah, real spin. ONe is the President of the United States making a major address on policy while the other is a former vice president who is trying to cover his own ass.

Obama...we can be safe and keep our values

Cheney....you're all going to die if you look over there. Don't look there, you'll die. Die die die.
If you vote for Kerry we're going to be hit.

"By the way, can you provide a link where "Obama wants to release some of the detainees into the U.S."?"

Sanantonio, you don't really want that link...it leads directly to his ass.

Why don't you try learning something for self study and stop waiting around for someone to tell you what to think?

#177 | Posted by r_zeitgeist

Well, you see Rexy, I did. And all I could find was Obama flatly stating he would never allow dangerous terrorists to be released in the U.S.

So is it unreasonable, when some makes a claim to the contrary, that they be asked to back it up?

Sanantonio, you don't really want that link...it leads directly to his ass.

#179 | Posted by danni

I kinda figured he pulled it from the same "undisclosed location" that Rex usually does.

If you feel it is wrong information, ignore it, or make a decalrative statement rejecting it.

Asking for links is a laughable Boyd/Alex ploy that was stale 5 years ago.

'Sanantonioy'

Everything I say is a factually correct statement of fact, if you can refute my assertion, do so.

If disproven beyond a doubt, I rectify my error.

That has happened 3 times in the 10,000's of post I have made around the internet.

#183 | Posted by r_zeitgeist at 2009-05-21 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag: Never lies and is always right.

Asking for links is a laughable Boyd/Alex ploy that was stale 5 years ago.

#182 | Posted by r_zeitgeist

Sounds like the last excuse of an inveterate ass-talker to me.

Never lies and is always right. Cheney too.

What's the plan Pancho? You're CinC. 100 insurgents captured. Inquiring minds want to know if you can think for yourself, or if you need another missive from Andrew Sullivan or Rachel Maddow before you can give an answer. Come on boy!

#140 | Posted by rightisright

Did any of the people address here ever respond to this?

Fine as long as we include the waterboarding to get false confessions for Cheney. Let the chips fall where they may. Seems to me this shouldn't be a partisan thing....it's national security and/or constitutional overreach.

Danni, do you expect ANYBODY here to believe that you would accept "let the chips fall where they may"??

Nobody here would believe something as stupid as that. You already need to believe that so anything that doesn't 100% confirm it then you will reject it for some reason.

"seems to me this should't be a partisian thing".

I can't believe you wrote that.

"Danni, do you expect ANYBODY here to believe that you would accept "let the chips fall where they may"??"

Why not??? I've been wanting to replace Pelosi for a long time so if she isn't telling the truth it would be an opportunity to do so. Cheney on the other hand might not feel so willing to let them fall where they may because he may be looking at jail time. This whole "Pelosi" thing has been an attempt to distract from Cheney's use of torture for political purposes.

"Danni, do you expect ANYBODY here to believe that you would accept "let the chips fall where they may"??"

Why not??? I've been wanting to replace Pelosi for a long time so if she isn't telling the truth it would be an opportunity to do so.

#189 | Posted by danni

Danni's right. There have been a lot of us critical of both Pelosi and Reid. I've said the same thing as she has - I'm in favor of a complete investigation, no matter who or which party is involved.

But no matter how you slice it, it has to go back to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld to begin. If there is collateral damage that takes out complicit Democrats, so be it.

It makes me sick that this lunatic blames America and President Bush for the war on terror, while seeking to coddle the very terrorists that attacked us.

Hussein was indoctrinated in anti American evil by a false prophet and schooled at the feet of domestic terrorist.

It becomes more and more obvious every day, he is the sum total of the evil people who trained him.

#14 | Posted by r_zeitgeist at 2009-05-21 10:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! MY GUY LOST!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!

We read and hear from all the people who are frightened of bringing the inmates of Guantanamo here to US soil but I seem to remember, right after 9-11, demands that the Taliban give us Bin Laden which they unfortunately refused to do.
I am pretty sure we would have brought him to the US for trial, would have held him in a jail here, would probably have brought his lieutenants here too. In reality it makes very little difference if these guys are held at Guantanamo or a prison in Montana. This is a political issue by the Republicans to gain some footing against Obama, the Dems who voted against the funding were just afraid that their opponents in 2010 would be able to use the issue against them. It would be a very easy issue to condense into simplistic, misleading, irrelevant ads and they could be pretty powerful among those who don't read or pay attention.

1 in seven.... A perfect example of how Stupid the Obama Administration thinks you all are...

They dont tell you that the people already released were the MELLO ones... The Low Level Ones that seemed normal or had commited no high level terror acts and were released.

They don't tell you that the majority of the remaining assholes at Gitmo are DEAD ENDERS.

They will make a bee line to the cause once they breath free air.

Of the remaining prisoners at Gitmo probably seventy five percent or more would return to terror.

This administration has no expectations that the American people will figure it out.

Oh what the hell... Just forget it all....

After we become one third of the North American Union....

A population Infantilized from cradle to grave by free programs designed to keep us all weak and out of power with no say in anything......

When the tax rate in the NAU hits 65% like in the European Socialist experiments......

Then maybe you will awaken from your madness.... Your Liberal, Leftist quest to make the perfect system.

Give it all away....

Fall with the rest of the world... Into the dark age....

INTO NINTEEN EIGHTY FOUR!

YOU DESERVE IT!

You sure do have a fascination with violence against the government and elected officials.

By the way, can you provide a link where "Obama wants to release some of the detainees into the U.S."?

#176 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Sure can.

What happened to us as Americans?

Since when are we afraid of some Muslims behind bars??

200 Detainees, that makes for 4 per state. Pick 4, take them and throw them in a deep dark cell and stop bitching. People wanted this war, now they can ante up and take their fair share of the load.

So why not keep them at Gitmo after they get their trials?

No one has escaped from there.

No one wants these guys on US soil.

Appears they will all be going to supermax at Colorado.

Common--there are not enough supermax places in the country to take these terrorists 4 by 4.

We should let them go. Maybe they will be so grateful for their release that they won't hurt us.

- the co-dependent left

So why not keep them at Gitmo after they get their trials?

No one has escaped from there.

No one wants these guys on US soil.

Appears they will all be going to supermax at Colorado.

Common--there are not enough supermax places in the country to take these terrorists 4 by 4.

Posted by MURPHY at 2009-05-21 07:10 PM | Reply

Because GITMO is an albatros upon the necks of every American. We can not clean up our image if we use the same methods that got us worldwide scorn. If the United States can't do any better than Gitmo then we are a piss poor Country and should be thrown away. Oh and when they are found not guilty and their Country of origin doesn't want them we must take them in. It's the way American must be. We wronged them so we must make it up to them.

Larry

We wronged them so we must make it up to them.

Ya, we should also give them reparations. REPARATIONS. Maybe we could raid the 9/11 victims relief fund.

- Larry

#174 | Posted by r_zeitgeist

Would you expect anything less from the LA Slime?

Yeah--Larry--let's give them welfare and HUD housing.

They were trying to kill our troops and you want them here in our country.

The left just wants trials--so give them the military commissions which is what Bush was doing and keep them at Gitmo for their sentences for life.

Gitmo =-200 million dollar facility--rice pilaf, soccer and the Koran.

Doubt they will get better treatment in CO supermax.

More than half of all convicts paroled from prison eventually re-offend. Does that mean nobody should ever be paroled? Pointing out that some small percentage of suspected terrorists may possibly eventually return to their unlawful conduct is a vacuous argument against trying and releasing some of them. In short, it is a strawman to avoid examining the larger issues of national security and terror prevention.

They were trying to kill our troops and you want them here in our country.

The left just wants trials--so give them the military commissions which is what Bush was doing and keep them at Gitmo for their sentences for life.

Gitmo =-200 million dollar facility--rice pilaf, soccer and the Koran.

Doubt they will get better treatment in CO supermax.

Posted by MURPHY at 2009-05-21 07:48 PM | Reply

ummmmm if they are guilty of trying to kill our troops prove it in a Court of Law and then put em in Prison like any other criminal. From what I understand of the Military Commissions is it's a Kangaroo Court guaranteeing guilt no matter what. As for cost not My fault Not My responsibility. call it a waste of money. Charge them try them in a federal Court and if guilty fine incarcerate them. if Not guilty free them.

Larry

Larry

1 in 7...

I'm guessing only 1 in 7 gitmo detainees is a terrorist in the first place.

The only silver lining to this nightmare is that the detainees only number in the hundreds, not the thousands or tens of thousands.

It's still a goddamn travesty.

And this is a reason to keep Gitmo open, because there's no way in hell we can house those detainees in extra-maximum security prisons. And of course, we've never held any innocent people at Gitmo for years. Sorry for the sarcasm, but when applying logic to the whole Gitmo situation, I don't see what all the hoopla is right now, other than trying to score political points.

"Common--there are not enough supermax places in the country to take these terrorists 4 by 4."

It's OK Murphy, we'll make more.

Next talking point please.

"200 Detainees, that makes for 4 per state. Pick 4, take them and throw them in a deep dark cell and stop bitching. People wanted this war, now they can ante up and take their fair share of the load."

Thank you COMMONSENSE for that common sense.

I was not aware that we held as many captured POWs as we did on American soil during World War II. But we were at war with their countries and knew, when the war was over, that they would be released to those countries. That's different than holding people indefinitely until we achieve victory in our war against a vague concept.

#80 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-21 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

And the remaining detainees are so innocent that no other country -- not even their own respective native countries -- is willing to take them off our hands. Interesting.

Maybe they should try a 12 step program like TA (Terrorists Anonymous)

In your world, if only 15% of murderers get out to kill again, the others should never have been locked up in the first place?

#19 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-05-21 11:06 AM | Reply | Flag

I guess in your world if 1 in 7 held without trial are murderers, the others must be murderers also.

I'd support holding you without trial.

Recidivism rates are too high for all crimes. The terrorists that are hardcore won't stop until we put bullets in their heads. too bad you can't tell who is really bad and who is misguided. I hate to say this but it is better to be safe than sorry.

I hate to say this but it is better to be safe than sorry.

#213 | Posted by rastaninja at 2009-05-22 01:41 AM | Reply | Flag

So let's put people in prison we think might be dangerous--is that your proposal?

Our current system of justice is ill-equipped to deal with this.

Bush had a policy to hold them indefinitely because he didn't know what else to do.

Obama is in the same boat -- he remembers that he took an oath to protect this country. And, even if he wanted to just let these assholes go, enough members of his own party are responsible enough to prevent him from doing so.

Which by the way, has nothing to do with Al Quaeda not wearing uniforms or insignia. Nor does it have anything to do with the impossible task of trying to convict some jihadi mutt with 20 aliases, no birth certificate, finger prints on record, no home of record, paper trail, etc

Exactly. These people are held and will continue to be held because our politicians simply don't know what to do - we are a nation of laws, but these assholes are conspiring to kill as many Americans as possible. So, what do we do with them? Rcade and others taking his stance are saying we should just release them, until someone else counters that they should be released into Rcade's neighborhood; and then he pauses to think about the ramifications of what he advocates. "Not in my backyard."

Fact is, I don't know how these assholes should be handled. I don't think it's feasible to just detain them forever. I think simply releasing them is a recipe for disaster. As Chair pointed out, trying them in a civilian court is pretty ridiculous.

So, what do we do?

The moment we start releasing these fucks our military, with a nod and a wink, are going to shoot to kill in lieu of taking prisoners.

Our current system of justice is ill-equipped to deal with this.

The old wolf by the ears principle. Can't afford to hold him and you can't afford to let him go.

Almost two-thirds of the former detainees interviewed reported having psychological problems since leaving Guantanamo.

Well that must indicate that the US Military found a way to cure at least 33%.

Larry,

How about we release them, en masse, into your neighborhood.

Would you be cool with that?

I understand the messiness. I understand that some of these detainees have actually done nothing wrong. I understand and respect the principled stance that you, Moneywar, Rcade and others have taken on this issue. I understand that you guys all make strong cases, on many fronts, as to why such a policy is wrong. I understand ALL of this. But I go back to this question:

"How about we release them, en masse, into your neighborhood.

Would you be cool with that?"

This is a tough issue and I don't have answers.

JeffJ if they are shipped to Kansas and happen to wind up in My city so be it. We fucked them over as a Nation. We are responsible for righting that wrong. Or do You believe in THAT??

Larry

JeffJ if they are shipped to Kansas and happen to wind up in My city so be it.

To borrow a bit from Pulp Fiction:

If self-preservation is an instinct you possess, you are lying through your teeth with that statement.

We fucked them over as a Nation.

No. They fucked us over when they hijacked our airplanes and flew them into buildings killing thousands.

Or do You believe in THAT??,/i>

Of course I believe in righting wrongs. Fact is, on this issue you stand on much firmer ground than I. I don't know what to do with these guys. I don't. I can tell you this though; I sure as HELL won't stand to have them released into my neighborhood and in proximity of my family. I don't ask that of anybody else either.

Let Me put it to You this way JeffJ. You obviously haven't been locked up for any extended period of time like I have. I applaud that btw. I was incarcerated on June 04 1992 at 11:45 AM. for a crime that I had committed.(Temporary deprovation of property IE Theft. I was released on November 30th 1992 at 11:45 and 35 seconds.(You don't forget that EVER) I can sympathize with these detainees because I know what it's like being locked up. Think about how YOU would feel being locked up for years on end without charges without a trial. We in all actuality held these people hostage/Captive. We as a nation didn't charge them try them as per our Laws dictate that we should and must. We just picked them up and carted them off to GITMo without offering them a chance to plead their cases. I have NO) problem let Me repeat this I HAVE NO PROBLEM sending them to prison for life if they have been convicted of a terrorism related act. You don't get to walk scott free if You've done something wrong. But I DO have a problem keeping them indefinitely without charges without a trial. That is not what this Country was founded upon.

Larry

No. They fucked us over when they hijacked our airplanes and flew them into buildings killing thousands.

Or do You believe in THAT??,/i>

Of course I believe in righting wrongs. Fact is, on this issue you stand on much firmer ground than I. I don't know what to do with these guys. I don't. I can tell you this though; I sure as HELL won't stand to have them released into my neighborhood and in proximity of my family. I don't ask that of anybody else either.

#222 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-05-22 06:04 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

PROVE IT PROVE THEY ARE PART OF THE ONES THAT KILLED OUR PEOPLE AND PUT THEM AWAY FOREVER. If they aren't well You gotta release them. It's as simple as that JeffJ.

Larry

Let Me correct something. I was released on November 20 1992 at 11:47 and 35 seconds. The only time I have ever had to use both hands to sign My name.

Larry

#223 | Posted by Larry

Powerful post, Larry.

Seriously.

Look, I understand your position. I really do. On this issue the strength of your arguments trump mine. Easily.

PROVE IT PROVE THEY ARE PART OF THE ONES THAT KILLED OUR PEOPLE AND PUT THEM AWAY FOREVER.

Doing so requires our government to wait for these assholes to actually murder thousands, tens-of-thousands, or more, of our citizens, on our soil before taking action.

Again, I respect the principled stance you take, but you are in a small minority in the country of those who are willing to afford these fuckers that degree of latitude before taking action.

The fact that some of these detainees are truly innocent is tragic. It truly is. Having said that, I will not stand to have these detainees released into MY neighborhood in proximity of MY wife, 2 boys and my dog.

I know that I am on shaky ground here.

For the nth time, I don't have answers for this dilemma.

Larry,

(I am about to hijack this thread)

It's a holiday weekend and summer is upon us.

Do you have anything fun planned for this weekend?

Just the usual putting flowers on the graves of Family and friends. What about You JeffJ??

Larry

Back on topic....

Here's the deal, Larry...

I don't envy what Obama has walked in to.

You are 100% correct. We can't just hold these guys forever. They either need an official sentence or an outright release. Having said that, given reality, I don't know how we do this in a responsible manner. Our elected leaders don't either; which is precisely why nothing more than lip-service has been paid to this issue and is precisely why Obama keeps moving toward 'more of the same' on this.

*Jeff tosses his hands up in the air in frustration*

Larry,

I am heading up north (norther lower peninsula Michigan) to Lake Charlevoix for a weekend with my family - me, my wife and kids and dog, my brother, and my mom and dad.

It doesn't look like we will have great boating weather, but I know - cry me a river, Jeff! All things considered.

I am getting close to signing off - have a great holiday weekend. Good discussion per usual.

We as a Nation are gonna have to do something quick JeffJ. If these festering boil lingers much further we can forget about our former loyal allies and friends coming to our aid when we need them and we will surely need them in years and decades to come.

Larry

Take care and drive safe JeffJ

Larry

May the weather suck and everyone get ill. You don't deserve a vacation.

"Rcade and others taking his stance are saying we should just release them, until someone else counters that they should be released into Rcade's neighborhood; and then he pauses to think about the ramifications of what he advocates. "Not in my backyard."
#215 | Posted by jeffj at 2009-05-22 05:32 AM"

Who posting here is advocating simply releasing the detainees into anyone's neighborhood? Certainly it's not rcade. As such, you are arguing against a position that does not exist. You know what that's called...

What IS being called for is a desire for the USA to follow its own laws and the Geneva Convention (which the USA signed on to). If we are not willing to follow the basis of our Republic, just what is it that we are trying to preserve/defend???

Meanwhile, may we all spend (at least) some time remembering the reason for this holiday.

"Who posting here is advocating simply releasing the detainees into anyone's neighborhood?"

It's only me, again.
~The Strawman

May the weather suck and everyone get ill. You don't deserve a vacation.

#233 | Posted by rastaninja

I find it disturbing that I find so many of your posts as funny.

Thanks for the laugh - much needed at the end of a long week of exploiting non-union contractors.

:-)

True and Doc,

I am neither fostering a strawman, nor am I mischaracterizing anybody's take on this.

What is being advocated, basically, when we sift through ALL of the legal bullshit, is that these detainees should be released. With their newfound freedom, what are they going to do? Some of these assholes truly are homocidal maniacs - Are they going to be emboldened or pacified by their release? If they are emboldened and are successful at their aim of killing Americans - whose lives do their actions truly affect? Which 'neighborhoods' get hit?

My questions are spot-on. People who live in New York know this.

I am about to get unneccessarily nasty here - if you have so much love for these detainees, then take them into YOUR fucking neighborhood, in proximity to YOUR family and express to them YOUR faux outrage as to how they were treated by our government.

Who posting here is advocating simply releasing the detainees into anyone's neighborhood?

Nobody. And as long as their release results in Manhattan being hit in lieu of Miama; I don't give a shit - Rogers.

See my point?

"I am about to get unneccessarily nasty here - if you have so much love for these detainees, then take them into YOUR fucking neighborhood, in proximity to YOUR family and express to them YOUR faux outrage as to how they were treated by our government.
#238 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-05-22 07:05 AM"

I live in Colorado. They possibly/likely will come to "my neighborhood". What was your point again...

I don't (necessarily) 'love' these detainees, but thanx for 'The Straw'. Meanwhile, I DO LOVE our Republic (and for which it stood/stands)!

First off we are going to have to sort out the guilty from the not guilty. We try them all in a Federal Court and allow both sides equal time. If they are proven guilty then lock em up. If not We must release them. If we need to we can try and right the wrong by rehabilitation(No Not YOUR kind of rehabilitation BLT) and try to get them to see we are sorry for our past wrongs we have committed towards them. Then we will either repatriate them to their home Countries and if they do not want them we will have to release them here in the United States. It's the only way. We have to do it for not only our future as a nation but also to try and quash some of the terrorism perpetyrated upon our fellow Countrymen/Women.

Larry

True,

Sorry for looping you in - you are one of the more reasonable posters on this site.

Having said that, my questions still remain - If we release these assholes - what do they do with their newfound freedom. If they are succsessful in taking destructive action against this country, who takes the hit? Which neighborhoods get hit? Which families lose beloved ones?

Anybody paying attention to events that took place on 9-11 know that I am not preying on fears, but am talking realistic possibilies. The reality of politics makes my questions even more vivid - imagine being the politician who successfully argues against indefinite detainment only to have one of these fucks successfully kill a few hundred with a suicide bomb, in a mall, during Christmas season? There's a reason why nobody knows what to do regarding this.

You are right - status quo isn't the answer - the problem is that I don't have a counter.

PS - get off your accusations of 'stawmen' - my points are valid. If advocating release, these assholes actions could very well impact A neighborhood. Maybe not yours - but your are codemning somebody else, and their family, just to placate your own personal sense of justice.

Why does JeffJ continue to refer to these people as assholes?? I mean many of them are innocent. Why would You call an innocent detainee an asshole??

Larry

I am painting with a broad brush, Larry.

Some of these detainees are assholes.

Asking for links is a laughable Boyd/Alex ploy that was stale 5 years ago.

I agree, rex. Asking you to substantiate the bullshit you make up IS stale and laughable.

Much like your "music" choices.

GITMO was a festering boil. Now it's canceruos. Do we allow it to grow so large it consumes body America??

Larry

You sure do have a fascination with violence against the government and elected officials.

By the way, can you provide a link where "Obama wants to release some of the detainees into the U.S."?

#176 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Sure can.

www.reuters.com

Where do you think these guys will go once their prison terms are up?

hmmmmmm?

#195 | Posted by BENDOR

Sorry, but that link doesn't say the same thing you did. You are making an assumption for which there are no facts in evidence.

Fail.

GITMO was a festering boil. Now it's canceruos. Do we allow it to grow so large it consumes body America??

Larry

Fine.

Close it down.

Relocate the detainees to a stateside prison.

Deal with the EXACT same issues.

Cost the taxpayers considerable money in the process, but put us in the exact same position.

GITMO isn't the problem - how to deal with the detainees is the problem. Closing GITMO is a symbolic gesture that changes nothing, other than added cost to all of us.

Relocate the detainees to a stateside prison.

Deal with the EXACT same issues.

Cost the taxpayers considerable money in the process, but put us in the exact same position.

GITMO isn't the problem - how to deal with the detainees is the problem. Closing GITMO is a symbolic gesture that changes nothing, other than added cost to all of us.

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-05-22 07:42 AM | Reply

No what You do is try them if guilty convict them and send them to prison. If not guilty free them. It's how we are SUPPOSED to do things here in America.

Larry

Larry,

Given the nature of the 'evidence', a vast majority will be set free. How about we release them, en masse, into you neighborhood?

You raise good points. At the end of the day this is an impossible issue.

Bush shirked his leadership responsibilities and passed this buck to Obama. If Obama can precipitate meaningful AND responsible measures regarding this - he will have earned a shitload of respect and admiration from me.

*Feel free to Hans this comment*

At the end of the day this is an impossible issue.

Bush shirked his leadership responsibilities and passed this buck to Obama. If Obama can precipitate meaningful AND responsible measures regarding this - he will have earned a shitload of respect and admiration from me.

*Feel free to Hans this comment*

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-05-22 07:53 AM | Reply

Sighhhhhhhhhh have we sunk so far as to not be able to fix our Nations fuck ups?? We are the United States of America for Crickey sake. We put a Man on the moon. We put roving robots upon Mars. You are telling Me we can't fix this?? The most powerful Nation in the world and we can't adjudictae these detainees?? WOW

Larry

RE: #242 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-05-22 07:30 AM

Thanx for your comments on my 'reasonableness', but I'm sure not all would agree here or elsewhere. Oh well ;-)!

I can appreciate your concerns and I do believe there are real dangers and yours are not (entirely) 'paranoid rantings'. All that said, I also believe you do present (And it's NOT necessary to do that) the extreme either/or situation. That is why the 'Strawman' rebuttals continue. Some examples:

- "these assholes": NO ONE is advocating the release of 'assholes'. As such, to claim that they are is a Strawman argument. Of course, some MIGHT be 'assholes'. I doubt ALL are. I also believe some MIGHT become 'assholes' directly due to our actions/inactions.

- "if you love these detainess": NO ONE is claiming to 'love these detainees' (whether they are 'assholes' or not). As such, ascribing that motivation to others is another Strawman argument. What HAS been claimed is a love for 'rule of law'.

- "we should just release them": Once again, NO ONE is advocating that course of action (or at least not in that extreme/simplistic way you describe). etc. etc.

I understand there's a quandry here and I don't envy those now required to deal with this problem. Apparently, you don't envy them either. If I may, this situation is PRECISELY why one should avoid using an EJTM (End Justifies The Means) solution since it often (always?) results in just this kind of problem. I find it uniquely telling to read the recent comments of those here who have advocated EJTM for the past few years and now seem to take thinly-veiled glee in watching the current administration struggle with the problem they created.

Bottom line: yes, it's tough to live up to "our words", but do we not claim to be 'the home of the brave'? Time to put up or shut up.

True,

If I may, this situation is PRECISELY why one should avoid using an EJTM (End Justifies the means)

Completely understood.

Bottom line: yes, it's tough to live up to "our words", but do we not claim to be 'the home of the brave'? Time to put up or shut up.

Fine - and I agree. Status quo can't work much longer. Having said that, be willing to accept any released detainees into your neighborhood if whatever solution you propose involves their release. If not, don't play the 'not in my backyard' card when your advocacies involve putting some extremely dangerous people into someone else's backyard.

A responsible course for this requires something outside of our current box of understanding. Most likely, the DNC will continue 'more of the same' and a sympathetic media will be quiet about it.

Have a great weekend! I am outa here!

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the Obama administration had no choice but to order the shutdown of the prison at Guantanamo because "the name itself is a condemnation" of U.S. anti-terrorism strategy.

In an interview broadcast Friday on NBC's "Today" show, Gates called the facility on the island of Cuba "probably one of the finest prisons in the world today." But at the same time, he said it had become "a taint" on the reputation of America.

Gates has served both President George W. Bush and now Barack Obama at the Pentagon. The secretary said that once the decision was made to close Guantanamo, "the question is, where do you put them." He said Obama would do nothing to endanger the public and said there has never been an escape from a "super-max" prison in this country.

this fine prison is state of the art for islamic incarceration-if prisoners are moved other facilities will have to be changed to accomodate them or some groups will protest-at this time of financial crisis why should we spend the extra money to please our foes -leave them where they are
jasman

Didn't I just post that?

Well, not all of it, I guess.

Just reiterating. Some folks need it in big, bold letters. (Not that'll it'll necessary take and they'll actually absorb the message.)

this fine prison is state of the art for islamic incarceration-if prisoners are moved other facilities will have to be changed to accomodate them or some groups will protest-at this time of financial crisis why should we spend the extra money to please our foes -leave them where they are

Proof thinking past the talking points just doesn't happen.

We're paying for it now. Tax dollars. There is at least one town that wants them and views the 400 bed, completely empty prison they have as an economic opportunity.

Though you lost any credibility with the first part, you really nailed it shut with "extra money to please our foes."

Listening to Cheney and his supporters, it's hard to tell the difference between "us" and "them", except that Cheney's rhetoric says "terrorist" and the other side says "America".

I wonder how any of you enraged Obama haters would react if you were kidnapped by another country's government and held incommunicado for years and years, your family not even knowing if you were dead or alive? I wonder how you would react if you were held prisoner and then brutalized, tortured, and humiliated day after day by the soldiers of the country that had kidnapped you.

I'm sure that after finally being released, you would pick up whatever remained of your life and move on with no hard feelings and no PTSD, right? As others have said, it's amazing that 6 out of 7 have NOT done anything against us after their release.

You still can't handle that your guy lost the election; you're practically apoplectic and can't even speak rationally. But you expect the victims of our kidnappings and torture to simply walk away with no hard feelings??? Now that's a double standard! Continuing Cheney's practices just creates more people who hate us, and makes us no different than them. More Americans have died fighting these stupid, unnecessary wars than died on 9/11. But you aren't crying for the war dead, are you?

Pretty much that, Kel.

Of course 1-7 return to terrorism. That is why Obama wants to release them! Obama hates America. He is driving this country into historic debt. More debt has been accumulated by Obama in the first 3 months of his presidency than the all 43 previous presidents combined and he hasn't even started the debt yet for his massive healthcare welfare program. Every international speech he makes he slams and apologizes for America. Remember this is the same asswipe who REFUSED to wear an American flag pin because he had such disdain for America.

Obama sucks!

Terror to us is their war on the same. They just don't play by our rules.

...the Pentagon believes that 74 prisoners released from Guantnamo have returned to terrorism or militant activity, making for a recidivism rate of nearly 14 percent.

Interesting, and so how does that number (74) compare to the number of "terrorists or others that have turned to militant activity" JUST BY THE EXISTENCE OF GITMO and Abu Ghraib and our policy of TORTURE?

Anyone? Let me help you...I believe that number is in the thousands or even tens of thousands.

Weren't only 3 people waterboarded? Anyone?

Does that really constitute a "Policy."

"1 in 7 Freed Detainees Rejoins Fight, Report Finds"

~Original Headline.

"1 Out of 7 Released Gitmo Detainees Return to Terror"

~Drudge Retort Headline.

Not to be nitpicky about it but aint them headlines both a little misleading?

"Returns" and "Rejoins" presupposes that all the people in Gitmo were terrorists originally and that's proven to not be the case in many instances.

How many people in Gitmo weren't terrorists?

How many of the folks in Gitmo who weren't terrorists when they were originally picked up left as terrorists?

Ultimately unknowable.

Particularily given the sketchiness of this report.

This deliberately leaked unreleased report has been debunked previously but it keeps rearing it's ugly head from time to time still.

Spud finds that fact more telling than the report itself.

Be Well.

We need to question these assholes when they are captured get whatever info we can and cut their throats and leave them where we find them. Treating these followers of their idiot prophet any other way will not make a damn bit of difference when it come to the way they treat our troops. Obama just wants to level the playing field for his muslim suck buddies.

"Returns" and "Rejoins" presupposes that all the people in Gitmo were terrorists originally and that's proven to not be the case in many instances."

I suppose that when you have no answer to the actual point of the article, it's best to focus on what doesn't matter at all. The fact is that after these people are released, 1 in 7 "are engaged in terrorism or militant activity." Whether they are "returning" to that activity or joining it anew is in no way a refutation of the article.

#270 | Posted by JOE at 2009-05-22 05:36 PM

Actually JOE, I've not seen anyone refuting the article (well, at least not in its entirety). Most are addressing the question of what do we do NOW!

Some of those addressing that question are noting that a continuation of the status quo is a mistake and they list various reasons. As such, those folks want the status quo to end before it becomes WORSE!

OTOH, it sounds like some (you, too?) are taking the position that while "we" MIGHT have eff'd-up, we can't let the 'mad dogs' loose now since they'll attack us.

Then again, there are some who are "just fine" with the status quo (both then AND now).

So..., what say you?

Let me help you...I believe that number is in the thousands or even tens of thousands.

(Translation: I haven't the foggiest clue what I'm talking about, and the Mojitos are kicking in, so I'll just make something up before I pass out.)

Then again, there are some who are "just fine" with the status quo (both then AND now).
So..., what say you?

#271 | POSTED BY TRUEBLUE AT 2009-05-22 05:49 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Try them in military courts. If no evidence or if found to be innocent, drop them off in country of origin. If country of origin doesn't take them after all kinds of political/economic pressure from us, drop them off in Palestine.

Spud: "Returns" and "Rejoins" presupposes that all the people in Gitmo were terrorists originally and that's proven to not be the case in many instances."

Joe: I suppose that when you have no answer to the actual point of the article, it's best to focus on what doesn't matter at all. The fact is that after these people are released, 1 in 7 "are engaged in terrorism or militant activity." Whether they are "returning" to that activity or joining it anew is in no way a refutation of the article.

And yer a lawyer? S'rsly? Wow.

The point to the article, Joe, is that it is a classic example of a government "leak" intended to galvinise public opinion towards supporting government policy or at least contributing to cognitive dissonance on the topic.

The medium really IS the message there.

Providing a degree of cover for publically unpopular and possibly illegal governmental activities is a time honored tradition in the MSM.

Questioning and exploring the possible motivivation for releasing this info at this time in this format as well as the basic data itself is kinda the point to blogworld in a way.

Unspinning, deconstructing, scrutinising, dissecting, challenging, questioning and opining is kinda wot we do here.

/Aside from bitching, whining, joking and insulting, of course.

Be Well.

"it is a classic example of a government "leak" intended to galvinise public opinion towards supporting government policy"

That's funny - I thought Obama was closing Guantanamo. If anything he wouldn't be intentionally "leaking" information regarding malfeasance by released detainees. Right?

By the way, how was your post in any way a response to mine? The potential motivation behind "leaking" this report in no way makes relevant whether these 1 in 7 people are "returning" to terrorist activity or starting it anew. Again I'll ask, why does that matter?

Interesting, and so how does that number (74) compare to the number of "terrorists or others that have turned to militant activity" JUST BY THE EXISTENCE OF GITMO and Abu Ghraib and our policy of TORTURE?

#265 | Posted by donnerboy

I am so sick of these America hating liberal Democrats spouting this crap. Listen idiots - America was attacked by terrorism at the World Trade Center during the Clinton Administration in 1993 BEFORE GITMO held terrorists there. Terrorists attacked America again on 9/11 BEFORE GITMO held terrorists here. What about the terrorist attack against the USS Cole in 200 killing 17 sailers BEFORE GITMO held terrorists? What about terrorist attacks against U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 BEFORE GITMO held terrorists?

You liberals have no damn sense of history. In your sick and twisted f'd up minds, you honestly don't believe terrorists would not hate America if GITMO was shut down. So damn stupid!

Correction: "In your sick and twisted f'd up minds, you honestly believe terrorists would not hate America if GITMO was shut down. So damn stupid!