Turn em loose!
 

It was just SO important that the first thing Obama could do as president was to give these guys some Rights. And you hear over and over about terrorists that have been released from there are right back in action. Just a story today about some exGitmo is now a powerful Taliban guy.

But Obama giving these guys rights and respect just makes us such a better and safer country, right Ateam? ;)

If I felt that anything more than 10% of the people we illegally detain were terrorists, I wouldn't care so much. Just because there are unrepentant terrorists means it's justified to be shackling and torturing innocent people and turning more people against us? Keeping secret prisons doesn't make us any safer, it destroys our moral standing and reinforces the idea that we're the bad guys.

The hell are you talking about? I must have missed this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090310/...tainee_taliban

If I were released from a country that had tortured me I think I'd become a terrorist afterwards against them even if I wasn't one to begin with. That was bad judgement by Bush and nothing to do with Obama's plans for Guantanamo. All Obama's plans mean are that we can no longer detain someone for absolutely no reason and we can no longer torture prisoners.

Who said it was illegal? Who says that 10% were or werent terrorists. These arent "innocent people" just dragged off the streets. There is a reason that they are there. Acting as if we are the bad guys is wrong. Guantanamo was and is not a secret prison. Our moral standing? Whose morals are you using as a baseline? As you can see, the moral standing that the prisoners in that prison follow is a not exactly a high standard.

I hate to inform you of this but our morals, standards and rule of law are way higher than the vast majority of the world and laughingly high as compared to our enemies. The problem that you and the ACLU crowd seem to forget is that these people are not Americans nor were taken from American soil and as such arent and shouldnt be covered by domestic laws.

The thought that there are a bunch of railroaded innocents there is crazy.

Thats ridiculous. So if you are wrongly arrested and thrown into prison it is ok to turn to crime after being released? Nice logic.


How do you or anyone else know why these people were put in there? I mean did you hack into the CIA database? Or are you a Amnesty International junkie.

These are bad people and this is a dirty war. **** happens.

If you were thrown into an Iraqi or Afghan prison for no reason, were tortured, and then eventually released how would you feel about that country?

Fabricating charges against them is a hell of a lot better than violating the Geneva Convention if you want to go the "these are bad people and this is a dirty war" route. I'm sure these aren't good people but there are better ways of handling them than detaining them when you can't even drum up charges against them.

why the hell do you believe they are thrown in for no reason?? That is moronic (no offense). They arent just throwing any Tom, Dick or Harry into jail for no reason (or any Muhommad, Osama, or Saddam).

If I was fighting against them i would probably expect it if captured. Think our prisoners get three hots and a cot? They get their heads cut off.

You know what they used to do with these types? Shoot them.


I love how you know that we "fabricated charges" against them. Wouldnt it have been easier to just "torture" them over there and dump the bodies when done? The problem was we tried to find a way to do it properly. The Geneva convention doesnt exactly apply and you know it. Hell most of the countries that these people are from dont want them back! This is a very tricky situation in that this kind of war has very little or no precedent. Obama didnt exactly kick open the door and clear out the Bay. They are all still there.

There is not going to be a clean solution to this issue. But acting as though we are wronging a bunch of innocents is crazy.

I see, so I'm unqualified to say that we're torturing a bunch of innocent people, but it's within your expertise to say that they're all guilty. I get it now.

Why the hell do you believe that they are all thrown in because they're terrorists? That is moronic (no offense). Yeah, because if there's anything the Bush administration was famous for, it was meticulous war strategy.

I dont know if they are guilty or not but the overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence available to us seems to point to guilty. You made the yourself the expert by stating that 90% were innocent. get it now?

You're right, I should leave it to the experts touting invisible 'circumstantial evidence' to justify torturing people. Nailed it!

yeah the soldiers who captured them all were directly linked to Bush in the oval office. And remind me again about who seemed to come out ahead in that war? Did we lose?

Tell me why exactly were the people thrown in Guantanamo put there? Bush people were looking to run up theri frequent flyer miles so they just grabbed every funny looking Abdul off the street? You do know that everyone in prison is innocent dont you? Just ask them.

Is this a trick question?

It's a complete and absolute fuci<ing mess. People were rounded up based on "informants" turning others in - no due dilligence, nothing. If you got scooped up, all you had to do was turn in one of your neighbors that had pissed you off... What the purpose of the hysteria was is anybody's guess - all you have to do is watch what happened at Bagram and Abu Ghraib ..... The bonus is the other 90% that weren't terrorists are now. Catch "Taxi to the Darkside" on HBO - you will sh!t your pants...

Please tell me where you are getting all your insight on the goings on there? or is it classified? I tend to side with the US military over the ACLU or Amnesty international. call me crazy.

This is just like Chicago. Get charged as an innocent person do 'bad' time and when you get out you're head of the Gangster Deciples, Vice Lords, Latin Kings or Chicago mob depending on where you grew up. Give me a break this guy didn't need water he needed a late term abortion. We had the bad guy and let him go.

Yeah HBO that awesome source of truthful and unbiased information.

Thank you. I don't have the energy to type more than two sentences in response to Rick Santorum over here.

Uh are we in charge.

OK Nancy Pelosi

:zz:

This has to be like your "Jets suck" baiting posts. I know you're not this retarded.

Jesus Joey, We are in charge, the govt there is the one that we installed, there is very little violence against us now. What do you call that? A loss?


http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/18/git...ees/index.html
Here is some more on the situation. From an "approved" source.

And the Jets do suck. Even you are dumb enough not to believe that!

I don't care if we let them all go or not. I think we should leave it up to the people of New York City to decide if they should be freed or not. Like I give a f.uck if that place is turned into a sheet of glass.

We've spent $2 trillion, we're less safe, we accomplished nothing, we've sent 5,000 of our soldiers to their graves, injured thousands more, killed 100,000+ civilians, and this is winning? Pass the evaluation sheet back Kissinger. Look up "pyrrhic victory", it'll describe your great triumph that our soldiers aren't getting killed by the hundreds anymore.

From the last link posted:


The 17 men are Uighurs, an ethnic group from western China. They are accused of receiving weapons and military training in Afghanistan.

Some of the detainees have been cleared for release since 2003, but the United States will not send them back to their homeland because of concern they would be tortured by Chinese authorities.


of course WE should take them in right? Too bad for the Uighurs but I for one dont want them released in our country.

...and hell, if the New Yorkers want them to be freed then leave Madoff on house arrest in the penthouse.

two birds one stone whatnot deal.

since bush called this a war on terror, he wanted to treat every terrorist as an enemy combatant-but not as a soldier captured in a battle. it's a fine line....terrorists are criminals-they don't fight for a country, we're not fighting a germany for instance. so, those who are investigated, and then found to have committed, or are planning to commit, a crime should be charged under law-whether it's a u.s. law if they're caught here (much like if someone was here from canada, mexico, etc-they still fall under our court system) or an international law, or the country in which they resides' law. that's what everyone needs to figure out. if we follow a money trail, we have to hope we can persuade whatever country that terrorist resides in to arrest him. if they're here, or attempt to come here, we arrest them here. as for holding someone for years without a trial, you can't do that. yes, they're bad guys in many cases. so try them, or charge them and have the hague try them. but you can't just lock them up, no charges, and throw away the key. even the nazi war criminals got trials-that's what they must do in this case. absolutely lock the bad guys up-but you probably have to prove they're bad guys.

A Centrist wants to promote what is best for society, tolerate what is good enough, and prevent what is harmful.

Conservatives want to promote what is best for society, and prevent everything else.

Liberals want to promote all options (except the truly dangerous ones) as equally good.

If your first reaction to this is, “Who is to say what is best?” you are a probably a liberal.

If your first reaction to this is, “Why settle for mediocrity?” you are probably a conservative.

If this bell-curve picture of the social options seems reasonable to you, and you have no principled objection to making discriminating judgments – welcome to the center. ...



Beau Weston

Look up Vietnam and tell me that we havent won. No one said that it is pretty. But the war strategy especially the troop surge was successful.
No one said it was a great victory but it wasnt a loss or poor war strategy. Poor post war strategy no doubt. there is a difference.

The troop casualties are miniscule compared to prior wars.

Now I'll help you with your liberal agenda...

Talk about the soldiers coming back with real f.ucked up injuries.

The ironic part of this thread is what is contained in the original link. The thinking of the enemy yet there is such a rush to defend the "innocent" who may not even be innocent.

I have to admit that I don't lose a minute of sleep worrying about these people. I just wish that we had a facility closer to the arctic circle to store them in. As ice cubes. Thaw them out when we figure out what to do with them. or maybe we should just turn them loose in Cuba like Castro did to us. Kinda like a reverse Scarface.

The "world" is not looking out for AMERICA's best interests. As I said in a previous post, please send them to my house. I'm afraid the Govt. isn't looking out for America's best interest either.

We are in charge of Afghanistan?
There is a government there?

There is a government in Kabul... not Afghanistan.

No one is in charge of that country.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth...with the caveat that there be reasonable certainty that retribution is being served upon the deserving party as opposed to the truly innocent.... how many of the Gitmo detainees are truly innocent?... I have no idea

Why is everyone who wanted the troops out of Iraq turning a blind eye towards Afghanistan? Code Pink anyone?

No one is turning a blind eye.
It has turned out to be a giant frggn mess.
Just like it always has been for anyone trying
to tame this country of clans.

And it spills into Pakistan. Its scary.
Blind eye?