Weird Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 "But many nations have resisted Bush administration efforts to repatriate the prisoners back home" Let's all hold hands and sing. Words can stop bomb blasts. Hide under the bed and be scared like a good little Republican... If the people in Gitmo were guilty of something' date=' they'd be tried by now, since the US is desperate to have at least a couple of convictions (still waiting on those ). Why do Republicans claim to love America, but hate all she stands for? We have an accepted way of dealing with people whom we do not have enough untainted evidence to convict: we release them. Some of the people we release are guilty, and some are very dangerous: Mafia bosses, murderers, rapists, people who beat up their spouses or molest their children. We have always thought that maintaining our commitment to the rule of law meant that despite these dangers, we should not lock people up if we don't have evidence against them that's admissible in court. That's what decent societies do. Cheers, SD[/quote'] Nice post Yes, nice and rediculous. So where exactly do you plan to put the 'freed' people who their own countries won't accept? Wait, why do I bother with people who won't even read anyway. We have SD who uses any chance he has to bash Republicans and the USA and Faustian who can't see past his own nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rchapstick Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 If the people in Gitmo were guilty of something' date=' they'd be tried by now, since the US is desperate to have at least a couple of convictions (still waiting on those ). Why do Republicans claim to love America, but hate all she stands for?[/quote'] As usual you post utter garbage. Trials expose information. We're in a war where our enemies will use that information against us. You are not quite stupid enough to be unable to understand this simple point. You pretend to be that stupid because you hate America and want to see her harmed by savages. There have already been convictions. Again, you know this but you lie out of hatred for America. When you talk about Republicans you are projecting. rogie, why is your undies tied up in such a knot? Didn't they teach you in grade school that certain countries arrested people but never bring them to trial whereas we in 'Ameria' (USA) are different? We arrest and then bring them to trial. That is the difference between them and us. What you are saying is we are no different then them. Are you one of them? Close Gitmo? America will regain the respect of countries? What the hell are you on BT? Some of that ya dong I am guessing. So you believe it is okay for the government to arrest people and imprison them indefinitely? If you got falsely arrested, would you want to live the rest of your life in prison? If I was suspected of terrorism then hell yeah. If it is such a great policy YF, then why do you suppose these prisoners are being held in Cuba, rather than the USA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faustian Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 So what's hard about just closing it and giving the inmates asylum? Where? Your house? That is the funniest post I have read on this site yet. Funny and ironic. Umm, that's what you call comedy? Jeez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faustian Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 "But many nations have resisted Bush administration efforts to repatriate the prisoners back home" Let's all hold hands and sing. Words can stop bomb blasts. Hide under the bed and be scared like a good little Republican... If the people in Gitmo were guilty of something' date=' they'd be tried by now, since the US is desperate to have at least a couple of convictions (still waiting on those ). Why do Republicans claim to love America, but hate all she stands for? We have an accepted way of dealing with people whom we do not have enough untainted evidence to convict: we release them. Some of the people we release are guilty, and some are very dangerous: Mafia bosses, murderers, rapists, people who beat up their spouses or molest their children. We have always thought that maintaining our commitment to the rule of law meant that despite these dangers, we should not lock people up if we don't have evidence against them that's admissible in court. That's what decent societies do. Cheers, SD[/quote'] Nice post Yes, nice and rediculous. So where exactly do you plan to put the 'freed' people who their own countries won't accept? Wait, why do I bother with people who won't even read anyway. We have SD who uses any chance he has to bash Republicans and the USA and Faustian who can't see past his own nose. You're so right. I'm a psychoanalyst (eclectic), so what would I know about anything? Well done weird. Your qualifications are........? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristianTroy Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 There is a difference between being 'suspected' and actually being a terrorist. Exactly, regardless if the inmate is a farmer, a book keeper or a doctor, they are held hostage for allegations the USA has no proof for. Human rights been kicked in the ass and I still can't believe that something like this could exist in our times. If 16 Americans would bring down the eiffel tower in Paris, Would the French have the right to hold hundreds of americans hostage? I guess not! If you catch a real terrorist and torture him this might not be political correct but it is probably necessary to beat the time factor and avoid the death of thousands of people. However, torturing people to find out if they are terrorists is a crime. None of the not guilty inmates will ever be able to live a normal life again. Barrack Obama most likely has all the insight people are conspiring about, he would not release prisoners if he would suspect a threat coming from them. All this is based on 9/11 where only 21% of all americans believe the official story and the number keeps decreasing. Mysterious things happenend this day, Mohamad Atta has been reported alive and Osama Bin Laden is still broadcasting messages around the globe. Given all the intelligence of the agencies I find it hard to believe they wouldn't be able to catch him in almost 8 years. They found Saddam because they wanted to, the question is if they really want to find and convict Osama? Time will tell if this is an heroic or a black chapter in American History. It is time for rehabilitation and i believe Rockstar President has the right skin color to help with that. The world was positively surprised and I am sure he will have it a lot easier to reactivate American allies to clean up the mess. I hope he is as good as everyone thinks he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted January 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 He's going to have a very tough time, since so many people expect him to be a miracle worker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainsail Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 If I was suspected of terrorism then hell yeah. Probably the most accurate analogy would be if YF was in LOS and someone turned him in for the reward of 100K Baht (We were offering $5KUS in Afghanistan) for slandering HMTK and he was thrown in Thai jail under the same circumstances. No habeas corpus; no trial; not told his charges and held indefinitely. If the Thais were offering 100K Baht rewards to Thais to turn in Farang under those circumstances (no proof required, just hearsay) then do you think that would occur? Everyone wants dangerous and guilty people to be locked up or executed. I don't think anyone disputes that. What we question are the methods that were used and the abandonment of the very principals that we are fighting for. If America abandons Habeas Corpus and the rule of law then who won the war on terror? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainsail Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 I just ran the currency conversion out of curiosity. $5K US in Afghan value equals THB 174,791. Heck, I might even turn in YF for that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Everyone wants dangerous and guilty people to be locked up or executed. I don't think anyone disputes that. What we question are the methods that were used and the abandonment of the very principals that we are fighting for. If America abandons Habeas Corpus and the rule of law then who won the war on terror? This is the exact same false and trivial line you were spouting off when Gitmo first opened. You pretend to have learned precisely nothing from the long debate over this issue because you have no integrity. Here's another national security issue that you and other lying leftists pretend to be incapable of learning anything about: Surveillance Court Upholds Bush on Warrantless Wiretapping Andy McCarthy National Review Online January 15, 2008 The New York Times reports that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review â?? the specialized federal appeals court created by the 1978 FISA statute to rule on questions involving national security surveillance â?? has reaffirmed that the President of the United States has inherent constitutional authority to monitor international communications without court permission. The power exists, the court is expected to reaffirm, even when the communications of American citizens are involved. The ruling, which was classified when made back in December, may be disclosed publicly as early as today. As the Times says (or, shall I say, concedes through gritted teeth?): "In validating the governmentâ??s wide authority to collect foreign intelligence, it may offer legal credence to the Bush administrationâ??s repeated assertions that the president has constitutional authority to act without specific court approval in ordering national security eavesdropping." Yeah, it may. It understates the case to say the Bush administration has been slandered for asserting this power â?? accused of shredding the Constitution and violating the principle that no one is above the law (even as Congress put itself above the law â?? the Constitution â?? by enacting and trying to enforce a statute, FISA, that sought to diminish the president's constitutional authority). It was never true. President Bush's Terrorist Surveillance Program â?? carried out by the NSA without court oversight, just as wartime presidents have always conducted national security surveillance without court oversight â?? always stood on strong authority, including a 2002 ruling from the same Foreign Intelligence Court of Review. I have argued in favor of the program's legality, here on NRO and elsewhere, more times than I can count. (See, e.g., here, here, here, here and here). By the way, Obama Attorney General nominee Eric Holder, who is having his confirmation hearing today, attacked the Bush administration in a speech six months ago for having, among other allegations, "approved secret electronic surveillance against American citizens," a strategy Holder said was among the â??needlessly abusive and unlawful practicesâ? that showed we in the United States had â??lost our way with regard to [our] commitment to the Constitution and to the rule of law.â? Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Everyone wants dangerous and guilty people to be locked up or executed. I don't think anyone disputes that. What we question are the methods that were used and the abandonment of the very principals that we are fighting for. If America abandons Habeas Corpus and the rule of law then who won the war on terror? This is the exact same false and trivial line you were spouting off when Gitmo first opened. You pretend to have learned precisely nothing from the long debate over this issue because you have no integrity. Here's another example of a national security issue that you and other lying leftists pretend to be incapable of learning anything about: Surveillance Court Upholds Bush on Warrantless Wiretapping Andy McCarthy National Review Online January 15' date=' 2008 The New York Times reports that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review â?? the specialized federal appeals court created by the 1978 FISA statute to rule on questions involving national security surveillance â?? has reaffirmed that the President of the United States has inherent constitutional authority to monitor international communications without court permission. The power exists, the court is expected to reaffirm, even when the communications of American citizens are involved. The ruling, which was classified when made back in December, may be disclosed publicly as early as today. As the Times says (or, shall I say, concedes through gritted teeth?): "In validating the governmentâ??s wide authority to collect foreign intelligence, it may offer legal credence to the Bush administrationâ??s repeated assertions that the president has constitutional authority to act without specific court approval in ordering national security eavesdropping." Yeah, it may. It understates the case to say the Bush administration has been slandered for asserting this power â?? accused of shredding the Constitution and violating the principle that no one is above the law (even as Congress put itself above the law â?? the Constitution â?? by enacting and trying to enforce a statute, FISA, that sought to diminish the president's constitutional authority). It was never true. President Bush's Terrorist Surveillance Program â?? carried out by the NSA without court oversight, just as wartime presidents have always conducted national security surveillance without court oversight â?? always stood on strong authority, including a 2002 ruling from the same Foreign Intelligence Court of Review. I have argued in favor of the program's legality, here on NRO and elsewhere, more times than I can count. (See, e.g., here, here, here, here and here). By the way, Obama Attorney General nominee Eric Holder, who is having his confirmation hearing today, attacked the Bush administration in a speech six months ago for having, among other allegations, "approved secret electronic surveillance against American citizens," a strategy Holder said was among the â??needlessly abusive and unlawful practicesâ? that showed we in the United States had â??lost our way with regard to [our'] commitment to the Constitution and to the rule of law.â? Link rogie, if the people don't want gitmo, should gitmo disappear under our form of government? How is gitmo's existence any difference then what the USSR had in Siberia during the Cold War? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.