Noted "cut and run" lefty liberal says we should close Guantanamo...today

[Psychoblues]

They might as well be living in Topeka, Kansas as far as you are concerned?

How many are dying at GITMO?

They are gaining weight, their food is flown in, blessed by a cleric, they have their prayer mats, and a Koran.

They never had it so damn good

I'll pass that on.

 

[red states rule]

They might as well be living in Topeka, Kansas as far as you are concerned?




I'll pass that on.

Nice dodge job

The US treats its captives very well - something the left will never admit

To the left, America is always in the wrong

 

[Psychoblues]

Keep repeating that to yourself. Someday you will believe it.

Nice dodge job

The US treats its captives very well - something the left will never admit

To the left, America is always in the wrong

Damn, you're so easy!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[red states rule]

Keep repeating that to yourself. Someday you will believe it.




Damn, you're so easy!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I understand libs want to coddle and appease terrorists

The adults want them locked up or dead

 

[Psychoblues]

Your understanding is incorrect.

I understand libs want to coddle and appease terrorists

The adults want them locked up or dead

Are you an adult? You couldn't prove it by your description of your understandings.

 

[red states rule]

Your understanding is incorrect.




Are you an adult? You couldn't prove it by your description of your understandings.

You do have a hard time accepting the truth about the Dems wanting to appease terrorists brought out in the open

 

[Psychoblues]

I don't have a hard time at all accepting truth.

You do have a hard time accepting the truth about the Dems wanting to appease terrorists brought out in the open

You, obviously, wouldn't know truth if it hit you upside the head!!!!!!!!!

do you think Dems really are only interested in appeasing terrorists? You are so, so, soooooo fucking STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's OK. FauxNews has it's purpose!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[red states rule]

I don't have a hard time at all accepting truth.




You, obviously, wouldn't know truth if it hit you upside the head!!!!!!!!!

do you think Dems really are only interested in appeasing terrorists? You are so, so, soooooo fucking STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's OK. FauxNews has it's purpose!!!!!!!!!!!!

What have libs wanted other then appeasement and surrender?

Have the UN denounce their actions?

 

[Annie]

I don't have a hard time at all accepting truth.




You, obviously, wouldn't know truth if it hit you upside the head!!!!!!!!!

do you think Dems really are only interested in appeasing terrorists? You are so, so, soooooo fucking STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's OK. FauxNews has it's purpose!!!!!!!!!!!!

So what is that approach that the Democrats are advocating?

 

[Psychoblues]

The libs want justice, peace, responsibility in government, proper protection and engagement of our troops, continued (now the restoration of) respect of our nation and values, a day's pay for a day's work, etc.

What have libs wanted other then appeasement and surrender?

Have the UN denounce their actions?

I consider your last question incomprehensible. WTF are you trying to say? Let me repeat it for you: "Have the UN denounce their actions?"

 

[red states rule]

The libs want justice, peace, responsibility in government, proper protection and engagement of our troops, continued (now the restoration of) respect of our nation and values, a day's pay for a day's work, etc.




I consider your last question incomprehensible. WTF are you trying to say? Let me repeat it for you: "Have the UN denounce their actions?"

Libs want to allow the UN to decide when and how the US defends itself

Remember Kerry's "global test"?

 

[Gunny]

They might as well be living in Topeka, Kansas as far as you are concerned?




I'll pass that on.

If offered a choice between Topeka and GTMO, I'd ask what time the boat leaves for Cuba.

 

[red states rule]

Club GITMO - the terrorists tropical retreat from the stress of Jihad

 

[jillian]

"Soul-less" lawyers is in reference to those who don't give-a-damn about protections guarateed by the Constitution. That would imply believing in doing what's right. Defending the indefensible for money and notoriety is counter to that.

The reason to keep them there is so they are NOT allowed to hide behind the very law they wish to destroy. And treat them in a fashion impermissable under our laws? They're treated better than most incarcerated criminals in the US, and a sight better than most prisons around the world. Or should I remind you everytime our people are taken prisoner we get them back dead?

Actually, there isn't any money in representing these people. They're salaried and appointed to represent them. Nor is the issue notariety. These people could have very well-paying jobs in the private sector. They take the lesser salaries BECAUSE they believe in the Constitution's protections.

You assume that because someone has decided that these people are a threat that they are, actually, a threat. There is no adjudication of status. There is no accountability for the assessment. Government has never been known to be trustworthy.... hence the protections we have under the Constitution. Why should anyone trust Bush's assessment of someone being a threat? He's been wrong about everything else.

No one should be dragged off to jail and denied even the right to contact an attorney. We don't "disappear" people here. At least we never did. We're not a banana republic... yet. And with that comes greater responsibility to account for decision-making.

 

[red states rule]

Actually, there isn't any money in representing these people. They're salaried and appointed to represent them. Nor is the issue notariety. These people could have very well-paying jobs in the private sector. They take the lesser salaries BECAUSE they believe in the Constitution's protections.

You assume that because someone has decided that these people are a threat that they are, actually, a threat. There is no adjudication of status. There is no accountability for the assessment. Government has never been known to be trustworthy.... hence the protections we have under the Constitution. Why should anyone trust Bush's assessment of someone being a threat? He's been wrong about everything else.

No one should be dragged off to jail and denied even the right to contact an attorney. We don't "disappear" people here. At least we never did. We're not a banana republic... yet. And with that comes greater responsibility to account for decision-making.

This is why libs cannot be trusted with the defense and security of the US - they are more interested in protecting the "rights" of terrorists then defeating them

 

[jillian]

This is why libs cannot be trusted with the defense and security of the US - they are more interested in protecting the "rights" of terrorists then defeating them

I'm all for tossing the book at terrorists. I just don't think that determination should be made privately and without accountability or adjudication.

What happens when someone decides that YOU'RE a threat?

 

[Bullypulpit]

GITMO is keeping terrorists from killing people - where is the problem?

THe vast majority of the detainees at GITMO aren't terrorists...they weren't even picked up on the 'battlefield' by US troops. Most were turned over to US forces for a bounty by Afghan warlords, now drug lords, and were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Of those having affiliations with al Qaeda or the Taliban, those ties (cooks, laundry, house-keepers, etc) were tenuous, at best...rather like your grip on reality.

As for prosecuting them, the ringleaders and some of the players, in the 1994 attack on the WTC were captured by law enforcement agencies and successfully prosecuted under US law at the time. In the six years since 9/11, the Bush administration has yet to successfully capture, let alone prosecute, ANY of the ringleaders and major players in that horror. And that is with all of the abuses of power and undermining of the Constitution granted him by the mis-named "USA PATRIOT Act". Wasn't it Chimpy that pledged to bring Osama bin Laden in "dead or alive" only to later say he wasn't really that concerned about him?

 

[red states rule]

I'm all for tossing the book at terrorists. I just don't think that determination should be made privately and without accountability or adjudication.

What happens when someone decides that YOU'RE a threat?

Libs have felt that way about me for many years

Libs want to fight a PC war instead of trying to win the war. Terrorists do not have US Constitutional rights nor are they entitled to GC protections

 

[Bullypulpit]

This is why libs cannot be trusted with the defense and security of the US - they are more interested in protecting the "rights" of terrorists then defeating them

The rights granted us by the Constitution must apply to us all, and the writ of <i>habeas corpus</i> applies to all, regardless of citizenship.

<blockquote>he privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. - The US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9</blockquote>

Last I checked, there is no rebellion, unless you count Congressional Republicans against Bush, and we haven't been invaded by a hostile army.

 

[red states rule]

The rights granted us by the Constitution must apply to us all, and the writ of <i>habeas corpus</i> applies to all, regardless of citizenship.

<blockquote>he privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. - The US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9</blockquote>

Last I checked, there is no rebellion, unless you count Congressional Republicans against Bush, and we haven't been invaded by a hostile army.

So terrorists, caught on the battlefield, have US Constitutional rights?

My, I wonder how the US would have done allowing Nazi's to clutter the Federal Court system in WWII