U.S. is terrorist's best hope

[DamnYankee]

Not a fan of Dick Morris, but this is a rather interesting co-written piece on the closing of Gitmo and the prisoner dilemma.


THE TERRORISTS' BEST U.S. HOPE

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on May 23, 2009


THE TERRORISTS' BEST US HOPE - New York Post


President Obama is attacking a red herring when he defends his decision to send the worst terrorists at Guantanamo to United States prisons by saying the likelihood of escape from secure federal facilities is very low.

Of course it is. No rope ladder or prison laundry truck is likely to do the trick.

But when it comes to federal judges, we can't be so sure.

The reason we sent the terrorists to Guantanamo in the first place, rather than bring them onto US soil, was never really connected to worries that they might escape. The Bush administration feared, quite correctly, that if the inmates were in federal prisons on US territory, federal judges would take their pleas for constitutional rights more seriously.

That argument is still true, and bringing the terrorists to the United States puts us at risk that they could be freed by court order.

Some detainees will be tried in US courts on US soil. The first will be tried in New York.

This raises two problems: First, if he is acquitted, where will he be released? Likely, he'll just be invited to walk out the door and onto the streets of New York. Second, is there a danger of terrorist retaliation or attempts to interdict the trial with violence?

continued....

 

[HUGGY]

Not a fan of Dick Morris, but this is a rather interesting co-written piece on the closing of Gitmo and the prisoner dilemma.


THE TERRORISTS' BEST U.S. HOPE

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on May 23, 2009


THE TERRORISTS' BEST US HOPE - New York Post


President Obama is attacking a red herring when he defends his decision to send the worst terrorists at Guantanamo to United States prisons by saying the likelihood of escape from secure federal facilities is very low.

Of course it is. No rope ladder or prison laundry truck is likely to do the trick.

But when it comes to federal judges, we can't be so sure.

The reason we sent the terrorists to Guantanamo in the first place, rather than bring them onto US soil, was never really connected to worries that they might escape. The Bush administration feared, quite correctly, that if the inmates were in federal prisons on US territory, federal judges would take their pleas for constitutional rights more seriously.

That argument is still true, and bringing the terrorists to the United States puts us at risk that they could be freed by court order.

Some detainees will be tried in US courts on US soil. The first will be tried in New York.

This raises two problems: First, if he is acquitted, where will he be released? Likely, he'll just be invited to walk out the door and onto the streets of New York. Second, is there a danger of terrorist retaliation or attempts to interdict the trial with violence?

continued....

What's your point?

We convict drug cartel bosses all the time. You don't think the friggin colombians are dangerous?

You pussified punks need all your panzy asses kicked by school girls. You are pathetic!

 

[RodISHI]

Not a fan of Dick Morris, but this is a rather interesting co-written piece on the closing of Gitmo and the prisoner dilemma.


THE TERRORISTS' BEST U.S. HOPE

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on May 23, 2009


THE TERRORISTS' BEST US HOPE - New York Post


President Obama is attacking a red herring when he defends his decision to send the worst terrorists at Guantanamo to United States prisons by saying the likelihood of escape from secure federal facilities is very low.

Of course it is. No rope ladder or prison laundry truck is likely to do the trick.

But when it comes to federal judges, we can't be so sure.

The reason we sent the terrorists to Guantanamo in the first place, rather than bring them onto US soil, was never really connected to worries that they might escape. The Bush administration feared, quite correctly, that if the inmates were in federal prisons on US territory, federal judges would take their pleas for constitutional rights more seriously.

That argument is still true, and bringing the terrorists to the United States puts us at risk that they could be freed by court order.

Some detainees will be tried in US courts on US soil. The first will be tried in New York.

This raises two problems: First, if he is acquitted, where will he be released? Likely, he'll just be invited to walk out the door and onto the streets of New York. Second, is there a danger of terrorist retaliation or attempts to interdict the trial with violence?

continued....

There are some very valid points there. If they are going to move them and even take the chance of their release one day why can't they dump them back into Iraq or where they were captured?

 

[DamnYankee]

Not a fan of Dick Morris, but this is a rather interesting co-written piece on the closing of Gitmo and the prisoner dilemma.


THE TERRORISTS' BEST U.S. HOPE

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on May 23, 2009


THE TERRORISTS' BEST US HOPE - New York Post


President Obama is attacking a red herring when he defends his decision to send the worst terrorists at Guantanamo to United States prisons by saying the likelihood of escape from secure federal facilities is very low.

Of course it is. No rope ladder or prison laundry truck is likely to do the trick.

But when it comes to federal judges, we can't be so sure.

The reason we sent the terrorists to Guantanamo in the first place, rather than bring them onto US soil, was never really connected to worries that they might escape. The Bush administration feared, quite correctly, that if the inmates were in federal prisons on US territory, federal judges would take their pleas for constitutional rights more seriously.

That argument is still true, and bringing the terrorists to the United States puts us at risk that they could be freed by court order.

Some detainees will be tried in US courts on US soil. The first will be tried in New York.

This raises two problems: First, if he is acquitted, where will he be released? Likely, he'll just be invited to walk out the door and onto the streets of New York. Second, is there a danger of terrorist retaliation or attempts to interdict the trial with violence?

continued....

What's your point?

We convict drug cartel bosses all the time. You don't think the friggin colombians are dangerous?

You pussified punks need all your panzy asses kicked by school girls. You are pathetic!

My goodness.... I suspect my pussy could make you weep for mercy....

Now, the point, as I opened with, was that it was an interesting piece....

 

[DamnYankee]

Not a fan of Dick Morris, but this is a rather interesting co-written piece on the closing of Gitmo and the prisoner dilemma.


THE TERRORISTS' BEST U.S. HOPE

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on May 23, 2009


THE TERRORISTS' BEST US HOPE - New York Post


President Obama is attacking a red herring when he defends his decision to send the worst terrorists at Guantanamo to United States prisons by saying the likelihood of escape from secure federal facilities is very low.

Of course it is. No rope ladder or prison laundry truck is likely to do the trick.

But when it comes to federal judges, we can't be so sure.

The reason we sent the terrorists to Guantanamo in the first place, rather than bring them onto US soil, was never really connected to worries that they might escape. The Bush administration feared, quite correctly, that if the inmates were in federal prisons on US territory, federal judges would take their pleas for constitutional rights more seriously.

That argument is still true, and bringing the terrorists to the United States puts us at risk that they could be freed by court order.

Some detainees will be tried in US courts on US soil. The first will be tried in New York.

This raises two problems: First, if he is acquitted, where will he be released? Likely, he'll just be invited to walk out the door and onto the streets of New York. Second, is there a danger of terrorist retaliation or attempts to interdict the trial with violence?

continued....

There are some very valid points there. If they are going to move them and even take the chance of their release one day why can't they dump them back into Iraq or where they were captured?

I'd much rather have them wandering around, wherever they came from, than wandering around here.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Not a fan of Dick Morris, but this is a rather interesting co-written piece on the closing of Gitmo and the prisoner dilemma.


THE TERRORISTS' BEST U.S. HOPE

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on May 23, 2009


THE TERRORISTS' BEST US HOPE - New York Post


President Obama is attacking a red herring when he defends his decision to send the worst terrorists at Guantanamo to United States prisons by saying the likelihood of escape from secure federal facilities is very low.

Of course it is. No rope ladder or prison laundry truck is likely to do the trick.

But when it comes to federal judges, we can't be so sure.

The reason we sent the terrorists to Guantanamo in the first place, rather than bring them onto US soil, was never really connected to worries that they might escape. The Bush administration feared, quite correctly, that if the inmates were in federal prisons on US territory, federal judges would take their pleas for constitutional rights more seriously.

That argument is still true, and bringing the terrorists to the United States puts us at risk that they could be freed by court order.

Some detainees will be tried in US courts on US soil. The first will be tried in New York.

This raises two problems: First, if he is acquitted, where will he be released? Likely, he'll just be invited to walk out the door and onto the streets of New York. Second, is there a danger of terrorist retaliation or attempts to interdict the trial with violence?

continued....

I'm also not a fan of the toe-sucker... but he's exactly right here...

The entire premise of the left, with regard to revising the status of these terrorist to that of "VICTIM" is that they haven't been convicted of anything... thus detaining them is a crime; thus any stress induced in interrogating them is a crime; thus any interrogation of them is a function of trying to cull a "CONFESSION" from them... a confession or information which will lead them to being railroaded into a CONVICTION of a crime... and that crime being 'terrorism'...

When we're not interested in convicting them, we're not interested in trying them... our interests lay across two fundamental rhetorical folds...

First... we want to cull from them, information which will provide us the means to better prevent their comrades from attacking us, thus preventing the wholesale slaughter of innocent men, woman and children; which provides the means to better track down other Muslim terrrorist to either detain them and cull more information from THEM... or to kill them.

Second, to prvent their further participation in the aforementioned wholesale slaughter of innocent men, woman and children.

It's not a very complex problem... it's just well beyond the limited means of the addled minds of the ideological left.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Not a fan of Dick Morris, but this is a rather interesting co-written piece on the closing of Gitmo and the prisoner dilemma.


THE TERRORISTS' BEST U.S. HOPE

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on May 23, 2009


THE TERRORISTS' BEST US HOPE - New York Post


President Obama is attacking a red herring when he defends his decision to send the worst terrorists at Guantanamo to United States prisons by saying the likelihood of escape from secure federal facilities is very low.

Of course it is. No rope ladder or prison laundry truck is likely to do the trick.

But when it comes to federal judges, we can't be so sure.

The reason we sent the terrorists to Guantanamo in the first place, rather than bring them onto US soil, was never really connected to worries that they might escape. The Bush administration feared, quite correctly, that if the inmates were in federal prisons on US territory, federal judges would take their pleas for constitutional rights more seriously.

That argument is still true, and bringing the terrorists to the United States puts us at risk that they could be freed by court order.

Some detainees will be tried in US courts on US soil. The first will be tried in New York.

This raises two problems: First, if he is acquitted, where will he be released? Likely, he'll just be invited to walk out the door and onto the streets of New York. Second, is there a danger of terrorist retaliation or attempts to interdict the trial with violence?

continued....

There are some very valid points there. If they are going to move them and even take the chance of their release one day why can't they dump them back into Iraq or where they were captured?

A good question, which has a ready answer... To do so would provide the enemy with further means to attack us... thus such cannot serve the moral imperative of preventing such an attack.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Not a fan of Dick Morris, but this is a rather interesting co-written piece on the closing of Gitmo and the prisoner dilemma.


THE TERRORISTS' BEST U.S. HOPE

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on May 23, 2009


THE TERRORISTS' BEST US HOPE - New York Post


President Obama is attacking a red herring when he defends his decision to send the worst terrorists at Guantanamo to United States prisons by saying the likelihood of escape from secure federal facilities is very low.

Of course it is. No rope ladder or prison laundry truck is likely to do the trick.

But when it comes to federal judges, we can't be so sure.

The reason we sent the terrorists to Guantanamo in the first place, rather than bring them onto US soil, was never really connected to worries that they might escape. The Bush administration feared, quite correctly, that if the inmates were in federal prisons on US territory, federal judges would take their pleas for constitutional rights more seriously.

That argument is still true, and bringing the terrorists to the United States puts us at risk that they could be freed by court order.

Some detainees will be tried in US courts on US soil. The first will be tried in New York.

This raises two problems: First, if he is acquitted, where will he be released? Likely, he'll just be invited to walk out the door and onto the streets of New York. Second, is there a danger of terrorist retaliation or attempts to interdict the trial with violence?

continued....

What's your point?

We convict drug cartel bosses all the time. You don't think the friggin colombians are dangerous?

You pussified punks need all your panzy asses kicked by school girls. You are pathetic!

The distinction between criminality and war is the disparity of the severity of the respective crime... Sure the Columbian crime syndicates are real-live bad guys... murderers of nearly the highest order...

But they've not taken to organizing attacks upon the US which result in the deaths of 3000 innocent people and the loss of a trillion dollars in US GDP in the span of two hours; while declaring their further intent to do worse...

The good news here is that IF they did... they'd get the same treatment that the Islamic terrorist are getting; and for the same reason.

DUMBASS!

 

[HUGGY]

Not a fan of Dick Morris, but this is a rather interesting co-written piece on the closing of Gitmo and the prisoner dilemma.


THE TERRORISTS' BEST U.S. HOPE

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on May 23, 2009


THE TERRORISTS' BEST US HOPE - New York Post


President Obama is attacking a red herring when he defends his decision to send the worst terrorists at Guantanamo to United States prisons by saying the likelihood of escape from secure federal facilities is very low.

Of course it is. No rope ladder or prison laundry truck is likely to do the trick.

But when it comes to federal judges, we can't be so sure.

The reason we sent the terrorists to Guantanamo in the first place, rather than bring them onto US soil, was never really connected to worries that they might escape. The Bush administration feared, quite correctly, that if the inmates were in federal prisons on US territory, federal judges would take their pleas for constitutional rights more seriously.

That argument is still true, and bringing the terrorists to the United States puts us at risk that they could be freed by court order.

Some detainees will be tried in US courts on US soil. The first will be tried in New York.

This raises two problems: First, if he is acquitted, where will he be released? Likely, he'll just be invited to walk out the door and onto the streets of New York. Second, is there a danger of terrorist retaliation or attempts to interdict the trial with violence?

continued....

What's your point?

We convict drug cartel bosses all the time. You don't think the friggin colombians are dangerous?

You pussified punks need all your panzy asses kicked by school girls. You are pathetic!

The distinction between criminality and war is the disparity of the severity of the respective crime... Sure the Columbian crime syndicates are real-live bad guys... murderers of nearly the highest order...

But they've not taken to organizing attacks upon the US which result in the deaths of 3000 innocent people and the loss of a trillion dollars in US GDP in the span of two hours; while declaring their further intent to do worse...

The good news here is that IF they did... they'd get the same treatment that the Islamic terrorist are getting; and for the same reason.

DUMBASS!

Oh shut the fuck up you pompus blowhard. Bush was warned ...Rice was warned and they did NOTHING. It was not a sneak attack. It worked to Bush and Cheneys advantage and they knew it so they let it happen.

You and your holier than thou trying to look down on another american might make someone want to look you up. But I wouldn't do that. It's better to just put your arrogant ass on front street to show you as the traitor that you are.

If the Colombians acted here like they do at home there would be thousands of judges...prosecutors and dea agents laying in the streets.

We haven't stopped anything with how we treat anyone. You are such a moron. I spent over ten years of mylife smuggling and I know for a fact that if muslims or anyone else wanted to do harm to us there isn't a thing we could do to stop them. One of Attas room mates when he was training to fly was a fuckin FBI agent you twit.

No even when they KNEW it was coming your heros traded a chance for wealth over the lives of americans.

Now you have the gaul to fear monger over the chances of some taxi driver that was turned in by some war lord for ten grand. You are not an american you are a piece of shit.

 

[DamnYankee]

What's your point?

We convict drug cartel bosses all the time. You don't think the friggin colombians are dangerous?

You pussified punks need all your panzy asses kicked by school girls. You are pathetic!

The distinction between criminality and war is the disparity of the severity of the respective crime... Sure the Columbian crime syndicates are real-live bad guys... murderers of nearly the highest order...

But they've not taken to organizing attacks upon the US which result in the deaths of 3000 innocent people and the loss of a trillion dollars in US GDP in the span of two hours; while declaring their further intent to do worse...

The good news here is that IF they did... they'd get the same treatment that the Islamic terrorist are getting; and for the same reason.

DUMBASS!

Oh shut the fuck up you pompus blowhard. Bush was warned ...Rice was warned and they did NOTHING. It was not a sneak attack. It worked to Bush and Cheneys advantage and they knew it so they let it happen.

You and your holier than thou trying to look down on another american might make someone want to look you up. But I wouldn't do that. It's better to just put your arrogant ass on front street to show you as the traitor that you are.

If the Colombians acted here like they do at home there would be thousands of judges...prosecutors and dea agents laying in the streets.

We haven't stopped anything with how we treat anyone. You are such a moron. I spent over ten years of mylife smuggling and I know for a fact that if muslims or anyone else wanted to do harm to us there isn't a thing we could do to stop them. One of Attas room mates when he was training to fly was a fuckin FBI agent you twit.

No even when they KNEW it was coming your heros traded a chance for wealth over the lives of americans.

Now you have the gaul to fear monger over the chances of some taxi driver that was turned in by some war lord for ten grand. You are not an american you are a piece of shit.

Did you shout it when you were doin' it?

 

[Yurt]

I suspect my pussy could make you weep for mercy

hi, i'm davids

 

[DamnYankee]

Not a fan of Dick Morris, but this is a rather interesting co-written piece on the closing of Gitmo and the prisoner dilemma.


THE TERRORISTS' BEST U.S. HOPE

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on May 23, 2009


THE TERRORISTS' BEST US HOPE - New York Post


President Obama is attacking a red herring when he defends his decision to send the worst terrorists at Guantanamo to United States prisons by saying the likelihood of escape from secure federal facilities is very low.

Of course it is. No rope ladder or prison laundry truck is likely to do the trick.

But when it comes to federal judges, we can't be so sure.

The reason we sent the terrorists to Guantanamo in the first place, rather than bring them onto US soil, was never really connected to worries that they might escape. The Bush administration feared, quite correctly, that if the inmates were in federal prisons on US territory, federal judges would take their pleas for constitutional rights more seriously.

That argument is still true, and bringing the terrorists to the United States puts us at risk that they could be freed by court order.

Some detainees will be tried in US courts on US soil. The first will be tried in New York.

This raises two problems: First, if he is acquitted, where will he be released? Likely, he'll just be invited to walk out the door and onto the streets of New York. Second, is there a danger of terrorist retaliation or attempts to interdict the trial with violence?

continued....

I'm also not a fan of the toe-sucker... but he's exactly right here...

The entire premise of the left, with regard to revising the status of these terrorist to that of "VICTIM" is that they haven't been convicted of anything... thus detaining them is a crime; thus any stress induced in interrogating them is a crime; thus any interrogation of them is a function of trying to cull a "CONFESSION" from them... a confession or information which will lead them to being railroaded into a CONVICTION of a crime... and that crime being 'terrorism'...

When we're not interested in convicting them, we're not interested in trying them... our interests lay across two fundamental rhetorical folds...

First... we want to cull from them, information which will provide us the means to better prevent their comrades from attacking us, thus preventing the wholesale slaughter of innocent men, woman and children; which provides the means to better track down other Muslim terrrorist to either detain them and cull more information from THEM... or to kill them.

Second, to prvent their further participation in the aforementioned wholesale slaughter of innocent men, woman and children.

It's not a very complex problem... it's just well beyond the limited means of the addled minds of the ideological left.

Dayum.... Need a "thus" counter there....

Let me make it simple. We're not sure, so hold 'em.

 

[DamnYankee]

I suspect my pussy could make you weep for mercy

hi, i'm davids

That isn't what it says up there....

 

[Harry Dresden]

What's your point?

We convict drug cartel bosses all the time. You don't think the friggin colombians are dangerous?

You pussified punks need all your panzy asses kicked by school girls. You are pathetic!

The distinction between criminality and war is the disparity of the severity of the respective crime... Sure the Columbian crime syndicates are real-live bad guys... murderers of nearly the highest order...

But they've not taken to organizing attacks upon the US which result in the deaths of 3000 innocent people and the loss of a trillion dollars in US GDP in the span of two hours; while declaring their further intent to do worse...

The good news here is that IF they did... they'd get the same treatment that the Islamic terrorist are getting; and for the same reason.

DUMBASS!

Oh shut the fuck up you pompus blowhard. Bush was warned ...Rice was warned and they did NOTHING. It was not a sneak attack. It worked to Bush and Cheneys advantage and they knew it so they let it happen.

You and your holier than thou trying to look down on another american might make someone want to look you up. But I wouldn't do that. It's better to just put your arrogant ass on front street to show you as the traitor that you are.

If the Colombians acted here like they do at home there would be thousands of judges...prosecutors and dea agents laying in the streets.

We haven't stopped anything with how we treat anyone. You are such a moron. I spent over ten years of mylife smuggling and I know for a fact that if muslims or anyone else wanted to do harm to us there isn't a thing we could do to stop them. One of Attas room mates when he was training to fly was a fuckin FBI agent you twit.

No even when they KNEW it was coming your heros traded a chance for wealth over the lives of americans.

Now you have the gaul to fear monger over the chances of some taxi driver that was turned in by some war lord for ten grand. You are not an american you are a piece of shit.

so hug....what did you use to smuggle?...if you cant say or dont want to say....hey i understand....

 

[Lycurgus]

Not a fan of Dick Morris, but this is a rather interesting co-written piece on the closing of Gitmo and the prisoner dilemma.


THE TERRORISTS' BEST U.S. HOPE

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on May 23, 2009


THE TERRORISTS' BEST US HOPE - New York Post


President Obama is attacking a red herring when he defends his decision to send the worst terrorists at Guantanamo to United States prisons by saying the likelihood of escape from secure federal facilities is very low.

Of course it is. No rope ladder or prison laundry truck is likely to do the trick.

But when it comes to federal judges, we can't be so sure.

The reason we sent the terrorists to Guantanamo in the first place, rather than bring them onto US soil, was never really connected to worries that they might escape. The Bush administration feared, quite correctly, that if the inmates were in federal prisons on US territory, federal judges would take their pleas for constitutional rights more seriously.

That argument is still true, and bringing the terrorists to the United States puts us at risk that they could be freed by court order.

Some detainees will be tried in US courts on US soil. The first will be tried in New York.

This raises two problems: First, if he is acquitted, where will he be released? Likely, he'll just be invited to walk out the door and onto the streets of New York. Second, is there a danger of terrorist retaliation or attempts to interdict the trial with violence?

continued....

What's your point?

We convict drug cartel bosses all the time. You don't think the friggin colombians are dangerous?

You pussified punks need all your panzy asses kicked by school girls. You are pathetic!

All that really went right over your head, didn't it?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What's your point?

We convict drug cartel bosses all the time. You don't think the friggin colombians are dangerous?

You pussified punks need all your panzy asses kicked by school girls. You are pathetic!

The distinction between criminality and war is the disparity of the severity of the respective crime... Sure the Columbian crime syndicates are real-live bad guys... murderers of nearly the highest order...

But they've not taken to organizing attacks upon the US which result in the deaths of 3000 innocent people and the loss of a trillion dollars in US GDP in the span of two hours; while declaring their further intent to do worse...

The good news here is that IF they did... they'd get the same treatment that the Islamic terrorist are getting; and for the same reason.

DUMBASS!

Oh shut the fuck up you pompus blowhard. Bush was warned ...Rice was warned and they did NOTHING. It was not a sneak attack. It worked to Bush and Cheneys advantage and they knew it so they let it happen.

HEY! Great baseless projection...

Now here's a warning for you...

Today, there are cars traveling down a highway, one or more will violate the traffic signals, where there competing masses will occupy the same space as other cars who are obeying the traffic signals... There will be severe bodily injury and DEATH!

Each car will be painted with a primary color or a blend of primary colors; they will be properly licensed, but some... not insured... They will be citizens of the US, some properly licensed to drive... some not. They will be caucasion and of varying racial minorities...

YOU'VE BEEN WARNED! Now go STOP IT!!!...

LOL...

Of course this idiot will DEMAND that she doesn't have the means to stop this certain mayhem... that there is not enough information to prevent such... and due to her intellectual limitations, she'll be incapable of realizing that the would-be warnings to which she referred amounted to exactly the same thing...

She claims that Bush did 'nothing'... which is patently false... The Bush administration put out FAA warnings which stated that Arab men were reasonably believed to be plotting ti hijack commercial aircraft... the warning went out to air-carriers and the general public.

And of course, the US was maintaining the same posture on Islamic Terrorism as had the previously administration; that such was a function of criminality... and such requires WHAT? Such requires a crime to occur, BEFORE one can do anything about it.

Which is what we call the pre-911 paradigm... which is what the 'Audacity of HOPE for Change' has returned to...

You and your holier than thou trying to look down on another american might make someone want to look you up. But I wouldn't do that.

You're not worthy to look upon us... so that works... so you're doin' fine.

It's better to just put your arrogant ass on front street to show you as the traitor that you are.

Well good luck with that... (Anyone have any idea what that means? My Leftist drivel decoder ring is in the shop for routine maintenance...)

If the Colombians acted here like they do at home there would be thousands of judges...prosecutors and dea agents laying in the streets.

Well "IF" the Clumbians acted like that here... There'd be dead Columbians laying int he streets all over the world... including here.

We haven't stopped anything with how we treat anyone. You are such a moron. I spent over ten years of mylife smuggling and I know for a fact that if muslims or anyone else wanted to do harm to us there isn't a thing we could do to stop them.

Really?

Well the last time they sought to 'harm us' was September 11th, 2001... since then they've been busy hiding... so that little conclusion seems to be in need of revision; as it seems that if you throw a hundred or so thousand troops on their ass who go their, NOT to listen and understand them, but to KILL THEM WHERE THEY STAND... they tend to get preoccupied with survival and less concerned with driving jumbojets into skyscrapers... At least that's how history has worked it out.

One of Attas room mates when he was training to fly was a fuckin FBI agent you twit.

LOL... Yet another "Alternet fact" I'm guessin'... But hey.. source that one and I'll consider it... but reason requires that if that were an actual FACT, it would have been mentioned somewhere more notable than the secret websites of the 'insiders'... such as yourself.

No even when they KNEW it was coming your heros traded a chance for wealth over the lives of americans.

Well here's the thing... NO WHERE IN THE LUNATIC DIATRIBE have ya actually established that anyone 'knew it was coming'... See how that works? To make an assertion, such as you've done here; one needs to establish a BASIS for such... you've simply spewed a litany of disjointed nonsense... none of which actually stands as a basis for that absurd assertion.

Now you have the gaul to fear monger over the chances of some taxi driver that was turned in by some war lord for ten grand.

LOL... One presumes this is your psychotic way of informing us that the detainees in Gitmo are all innocent taxi drivers... who were, of course detained because a war lord was looking to pocket some US coin.

Which would mean that IN YOUR ESTIMATION... the US intelligence and the US Military blindly followed 'tips' from the war lords... thus these men and woman are a pack of idiots... which is the basis which has lead you to conclude:

You are not an american you are a piece of shit.

Which must mean that you, who feel CERTAIN that the US Military and their Intelligence networks are imbeciles, fools... Are the real Americans... The Smugglers amongst us; you people 'know the TRUTH!

LOL... Sweet Mother... ya can't make thus crap up!

Of course, it would be foolish to pay warlords 10 large for each innocent taxi driver... given that the same Military and Intelligence guys could just snatch innocent taxi drivers off the street, FOR FREE! Without even consulting the 'war lords...'

Which of course, doesn't serve reason... so... it seems unlikely that such is policy... perhaps you're using an isolated case and projecting that exception to represent 'established practice...' which is fairly typical of the imbecile...

Anything else??

DUMBASS

 

[HUGGY]

Wow, what big words you use. Big red words. For all of the volume there is no there ...there.

Like I said blowhard you blow....hard.

At least some of you neo cons understand the obvious. Our prisons are good enough. You Pubescent blowviate and sceach like a little school girl with false premise.

 

[neurosport]

Not a fan of Dick Morris, but this is a rather interesting co-written piece on the closing of Gitmo and the prisoner dilemma.


THE TERRORISTS' BEST U.S. HOPE

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on May 23, 2009


THE TERRORISTS' BEST US HOPE - New York Post


President Obama is attacking a red herring when he defends his decision to send the worst terrorists at Guantanamo to United States prisons by saying the likelihood of escape from secure federal facilities is very low.

Of course it is. No rope ladder or prison laundry truck is likely to do the trick.

But when it comes to federal judges, we can't be so sure.

The reason we sent the terrorists to Guantanamo in the first place, rather than bring them onto US soil, was never really connected to worries that they might escape. The Bush administration feared, quite correctly, that if the inmates were in federal prisons on US territory, federal judges would take their pleas for constitutional rights more seriously.

That argument is still true, and bringing the terrorists to the United States puts us at risk that they could be freed by court order.

Some detainees will be tried in US courts on US soil. The first will be tried in New York.

This raises two problems: First, if he is acquitted, where will he be released? Likely, he'll just be invited to walk out the door and onto the streets of New York. Second, is there a danger of terrorist retaliation or attempts to interdict the trial with violence?

continued....

i have a question - ARE YOU A FUCKING RETARD ?

 

[DiveCon]

The distinction between criminality and war is the disparity of the severity of the respective crime... Sure the Columbian crime syndicates are real-live bad guys... murderers of nearly the highest order...

But they've not taken to organizing attacks upon the US which result in the deaths of 3000 innocent people and the loss of a trillion dollars in US GDP in the span of two hours; while declaring their further intent to do worse...

The good news here is that IF they did... they'd get the same treatment that the Islamic terrorist are getting; and for the same reason.

DUMBASS!

Oh shut the fuck up you pompus blowhard. Bush was warned ...Rice was warned and they did NOTHING. It was not a sneak attack. It worked to Bush and Cheneys advantage and they knew it so they let it happen.

You and your holier than thou trying to look down on another american might make someone want to look you up. But I wouldn't do that. It's better to just put your arrogant ass on front street to show you as the traitor that you are.

If the Colombians acted here like they do at home there would be thousands of judges...prosecutors and dea agents laying in the streets.

We haven't stopped anything with how we treat anyone. You are such a moron. I spent over ten years of mylife smuggling and I know for a fact that if muslims or anyone else wanted to do harm to us there isn't a thing we could do to stop them. One of Attas room mates when he was training to fly was a fuckin FBI agent you twit.

No even when they KNEW it was coming your heros traded a chance for wealth over the lives of americans.

Now you have the gaul to fear monger over the chances of some taxi driver that was turned in by some war lord for ten grand. You are not an american you are a piece of shit.

so hug....what did you use to smuggle?...if you cant say or dont want to say....hey i understand....

always figured him for the criminal type
at least he admits it

 

[DamnYankee]

Not a fan of Dick Morris, but this is a rather interesting co-written piece on the closing of Gitmo and the prisoner dilemma.


THE TERRORISTS' BEST U.S. HOPE

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on May 23, 2009


THE TERRORISTS' BEST US HOPE - New York Post


President Obama is attacking a red herring when he defends his decision to send the worst terrorists at Guantanamo to United States prisons by saying the likelihood of escape from secure federal facilities is very low.

Of course it is. No rope ladder or prison laundry truck is likely to do the trick.

But when it comes to federal judges, we can't be so sure.

The reason we sent the terrorists to Guantanamo in the first place, rather than bring them onto US soil, was never really connected to worries that they might escape. The Bush administration feared, quite correctly, that if the inmates were in federal prisons on US territory, federal judges would take their pleas for constitutional rights more seriously.

That argument is still true, and bringing the terrorists to the United States puts us at risk that they could be freed by court order.

Some detainees will be tried in US courts on US soil. The first will be tried in New York.

This raises two problems: First, if he is acquitted, where will he be released? Likely, he'll just be invited to walk out the door and onto the streets of New York. Second, is there a danger of terrorist retaliation or attempts to interdict the trial with violence?

continued....

i have a question - ARE YOU A FUCKING RETARD ?

Well, gee.... NO FUCKING WAY