Home » War on Guantanamo

Comments

War on Guantanamo — 16 Comments

  1. Nothing good can come from this. Here is the fundamental difference: the Left believes in doing the cops-and-robbers thing with terrorists; others believe we are at war and those rules apply. If the rules of evidence and discovery are to be observed, then our intelligence forces (what remain of them) are not going to want to stick their necks out, lest their ways and means be exposed. And if the intelligence capabilities of other nations help to track down and apprehend terrorists, those nations are not going to want to expose their ways and means. This is gridlock, and only lawyers can be happy about this outcome.

    Our progress towards civilizational suicide is proceeding right on track…

  2. Obama is showing the same weakness that Clinton did.How can we not expect the same results?
    BTW,where was Ms.Clinton on 9-11 when she was supposed to be at a meeting at the Capitol with Laura Bush and Ted Kennedy.She never missed her meetings.They were there,she was not.
    Why?Does anyone know?This is a sincere question.

  3. My interpretation of the Geneva Convention was that illegal combatants (along with mercenaries) are not covered by it. Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court is not known for interpreting the law in any coherent fashion (Like – oh, say, Craig v. Boren, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United States, Bowers v. Hardwick, Washington v. Glucksberg, Cohen v. California, New York Times v. United States, Boumediene v. Bush and Kelo v. City of New London).

    – G

  4. In the meantime, how about extraditing al-Nashiri to Yemen, where he already drew the death penalty in 2004 when he was tried in absentia for the Cole bombing?

    Because they will let him go.

  5. We’re so screwed.

    But this just goes to show that the Left is on the side of our enemies. Nothing less explains this insanity. God damn them.

    I saw the World Trade Center implode. I saw thousands of our people butchered. I hope Hussein roasts in hell.

  6. Obviously there are many reasons for Gitmo. Some of the people are still there because their home countries won’t take them back or if they will the chances are they they would be subjected to REAL torture if shipped back. Of course several countries in Europe have agreed to take some of them but only after extensive investigation and interviews to determine they are NOT terrorists. I am assuming these interviews will not include waterboarding.

    Of course I find it laughable that they want to close Gitmo and move them into the US prison system. I’m know we can all feel warm and fuzzily assured that when they are they will continue to be treated to several culturally and religiously appropriate choices for every meal. We can also be assured the correctional guards at these US facilities will treat the Koran with all the deference it deserves. Yeah right.

    I proposed a solution to the Bush administration to implement before he left office that should have satisfied the libs and saved tons of money in the long run. Bring them all to the states and buy them convenience stores in Pelosi’s district in San Francisco and around Hyde Park in Chicago. They would have felt right at home and they could have become contributing members of society. It’s too bad no one went for it – I would have traveled great distances just to hear, “Would you like a detonator or some primer cord with that Slurpee?”

  7. Damn it … to bad the Republicans concluded the primary with such poor choices. I still think McCain is border-line senile, and Palin is just a mumbling ignoramus … wish Giuliani and Lieberman could have marched to the top.

    When I heard Obama evolving toward my position by saying he would go after operatives in Pakistan, the contrary now seems evident.

    BTW, now A. Q. Khan is a free man in Pakistan … we need to nab that fellow and water board his ass hard hard .. one of the very few cases where water boarding, as at least an option, would warrant a judicial nod or presidential order .. but probably not from The One currently holding that office.

  8. Trying these barbarians in a civilian court is not only going to deliver secret information into their hands, but it places the prosecutors, judges, jurors and their families under the threat of retribution from the terrorists’ friends and allies.

    There are no rules that they play by except to kill whoever gets in their way……as painfully and agonizingly as possible. That is why they are called terrorists. But we are supposed to accord them all the advantages of POWs and/or U.S. citizens. Why are liberals so blind to the consequences of their oh, so PC ideas.

  9. James Taranto (WSJ Online) had this to say about it:

    This points to perhaps the biggest error the Bush administration made in its detention policy: placing a heavy emphasis on war-crimes trials — “bringing terrorists to justice” — as opposed to detention for the purpose of keeping them off the battlefield. The administration thereby invited comparisons with the civilian criminal-justice system, with its solicitous attitude toward the rights of the accused. The Bush administration’s law-enforcement mindset probably hindered national security, and almost certainly would have done so eventually without a change in policy.

    Many Guantanamo detainees are dangerous but cannot be prosecuted, even in a military commission, because of a lack of evidence that they have committed specific crimes. Had the commission trials proceeded on schedule — and we have the Supreme Court to thank for delaying them this long — at some point the Bush administration would have faced a political problem in that it would have had to explain why the worst of the worst were getting trials while the merely worse of the worst were being held forever without charges.

    As far as we know, top Bush officials were oblivious to this problem. We made the point to then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at a Wall Street Journal editorial board meeting in September 2006, and he showed no sign of comprehension. President Bush’s public comments around the same time, in which he said he wanted to close Guantanamo after the military commissions had done their work, suggest he also did not understand it.

    We’re so screwed. I’m in NYC, thinking seriously of relocating, though I would hate to. I do love the city, even if she is filled with moonbats.

  10. Beverly,

    It would not have made a bit of difference had Bush mentioned only detainment of illegal combatants. The people who oppose Guantamo believe the prisoners are innocent of everything, and they all say, “but you can’t keep them forever.”

    The outrage in Germany is not based on legal distinctions. The few times I have seen the legal issues discussed here, there was a big yawn from the public. Bush was bad, and that poor, unemployed young man who went to Pakistan to deepen his understanding of the Koran was a victim of the unilateralist, fundamentalist evil man in the White House.

  11. When they close Gitmo they should send these clowns to where ever they keep Hannibal Lechter, with a supply of Fava Beans and Chianti.

  12. I made an interesting observation today while watching the news.

    It seems that Biden is now warning Iran that the US reserves the right to pre-emptive action…..

    Wasn’t that kind of, ya know, a component of the Bush doctrine?

    Regarding Gitmo inmates being held forever, the allies held some of the Nazi’s in prison for decades after WWII ended.

    Yes, you can hold them forever – ar at least til the f%ckers die.

  13. Seen elsewhere, the Clint Eastwood Man with No Name approach: “Close Gitmo, end the military tribunals, prepare 250 coffins.”

  14. Neomythus,

    Looking at McCain’s mother I am pretty sure no one in that family has to worry too much about the “senility” gene. That being said, I’m not sure on a lot of issues McCain would have been a lot better than Obama. But at least he has a respect for the military and is somewhat more fiscally responsible than Obama. Sara Palin may not be polished enough for the “inside the beltway crowd” but she is smart and willing to take on the status quo. I liked Thompson (the true conservative in the crowd) but he got in too late. I liked Romney – but I think his Mormonism made him even a longer shot than Obama. In fact I think the liberal left who lectured us that if we didn’t support Obama we were racist had no problem vilifying Palin because of how she chose to live her life AS A WOMAN and Romney for being part of a religion they represented as little more than a cult. Once again an amazing example of intellectual arrogance combined with ignorant stupidity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>