If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Miami Herald)   Obama administration releases list of Guantanamo's 'indefinite detainees', 48 men who will never stand trial nor go free   (miamiherald.com) divider line 152
    More: Scary, Obama, Guantanamo, GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Obama administration, Human Rights First, Nashiri, Yale Law School, indefinite detention  
•       •       •

1996 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jun 2013 at 8:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



152 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-17 07:01:49 PM
Send them home. If they try to attack us kill them, if not let them herd goats or whatever if is those people do.
 
2013-06-17 07:07:20 PM
Dangerous people are released All The Goddamn Time.
 
2013-06-17 07:09:40 PM
There was supposed to be a TFA quote, there.  Eh well.
 
2013-06-17 07:15:35 PM
Yeah America! All those years of not making the "who tortures" list and the "keeps political prisioners" list are behind us!

/see haven't made the "people disappear" list, unless we are that good!
 
2013-06-17 07:16:24 PM

whither_apophis: Yeah America! All those years of not making the "who tortures" list and the "keeps political prisioners" list are behind us!

/see haven't made the "people disappear" list, unless we are that good!


/still haven't...
 
2013-06-17 07:20:19 PM
I assume the list includes Lex Luthor, General Zod and Braniac?

/I mean... these must be supercriminals, right?
 
2013-06-17 07:22:53 PM
Terrorists should be executed instead of being given free cable.
 
2013-06-17 07:46:13 PM
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
 
2013-06-17 07:52:44 PM
"Many of the detainees designated for prosecution can only be prosecuted in civilian court," she said. "So unless Congress lifts the restrictions banning their transfer they are effectively 'indefinite detainees.' "

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/17/3456267_p2/foia-suit-reveals-gu a ntanamos.html#storylink=cpy
Hmmm...
 
2013-06-17 07:54:16 PM
because the evidence was too tainted.

Torture. Go America!
 
2013-06-17 08:01:47 PM
johnbardi.edublogs.org
 
2013-06-17 08:12:02 PM

flucto: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss


Ummm no. The administration has tried to bring them to NYC for trial and the House GOP keeps raping the chicken.
 
2013-06-17 08:12:39 PM

cman: [johnbardi.edublogs.org image 525x301]


The names were assembled because the Obama administration was working to shut down GITMO and, of course, the Obama Administration actually released the names instead of hiding behind national security and ignoring it.

So, I would say this is most definitely change for good. Seeing as how the last Administration captured, tortured, and ignored the rights of these men which put us in this goddamn f*cked up situation to begin with.
 
2013-06-17 08:13:04 PM
Guantánamo is the most farked up thing we've done against everything we claim to stand for since the Japanese internment camps.
 
2013-06-17 08:14:01 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I assume the list includes Lex Luthor, General Zod and Braniac?

/I mean... these must be supercriminals, right?


Yup. Way too dangerous to be incarcerated on American soil, what with their scary Muslim supervillain powers.
 
2013-06-17 08:14:23 PM

djkutch: "Many of the detainees designated for prosecution can only be prosecuted in civilian court," she said. "So unless Congress lifts the restrictions banning their transfer they are effectively 'indefinite detainees.' "

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/17/3456267_p2/foia-suit-reveals-gu a ntanamos.html#storylink=cpy
Hmmm...


Not to mention that their detention and conditions pretty much guarantee that they would be released by any civilian court. They can't be tried here, or rather, if we do attempt to try them here, we essentially just have wait for their attorney to file for their release, and then we send them off, and then let them open up a civil suit for damages.

THIS is what the rush to make these folks "enemy combatants" has done. Not really a legal term, since there is no state of war, no nation state involved, and pretty much, folks declared that jurisprudence and legality were moot, so we have folks in Gitmo, we can't try, we can't let go, and folks cheered when this idiocy was first proposed, and now that the fallout has come around, folks are breaking out their shocked faces.

Had we made this a criminal matter, years ago, we could have them in Florence ADX quietly sitting in cells and going mad, or serving lesser sentences elsewhere, without fanfare, or actually try them and come to the conclusion that they were maybe not horrible folks who thirsted for the blood of innocents, but that's the thing: these folks can't really have a day in court, because the special status and circumstances of their capture and detention violated every damn principle of our legal system, and some of you mouth breathing idiots are STILL cheering this situation on.

Easier to stay out, than get out. And in this case, we could have avoided getting into this mess fairly easily, by simply following our own mandates and procedures. But no, that was boring. That was not EXCITING enough for folks, it didn't sing that we were going to the DANGER ZONE!  Had we just done some halfway decent police work, these cases would be fairly easy to discern, but nope, we mucked it all up, and now we have folks who we can't try, we can't release, and we're on the hook for caring for, and hiding away for the rest of their mortal days, and even China and the former Soviet states must be laughing, because they never apologized for their treatment of dissidents, they never double talked their way into convincing the public that it was for their own good that they flouted their own laws. So, please, O Brave Pioneers, explain to us how this is going to work in our favor in any realm of fashion, and still retain any semblance of honor or dignity?

In order to take the moral high ground, you must actually occupy that territory first, and in this case, where honor and dignity might be preserved, we're pretty much down to ritual suicide, Lambytoes...
 
2013-06-17 08:17:39 PM

Mugato: Guantánamo is the most farked up thing we've done against everything we claim to stand for since the Japanese internment camps.


I dunno...I'm sure  My Lai Massacre is up there somewhere.

fusillade762: Way too dangerous to be incarcerated on American soil, what with their scary Muslim supervillain powers.


This is the part that bothers me the most. ADX Florence has been used for terrorists for 20 years.
In fact, I'm pretty sure it has (and currently) housed foreign citizens captured on foreign soil that have been charged/convicted of terrorism.

The bedwetting terror that the GOP has displayed over bringing them to America is only laughable to the point where you realize the real reason is because we tortured these men and they would be released in our court of law.
 
2013-06-17 08:25:21 PM
Just farking execute them if we're going to keep up with this farce of supposed justice.

This is the same thing only over decades.
 
2013-06-17 08:26:13 PM

cman: [johnbardi.edublogs.org image 525x301]


Yes, because Obama should pull out his magical time machine and use his Jedi Mind Trick to cause Bush and Company to NOT use extraordinary rendition and ask for "enemy combatant" status be used on criminals?

It staggers the mind how obtuse and asinine one human can be, nearly 98% of the time. Please, let's make this partisan issue, because THIS list, it hasn't changed since the Bush years. And we've KNOWN that folks will never be able to be released, and have known this for some time, and oddly enough, some of us even realized this as soon as the "enemy combatant" tripe was bandied about, along with extraordinary rendition was used, that this was going to bite us on the ass. This is an issue that was created by a Congress and Administration that was afraid of due process, and now we are going to have to face that we've pooped in our own dog dish, but please, pass the buck along, because that will certainly help folks sleep better at night, instead of attempting to use some tiny modicum of thought.

What bothers me on this issue, is that for years, folks have been ignoring this very point. Again and again, but NOW it is suddenly an issue, and looking to blame someone, they turn to the guy who was left with this stinking pile of kuso, instead of the festering and diseased Shetland pony that shat it out, and left it in Gitmo all this time...
 
2013-06-17 08:29:13 PM

hubiestubert: cman: [johnbardi.edublogs.org image 525x301]

Yes, because Obama should pull out his magical time machine and use his Jedi Mind Trick to cause Bush and Company to NOT use extraordinary rendition and ask for "enemy combatant" status be used on criminals?

It staggers the mind how obtuse and asinine one human can be, nearly 98% of the time. Please, let's make this partisan issue, because THIS list, it hasn't changed since the Bush years. And we've KNOWN that folks will never be able to be released, and have known this for some time, and oddly enough, some of us even realized this as soon as the "enemy combatant" tripe was bandied about, along with extraordinary rendition was used, that this was going to bite us on the ass. This is an issue that was created by a Congress and Administration that was afraid of due process, and now we are going to have to face that we've pooped in our own dog dish, but please, pass the buck along, because that will certainly help folks sleep better at night, instead of attempting to use some tiny modicum of thought.

What bothers me on this issue, is that for years, folks have been ignoring this very point. Again and again, but NOW it is suddenly an issue, and looking to blame someone, they turn to the guy who was left with this stinking pile of kuso, instead of the festering and diseased Shetland pony that shat it out, and left it in Gitmo all this time...


WOW what undue rage

Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally, but I turned against it in 2006 BEFORE Bush left office.
 
2013-06-17 08:30:14 PM

cman: WOW what undue rage

Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally, but I turned against it in 2006 BEFORE Bush left office.


And yet here you are with an idiotic "haha Obama" post.
 
2013-06-17 08:31:36 PM

bulldg4life: cman: WOW what undue rage

Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally, but I turned against it in 2006 BEFORE Bush left office.

And yet here you are with an idiotic "haha Obama" post.


So that means I am automatically a Republican who believes that Obama has a time machine that he used to bring his mom for some unknown reason to Kenya to give birth to him?
 
2013-06-17 08:32:10 PM

cman: Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally, but I turned against it in 2006 BEFORE Bush left office.


How very rugged. Who'd you vote? Obama or Romney?
 
2013-06-17 08:35:19 PM

djkutch: cman: Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally, but I turned against it in 2006 BEFORE Bush left office.

How very rugged. Who'd you vote? Obama or Romney?


Gary Johnson

How about you?
 
2013-06-17 08:35:46 PM
The fact that you people agree with eachother about this travesty, yet bicker at eachother in some retarded missing contest is how this kind of thing happens.
 
2013-06-17 08:38:01 PM

cman: So that means I am automatically a Republican who believes that Obama has a time machine that he used to bring his mom for some unknown reason to Kenya to give birth to him?


No. It just means you are acting like an idiot looking to make a joke. So, you either have a ridiculously bad sense of humor or you are a silly partisan that knee jerks to blaming Obama for no apparent reason whatsoever.
 
2013-06-17 08:46:15 PM

cman: hubiestubert: cman: [johnbardi.edublogs.org image 525x301]

Yes, because Obama should pull out his magical time machine and use his Jedi Mind Trick to cause Bush and Company to NOT use extraordinary rendition and ask for "enemy combatant" status be used on criminals?

It staggers the mind how obtuse and asinine one human can be, nearly 98% of the time. Please, let's make this partisan issue, because THIS list, it hasn't changed since the Bush years. And we've KNOWN that folks will never be able to be released, and have known this for some time, and oddly enough, some of us even realized this as soon as the "enemy combatant" tripe was bandied about, along with extraordinary rendition was used, that this was going to bite us on the ass. This is an issue that was created by a Congress and Administration that was afraid of due process, and now we are going to have to face that we've pooped in our own dog dish, but please, pass the buck along, because that will certainly help folks sleep better at night, instead of attempting to use some tiny modicum of thought.

What bothers me on this issue, is that for years, folks have been ignoring this very point. Again and again, but NOW it is suddenly an issue, and looking to blame someone, they turn to the guy who was left with this stinking pile of kuso, instead of the festering and diseased Shetland pony that shat it out, and left it in Gitmo all this time...

WOW what undue rage

Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally, but I turned against it in 2006 BEFORE Bush left office.


Then you weren't paying attention when it was floated around, in pieces, long before then. PATRIOT was steaming pile. And that's the problem. It's not a Conservative or Liberal issue, it's the simple fact that blaming THIS President for the staggering stupidity of a Congress and Executive office that had NO idea how pursue folks that they'd gotten files upon and warnings about, time and again, is what is not not undue rage--it is illustrating the exact partisan bullsh*t that removed me from the GOP's ranks, because it's f*cking stupid. It has been about obstructionism for years, and GW's own idiocy and his own obstinacy about listening to anything said to him by anyone who had been appointed by Clinton got us into this mess, along with a terrified and cowed Congress that rubberstamped crap that had been circulating for years in pieces as authoritarian wet dreams, and folks said, "Yeah, let's DO THIS!"

And NOW they're upset about the NSA? NOW folks are upset about trying folks detained at Gitmo and realizing that they CAN'T be? You, simply put, in one single image, everything that has been wrong about this entire situation. From the start.

Had GW put down the partisan bullsh*t for a moment, and realized what he had been warned about, and oddly enough, Franks' policies were instituted a bit late to the game, since we had smoking rubble. I'm sorry, but in a bald faced move to shift attention away from the trainwreck that we've been facing with our justice system, not to mention the economic fallout, the privacy debacles, and the lives destroyed both here and abroad, you don't get to say, "Hey it was just a joke" because it only illustrates the culpability of citizens who've pretty much ignored this, and let it boil over on the backburner for years, and NOW folks want to point fingers? Just admit that you're a partisan hack who hasn't had the stones to think beyond the lines, and get it over with. Just admit that you haven't really thought about much other than My Side/Your Side.

And maybe if we'd been doing that more as a nation, we might not have gotten into this idiocy in the first place. WE did this. Not Obama. Not Bush. Not Cheney. Not Rumsfeld. WE ALL did this, and we are ALL culpable. We allowed this travesty to go forward, and now that we can't really deny what folks have been warning us about for over a f*cking decade, NOW folks want to point fingers?

Point them at yourselves. Point them at all of us, because we let it happened, and a LOT of folks cheered. Congrats. This is the result. Happy? We got EXACTLY what we wanted, and now we don't want it anymore, and we can't take it back.
 
2013-06-17 08:48:05 PM

cman: djkutch: cman: Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally, but I turned against it in 2006 BEFORE Bush left office.

How very rugged. Who'd you vote? Obama or Romney?

Gary Johnson

How about you?


The rational choice without throwing my vote away. But, I live in Arizona, so really I threw my vote away.

How about the Republicans get behind someone like Gary Johnson? If you voted for him, you're saying the Republicans didn't offer anyone you could consider. He may be a Republican, but the party didn't take him seriously.
 
2013-06-17 09:00:49 PM
You know it was just a couple of days ago that the House voted once again for not allowing the closure of GITMO.  Perhaps, if the members of the House - who, by virtue of shorter terms are more accessible to their constituents and thus more likely to push for what their constituents want - value fair trials for all, they should allow the facility to close and push for trials for every inmate.  I'm sure this legislation will be presented any minute now.  Yep, any minute now.  Huh.  I wonder if the problem is with the House or....the constituents.

Checks and balances are supposed to work.  Don't like indefinite detainees?  Push for change.  Don't stop until there is.  Or you can allow your representatives to keep ignoring you.
 
2013-06-17 09:00:59 PM

cman: Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally...


I love how you act like that will surprise anyone.
 
2013-06-17 09:02:22 PM
Guantanamo needs to go away, and soon.  Its very existence is an affront to America.
 
2013-06-17 09:02:33 PM
Give them all cancer and send them home.
 
2013-06-17 09:04:40 PM

bulldg4life: The names were assembled because the Obama administration was working to shut down GITMO and, of course, the Obama Administration actually released the names instead of hiding behind national security and ignoring it.


Let's be clear here - they were required to release the names, this wasn't some special act of transparency by Obama.

FTA:
The Miami Herald's Carol Rosenberg, with the assistance of the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at the Yale Law School, filed suit in federal court in Washington D.C., in March for the list under the Freedom of Information Act.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/17/3456267_p2/foia-suit-reveals-gu a ntanamos.html#storylink=cpy
 
2013-06-17 09:04:41 PM

djkutch: The rational choice without throwing my vote away.




I don't understand why people do this.
You should vote for who you want to win, not who a political party says has a winning chance.
 
2013-06-17 09:05:12 PM
Farking Bush!

/Oh wait...
 
2013-06-17 09:10:58 PM

gadian: You know it was just a couple of days ago that the House voted once again for not allowing the closure of GITMO.  Perhaps, if the members of the House - who, by virtue of shorter terms are more accessible to their constituents and thus more likely to push for what their constituents want - value fair trials for all, they should allow the facility to close and push for trials for every inmate.  I'm sure this legislation will be presented any minute now.  Yep, any minute now.  Huh.  I wonder if the problem is with the House or....the constituents.

Checks and balances are supposed to work.  Don't like indefinite detainees?  Push for change.  Don't stop until there is.  Or you can allow your representatives to keep ignoring you.


I'm waiting for Obama to say "As Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, I am ordering all military personnel to unlock the cells, and then get on a plane out of Guantanamo. I may not be able to close it, but I can make damn sure that there's nobody there to operate it. Now the base and prisoners are Cuba's problem. Good night, and God Bless America."
 
2013-06-17 09:13:36 PM

Uzzah: I'm waiting for Obama to say "As Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, I am ordering all military personnel to unlock the cells, and then get on a plane out of Guantanamo. I may not be able to close it, but I can make damn sure that there's nobody there to operate it. Now the base and prisoners are Cuba's problem. Good night, and God Bless America."


That would be awesome.  I can just imagine the heads exploding from that particular bit of trolling.
 
2013-06-17 09:15:14 PM
Pardon and release. Obama has the power he has the touch
 
2013-06-17 09:15:53 PM

Phony_Soldier: Farking Bush!

/Oh wait...


Nope, it's the recent congresses that have been too chickenshiat to sign off on moving the detainees to the US for trial.  The Obama administration has had a raging boner to try these guys in court, and congress gave them the finger.  Bush and the cowering post-9/11 congress started this ugly stone down the curling lane, true---but ever since then rightwing assholes have been out there with the little brooms making sure that the stone just keeps going and going because they know what we will find when we actually try these guys in court is going to be bad.  Like a finding a dead skunk under your porch bad.
 
2013-06-17 09:16:27 PM

cman: I was for the Patriot act originally


Disgusting.
 
2013-06-17 09:16:28 PM

The Why Not Guy: cman: Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally...

I love how you act like that will surprise anyone.


Nice cherry pickings there
 
2013-06-17 09:17:52 PM

way south: djkutch: The rational choice without throwing my vote away.

I don't understand why people do this.
You should vote for who you want to win, not who a political party says has a winning chance.


Unskewed polls called it for Romney. How'd that work out?

I voted for Obama because Romney would have been a disaster I didn't want to experience. Voting for Johnson would have been symbolic.
 
2013-06-17 09:18:35 PM

jehovahs witness protection: Terrorists should be executed instead of being given free cable.


You have evidence that they're terrorists beyond "They're in Gitmo, therefore they're guilty"?

Oh, wait, of course you don't. You're just a worthless shiat-and-quit troll.
 
2013-06-17 09:20:21 PM

cman: [johnbardi.edublogs.org image 525x301]


Hey look! The guy who TRIED TO CLOSE GITMO IN HIS FIRST TERM.

But since this ISN'T a dictatorship, he needs the Legislative Branch to support it, and THAT'S when the narrative began that these men weren't "common" criminals (like the Unabomber, Jeffery Dahmer, Richard Ramirez, Timothy McVeigh et al), but some kind of SUPER TERROR CRIMINALS who would IMMEDIATELY break out and convert all our women to Islamo-Fascism!

/not to make this a partisan issue
 
2013-06-17 09:20:46 PM

Hetfield: cman: I was for the Patriot act originally

Disgusting.


Look, he got better. Some people still haven't. Some people learn at a slower pace than others.

/Also, you're supposed to reward good behavior. Give him a treat when he does right. Don't yell at him for past mistakes, he doesn't understand why you're upset NOW.
 
2013-06-17 09:20:56 PM

cman: [johnbardi.edublogs.org image 525x301]


what the fark is actually wrong with you
 
2013-06-17 09:21:46 PM
Still can't find a tear in my beer
 
2013-06-17 09:23:21 PM
Bonzo_1116
Nope, it's the recent congresses that have been too chickenshiat to sign off on moving the detainees to the US for trial. The Obama administration has had a raging boner to try these guys in court, and congress gave them the finger.

Then the only remotely Constitutional thing to do would be to release them. That's what happens when people that you just know must be guilty of something can't be brought to trial. They walk.
 
2013-06-17 09:24:30 PM
So here's what I've heard:

Option 1: The War on Terror is actually "The Police Action on Terror".  These guys are criminals, who we have arrested.  Problem is that since we haven't been so hot about "proper chain of evidence" in the interests of preventing another 9/11, we can't win a trial.  They're (almost certainly) guilty, and we can prove it, but all the evidence we have to prove it is inadmissible or can't be stated publicly for fear of compromising intelligence operations.

Option 2: We're at war.  Under the Geneva Conventions, they're illegal combatants, and legally, we can give them a not-terribly fair trial, and legally shoot them as spies.  Also, legally, any civilian casualties are the fault of the unlawful combatants (see: francs-tireurs).*  Of course, this only tends to piss off EVERYONE, from the nearby civilians to the press at home.

Option 3: Wishy-washy.  We'd really prefer not to have the downsides of Option 1, and we REALLY want these guys locked up where they can't plot more attacks.  At the same time, just shooting them tends to be counter-productive.  So we capture the guys we can (and then give them not terribly fair and secret trials that don't end with us shooting them), drone the guys we can't in the interests of preventing another 9/11, and keep the guys we do capture in a deep, dark hole where they can't do us any harm.

We're pretty much doing Option 3.

*From wiki: The Geneva Conventions established new protocols, namely, according to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, francs-tireurs are entitled to prisoner-of-war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
 
2013-06-17 09:24:44 PM
djkutch
I voted for Obama because Romney would have been a disaster I didn't want to experience.

"All tactics and no strategy is noise before defeat" - Sun Tzu
 
2013-06-17 09:25:26 PM

cman: The Why Not Guy: cman: Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally...

I love how you act like that will surprise anyone.

Nice cherry pickings there


It's a statement you made.

Here. I'll quote the entirety of it:

"WOW what undue rage
Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally, but I turned against it in 2006 BEFORE Bush left office."


You were for the US PATRIOT Act, despite the fact that it had been shot down in pieces before 9/11 again and again, as too authoritarian, and too intrusive as measures go, and THEN when you saw it in action, you realized it was a bad idea, in practice.

So, essentially, you're admitting that you simply hadn't thought the whole thing through.

Which doesn't really surprise folks here all that much. It was a reactionary, panicked measure and cobbled together from the wet dream dribblings of authoritarian asshats who dislike privacy, dislike the limitations of our courts, and REALLY dislike any measure of checks and balances, but you were FOR it, before it actually got into practice. You just liked the idea. You liked the thought of being tough and with a Fed full of power, without a lot of oversight, but when put into practice, it was suddenly revealed to be the stinker that folks had said it was, long before it was signed into law, and who had been warning folks about since pieces of it were showing up in all sorts of bills as riders and addendum.

That's not cherry picking, that's simply noticing that you're a reactionary pile of kuso...
 
2013-06-17 09:26:45 PM

Hetfield: cman: I was for the Patriot act originally

Disgusting.


Just about all of our elected officials were for it, too.

And yet we still keep on voting for our favorite teams.

Disgusting.
 
2013-06-17 09:27:26 PM
This is yet another example of the evils of communist Cuba under the Castro family.

We should do something about these communists.
 
2013-06-17 09:28:23 PM

2wolves: flucto: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Ummm no. The administration has tried to bring them to NYC for trial and the House GOP keeps raping the chicken.


This.  And I wish someone would bathe the chicken every once in a while.
 
2013-06-17 09:29:54 PM

RanDomino: Bonzo_1116
Nope, it's the recent congresses that have been too chickenshiat to sign off on moving the detainees to the US for trial. The Obama administration has had a raging boner to try these guys in court, and congress gave them the finger.

Then the only remotely Constitutional thing to do would be to release them. That's what happens when people that you just know must be guilty of something can't be brought to trial. They walk.


Yep, they need to officially charge them and try them, or get off the pot.  There's ugly details, though---like these guys aren't US nationals, and some of their nominal home countries don't want them either, so if we just play catch and (illegally imprison) and release they won't have anyplace to go.  Like those Uighyr guys who ended up going to Bermuda or some shiat, because China didn't want them back

The whole thing was stupid from the get-go.
 
2013-06-17 09:31:48 PM
 
2013-06-17 09:31:59 PM

Bonzo_1116: Phony_Soldier: Farking Bush!

/Oh wait...

Nope, it's the recent congresses that have been too chickenshiat to sign off on moving the detainees to the US for trial.  The Obama administration has had a raging boner to try these guys in court, and congress gave them the finger.  Bush and the cowering post-9/11 congress started this ugly stone down the curling lane, true---but ever since then rightwing assholes have been out there with the little brooms making sure that the stone just keeps going and going because they know what we will find when we actually try these guys in court is going to be bad.  Like a finding a dead skunk under your porch bad.


One internet to you good sir for for a very excellent curling analogy.
 
2013-06-17 09:32:59 PM
We could send them to Syria.
 
2013-06-17 09:33:08 PM

hubiestubert: cman: The Why Not Guy: cman: Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally...

I love how you act like that will surprise anyone.

Nice cherry pickings there

It's a statement you made.

Here. I'll quote the entirety of it:

"WOW what undue rage
Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally, but I turned against it in 2006 BEFORE Bush left office."

You were for the US PATRIOT Act, despite the fact that it had been shot down in pieces before 9/11 again and again, as too authoritarian, and too intrusive as measures go, and THEN when you saw it in action, you realized it was a bad idea, in practice.

So, essentially, you're admitting that you simply hadn't thought the whole thing through.

Which doesn't really surprise folks here all that much. It was a reactionary, panicked measure and cobbled together from the wet dream dribblings of authoritarian asshats who dislike privacy, dislike the limitations of our courts, and REALLY dislike any measure of checks and balances, but you were FOR it, before it actually got into practice. You just liked the idea. You liked the thought of being tough and with a Fed full of power, without a lot of oversight, but when put into practice, it was suddenly revealed to be the stinker that folks had said it was, long before it was signed into law, and who had been warning folks about since pieces of it were showing up in all sorts of bills as riders and addendum.

That's not cherry picking, that's simply noticing that you're a reactionary pile of kuso...


Who gives a shiat if he once supported it? So care more about maintaining some smug sense of superiority rather than seeing more people that originally supported it change their minds and swing the political pendulum
enough to change it? I was always against it, bug I'm not goin to rub people's noses in it. People here will twit every which way to make excuses for the President who voted on the renewal and has embraced every facet of Executive power it confers, but heaven forbid some here admit they once supported it. I swear, I think some people would rather see this crap continue if changing it would look like a political defeat for their own party. It's farking pathetic.
 
2013-06-17 09:36:29 PM

Nabb1: Who gives a shiat if he once supported it? So care more about maintaining some smug sense of superiority rather than seeing more people that originally supported it change their minds and swing the political pendulum


Considering he just had to go with an Obama jab...it seems kind of silly to say "I supported it at first, but I'm totally better now".

He's knocking the Administration that tried to close GITMO while admitting that he originally supported the Administration that made it what it is today.

Does that seem just a tiny bit idiotic to you?
 
2013-06-17 09:37:15 PM
FTFA: According to the list, the men designated for indefinite detention are 26 Yemenis, 12 Afghans, 3 Saudis, 2 Kuwaitis, 2 Libyans, a Kenyan, a Moroccan and a Somali.

Well, at least Obama doesn't play favorites.

/ not serious
 
2013-06-17 09:43:00 PM

2wolves: flucto: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Ummm no. The administration has tried to bring them to NYC for trial and the House GOP keeps raping the chicken.


Excuses. If he truly wanted it done then it would be done.
I remember good old dubya. For all his stupidity if he wanted something done then it was done.
 
2013-06-17 09:44:14 PM

Nabb1: Who gives a shiat if he once supported it? So care more about maintaining some smug sense of superiority rather than seeing more people that originally supported it change their minds and swing the political pendulum


Perhaps if our Beamish Boy hadn't himself been trying to make a smug jape at someone who wasn't responsible for the mess we're in, and who openly admitted that he just simply hadn't thought things through, I might take his opinion a bit better. Instead, it's just the same partisan bullsh*t and dumbasshattery that we keep seeing. "My side!" "Your side!" Nope. WE let this happen, and collectively as a nation, we are going to have to figure something out, but instead, we've got a bunch of folks who simply haven't really thought their clever plans through, again and again, pointing fingers and not really doing much.

Yes. It makes me angry, because it's the same bullsh*t that got us into this mess: better be seen doing something, than something smart. And in the meantime, we're wasting a lot of time, money, and letting a good number of folks get killed because Congresscritters don't want to look stupid, so instead they'll just vote for stupid measures that do very little...
 
2013-06-17 09:44:56 PM
Bonzo_1116
like these guys aren't US nationals, and some of their nominal home countries don't want them either, so if we just play catch and (illegally imprison) and release they won't have anyplace to go. Like those Uighyr guys who ended up going to Bermuda or some shiat, because China didn't want them back

They could apply for asylum as political refugees. After all, with pardons they would have a clear criminal record. It would be worth it just to see the right-wing rage.
 
2013-06-17 09:48:27 PM

teenage mutant ninja rapist: 2wolves: flucto: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Ummm no. The administration has tried to bring them to NYC for trial and the House GOP keeps raping the chicken.

Excuses. If he truly wanted it done then it would be done.
I remember good old dubya. For all his stupidity if he wanted something done then it was done.


That's kind of how we got here, though.
 
2013-06-17 09:52:25 PM
Here's why it matters.

The Patriot Act didn't contain any surprises. All of the things that make it disgusting were on display, front and center. A lot of people, myself included, were saying "this is a really bad idea" and "you won't be so thrilled with all this Executive power when a Democrat is in the White House."

So why did people like cman change their minds? The Patriot Act sure didn't change, so it must be that they finally gave it some thought and decided they didn't like it so much.

Except that once something like the Patriot Act is in place, good luck getting rid of it. The time for that thought was BEFORE it was enacted, not years later.
 
2013-06-17 09:56:53 PM

Mugato: Guantánamo is the most farked up thing we've done against everything we claim to stand for since the Japanese internment camps.


We've never stood for the things we claim to stand for.  The history of the US is one long string of the world being disappointed with us as we lag decades behind in various areas of human rights, economic policies, and basic provision of welfare services such as universal healthcare.

You know how we always talk about how the rest of the country is dragging the South into the 20th century kicking and screaming?  We are to the rest of the civilized world what the South is to the rest of the US...except the rest of the world lacks the power to drag us anywhere, which somehow makes us the winners.  Or something.
 
2013-06-17 09:58:00 PM

Emposter: Mugato: Guantánamo is the most farked up thing we've done against everything we claim to stand for since the Japanese internment camps.

We've never stood for the things we claim to stand for.  The history of the US is one long string of the world being disappointed with us as we lag decades behind in various areas of human rights, economic policies, and basic provision of welfare services such as universal healthcare.

You know how we always talk about how the rest of the country is dragging the South into the 20th century kicking and screaming?  We are to the rest of the civilized world what the South is to the rest of the US...except the rest of the world lacks the power to drag us anywhere, which somehow makes us the winners.  Or something.


Errr...21st century, although really, they both kinda work.
 
2013-06-17 09:58:30 PM

2wolves: flucto: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Ummm no. The administration has tried to bring them to NYC for trial and the House GOP keeps raping the chicken.


Nice try 2wolves but the correct answer is both democrats and republican voted to keep gitmo open.
 
2013-06-17 10:01:42 PM
The existence of "indefinite detainees" is a blight on what should be a free country. If we can't charge them, then we should set them free. End of story.

Yet another legacy of the Bush administration.
 
2013-06-17 10:02:46 PM

RanDomino: Bonzo_1116
like these guys aren't US nationals, and some of their nominal home countries don't want them either, so if we just play catch and (illegally imprison) and release they won't have anyplace to go. Like those Uighyr guys who ended up going to Bermuda or some shiat, because China didn't want them back

They could apply for asylum as political refugees. After all, with pardons they would have a clear criminal record. It would be worth it just to see the right-wing rage.


I think the worst part is that these guys now have a legitimate beef with the US.  Blinding rage and strapping on the vest kind of anger.  It's too late to let a guy go after holding him for a week or two with an apology and bus fare back to Herat.  If they've been falsely imprisoned we actually owe them an *apology* and recompense for losing upwards of ten years of their lives in a cell.

Any of these guys could come back on the US with a massive civil lawsuit.
 
2013-06-17 10:06:32 PM

djkutch: way south: djkutch: The rational choice without throwing my vote away.

I don't understand why people do this.
You should vote for who you want to win, not who a political party says has a winning chance.

Unskewed polls called it for Romney. How'd that work out?

I voted for Obama because Romney would have been a disaster I didn't want to experience. Voting for Johnson would have been symbolic.


If more people turned their symbolic votes into actual support, maybe others would believe in the alternatives.
As it is you end up throwing your vote away on a man who only partially represents your ideals.

/Sometimes he doesn't represent them at all.
 
2013-06-17 10:06:40 PM

bullwrinkle: 2wolves: flucto: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Ummm no. The administration has tried to bring them to NYC for trial and the House GOP keeps raping the chicken.

Nice try 2wolves but the correct answer is both democrats and republican voted to keep gitmo open.


Anybody got a link to the most recent vote for Senate/House for this issue? (I think they've done it more than once.)  I want to know if there's biatches that needs to be primaried.
 
2013-06-17 10:07:45 PM
FTFA:
Amnesty International's Zeke Johnson called "fundamentally flawed" the notion of classifying captives as indefinite detainees. "Under international human rights law," he said, "all of the detainees should either be charged and fairly tried in federal court, or released."

Obama promise: I'll close GITMO.

Obama reality: took a dump on international law like a farking rogue, increasing sentiment of American hegemony, and probably inciting terrorist against us, just like Clinton did when he targeted that baby milk factory.
 
2013-06-17 10:11:55 PM

Nabb1: Who gives a shiat if he once supported it? So care more about maintaining some smug sense of superiority rather than seeing more people that originally supported it change their minds and swing the political pendulum
enough to change it? I was always against it, bug I'm not goin to rub people's noses in it. People here will twit every which way to make excuses for the President who voted on the renewal and has embraced every facet of Executive power it confers, but heaven forbid some here admit they once supported it. I swear, I think some people would rather see this crap continue if changing it would look like a political defeat for their own party. It's farking pathetic.


www.motherjones.com

Being for it, then against it means there's a good chance that one will some day be for it again on a whim.
 
2013-06-17 10:12:54 PM
Jesus... just airdrop them over whatever hole we plucked them from.

Sure, it's fifty hardened America-hating masterminds.  That's bad.

But, they'd be landing in places with thousands if not tens-of-thousands of equally America-hating terrorists already.  50 more is just sorta a rounding error in the whole deal.
 
2013-06-17 10:13:05 PM

way south: djkutch: way south: djkutch: The rational choice without throwing my vote away.

I don't understand why people do this.
You should vote for who you want to win, not who a political party says has a winning chance.

Unskewed polls called it for Romney. How'd that work out?

I voted for Obama because Romney would have been a disaster I didn't want to experience. Voting for Johnson would have been symbolic.

If more people turned their symbolic votes into actual support, maybe others would believe in the alternatives.
As it is you end up throwing your vote away on a man who only partially represents your ideals.

/Sometimes he doesn't represent them at all.


Oh good, another person who think's we live in a parliamentary system.
 
2013-06-17 10:14:14 PM
Lots of other countries have Gulags like Gitmo.

North Korea, Syria, Russia...

Bonzo_1116: RanDomino: Bonzo_1116
like these guys aren't US nationals, and some of their nominal home countries don't want them either, so if we just play catch and (illegally imprison) and release they won't have anyplace to go. Like those Uighyr guys who ended up going to Bermuda or some shiat, because China didn't want them back

They could apply for asylum as political refugees. After all, with pardons they would have a clear criminal record. It would be worth it just to see the right-wing rage.

I think the worst part is that these guys now have a legitimate beef with the US.  Blinding rage and strapping on the vest kind of anger.  It's too late to let a guy go after holding him for a week or two with an apology and bus fare back to Herat.  If they've been falsely imprisoned we actually owe them an *apology* and recompense for losing upwards of ten years of their lives in a cell.

Any of these guys could come back on the US with a massive civil lawsuit.

 
2013-06-17 10:15:24 PM

teenage mutant ninja rapist: I remember good old dubya. For all his stupidity if he wanted something done then it was done.


He didn't have a congress obstructing everything he tried to do. He had a 90+ approval rating immediately after the worst terrorist attack this country has seen.
 
2013-06-17 10:16:19 PM

BSABSVR: Being for it, then against it means there's a good chance that one will some day be for it again on a whim.


Well, it seems you can perhaps trust 1/3 of Democrats and 1/4 of Republicans to be consistent, and not put team first.

More than I thought, really.
 
2013-06-17 10:17:33 PM

HempHead: Lots of other countries have Gulags like Gitmo.

North Korea, Syria, Russia...


USA is the #1 third world country in several categories!
 
2013-06-17 10:20:58 PM

sendtodave: BSABSVR: Being for it, then against it means there's a good chance that one will some day be for it again on a whim.

Well, it seems you can perhaps trust 1/3 of Democrats and 1/4 of Republicans to be consistent, and not put team first.

More than I thought, really.


The problem being that at any given point, roughly half the country is going to be for it, thereby ensuring that despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, it's not going to go anywhere any time soon.
 
2013-06-17 10:22:10 PM

way south: djkutch: way south: djkutch: The rational choice without throwing my vote away.

I don't understand why people do this.
You should vote for who you want to win, not who a political party says has a winning chance.

Unskewed polls called it for Romney. How'd that work out?

I voted for Obama because Romney would have been a disaster I didn't want to experience. Voting for Johnson would have been symbolic.

If more people turned their symbolic votes into actual support, maybe others would believe in the alternatives.
As it is you end up throwing your vote away on a man who only partially represents your ideals.

/Sometimes he doesn't represent them at all.


I have to be honest, the only thing that fired me up about Gary was pot. My choices are still Obama and Romney. Obama represented far more of my ideals, if even only partially. Obama was the right of center moderate for me.
 
2013-06-17 10:25:14 PM

BSABSVR: sendtodave: BSABSVR: Being for it, then against it means there's a good chance that one will some day be for it again on a whim.

Well, it seems you can perhaps trust 1/3 of Democrats and 1/4 of Republicans to be consistent, and not put team first.

More than I thought, really.

The problem being that at any given point, roughly half the country is going to be for it, thereby ensuring that despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, it's not going to go anywhere any time soon.


Hmm.

What was the percentage of colonists still loyal to King George?
 
2013-06-17 10:26:26 PM

KeatingFive: Hetfield: cman: I was for the Patriot act originally

Disgusting.

Look, he got better. Some people still haven't. Some people learn at a slower pace than others.

/Also, you're supposed to reward good behavior. Give him a treat when he does right. Don't yell at him for past mistakes, he doesn't understand why you're upset NOW.


I'm confused but willing to poop on the floor because I love you!!!
 
2013-06-17 10:27:44 PM
For a country that supposedly abides by our Constitution, we're a bunch of farking hypocrites.  Try them in military or civil court...but try them.  Right now they're nothing more than political prisoners.  Do I like that they waged war on the U.S.?  No.  Would I be happy if they're free to do so again?  No.  But dammit, we're supposed to stand for something...we're supposed to be better than this.

While I know it doesn't apply...it's still relevant.

5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
 
2013-06-17 10:28:58 PM
Will never stand trial, will never be released.

So farking wrong.
 
2013-06-17 10:34:24 PM

sendtodave: What was the percentage of colonists still loyal to King George?


Never compare things again.
 
2013-06-17 10:35:56 PM
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
 
2013-06-17 10:49:15 PM

way south: djkutch: The rational choice without throwing my vote away.

I don't understand why people do this.
You should vote for who you want to win, not who a political party says has a winning chance.


Should he have unskewed the polls?

Maths. How do they work?
 
2013-06-17 10:50:21 PM

cman: Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally, but I turned against it in 2006 BEFORE Bush left office.


Well, I guess good on you, but 5 years to figure out it was a bad idea? Sheesh.
 
2013-06-17 10:50:42 PM

way south: djkutch: The rational choice without throwing my vote away.



I don't understand why people do this.
You should vote for who you want to win, not who a political party says has a winning chance.


That was a long-winded way of saying "I don't understand game theory."
 
2013-06-17 10:55:01 PM

BSABSVR: sendtodave: What was the percentage of colonists still loyal to King George?

Never compare things again.


Support the status quo versus support radical change is right out?
 
2013-06-17 10:57:17 PM
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
2013-06-17 11:01:09 PM

jehovahs witness protection: Terrorists should be executed instead of being given free cable.


This.  If they're terrorists then give them a fair trial (military or civilian), present your case, and if they're guilty have them shot.  Problem solved.  Alternatively, give them a fair trial, present your case, and if they're guilty hold them in prison for life.  You're either going to save money by killing them, or maintain the status quo, so what's the god damn point of violating their basic human rights with this "indefinite detention" bullshiat.
 
2013-06-17 11:13:48 PM
Most people seem to be against this sort of crap, so why does it still happen. Maybe we should "indefinitely detain" some congressmen and a couple of presidents.
 
2013-06-17 11:15:04 PM

Mugato: Guantánamo is the most farked up thing we've done against everything we claim to stand for since the Japanese internment camps.


and yet the house won't fund closing it. and given some of the chicken hawks in the senate they might not either. as a person let alone a citizen of the United States this is sickening.
 
2013-06-17 11:20:11 PM
So... anyone cool on the list?

Like Don Rickles?
 
2013-06-17 11:23:51 PM

feckingmorons: Send them home. If they try to attack us kill them, if not let them herd goats or whatever if is those people do.


Their countries won't take them.

/been there, done that.
 
2013-06-17 11:28:07 PM

bulldg4life: because the evidence was too tainted.

Torture. Go America!


That's right, no Miranda means torture.  Everything the Boston Bomber said prior to Miranda warning is inadmissible in civilian court.  Fortunately there is enough untainted evidence that his confession is not needed.
 
2013-06-17 11:30:20 PM
Biological Ali
That was a long-winded way of saying "I don't understand game theory."

You have to look at the iterative case, not just the non-iterative case. insert quote about winning the battle but losing the war
 
2013-06-17 11:33:26 PM

bulldg4life: I dunno...I'm sure My Lai Massacre is up there somewhere.


My Lai was not an act of national policy.
 
2013-06-17 11:36:20 PM
Guantanamo Bay is a stain on our country. People are correct in seeing us as monsters because of it. Not only monsters, but hypocritical monters afraid of our own values when confronted with adversity.
 
2013-06-17 11:51:58 PM

DeArmondVI: Guantanamo Bay is a stain on our country. People are correct in seeing us as monsters because of it. Not only monsters, but hypocritical monters afraid of our own values when confronted with adversity.


Only retards would see that.  We would happily return them if their countries would take them.  In fact, if any of those people who think we are monsters would like to take these men, they are welcome to.  But they won't.
 
2013-06-18 12:01:39 AM
What have we done? I mean, that's all that remains to be said. We have taken people and turned them into nothing. We can't send them home, we can't keep them, and we can't kill them. We have created animals that under any other circumstances would be euthanized, except when it comes down to that THEN we grant them humanity, which is something we refuse to grant them any other time.

We have to bring them here. We have to put them on trial. If we can't put them on trial we have to let them go. We demean ourselves by doing otherwise.

It shames me to think back to when this started and how I supported the situation at Guantanamo. Thought the "enemy combatant" status was a perfectly valid position to take. 12 years later, with the camp still in existence and the people still there,  I no longer hold that position. It should have been finished 10 years ago.
 
2013-06-18 12:17:41 AM
They should never have left the battlefield alive.

They should never have expanded the battlefield to include the entire surface of the earth.
 
2013-06-18 12:22:13 AM

hubiestubert: Point them at yourselves. Point them at all of us, because we let it happened, and a LOT of folks cheered. Congrats. This is the result. Happy? We got EXACTLY what we wanted, and now we don't want it anymore, and we can't take it back.


Yeah, it's kinda like trying to put a turd back where it came from, then blaming someone else for the funky smell.
There are those of us who did try to do something... organized voter drives, protested (I almost got arrested), voted in every election... and still the DERP was too deep. Fear makes people stupid, and intensifies the stupid that stupid people already have.

This is something this country is going to have to deal with for a long, long time.
 
2013-06-18 12:34:00 AM

Hetfield: cman: I was for the Patriot act originally

Disgusting.


Well, he was 18 then (if he was telling the truth), and we all do stupid things when we're 18. Of course, most of us don't brag about them, either.
 
2013-06-18 12:37:43 AM

Giltric: They should never have left the battlefield alive.

They should never have expanded the battlefield to include the entire surface of the earth.


You have evidence that these people are all guilty of being terrorists, beyond "They're in Guantanamo, therefore they're guilty"?
 
2013-06-18 12:45:52 AM

tbeatty: DeArmondVI: Guantanamo Bay is a stain on our country. People are correct in seeing us as monsters because of it. Not only monsters, but hypocritical monters afraid of our own values when confronted with adversity.

Only retards would see that.  We would happily return them if their countries would take them.  In fact, if any of those people who think we are monsters would like to take these men, they are welcome to.  But they won't.


It's their fault, not ours!

Cliff Notestm couldn't have made a better summary of modern America.
 
2013-06-18 12:48:09 AM
Does anyone remember the day the World Trade Towers fell? Remember watching the news? Remember the long gas lines for price-gouged fuel? Every American was scared shiatless.

When the Patriot Act was passed, I was against it. I knew that it would be abused. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. However, most Americans were scared shiatless and wanted to know that our Big Brother was looking out for our safety and well-being.

We set ourselves up for the situation we are in now. We created a 'class' for these people (detainees) that isn't defined by law. And, in order to remove these people from this 'class', we have to place them back into the real world.

We (the Government, the U.S. citizens that appointed our Government) created this. We need to come clean and say we farked up. We farked up.

I don't think we'll ever know how many terrorist attacks the Patriot Act has stopped. We're all in a world of shiat and need to come clean on this.
 
2013-06-18 01:04:08 AM
tbeatty
if any of those people who think we are monsters would like to take these men, they are welcome to. But they won't.

[[citation needed]]


Giltric
They should never have left the battlefield alive.

They should never have expanded the battlefield to include the entire surface of the earth.


Woah, al-Qaeda has a space program now? Or is Gitmo in such a legal limbo that it's actually on a different planet?


What in The
We (the Government, the U.S. citizens that appointed our Government)

Don't kid yourself.
 
2013-06-18 01:08:14 AM

jehovahs witness protection: Terrorists should be executed instead of being given free cable.


I bet I have an extra box (qty 50) of .357 Remington Maximum I'll send them for free.  You only need 24 if you put their heads next to each other.
 
2013-06-18 02:11:59 AM

hubiestubert: What bothers me on this issue, is that for years, folks have been ignoring this very point. Again and again, but NOW it is suddenly an issue, and looking to blame someone, they turn to the guy who was left with this stinking pile of kuso, instead of the festering and diseased Shetland pony that shat it out, and left it in Gitmo all this time...


...this is the only issue that that's a problem for you for?  There are dozens of issues that weren't a problem until the blah guy took office. Hell, half of the surveillance shiat Obama is taking was created with the PATRIOT Act...and most of the rest is actually older than that.
 
2013-06-18 02:57:00 AM

feckingmorons: Send them home. If they try to attack us kill them, if not let them herd goats or whatever if is those people do.


If ONLY it were / was that simple. Sadly- it is not . sigh . sigh .
 
2013-06-18 02:57:13 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com : it's OK, his opposition is strong, they will change the laws to stop this human rights abuse
 
2013-06-18 03:05:15 AM
For the record- we had almost no problem with prisoners of war in the past. Sure- a couple of escapes, but that was not really a big deal, and that was  > 50 years ago . The main deal is, and i wont read the whole thread to avoid many crap statements- we didna exactly follow the geneva convention, and that opened up a whole big huge can of worms for how our guys get treated. I know- they dont follow it in any way, but we are supposed to be the good guys. Sure- you are deader than a petrified tree if we get you in our sights, but if you just get hurt or captured- you will be treated according to the laws of war. They dont follow this but once we stopped being the example of good- we lost all credibility . Im not talking about the recent past in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, or even ww2, where things just happened- oops. Im talking about the last 15 years.
And our actions make me worry about our good folks, as all they have to do is freeze frame a video from abu graib, and say - see- they are animals so we can treat them as such.
Thats the damn scary thing, imho .
 
2013-06-18 03:10:35 AM
One more thing- I appreciate your dedication to the rule of law, as hard as it has been, to any Jag or other lawyer involved. Tough hill to climb and I am sure that you have caught a ton of crap- but thanks.
Without the rule of law we turn to savages quite easily, even if many laws are stupid.
Peace, and long life
 
2013-06-18 03:35:48 AM

DeArmondVI: tbeatty: DeArmondVI: Guantanamo Bay is a stain on our country. People are correct in seeing us as monsters because of it. Not only monsters, but hypocritical monters afraid of our own values when confronted with adversity.

Only retards would see that.  We would happily return them if their countries would take them.  In fact, if any of those people who think we are monsters would like to take these men, they are welcome to.  But they won't.

It's their fault, not ours!

Cliff Notestm couldn't have made a better summary of modern America.


It's pretty simple.  You won't put them in your house.  Their own country won't take htem.  They aren't U.S. Citizens.  "Letting them go" implies they have somewhere to go, which they don't.  .
 
2013-06-18 03:44:59 AM

Nabb1: hubiestubert: cman: The Why Not Guy: cman: Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally...

I love how you act like that will surprise anyone.

Nice cherry pickings there

It's a statement you made.

Here. I'll quote the entirety of it:

"WOW what undue rage
Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally, but I turned against it in 2006 BEFORE Bush left office."

You were for the US PATRIOT Act, despite the fact that it had been shot down in pieces before 9/11 again and again, as too authoritarian, and too intrusive as measures go, and THEN when you saw it in action, you realized it was a bad idea, in practice.

So, essentially, you're admitting that you simply hadn't thought the whole thing through.

Which doesn't really surprise folks here all that much. It was a reactionary, panicked measure and cobbled together from the wet dream dribblings of authoritarian asshats who dislike privacy, dislike the limitations of our courts, and REALLY dislike any measure of checks and balances, but you were FOR it, before it actually got into practice. You just liked the idea. You liked the thought of being tough and with a Fed full of power, without a lot of oversight, but when put into practice, it was suddenly revealed to be the stinker that folks had said it was, long before it was signed into law, and who had been warning folks about since pieces of it were showing up in all sorts of bills as riders and addendum.

That's not cherry picking, that's simply noticing that you're a reactionary pile of kuso...

Who gives a shiat if he once supported it? So care more about maintaining some smug sense of superiority rather than seeing more people that originally supported it change their minds and swing the political pendulum
enough to change it? I was always against it, bug I'm not goin to rub people's noses in it. People here will twit every which way to make excuses for the President who voted on the renewal and has embraced every facet of Executive power it confers, but h ...


If you come into a conversation, I usually end up having nothing to say at all, because you say it and say it well.
 
2013-06-18 03:50:53 AM
I find it amusing that I've noticed a few people who, in NSA threads, have declared that PRISM makes the US just like Nazi Germany/the USSR, are now advocating executing prisoners without trial.
 
2013-06-18 04:02:40 AM
 plus there are those who were radicalized after "questioning"


i say again
whether for good or for bad
show some competence and either kill them or let them go

but they are bad people   ---- then kill them
but they haven't been convicted of any thing  ---- then let them go
who's in charge --- make a decision
 
2013-06-18 04:15:52 AM

hubiestubert: cman: [johnbardi.edublogs.org image 525x301]

Yes, because Obama should pull out his magical time machine and use his Jedi Mind Trick to cause Bush and Company to NOT use extraordinary rendition and ask for "enemy combatant" status be used on criminals?

It staggers the mind how obtuse and asinine one human can be, nearly 98% of the time. Please, let's make this partisan issue, because THIS list, it hasn't changed since the Bush years. And we've KNOWN that folks will never be able to be released, and have known this for some time, and oddly enough, some of us even realized this as soon as the "enemy combatant" tripe was bandied about, along with extraordinary rendition was used, that this was going to bite us on the ass. This is an issue that was created by a Congress and Administration that was afraid of due process, and now we are going to have to face that we've pooped in our own dog dish, but please, pass the buck along, because that will certainly help folks sleep better at night, instead of attempting to use some tiny modicum of thought.

What bothers me on this issue, is that for years, folks have been ignoring this very point. Again and again, but NOW it is suddenly an issue, and looking to blame someone, they turn to the guy who was left with this stinking pile of kuso, instead of the festering and diseased Shetland pony that shat it out, and left it in Gitmo all this time...


He volunteered and promised to shovel it years ago
 
2013-06-18 04:37:20 AM

BSABSVR: Nabb1: Who gives a shiat if he once supported it? So care more about maintaining some smug sense of superiority rather than seeing more people that originally supported it change their minds and swing the political pendulum
enough to change it? I was always against it, bug I'm not goin to rub people's noses in it. People here will twit every which way to make excuses for the President who voted on the renewal and has embraced every facet of Executive power it confers, but heaven forbid some here admit they once supported it. I swear, I think some people would rather see this crap continue if changing it would look like a political defeat for their own party. It's farking pathetic.



Being for it, then against it means there's a good chance that one will some day be for it again on a whim.


.... As soon as the president is white enough and works for the party that represents their interest least, sentiment will change.
 
2013-06-18 05:52:44 AM

armoredbulldozer: jehovahs witness protection: Terrorists should be executed instead of being given free cable.

I bet I have an extra box (qty 50) of .357 Remington Maximum I'll send them for free.  You only need 24 if you put their heads next to each other.


You're a hate filled violent little man.

Flail your little fists some more.
Clutch your penis extension tightly to your chest.
Stand near your fainting couch, lest the vapors overtake you.

They are dudes in an off shore prison, not supervillains.

I don't see Lex Luthor, The Joker, or Solomon Grundy on that list of names.

P.S. You forgot to call the President some variation of Cocksucker. Its your normal MO.
 
2013-06-18 06:53:24 AM
To be fair, it's our ineffective and ineffectual government, not the president alone, that keeps Gitmo from being closed. There are people within the government who want to keep the place open, sure, but there are many more who don't really seem to care enough to challenge the status quo. They need a real mandate from the voters to shut it down -- a mandate they have yet to receive.

We so often forget that in Democracy, we can effect change if we just make these people scared enough that they'll lose their power that they need to act. How many of us read this news and shake our heads rather than looking into ways we can take political action to do something about it?

Apathy is what allows Gitmo to stay open. Rallying against that apathy is what will eventually close it for good.
 
2013-06-18 07:42:05 AM
 Partisanship is what allows Gitmo to stay open, as well as every other government action that is ethically repugnant. Conservatives and progressives can get together and agree that these activities are unacceptable, while partisans change their attitudes depending on who's doing it at the time.
 
2013-06-18 07:47:45 AM
wow, so we have MULTIPLE fark "posters" furiously jerkin their little dicks at the thought of executing suspected terrorists
 
Xai
2013-06-18 08:15:41 AM
Land of the free?
 
2013-06-18 08:34:25 AM
Newsflash: The US isn't morally superior to other nations simply by virtue of being the US. That's a story we tell ourselves but it's the same story the people of any moderately nationalist nation tell themselves.
 
2013-06-18 08:57:15 AM
Dangerous?  These guys are a drop in a sea of dangerous men who want to harm us.  More like they don't want them to live to tell their stories of what we did to them.
 
2013-06-18 09:11:05 AM

LordJiro: Giltric: They should never have left the battlefield alive.

They should never have expanded the battlefield to include the entire surface of the earth.

You have evidence that these people are all guilty of being terrorists, beyond "They're in Guantanamo, therefore they're guilty"?


I might not believe the politicians and directors of agencies but I definitely believe the boys with black rifles and green eyes who more than likely whisked them away in the middle of the night from the battlespace.

I've heard it mentioned that the best interrogation technique at the time was throwing a bag over their head upon capture and telling them "you usama bin laden , you very bad man" to which the captive would reply.. "No I Youseff Malabalabingbong" which coincided with the intel we had that motivated the mission to scoop them up and take them away.
 
2013-06-18 09:29:00 AM

feckingmorons: Send them home. If they try to attack us kill them, if not let them herd goats or whatever if is those people do.


This.  Airdrop them with a fistful of local currency an 10 MRE's.
 
2013-06-18 09:33:02 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I assume the list includes Lex Luthor, General Zod and Braniac?

/I mean... these must be supercriminals, right?


Like this 15 year old kept at Gitmo and still in jail today.
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-06-18 09:38:45 AM

mrshowrules: MaudlinMutantMollusk: I assume the list includes Lex Luthor, General Zod and Braniac?

/I mean... these must be supercriminals, right?

Like this 15 year old kept at Gitmo and still in jail today.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 430x600]


http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7523347-el-ponchis-14year- ol d-drug-cartel-hitman-arrested-in-mexico

Does age mean the difference between innocent and guilty?
 
2013-06-18 09:43:52 AM

mrshowrules: MaudlinMutantMollusk: I assume the list includes Lex Luthor, General Zod and Braniac?

/I mean... these must be supercriminals, right?

Like this 15 year old kept at Gitmo and still in jail today.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 430x600]


Didn't I see him holding a bouquet of flowers and scowling at a couple of skinny blondes?
 
2013-06-18 09:44:38 AM

Relatively Obscure: Dangerous people are released All The Goddamn Time.


Hell, Dick Cheney is still walking around and G W Bush is still walking into doors.
 
2013-06-18 09:53:24 AM

Jackson Herring: wow, so we have MULTIPLE fark "posters" furiously jerkin their little dicks at the thought of executing suspected terrorists


That sir is an inaccurate statement.

They have no dicks.
 
2013-06-18 10:02:22 AM

nmemkha: Jackson Herring: wow, so we have MULTIPLE fark "posters" furiously jerkin their little dicks at the thought of executing suspected terrorists

That sir is an inaccurate statement.

They have no dicks.


Well, they're braver than the legislators who are so bedwettingly terrified of doing -anything- with these men that they're paralyzed.
 
2013-06-18 10:12:38 AM

What in The: We're all in a world of shiat and need to come clean on this.


THIS
 
2013-06-18 11:17:01 AM

tbeatty: DeArmondVI: tbeatty: DeArmondVI: Guantanamo Bay is a stain on our country. People are correct in seeing us as monsters because of it. Not only monsters, but hypocritical monters afraid of our own values when confronted with adversity.

Only retards would see that.  We would happily return them if their countries would take them.  In fact, if any of those people who think we are monsters would like to take these men, they are welcome to.  But they won't.

It's their fault, not ours!

Cliff Notestm couldn't have made a better summary of modern America.

It's pretty simple.  You won't put them in your house.  Their own country won't take htem.  They aren't U.S. Citizens.  "Letting them go" implies they have somewhere to go, which they don't.  .


"Coming up with how to fix our mistake is hard. So let's just keep making the same mistake."

We should put them on trial (you know, that whole "believing in our own values" thing). Those found guilty go to prison. Those found innocent should get to live subsidized lives on our dime for the rest of their lives. Hell, if one wants to live in my apartment, my doors are wide open.

Correcting mistakes requires not passing the buck elsewhere and being willing to sacrifice.
 
2013-06-18 11:20:16 AM

DeArmondVI: tbeatty: DeArmondVI: tbeatty: DeArmondVI: Guantanamo Bay is a stain on our country. People are correct in seeing us as monsters because of it. Not only monsters, but hypocritical monters afraid of our own values when confronted with adversity.

Only retards would see that.  We would happily return them if their countries would take them.  In fact, if any of those people who think we are monsters would like to take these men, they are welcome to.  But they won't.

It's their fault, not ours!

Cliff Notestm couldn't have made a better summary of modern America.

It's pretty simple.  You won't put them in your house.  Their own country won't take htem.  They aren't U.S. Citizens.  "Letting them go" implies they have somewhere to go, which they don't.  .

"Coming up with how to fix our mistake is hard. So let's just keep making the same mistake."

We should put them on trial (you know, that whole "believing in our own values" thing). Those found guilty go to prison. Those found innocent not guilty should get to live subsidized lives on our dime for the rest of their lives. Hell, if one wants to live in my apartment, my doors are wide open.

Correcting mistakes requires not passing the buck elsewhere and being willing to sacrifice.


FTFM
 
2013-06-18 11:29:05 AM

Giltric: mrshowrules: MaudlinMutantMollusk: I assume the list includes Lex Luthor, General Zod and Braniac?

/I mean... these must be supercriminals, right?

Like this 15 year old kept at Gitmo and still in jail today.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 430x600]

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7523347-el-ponchis-14year- ol d-drug-cartel-hitman-arrested-in-mexico

Does age mean the difference between innocent and guilty?


only if they are white
 
2013-06-18 11:36:39 AM
GOOD.
 
2013-06-18 12:05:30 PM

mrshowrules: Does age mean the difference between innocent and guilty?

only if they are white


...And can prove their innocence.

/The new American paradigm
 
2013-06-18 02:20:39 PM
If Obama wanted to really close Guantanamo Bay he would just refuse to sign any continuation funding bill that had funding for Guantanamo Bay. Then we call the troops home, kick those farkers out the door and tell Cuba it's their problem.
 
2013-06-18 02:21:37 PM
Why don't we just have a "gas leak" that blows the them and the farking place up? That would solve all our problems.
 
2013-06-18 02:57:15 PM

DeArmondVI: DeArmondVI: tbeatty: DeArmondVI: tbeatty: DeArmondVI: Guantanamo Bay is a stain on our country. People are correct in seeing us as monsters because of it. Not only monsters, but hypocritical monters afraid of our own values when confronted with adversity.

Only retards would see that.  We would happily return them if their countries would take them.  In fact, if any of those people who think we are monsters would like to take these men, they are welcome to.  But they won't.

It's their fault, not ours!

Cliff Notestm couldn't have made a better summary of modern America.

It's pretty simple.  You won't put them in your house.  Their own country won't take htem.  They aren't U.S. Citizens.  "Letting them go" implies they have somewhere to go, which they don't.  .

"Coming up with how to fix our mistake is hard. So let's just keep making the same mistake."

We should put them on trial (you know, that whole "believing in our own values" thing). Those found guilty go to prison. Those found innocent not guilty should get to live subsidized lives on our dime for the rest of their lives. Hell, if one wants to live in my apartment, my doors are wide open.

Correcting mistakes requires not passing the buck elsewhere and being willing to sacrifice.

FTFM


Why would we do that?  It's not our "mistake."  We didn't keep German POW's or Irawi POW's.  We sent them home if they didn't commit war crimes.  Heck, we deport 90 year old's without trial just based on their immigration application from 1945.  There is no reason why they should ever step foot in this country.  Until their own countries accept them, keep them in Gitmo.  Fully subsidized as you insist.
 
2013-06-18 05:31:38 PM

djkutch: cman: djkutch: cman: Guess what? I was for the Patriot act originally, but I turned against it in 2006 BEFORE Bush left office.

How very rugged. Who'd you vote? Obama or Romney?

Gary Johnson

How about you?

The rational choice without throwing my vote away. But, I live in Arizona, so really I threw my vote away.

How about the Republicans get behind someone like Gary Johnson? If you voted for him, you're saying the Republicans didn't offer anyone you could consider. He may be a Republican, but the party didn't take him seriously.


Voting for the meaningless Libertarian candidate only means you can't take the credit and you don't have to take the blame. Might as well vote for the Vegetarian candidate. Or just stay home next time and stop bothering the adults.
 
2013-06-18 06:54:05 PM
Well, the GOP once again prevented anything being done with Gitmo, so despite all of their whining and crying about it existing they certainly want to keep it around if only to have one real reason to biatch and whine about Obama.
 
2013-06-18 08:53:39 PM

tbeatty: Why would we do that?  It's not our "mistake."  We didn't keep German POW's or Irawi POW's.  We sent them home if they didn't commit war crimes.  Heck, we deport 90 year old's without trial just based on their immigration application from 1945.  There is no reason why they should ever step foot in this country.  Until their own countries accept them, keep them in Gitmo.  Fully subsidized as you insist.


So spending ten years of your life in prison for something you didn't do wouldn't be a mistake?  If they're found not guilty we owe these guys HUGE restitution, not just a slap on the ass and a "nice to know ya".

These poor schmucks need to be tried in open court, stat.  If they're guilty, awesome; move their sorry asses to Florence ADX or the chair as the case dictates.  IF not guilty, and their home county won't take them I think we need to offer them asylum on US soil.  We're the ones that f*cked their lives.
 
2013-06-19 12:26:49 AM

tbeatty: DeArmondVI: DeArmondVI: tbeatty: DeArmondVI: tbeatty: DeArmondVI: Guantanamo Bay is a stain on our country. People are correct in seeing us as monsters because of it. Not only monsters, but hypocritical monters afraid of our own values when confronted with adversity.

Only retards would see that.  We would happily return them if their countries would take them.  In fact, if any of those people who think we are monsters would like to take these men, they are welcome to.  But they won't.

It's their fault, not ours!

Cliff Notestm couldn't have made a better summary of modern America.

It's pretty simple.  You won't put them in your house.  Their own country won't take htem.  They aren't U.S. Citizens.  "Letting them go" implies they have somewhere to go, which they don't.  .

"Coming up with how to fix our mistake is hard. So let's just keep making the same mistake."

We should put them on trial (you know, that whole "believing in our own values" thing). Those found guilty go to prison. Those found innocent not guilty should get to live subsidized lives on our dime for the rest of their lives. Hell, if one wants to live in my apartment, my doors are wide open.

Correcting mistakes requires not passing the buck elsewhere and being willing to sacrifice.

FTFM

Why would we do that?  It's not our "mistake."  We didn't keep German POW's or Irawi POW's.  We sent them home if they didn't commit war crimes.  Heck, we deport 90 year old's without trial just based on their immigration application from 1945.  There is no reason why they should ever step foot in this country.  Until their own countries accept them, keep them in Gitmo.  Fully subsidized as you insist.


Was our "war on terror" actually made via a Congressional declaration of war? If so, then I apologize for not understanding that these unprosecuted alleged criminals are, in fact, POWs.

If they're guilty, lock 'em up. If not, they should go free. If their home countries don't want them, it is up to us (being the ones who kidnapped them, forced them into animal cages, and humiliated them for over a decade) to make amends.

You seem to take umbridge with the concept of taking personal responsibility for having made the massive mistake of creating the Guantanamo Bay facility. You seem to want somebody else to make it right, rather than have us do so. I was raised by my family and faith to take responsibility for when I screw up. Guantanamo Bay was done by our government, in our name, and so I am more than willing to open up the doors of my humble abode to any prisoner found not guilty. It appears that you may not have been raised with those same kind of values, and that is a shame.

Or, perhaps, you agree with former Attorney General Edwin Meese, who once said, "[T]he thing is you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect." If that is the case, then I am sad to say that there is no room for reconciliation between our views.
 
Displayed 152 of 152 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report