The First Step To Not Close Gitmo?

[RealDealNeverstop]

Great! At least I'll have one vote. And in case you hadn't heard, its already happening (the whole converting to Islam in prison thing).

http://blog.oregonlive.com/nwheadlines/2009/02/_more_northwest_front_pages_235.html
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090201/NEWS01/702019905&news01ad=1
http://religioncompass.wordpress.co...isoners-convert-to-islam-for-gang-protection/
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/01/prisoners_conve.php

Could we have some links worth clicking on?

So, we are going to create special "Muslim" blocks to keep Islamic prisoners? What about the Hindus, Christians, Buddists, Atheists, Rastafarians, Raelians, Flying Spagetti Monster Cultists, etc...

That's a good-sized strawman. Nobody said anything about blocks being segregated on the basis of religion. I clearly said "transfers from Gitmo."

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Are you aware of ANY current/recent claims of "torture" occuring at GITMO?

Why yes! Thanks for asking!

"The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to..." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372.html

Sorry it came from Bush's top official and not from some guy holed up in mama's basement running the blog
"Manwehateislam.com"

I could care less. The rest of the world is sinking into a collectivist/socialist quagmire of meaninglessness while simultaneously bearing the burden of the pitfall of floating fiat currency. If we wanted to "restore" our reputation, we would take our troops out of every foreign country we are based in, with the exception of the rotation of troops through allied foreign bases as part of our treat agreements (NATO, etc..). This would mean closing GITMO, not because of the prison camp, but because the Constitution doesn't authorize us to maintain standing armies in foreign countries. It would also mean closing all of our bases in Europe, Asia, and everywhere else they are.

I agree with the withdrawal of troops, but the "I don't care" attitude doesn't help anything in regards to working towards viable solutions. The Bush Admin went with this unilateral concept and look what it has accomplished. Over 4,200 dead Troops, another 100,000 wounded in one way or another, and well over 100,000 dead or wounded civilians, including completely innocent men, womyn, and children.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

I think Obama might have figured out, there is no good solution.
Gitmo is a safe place to hold dangerous prisoners. and to house prisoners
that are refused entry into any country on earth.
If Obama closes Gitmo, he would have to fly all prisoners to the USA, and if found innocent, released into our population.(no one else wants them) The unhappy group of forced immigrants would more then likely cause violence in this country, and all injured or killed would be on Obama's hands.
So, I believe Obama will break another campaign promise, not like its the first, and definately won't be last.
He was clueless about his campaign promises, he didn't understand why things were the way they were. He has no experience in national security. How can he promise what he doesn't know?

For the ones who have been found innocent...if the nations we kidnapped them from do not want them back then they should be released in the US on temporary Visas with a program possible for Citizenship. I think it's the least we could do for wrongly kidnapping and falsely imprisoning innocent people.

(I can almost hear the cacophonies of "oh but they want to kill us!" To that I would say, try to grow up and stop letting FEAR dictate principles, or more precisely, a lack of...)

 

[drGiaus]

What is there to explain other than your fictitious Obama torture scenario....

I don't recall liberals saying it was ficticious when Bush was doing it. Yay for double standards!

This has to be one of the silliest questions in response to closing Gitmo. The US has closed prisons before and I've never heard the question of "Well what will be done with the prisoners!"

Those were American prison with American citizens in them. Will they be subject to all American civil rights and due process once they are here?

Well, are you going to answer my question? Do you want to repress their freedom of religion?

There's a difference between repressing them, and not putting terrorist recruiters who have the ability to warp people's mind into the GP with a whole buncha people that already hate the country.

My issue is and has always been holding captives without just cause and torture. As long as America is in compliance with international law I have no issue with GITMO.

But you've already admited that you don't mind them being tortured.

Hmmm I figured the people who were so into capturing them would want to make sure they were still being watched. Isn't fighting terrorism a proud tradition in red states? It would seem it's only important if they don't have to actually, you know, do it for real.

No, we want them in Gitmo, so they are over here. Liberals want them over here, put them in the liberal states.

 

[JustOneWay]

I don't recall liberals saying it was ficticious when Bush was doing it. Yay for double standards!

Thats because the Bush administration did allow for torture methods. No double standard because there is no case of the Obama administration implementing or even condoning torture methods. Again, torture was not my only concern.

There's a difference between repressing them, and not putting terrorist recruiters who have the ability to warp people's mind into the GP with a whole buncha people that already hate the country.

Who ever said anything about putting these people into the general population? It was not me.

But you've already admited that you don't mind them being tortured.

No I did not. Please point out where you believe I ever condoned torture.

 

[tulc]

No, we want them in Gitmo, so they are over here. Liberals want them over here, put them in the liberal states.

Uhmm I suspect most liberals want them to be either tried or released to their homes, conservatives seem to want them held forever, so shouldn't they take responsibility for guarding them?
tulc(seems only fair)

 

[drGiaus]

Thats because the Bush administration did allow for torture methods. No double standard because there is no case of the Obama administration implementing or even condoning torture methods. Again, torture was not my only concern.

Obama said he's not doing away with rendition. What more do you need?

No I did not. Please point out where you believe I ever condoned torture.

When you brushed off the fact that Obama support rendition.

Uhmm I suspect most liberals want them to be either tried or released to their homes, conservatives seem to want them held forever, so shouldn't they take responsibility for guarding them?

I want them to be tried and dealt with as well. But keep em in Gitmo while you do it.

 

[tulc]

I want them to be tried and dealt with as well. But keep em in Gitmo while you do it.

I find the "out of sight, out of mind" doctrine doesn't seem all that swift. If, however, they were kept right next door to all those people who are so eager to fight terrorism I suspect there would be a whole lot more movement.
tulc(just seems like the fair way to do it)

 

[JustOneWay]

Obama said he's not doing away with rendition. What more do you need?



When you brushed off the fact that Obama support rendition.



I want them to be tried and dealt with as well. But keep em in Gitmo while you do it.

lol

rendition =/= torture

[SIZE=+1]rendition[/SIZE] [ren-'di-shen]

1: the act or result of rendering
Example: the Court's rendition of judgment
2: extradition of a fugitive who has fled to another state

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/sc...com&topic=bb/bb600cb26e4e62f277c13a4b2717e9b9

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Those were American prison with American citizens in them. Will they be subject to all American civil rights and due process once they are here?

Once again, speaking from a position of ignorance doesn't help. There are many non-US Citizens in Prisons just like there non-US Citizens in our Military.

 

[HerbieHeadley]

For the ones who have been found innocent...if the nations we kidnapped them from do not want them back then they should be released in the US on temporary Visas with a program possible for Citizenship. I think it's the least we could do for wrongly kidnapping and falsely imprisoning innocent people.

(I can almost hear the cacophonies of "oh but they want to kill us!" To that I would say, try to grow up and stop letting FEAR dictate principles, or more precisely, a lack of...)

Yes! Let us send the both of them to Massachusetts.
I imagine they can become fine upstanding citizens there.
I hope neither of the two have family elsewhere.

 

[ScottBot]

Could we have some links worth clicking on?




That's a good-sized strawman. Nobody said anything about blocks being segregated on the basis of religion. I clearly said "transfers from Gitmo."

Click them or don't, I could care less.

Are there any Irish Catholics or Rastafarians in GITMO I am not aware of?

 

[HerbieHeadley]

Click them or don't, I could care less.

Are there any Irish Catholics or Rastafarians in GITMO I am not aware of?

I imagine that was a call for the NY Times or the Washington Post.
Surely we were not talking about CNN or NBC or MSNBC or ………..
Cuz we only accept any information from there I guess.

 

[ScottBot]

I imagine that was a call for the NY Times or the Washington Post.
Surely we were not talking about CNN or NBC or MSNBC or ………..
Cuz we only accept any information from there I guess.

Let me find something in The Guardian. If you want liberal tripe, the Post or the Times ain't got nothing on The Guardian.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Click them or don't, I could care less.

Someone who would care less wouldn't bother posting hack-butt links.

Are there any Irish Catholics or Rastafarians in GITMO I am not aware of?

Doesn't matter if there are or not.

 

[HerbieHeadley]

Oh wait, wasn’t the original OP a NY times article?
And then there is this rebuke of am omission of some secret checkpoint no one could enter?

I imagine we have those very two innocently kidnapped individuals right there. 4 sure
The United States of America should stop kidnapping innocent individuals and then force them to reside in countries they don’t wish to be forced to live in, IMO.
Shame on us.

Giving a taxi ride to a known convict on a daily bases, does not mean guilty before proven innocent.
The nerve of these dumb folk that think tribal violence has any unity between them, they don't know each other.

Oh, wait. The head Bush appointee said there was no single incident of torture, but the combination of events defined torture in her mind.

 

[ScottBot]

Someone who would care less wouldn't bother posting hack-butt links.



Doesn't matter if there are or not.

I don't care that you discount my sources. I like them perfectly fine. If you want more "valid" sources, go find them yourself. There's a whole big internet out there.

Oh it does. The fact of the matter is where they are (GITMO) they receive treatment which respects and caters to their particular religious requirements (Islam). Since we know that they are die hard Islamists, putting them into general population is a fundamentally bad idea. So the case was made to segregate them into their own special block of whatever prison they would hypothetically go to. Why would they need their own special area of prison?

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Oh wait, wasn’t the original OP a NY times article?
And then there is this rebuke of am omission of some secret checkpoint no one could enter?

I imagine we have those very two innocently kidnapped individuals right there. 4 sure
The United States of America should stop kidnapping innocent individuals and then force them to reside in countries they don’t wish to be forced to live in, IMO.
Shame on us.

Giving a taxi ride to a known convict on a daily bases, does not mean guilty before proven innocent.
The nerve of these dumb folk that think tribal violence has any unity between them, they don't know each other.

Oh, wait. The head Bush appointee said there was no single incident of torture, but the combination of events defined torture in her mind.

No, that isn't what she said. She said his treatment met the "legal definition of torture" but go ahead and dismiss it because it's obvious it doesn't matter if we tortured or not because from the armchair of some peeps the US could never ever ever do anything wrong. Ever.

 

[HerbieHeadley]

No, that isn't what she said. She said his treatment met the "legal definition of torture" but go ahead and dismiss it because it's obvious it doesn't matter if we tortured or not because from the armchair of some peeps the US could never ever ever do anything wrong. Ever.

I like the irony, the appointee said it was a combination of events, but could not say it was one definitive act that constituted torture.
No one is perfect, but condemn an entire project because of less than a handful of a bushel of cases, is absolutely outrageous. It is typical of the left mindset.
I imagine there are less reported cases of abuse in our own current penal system.
But that doesn’t fit the motivation of the mindset.
All the more reason to let San Francisco defend itself.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

I don't care that you discount my sources. I like them perfectly fine. If you want more "valid" sources, go find them yourself. There's a whole big internet out there.

Common courtesy in a debate is to make an attempt to provide at least somewhat reputable sources when claims are made but iam learning very quickly with the GitmoFearapalooza crowd such things are rare, if at existent at all.

Oh it does. The fact of the matter is where they are (GITMO) they receive treatment which respects and caters to their particular religious requirements (Islam). Since we know that they are die hard Islamists, putting them into general population is a fundamentally bad idea. So the case was made to segregate them into their own special block of whatever prison they would hypothetically go to. Why would they need their own special area of prison?

Okay, who is this really? Hannity? Is that you? Oreilly? It's like having a discussion with them. I never said they needed to be segregated. So on top of not supporting claims we get the added fun of forcing claims onto others...fuuuuuuhhhnnnn!