O.K. backedup, here’s a hypothetical. Let’s suppose the government picked up some white trash from his double-wide and held him for 4 or 5 years with no charges. Then they used “enhanced interrogation techniques” for up to 15 hours a day. Do you think this might make said trailer trash more likely to join a white supremicists group and pull an Oklahoma city type bombing???

Actually, it didn’t even take that for McVeigh; just some inchoate grievances about supposedly authoritarian feds and their treatment of others….

Cheers,

Maybe there is a reason for Gitmo in regards to the war on terror:….

What’s that? To breed the next crop of bombers?

Cheers,

As President, Bush swore to protect and defend the country.

Pretty bold statement about a President who, while on one of his many vacations playing fake cowboy at his fake Texas ranch in 2001, received a Presidential Daily Brief one month before 9/11 entitled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US,” and completely ignored it.

And of course it’s the same guy who’s hand-picked National Security Adviser (Kindalazee Rice), for 9 months prior to 9/11, flippantly dismissed the many, many warnings from then top counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke and FBI field agents that Al Qaeda was a growing threat that needed urgent attention.

With a defender and protector like that — who the hell needs enemies?

Just saying . . .

May 14th, 2008 at 11:05 am
_____

How exactly does destroying civil liberties protect civil liberties?

May 14th, 2008 at 10:48 am
_____

And the “unlawful combatant” designation means that the Bush administration can consider anti-war protestors and political dissenters and anyone else politically inconvenient to the U.S. or its allies as “jihadists capable of terror acts.” They are only dangerous because the Administration says they are, not because they are proven in a court of law to be dangerous.

And by keeping these detainees illegally imprisoned, we show the rest of the world that the freedom and liberty and justice that the U.S. claims to be the beacon of is nothing more than a pathetic facade. By keeping detainees in Guantanamo indefinitely, we encourage terrorists to attack us. Guantanamo is a threat to our national security.

When he took the Oath of Office, he swore to protect and defend the Constitution. And he’s doing a pretty shitty job of it.

toasterhead. This is a good point. It will no doubt be an understatement to you, but this administration has provided plenty of fodder to debate how far you infringe on liberties to provide defense.

May 14th, 2008 at 10:52 am
_____

Bush has no obligation to protect and defend the country.

When he took the Oath of Office, he swore to protect and defend the Constitution. And he’s doing a pretty shitty job of it.

If he knowingly releases people that defense officials deem to be a threat to the country, is he meeting his obligation to protect and defend?

that we had to acquit because we tainted their cases — do go on to commit acts of terror, it’d be our own fault.

You have to admit this is a pretty convenient position.

Bush administration picks up what it believes are jihadists capable of terror acts (similar to 9/11).

They detain them as combatants. Maybe they are concerned that if these detainees are tried in a civil court, there may not be enough evidence to convict, and they will be released. But, they still believe the detainee to be a threat (much like the one who just turned out to be a suicide bomber, killing innocent people).

Then, by your logic, when democrats successfully pressure for the release of these detainees (that Bush admin officials deemed a threat in the first place) and they go on to commit terror – it’s our fault.

Wow, you’ve got the whole issue covered.

May 14th, 2008 at 10:05 am
_____

Oh, that’s what the Administration wants people to believe- that I’m sure of.

It doesn’t change the fact that the overwhelming majority of detainees in Guantanamo were not picked up on the battlefield and have no affiliation with al-Qa’ida. It doesn’t change the fact that they are human beings with rights guaranteed under international law. It doesn’t change the fact that they are being held and tortured illegally.

If these detainees are such a danger to society, then there should be no problem convicting them in a court of law, right? Unless, of course, their cases have been so tainted by torture and manipulation that the prosecutors can’t get a conviction. In which case, they must be let go. And if a few of these former detainees — that we had to acquit because we tainted their cases — do go on to commit acts of terror, it’d be our own fault.

I’d rather risk letting a few “dangerous” people go than lose our entire country to fascism.

Instead of the progressive attack that Gitmo is just some place where the Bush administration can hold people without cause, maybe they have people detained there that pose a real threat.

It’s possible the administration may want to hold them as enemy combatants, because they believe the risk of their release is greater than the dilemma created by their status?

Think about it; a combatant they released has carried out a suicide bombing. That’s one they felt comfortable releasing. The ones they feel less comfortable letting go, are those the ones that progressives want back on the street?

When Obama becomes president and closes Gitmo, and some of the released detainees commit acts of terror (like the one that has already occurred) will progressives applaud the closing in light of the grief brought on by what could have been avoidable terror acts?

I know there are problems with the status of the detainees, but is it really that black and white an issue? If Obama closes Gitmo, does he become responsible, if those released because of his decision, go on to commit the terror that the Bush Administration detained them to prevent in the first place?

Jeffery Gordon can’t tell the difference between asinine arrogance and thoughtfulness.

Is that like not knowing his arse from his hat rack?

???????????????
So by that logic why dont we just throw the whole middle east in Gitmo? Do you really think we can lock up every person capeably of commiting future acts of terror?

Maybe we should throw you in Gitmo, just in case you go postal on the rest of us. You know, preemptive life jail sentence. With a little “enhanced interrogation technique”, perhaps, but no trial.

How does that sound? I say let’s do it.

It’s the right-wingers’ version of thoughtful.

And if they really apply themselves they even get to use 5th grade-level vocabulary on occasions.

As opposed to the terrorist-creating right.