See, you are either intentionally lying about seeing no humor in that paragraph or simply refusing to not be so serious about things we cannot control.
Sounds kinda stupid and weak when you try to shoehorn someone into an either-or huh.
Maybe we shouldn't close Gitmo so quickly
- Thread starter Augustus
- Start date
Sounds kinda stupid and weak when you try to shoehorn someone into an either-or huh.
Here's the real answer, Gertch. Most people don't find you funny ha-ha, just funny peculiar.
I'm glad Gitmo is being closed. Let's try these so-called "terrorists." They can be dispersed and held in the many federal corrections institutions throughout the U.S. Or is the government afraid they won't be able to prove their case against these alleged terrorists?
Red Ranger
If we know they are guilty terrorists it should be easy to charge them right?
That's simplistic black and white thinking.
These people weren't bagged while mowing their lawns. They were found on the battlefield, from covert ops missions on hideouts etc.
There are national security concerns to consider. Plus, 62 of the released ones have just gone back to their terrorist ways and killing people after being released.
But I'm confident the new president will be able to handle it all without any more Americans being hurt.
NO. Not all of them. The ones who were, I have no problem holding them as POWs until all hostilities are ended. But there are many other who were captured by rendition methods some would consider quite extraordinary.
I would be interesting in reading about one please.
Maher Arar. Do your own research on that name. I did but I'm not in a magnanimous mood, pal. -- RR
Ok, you've given us one example of one particularly bad case. How about some numbers on how often that actually happens?
Guantanamo is a symbol that, in its existence, injures the United States more than any man or woman imprisoned there could. Maybe they shouldn't be released, but the symbol of Guantanamo should cease to exist. Obama's promise to close it was clearly a promise without a specific course of action, but it was the right statement if we're going to repair the United States.
Obama is pragmatist. He is a realist. Closing Guantanamo and moving the terrorists will appease his liberal voters, tick off his conservative enemies, and ultimately make America safer.
Obama is pragmatist. He is a realist. Closing Guantanamo and moving the terrorists will appease his liberal voters, tick off his conservative enemies, and ultimately make America safer.
Does that matter? Once is too many.
Gertch's silence is deafening, eh JuanBolio? Three examples from you and I and not a peep. Typical. So actually, archeryguy1701, that's three too many! More to come, I'm certain. -- RR
I think he's trying to come up with some kind of justification. Just wait.
Either that, or some bad joke he swiped either from Mad Libs or Rush Limbaugh's comedy store! -- RR
Oh, I see. The confusion came in because something that's a joke is supposed to be funny or at least add to the conversation in a satirical manner. Since that did neither I guess I was mistaken. And since all of your other posts merely subtly implied that you believed that I can be forgiven for making such a mistake.
He may or may not be back. Based on past experiences everytime he loses and ground he leaves the thread and never comes back.
There's "one too many" or "three too many" of a lot of things... x-too many people died at the hands of a cop, x-too many people died on an operating table because a doctor screwed up, x-too many innocents were put in prison because the evidence made the jurors comfortable that they had the right guy. Mistakes happen. But in this particular situation, the mistakes are too big to forgive... the whole system has to either be fixed or go away. What makes these mistakes more terrible than others? Why can other mistakes be overlooked when lives are equally as ruined, if not more so, when someone is incorrectly convicted or a doctor makes a mistake and that mistake costs a life?
Isn't it black and white thinking to say they're all bad guys (which of course we just know) and so we'll hold them forever and ever.
Now you're avoiding the topic by bringing in examples that have nothing to do with Gitmo. At the root of the problem is that in order to feel more secure and fight this war of terror, the U.S. government is sacrificing the thing that our enemies don't have -- the Constitution and rule of law. Why shouldn't we try these alleged terrorists? Maybe because the government has no real proof and can't win some of these cases? We don't know. -- RR
I'm not avoiding the topic. I'm making what I feel is a valid point. Mistakes are almost acceptable anywhere but on this particular point.
So, let's give every single suspect a trial. What is the only thing that doing that will fix? They will get a trial. They will still have to wait a long time in a shitty prison until their trial is complete, and even then they may get stuck waiting to get that trial. I would imagine terror trials fall under the juristiction of the military, and there would probably be quite a back-up for suspected terrorist's trials. And unless they get babysat in that prison by someone with a good "moral compass", they will probably continue to get mistreated. So let's try every single one of them in turn, and try to avoid treating them like terrorists until after they are proven to be terrorists. That will only eliminate one of their miriad of other problems.
So, let's give every single suspect a trial. What is the only thing that doing that will fix? They will get a trial. They will still have to wait a long time in a shitty prison until their trial is complete, and even then they may get stuck waiting to get that trial. I would imagine terror trials fall under the juristiction of the military, and there would probably be quite a back-up for suspected terrorist's trials. And unless they get babysat in that prison by someone with a good "moral compass", they will probably continue to get mistreated. So let's try every single one of them in turn, and try to avoid treating them like terrorists until after they are proven to be terrorists. That will only eliminate one of their miriad of other problems.
The Boston Globe (D)? Hmmm, okay I'll look at it. Thanks.
Similar threads
