McCain: Guantanamo Decision One Of the Worst Ever

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

before too long, we'll need court appointed attorneys on the battlefield.

And CSI teams on the battlefield, complete with yellow crime scene tape...

What battlefield are you guys talking about? The battlefield of the war on terror? Should the captives of the war on drugs also be held w/o any rights? What other wars are we going to invent to deny ever more individuals the most basic of rights? The war on drunk driving perhaps?

i guess when they start using ied's then we can cross that bridge, eh?

[mendeleev 68]

Again, what battlefield?

The people the court ruled on were arrested in Bosnia (for suspicion of plotting a bombing against the US embassy there) and released for lack of evidence by the high court in Bosnia. They were picked up again in Bosnia and transferred to US military.

These guys weren't captured in a battlefield. They were captured in a country where the USA intervened 10 years ago on behalf of muslims against an Orthodox genocide. (Yes, Bosnia was a lot more complicated than that -- but that isn't a bad dozen word summary.) Our government held them as "enemy combatants" -- a legal invention of the Bush Administration that the USA could not have struggled over the past 225 years because, until recently, no President had the sort of contempt for the Constitution to attempt such an innovation. The Court has shown restraint in not ruling bluntly on this matter earlier -- perhaps hoping that the Political Branches would come to sanity.

The Constitution talks about suspecting habeus corpus only in times of insurrection or invasion. To the best of my knowledge, no enemy of any sort, and in particular no Bosnians or Algerians, have invaded the USA or hold any of its territory in the face of military efforts against them. There are no grounds to suspect habeus corpus.

Those who have committed crimes -- try them and imprison them. Our country, to the extent that we live by our laws, is great. We have not lived up to our heritage lately.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

before too long, we'll need court appointed attorneys on the battlefield.

And CSI teams on the battlefield, complete with yellow crime scene tape...

What battlefield are you guys talking about? The battlefield of the war on terror? Should the captives of the war on drugs also be held w/o any rights? What other wars are we going to invent to deny ever more individuals the most basic of rights? The war on drunk driving perhaps?

i guess when they start using ied's then we can cross that bridge, eh?

I see. So the folks that bomb certain medical facilities need to be locked up w/o charge and stripped of their rights. Good to know. And the fact that drunk drivers kill more than folks deploying IED's do doesn't seem to matter - they kill annually a multiple of what we've lost to IED's in Iraq and Afghanistan over the course of the entire wars. And yet only the utilization of IED's warrants the loss of habeas corpus - except if the IED's are deployed in the US. I can't help but wonder what your fixation with those IED's is? Or is it that it's fine for an American to be killed as long as it happens at home and as long as one gets killed by an American jerkoff.

Edited June 15, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[GaryC 7]

before too long, we'll need court appointed attorneys on the battlefield.

And CSI teams on the battlefield, complete with yellow crime scene tape...

What battlefield are you guys talking about? The battlefield of the war on terror? Should the captives of the war on drugs also be held w/o any rights? What other wars are we going to invent to deny ever more individuals the most basic of rights? The war on drunk driving perhaps?

i guess when they start using ied's then we can cross that bridge, eh?

I see. So the folks that bomb certain medical facilities need to be locked up w/o charge and stripped of their rights. Good to know.

If they are not Americans and do it in another country and never set foot in our country then yes. Otherwise your analogy is full of BS.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

before too long, we'll need court appointed attorneys on the battlefield.

And CSI teams on the battlefield, complete with yellow crime scene tape...

What battlefield are you guys talking about? The battlefield of the war on terror? Should the captives of the war on drugs also be held w/o any rights? What other wars are we going to invent to deny ever more individuals the most basic of rights? The war on drunk driving perhaps?

i guess when they start using ied's then we can cross that bridge, eh?

I see. So the folks that bomb certain medical facilities need to be locked up w/o charge and stripped of their rights. Good to know.

If they are not Americans and do it in another country and never set foot in our country then yes. Otherwise your analogy is full of BS.

Say what?

[GaryC 7]

before too long, we'll need court appointed attorneys on the battlefield.

And CSI teams on the battlefield, complete with yellow crime scene tape...

What battlefield are you guys talking about? The battlefield of the war on terror? Should the captives of the war on drugs also be held w/o any rights? What other wars are we going to invent to deny ever more individuals the most basic of rights? The war on drunk driving perhaps?

i guess when they start using ied's then we can cross that bridge, eh?

I see. So the folks that bomb certain medical facilities need to be locked up w/o charge and stripped of their rights. Good to know.

If they are not Americans and do it in another country and never set foot in our country then yes. Otherwise your analogy is full of BS.

Say what?

I am saying your analogy is BS. If someone commits a crime in America he gets full protections of the constitution. If a terrorists blows up an IED in Iraq he shouldn't. Your analogy is BS.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

before too long, we'll need court appointed attorneys on the battlefield.

And CSI teams on the battlefield, complete with yellow crime scene tape...

What battlefield are you guys talking about? The battlefield of the war on terror? Should the captives of the war on drugs also be held w/o any rights? What other wars are we going to invent to deny ever more individuals the most basic of rights? The war on drunk driving perhaps?

i guess when they start using ied's then we can cross that bridge, eh?

I see. So the folks that bomb certain medical facilities need to be locked up w/o charge and stripped of their rights. Good to know.

If they are not Americans and do it in another country and never set foot in our country then yes. Otherwise your analogy is full of BS.

Say what?

I am saying your analogy is BS. If someone commits a crime in America he gets full protections of the constitution. If a terrorists blows up an IED in Iraq he shouldn't. Your analogy is BS.

I'm sorry but the folks in Gitmo aren't necessarily folks that blew up IED's in Iraq - or anywhere else for that matter. The US has stripped persons off basic rights, kidnapped, illegally detained and illegally tortured them for having committed the horrible crime of having a name somewhat similar to that of an alleged terrorism suspect. Habeas corpus would have saved them from these crimes that Bush is committing in our collective name.

[GaryC 7]

before too long, we'll need court appointed attorneys on the battlefield.

And CSI teams on the battlefield, complete with yellow crime scene tape...

What battlefield are you guys talking about? The battlefield of the war on terror? Should the captives of the war on drugs also be held w/o any rights? What other wars are we going to invent to deny ever more individuals the most basic of rights? The war on drunk driving perhaps?

i guess when they start using ied's then we can cross that bridge, eh?

I see. So the folks that bomb certain medical facilities need to be locked up w/o charge and stripped of their rights. Good to know.

If they are not Americans and do it in another country and never set foot in our country then yes. Otherwise your analogy is full of BS.

Say what?

I am saying your analogy is BS. If someone commits a crime in America he gets full protections of the constitution. If a terrorists blows up an IED in Iraq he shouldn't. Your analogy is BS.

I'm sorry but the folks in Gitmo aren't necessarily folks that blew up IED's in Iraq - or anywhere else for that matter. The US has stripped persons off basic rights, kidnapped, illegally detained and illegally tortured them for having committed the horrible crime of having a name somewhat similar to that of an alleged terrorism suspect. Habeas corpus would have saved them from these crimes that Bush is committing in our collective name.

Listen to yourself. Everything is Bush's fault. You have a very bad case of BDS. You really need help. The people at Gitmo are dangerous and you want to give them our rights. You seem to think that we just go willy-nilly kidnapping people for the hell of it. What a twisted view you have.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

before too long, we'll need court appointed attorneys on the battlefield.

And CSI teams on the battlefield, complete with yellow crime scene tape...

What battlefield are you guys talking about? The battlefield of the war on terror? Should the captives of the war on drugs also be held w/o any rights? What other wars are we going to invent to deny ever more individuals the most basic of rights? The war on drunk driving perhaps?

i guess when they start using ied's then we can cross that bridge, eh?

I see. So the folks that bomb certain medical facilities need to be locked up w/o charge and stripped of their rights. Good to know.

If they are not Americans and do it in another country and never set foot in our country then yes. Otherwise your analogy is full of BS.

Say what?

I am saying your analogy is BS. If someone commits a crime in America he gets full protections of the constitution. If a terrorists blows up an IED in Iraq he shouldn't. Your analogy is BS.

I'm sorry but the folks in Gitmo aren't necessarily folks that blew up IED's in Iraq - or anywhere else for that matter. The US has stripped persons off basic rights, kidnapped, illegally detained and illegally tortured them for having committed the horrible crime of having a name somewhat similar to that of an alleged terrorism suspect. Habeas corpus would have saved them from these crimes that Bush is committing in our collective name.

Listen to yourself. Everything is Bush's fault. You have a very bad case of BDS. You really need help. The people at Gitmo are dangerous and you want to give them our rights. You seem to think that we just go willy-nilly kidnapping people for the hell of it. What a twisted view you have.

Everything is Bush's fault? No. I don't think I've said that. As far as the conduct of the US government is concerned, yes, the buck stops right in the Oval Office. And that is where Bush happens to sit. For your information, the vast majority of detainees in Gitmo have been released w/o ever having been charged with anything at all. If they are so motherfcuking dangerous, then what the ** business does the Bush administration have releasing them? You gotta listen to yourself every now and then and start weighing the propaganda that the White House has been pushing onto you against some common sense.

[GaryC 7]

Everything is Bush's fault? No. I don't think I've said that. As far as the conduct of the US government is concerned, yes, the buck stops right in the Oval Office. And that is where Bush happens to sit. For your information, the vast majority of detainees in Gitmo have been released w/o ever having been charged with anything at all. If they are so motherfcuking dangerous, then what the ** business does the Bush administration have releasing them? You gotta listen to yourself every now and then and start weighing the propaganda that the White House has been pushing onto you against some common sense.

Don't even mention common sense. Your position on this shown none. You want to believe the tin foil hat conspiracy theories that you read because you blame Bush for everything. Bush has kept this country safe. I applaud him for his efforts. Has he been perfect? Far from it. But he has gotten it right a lot more than wrong. If you get your messiah in office then mark my words, we will have another attack that will make 9/11 look like a peace rally.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Everything is Bush's fault? No. I don't think I've said that. As far as the conduct of the US government is concerned, yes, the buck stops right in the Oval Office. And that is where Bush happens to sit. For your information, the vast majority of detainees in Gitmo have been released w/o ever having been charged with anything at all. If they are so motherfcuking dangerous, then what the ** business does the Bush administration have releasing them? You gotta listen to yourself every now and then and start weighing the propaganda that the White House has been pushing onto you against some common sense.

Don't even mention common sense. Your position on this shown none. You want to believe the tin foil hat conspiracy theories that you read because you blame Bush for everything. Bush has kept this country safe. I applaud him for his efforts. Has he been perfect? Far from it. But he has gotten it right a lot more than wrong. If you get your messiah in office then mark my words, we will have another attack that will make 9/11 look like a peace rally.

Yeah, Gary, that one again. It's what got Bush re-elected but I doubt it'll work again. Being afraid no longer is the patriotic thing to do.

Care to actually address the highlighted discrepancy in the argument the administration has been making? If they are the worst of the worst and the most dangerous scum out there, then why are they being released? Are we suicidal like that?

[GaryC 7]

Everything is Bush's fault? No. I don't think I've said that. As far as the conduct of the US government is concerned, yes, the buck stops right in the Oval Office. And that is where Bush happens to sit. For your information, the vast majority of detainees in Gitmo have been released w/o ever having been charged with anything at all. If they are so motherfcuking dangerous, then what the ** business does the Bush administration have releasing them? You gotta listen to yourself every now and then and start weighing the propaganda that the White House has been pushing onto you against some common sense.

Don't even mention common sense. Your position on this shown none. You want to believe the tin foil hat conspiracy theories that you read because you blame Bush for everything. Bush has kept this country safe. I applaud him for his efforts. Has he been perfect? Far from it. But he has gotten it right a lot more than wrong. If you get your messiah in office then mark my words, we will have another attack that will make 9/11 look like a peace rally.

Yeah, Gary, that one again. It's what got Bush re-elected but I doubt it'll work again. Being afraid no longer is the patriotic thing to do.

Care to actually address the highlighted discrepancy in the argument the administration has been making? If they are the worst of the worst and the most dangerous scum out there, then why are they being released? Are we suicidal like that?

Because of the lily livered left putting the spotlight on gitmo, thats why. They are under pressure from all sides to let these bastards out.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Everything is Bush's fault? No. I don't think I've said that. As far as the conduct of the US government is concerned, yes, the buck stops right in the Oval Office. And that is where Bush happens to sit. For your information, the vast majority of detainees in Gitmo have been released w/o ever having been charged with anything at all. If they are so motherfcuking dangerous, then what the ** business does the Bush administration have releasing them? You gotta listen to yourself every now and then and start weighing the propaganda that the White House has been pushing onto you against some common sense.

Don't even mention common sense. Your position on this shown none. You want to believe the tin foil hat conspiracy theories that you read because you blame Bush for everything. Bush has kept this country safe. I applaud him for his efforts. Has he been perfect? Far from it. But he has gotten it right a lot more than wrong. If you get your messiah in office then mark my words, we will have another attack that will make 9/11 look like a peace rally.

Yeah, Gary, that one again. It's what got Bush re-elected but I doubt it'll work again. Being afraid no longer is the patriotic thing to do.

Care to actually address the highlighted discrepancy in the argument the administration has been making? If they are the worst of the worst and the most dangerous scum out there, then why are they being released? Are we suicidal like that?

Because of the lily livered left putting the spotlight on gitmo, thats why. They are under pressure from all sides to let these bastards out.

Oh jeez, listen to yourself. Here are some facts for you - the US government intends to charge and try about 10% of the originally held 775 detainees. That means that 9 out of 10 persons will have been held there for years for absolutely nothing. Which means that 9 times out of 10 we've gotten it wrong. Now you might find that acceptable. I sure don't.

Edited June 15, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[GaryC 7]

Everything is Bush's fault? No. I don't think I've said that. As far as the conduct of the US government is concerned, yes, the buck stops right in the Oval Office. And that is where Bush happens to sit. For your information, the vast majority of detainees in Gitmo have been released w/o ever having been charged with anything at all. If they are so motherfcuking dangerous, then what the ** business does the Bush administration have releasing them? You gotta listen to yourself every now and then and start weighing the propaganda that the White House has been pushing onto you against some common sense.

Don't even mention common sense. Your position on this shown none. You want to believe the tin foil hat conspiracy theories that you read because you blame Bush for everything. Bush has kept this country safe. I applaud him for his efforts. Has he been perfect? Far from it. But he has gotten it right a lot more than wrong. If you get your messiah in office then mark my words, we will have another attack that will make 9/11 look like a peace rally.

Yeah, Gary, that one again. It's what got Bush re-elected but I doubt it'll work again. Being afraid no longer is the patriotic thing to do.

Care to actually address the highlighted discrepancy in the argument the administration has been making? If they are the worst of the worst and the most dangerous scum out there, then why are they being released? Are we suicidal like that?

Because of the lily livered left putting the spotlight on gitmo, thats why. They are under pressure from all sides to let these bastards out.

Oh jeez, listen to yourself. Here are some facts for you - the US government intends to charge and try about 10% of the originally held 775 detainees. That means that 9 out of 10 persons will have been held for nothing. Which means that 9 times out of 10 we've gotten it wrong. Now you might find that acceptable. I sure don't.

I find it very acceptable. If you think that the other 9 were faultless then you haven't a clue. Very few of them were just innocent bystanders. They just didn't rise to the level of the worst of the worst. If we have to sift through this human garbage to find the really bad ones then so be it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Everything is Bush's fault? No. I don't think I've said that. As far as the conduct of the US government is concerned, yes, the buck stops right in the Oval Office. And that is where Bush happens to sit. For your information, the vast majority of detainees in Gitmo have been released w/o ever having been charged with anything at all. If they are so motherfcuking dangerous, then what the ** business does the Bush administration have releasing them? You gotta listen to yourself every now and then and start weighing the propaganda that the White House has been pushing onto you against some common sense.

Don't even mention common sense. Your position on this shown none. You want to believe the tin foil hat conspiracy theories that you read because you blame Bush for everything. Bush has kept this country safe. I applaud him for his efforts. Has he been perfect? Far from it. But he has gotten it right a lot more than wrong. If you get your messiah in office then mark my words, we will have another attack that will make 9/11 look like a peace rally.

Yeah, Gary, that one again. It's what got Bush re-elected but I doubt it'll work again. Being afraid no longer is the patriotic thing to do.

Care to actually address the highlighted discrepancy in the argument the administration has been making? If they are the worst of the worst and the most dangerous scum out there, then why are they being released? Are we suicidal like that?

Because of the lily livered left putting the spotlight on gitmo, thats why. They are under pressure from all sides to let these bastards out.

Oh jeez, listen to yourself. Here are some facts for you - the US government intends to charge and try about 10% of the originally held 775 detainees. That means that 9 out of 10 persons will have been held for nothing. Which means that 9 times out of 10 we've gotten it wrong. Now you might find that acceptable. I sure don't.

I find it very acceptable. If you think that the other 9 were faultless then you haven't a clue. Very few of them were just innocent bystanders. They just didn't rise to the level of the worst of the worst. If we have to sift through this human garbage to find the really bad ones then so be it.

This type of arrogance is but one of the reasons why there's so much hate towards America in the world.