“…They will be emboldened and will return to launching terrorist attacks on US targets and allies overseas. And probably on US soil…”
And spending millions of U.S. Taxpayer dollars at GITMO housing them was going to prevent others from doing this?
Are YOU serious?
Mufasa
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I stand by my post.
These “freed” prisoners are far from being “free”…so yes…I am serious.
[/quote]
But no longer to be taken seriously.
[/quote]
I’m heartbroken…what will I ever do now that SM will not take me seriously?
:(-
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…They will be emboldened and will return to launching terrorist attacks on US targets and allies overseas. And probably on US soil…”
And spending millions of U.S. Taxpayer dollars at GITMO housing them was going to prevent others from doing this?
Are YOU serious?
Mufasa[/quote]
Yes very logical. Don’t lock up terrorists because it encourages other terrorists. Let’s just release KSM, Ramzi Yousef, Abu Zubaydah and all the rest of them.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…They will be emboldened and will return to launching terrorist attacks on US targets and allies overseas. And probably on US soil…”
And spending millions of U.S. Taxpayer dollars at GITMO housing them was going to prevent others from doing this?
Are YOU serious?
Mufasa[/quote]
Yes very logical. Don’t lock up terrorists because it encourages other terrorists. Let’s just release KSM, Ramzi Yousef, Abu Zubaydah and all the rest of them.
[/quote]
Not a straw man, no. You argued in favour of releasing these terrorists then attempted to defend your position by saying holding them won’t stop other terrorists. A logical parsing of that statement is that terrorists should be released so other terrorists won’t commit terrorism.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Not a straw man, no. You argued in favour of releasing these terrorists then attempted to defend your position by saying holding them won’t stop other terrorists. A logical parsing of that statement is that terrorists should be released so other terrorists won’t commit terrorism.[/quote]
No…a biased and partisan interpretation of my comments would lead one to that conclusion.
Whether they are in GITMO…killing each other in Syria…or raping young girls in Pakistan will make no difference in the dangers that we face domestically and abroad when it relates to Terrorist threats.
Mufasa
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Not a straw man, no. You argued in favour of releasing these terrorists then attempted to defend your position by saying holding them won’t stop other terrorists. A logical parsing of that statement is that terrorists should be released so other terrorists won’t commit terrorism.[/quote]
Well, there are, at current count, about 150 guys left in Guantanamo. Holding them there until they die of old age is somewhat problematic, and so is gassing them en masse and incinerating their bodies. I suppose we could put them to work on sugar or tobacco plantations. I hear there are a lot of those in Cuba.
Letting them go would send the wrong message to the international community. What would the world have thought of Stalin if he had just opened the gates of the gulags and set everyone free? They’d have thought he’d gone soft, is what. The president can’t risk that. Not after that video in the Polish gym.
Obviously there won’t be any trials for war crimes by military tribunals. The risk is that some of the detainees would be found not guilty of any crime, and boy, wouldn’t that be embarrassing.
So yeah, best to just hold onto them in case we need to trade them for the next serviceman who is “captured” by the Taliban.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Well, there are, at current count, about 150 guys left in Guantanamo. Holding them there until they die of old age is somewhat problematic, and so is gassing them en masse and incinerating their bodies. I suppose we could put them to work on sugar or tobacco plantations. I hear there are a lot of those in Cuba.
Letting them go would send the wrong message to the international community. What would the world have thought of Stalin if he had just opened the gates of the gulags and set everyone free? They’d have thought he’d gone soft, is what. The president can’t risk that. Not after that video in the Polish gym.
[/quote]
You’re comparing Gitmo to Stalin’s gulags? Stalin’s gulags held millions of innocent people and the conditions were so bad that most of them died of overwork, exposure, starvation and torture. Gitmo detains the most dangerous terrorists in the world and they get better medical treatment than US veterans. If you want to be taken seriously, don’t engage in crazy moral relativism.
No it wouldn’t be embarrassing.
Sorry, SM. I forgot the winkie smilie indicating ironic snarkiness.
There. All better.
And for the record, I also referenced Nazi death camps and black slavery. Also in an ironic manner.
Seriously, though, 149 guys, 78 of them just waiting to be released, presumably because they have been determined to be not some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world. What do you think is going to happen to the remaining 71?
Tried? Released? Held? Executed? Traded?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Not a straw man, no. You argued in favour of releasing these terrorists then attempted to defend your position by saying holding them won’t stop other terrorists. A logical parsing of that statement is that terrorists should be released so other terrorists won’t commit terrorism.[/quote]
No…a biased and partisan interpretation of my comments would lead one to that conclusion.
Whether they are in GITMO…killing each other in Syria…or raping young girls in Pakistan will make no difference in the dangers that we face domestically and abroad when it relates to Terrorist threats.
Mufasa[/quote]
Disagree.
Being in Gitmo means they are less effective to rally their troops in their fight. If in Gitmo, they cannot plan strategy, offer moral inspiration to the younger generations of Al Qaeda.
Not in a million years would I put enemy senior leaders back on the battle field, these are not goat herders we are talking about.
Honestly, I think Obama thought the backlash if Bergdahl died in “captivity” might be worse than doing this trade. I think he thought there would be a shitstorm that we didn’t do enough to get him back.
But the collective wisdom of Congress (which is why he didn’t consult with them) and even Leon Panetta, was to not do this deal. Bam went out on a limb and is now on an island of suck.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sorry, SM. I forgot the winkie smilie indicating ironic snarkiness.
There. All better.
And for the record, I also referenced Nazi death camps and black slavery. Also in an ironic manner.
Seriously, though, 149 guys, 78 of them just waiting to be released, presumably because they have been determined to be not some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world. What do you think is going to happen to the remaining 71?
Tried? Released? Held? Executed? Traded?[/quote]
I think most of them will be released. Probably a few will be tried in civilian courts.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Not a straw man, no. You argued in favour of releasing these terrorists then attempted to defend your position by saying holding them won’t stop other terrorists. A logical parsing of that statement is that terrorists should be released so other terrorists won’t commit terrorism.[/quote]
No…a biased and partisan interpretation of my comments would lead one to that conclusion.
Whether they are in GITMO…killing each other in Syria…or raping young girls in Pakistan will make no difference in the dangers that we face domestically and abroad when it relates to Terrorist threats.
Mufasa[/quote]
Disagree.
Being in Gitmo means they are less effective to rally their troops in their fight. If in Gitmo, they cannot plan strategy, offer moral inspiration to the younger generations of Al Qaeda.
Not in a million years would I put enemy senior leaders back on the battle field, these are not goat herders we are talking about.
Honestly, I think Obama thought the backlash if Bergdahl died in “captivity” might be worse than doing this trade. I think he thought there would be a shitstorm that we didn’t do enough to get him back.
But the collective wisdom of Congress (which is why he didn’t consult with them) and even Leon Panetta, was to not do this deal. Bam went out on a limb and is now on an island of suck. [/quote]
And do you think there are not others to take there place?
“Being in Gitmo means they are less effective to rally their troops in their fight” yes not them personally but, the use of “they have one of us” can and is used to rally them.
“…I think he (Obama)…thought there would be a shitstorm that we didn’t do enough to get him back…”
Thought?
LOLZ.
Oh…there would have been one, guaranteed…
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…I think he (Obama)…thought there would be a shitstorm that we didn’t do enough to get him back…”
Thought?
LOLZ.
Oh…there would have been one, guaranteed…
Mufasa
[/quote]
A nonsense Dem talking point. It’s like saying there would’ve been a shit storm if Obama hadn’t introduced Obamacare. The reason for the transfer should be obvious to anyone.
Obama’s state of the union address January 2014:
“With the Afghan war ending, this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…”
The primary motivation was not to distract from the VA scandal. It’s Obama’s objective to close Gitmo and unilaterally disengage from Afghanistan in the pathetically naive belief that to do so will endear Islamists to America and end hostilities.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…I think he (Obama)…thought there would be a shitstorm that we didn’t do enough to get him back…”
Thought?
LOLZ.
Oh…there would have been one, guaranteed…
Mufasa
[/quote]
A nonsense Dem talking point. It’s like saying there would’ve been a shit storm if Obama hadn’t introduced Obamacare. The reason for the transfer should be obvious to anyone.
Obama’s state of the union address January 2014:
“With the Afghan war ending, this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…”
The primary motivation was not to distract from the VA scandal. It’s Obama’s objective to close Gitmo and unilaterally disengage from Afghanistan in the pathetically naive belief that to do so will endear Islamists to America and end hostilities.[/quote]
I like Bill Maher’s tag , “Black Tracking” it is where the Republicans don’t like something the “BLACK” man did , that was originally , their idea
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…I think he (Obama)…thought there would be a shitstorm that we didn’t do enough to get him back…”
Thought?
LOLZ.
Oh…there would have been one, guaranteed…
Mufasa
[/quote]
A nonsense Dem talking point. It’s like saying there would’ve been a shit storm if Obama hadn’t introduced Obamacare. The reason for the transfer should be obvious to anyone.
Obama’s state of the union address January 2014:
“With the Afghan war ending, this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…”
The primary motivation was not to distract from the VA scandal. It’s Obama’s objective to close Gitmo and unilaterally disengage from Afghanistan in the pathetically naive belief that to do so will endear Islamists to America and end hostilities.[/quote]
I like Bill Maher’s tag , “Black Tracking” it is where the Republicans don’t like something the “BLACK” man did , that was originally , their idea
[/quote]
So it’s down to racism as opposed to partisanism? BTW, I hate the Republican establishment and would never and have never supported the release of dangerous terrorists whoever does it. I’m on record for criticising Netanyahu for releasing terrorists.
Holding people indefinitely with out trial is bullshit. I don’t care what they did. TRY THEM. CONVICT THEM. EXECUTE THEM. That’s how it works. If they are innocent, set them free. If their crime doesn’t rise the level of execution, give them a prison term, let them serve it and release them. These are basic principles of JUSTICE. Holding someone indefinitely without trial is UNJUST. Even back in the fucking middle ages, a man got to stand before the lord of the castle and speak his piece before he got his head chopped off.
I don’t really care how some lawyer “classified” these individuals as “combatants” or whatever. They are people being held FOR YEARS with no trial and no release date… Based on “classified intelligence”. Intelligence gathered by a country that has “classified” programs to spy on it’s allies, citizens and enemies alike. It’s a slippery slope. Next thing you know, they’ll be executing AMERICAN CITIZENS with out a trial.
Oh, wait…
We have a constitution based on principles. Those principles are important. But those principles have been watered down and eroded by lawmakers who find those principles “inconvenient”. And many conservatives are worried about two men fucking each other? How about worrying about the constitution first (you know, the thing that guarantees our Life, LIBERTY, and pursuit of happiness?)
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Holding people indefinitely with out trial is bullshit. I don’t care what they did. TRY THEM. CONVICT THEM. EXECUTE THEM. That’s how it works. If they are innocent, set them free. If their crime doesn’t rise the level of execution, give them a prison term, let them serve it and release them. These are basic principles of JUSTICE. Holding someone indefinitely without trial is UNJUST. Even back in the fucking middle ages, a man got to stand before the lord of the castle and speak his piece before he got his head chopped off.
[/quote]
You clearly don’t know much about the Middle Ages. And the concept of holding unlawful combatants without trial is enshrined in the Geneva convention.
[quote]
I don’t really care how some lawyer “classified” these individuals as “combatants” or whatever. They are people being held FOR YEARS with no trial and no release date… Based on “classified intelligence”. Intelligence gathered by a country that has “classified” programs to spy on it’s allies, citizens and enemies alike. It’s a slippery slope. Next thing you know, they’ll be executing AMERICAN CITIZENS with out a trial.
Oh, wait…
We have a constitution based on principles. Those principles are important. But those principles have been watered down and eroded by lawmakers who find those principles “inconvenient”. And many conservatives are worried about two men fucking each other? How about worrying about the constitution first (you know, the thing that guarantees our Life, LIBERTY, and pursuit of happiness?)[/quote]
The constitution applies to US citizens not foreign unlawful combatants.
The irony is that WE, the US of A, the torch holder of fucking democracy, the champion of the equal rights UNDER THE LAW are the ones that are doing this. We are the one’s who are supposed to show the WORLD how a functional democracy works. All we have done is demonstrate to the world that we are no better than any other “empire” that has risen and fallen before us. We have lost the moral high ground to tell ANY other country how they should treat people. We’ve lost our way.
OBL is probably laughing his ass off right now. Look at America Pre - 9/11 and look at it now… That muther fucker won…
Oh I see. America is no better than the Imperial Japanese or the Nazis in WWII. Okay, bye now.