In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
"So you're saying that anything you don't like that a Repub administration does is the liberals fault, anything they do that you like is just good Repub policy even though they are both done by the same people.That is quite convenient.
I bet you win alot of arguments that way.
Of course the obvious should go without saying... if the liberals have so much influence over the opposing party then; Why have two parties?
Or are the liberals just there for you to blame for all the failings of the Repub party, regardless of culpability?"
I am glad you agree that releasing prisoners from GITMO is a terrible idea. The Bush Adminstration is to blame for releasing terrorists to other countries, who went back to the battlefield to kill again....
So please explain to me why we should not only release GITMO prisoners, but release them into US territory, pay them money and make them citizens?
I can speak for myself thank you, so I don't need you putting words in my mouth that I never said.
It's an accepted fact that some of the detainees at Gitmo are innocent.
Those, and only those, people should be released.
Your blanket assumption that they are all guilty and shouldn't be released is just wrong for a couple of reasons.
I've read many of your posts and one of the overriding themes is that gov't is bad and gets everything wrong. So why are you so intent to believe all of these prisoners are guilty? They were captured by that same gov't you keep saying is so incompetent. It sounds like another one of your 'selective' arguments where you only accept those things that align with your political ideology and conveniently dismiss the realities that you just don't like.
One of the founding principals of the US was:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Your position is in conflict with what this country stands for. The Dec of Ind. doesn't say only Americans. The Founding Fathers recognized that depriving anyone of their Liberty without just cause was immoral and in conflict with the law of the Creator. That document is just as valid for these innocents as it was for the colonists fighting for their own Liberty.
As for restitution, I think they should be given something for wrongly losing a decade or more of their life.
"The Founding Fathers recognized that depriving anyone of their Liberty without just cause was immoral "
By the laws of war, those not in uniform, spies, sabouteurs and terrorists could be hung without trial. General George Washington followed that Law of War, the Declaration of Independence notwithstanding...
Get real. Unless you have forgotten the 3,000 killed on 9/11 and the thousands of innocent terror victims, there is just cause. This is war.
It is an accepted fact that most GITMO detainees are Jihadists, whose mission in life is to commit mass murder aginst Americans. Most were captured on the battlefield.
Once again, you cannot use the domestic criminal laws and burdens of proof in a situation of terrorism and war.
Where is the precedent for prisoners of war to each get an individual trial after capture on the battlefield, so they could argue it was all a big mistake? Did German prisoners of war each get a trial? POWs stay incarcerated until the conflict ends.
There ya go again, trusting the inept gov't only when it suits your political ideology.
It's hard to argue a point with someone who inserts opinion in place of fact.
Who says every one of these detainees is guilty?
It certainly wasn't Bush, the guy who set up the camp in the first place. He released hundreds of prisoners.
It certainly isn't the military who is in charge of these prisoners.
By November 2005, 358 of the then-505 detainees held at Guantanamo Bay had Administrative Review Board hearings. Of these, 3% were granted and were awaiting release, 20% were to be transferred, 37% were to be further detained at Guantanamo, and no decision had been made in 40% of the cases. ... Of two dozen Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay, The Washington Post reported on August 25, 2005, fifteen were found not to be "enemy combatants."
As for your specious and wildly innacurate "rules of war" argument, the US Supreme Court has ruled at least TWICE on the matter, finding both times that the detainee process was illegal under BOTH US law and the Geneva Convention.
In July 2004, following the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruling by the US Supreme Court, which said detainees had the right to challenge detention before an impartial tribunal, the Bush administration established Combatant Status Review Tribunals to determine whether individual detainees were "enemy combatants."
On June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and found that President Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals. They ruled that the commissions were illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention.
This is where you blame the liberals and anyone who believes in the founding principals of this country and the rule of law as decided by the US Supreme Court only because you can't accept the facts. It's easier to mindlessly blame someone, anyone, because reality isn't going the way you want it to.
Welcome back, angryman.