Hey .. uhhh.. Im just saying..

Guantanomo detainee resurfaces : http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/...e.1-414168.php

So the best way of dealing with the situation is to put them back on the streets?

By the way when Obama was asked what he would do with the prisonors he dident seem to have an answer other than "were comming up with a plan".

You wasted I don't know how much time on spin and excuses. Your rebuttal is nothing more than that. ;)

Yep. Like I said before, some of the continuity will continue. The silence from the Obama drone voters is funny though. Does this strike make Obama a "War Criminal" in their eyes? And people wonder why I consider liberals to be fools. I'm glad that so far, we haven't changed policy in any major way regarding Afghanistan. Hopefully, Mr. Obama will maintain course, Like Mr. Bush did in Iraq. Of course Obama's kinda shooting himself in the foot if his Gitmo closure policies lead to releasing people who were found on the battlefields of Afghanistan in the first place. If they decide to go back and rejoin the fight, and coalition troops die at their hands, Mr. Obama will be solely responsible, and he should be heavily rebuked for that naive policy.

Yes, I am a U.S. citizen and former USAF veteran(Enlisted then Officer). I don't know what you determine to be a "fair go". But I don't think that I nor any other concerned U.S. citizen should not speak out against bad policy, just to give your version of a "fair go" to Obama. That's plain crazy. Ain't gonna happen. Suck it up, Obama worshipper. I don't mean you personally, I'm speaking generally to the drones. But you should have shown up in 2001 and talked to the idiot liberals that chose not to give Mr. Bush a "fair go", because their nut Gore didn't win and they felt repudiated. There has already been demonstrated a huge difference in how we handle ourselves vs. Obama, versus how those bottom-feeding liberal skunks handle themselves. So far I haven't seen any conservatives with "Obama=Hitler" signs yet. Although with the airstrike you linked to above, you'd think Code Pink and other liberals mental giants would. Shouldn't they?

Guilt needs top be proven. and not at the end of all time, but within a reasonable timeframe. If you can't, you have to release the guy. that is basic minimum standard for any legal system.

For gitmo, essentialy diffamation that never needed to be proven in it's claims was enough to turn somebody into a high-security prisoner. That is common practice in a policestate or a dictatorship, and often the state is the one casting the diffamation to get rid of somebody without needing evidence. Is the US a policestate and dictatorship?

But the really most sickening argument pro Gitmo, reduced to it's simpliest mechanisim, goes like this:

"Why is he sitting in Gitmo?"
"Because he is a terrorist."
"Has it been proven?"
"No, but they know it."
"How do they know?"
"Why would he be brought to Gitmo if he were not a terrorist?"

And how often have argumentations like this (that make ridicule of any logic in laws) been posted in this forum! Time and again.

You hit the nail on the head. The hawks like to create this false choice where the only two options are 1) keeping them locked up in Gitmo indefinately and 2) Letting them go scot free.

That is not what the reality of the situation is.

Giving an accused a fair trial is a basic human right going back to the Magna Carta. If these people are indeed unrepentant terrorists, then it should be a slam dunk case for any prosecutor. What does it say about your faith in our justice system if you deny someone the right to a trial?

According to reports I've listened to on CNN, one reason the govt wants to avoid putting them on trial is because of the interrogation methods used to get vital info out of them, that's sure to come out in the trial. Say you have a known terrorist, someone high up in the Al Queda network, how do you get him to talk without making him "uncomfortable"?

The guy that got Zarqawi says:

"We turned several hard cases, including some foreign fighters, by using our new techniques. A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, 'I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate.'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

Ok, so powered donuts and a full body massage is the way to go? :rotfl:

Ok, if it works, fine with me.

Oops! Someone still got messed up. ;)

Yes, guilt must be proven, I agree. What I disagree with is the assumption many on the left make that guilt can only be proven in a civilian court of law using guidelines set aside for citizens.

Let's say I've got a photo of a guy firing an AK-47 at a target at some terrorist camp. I don't need a freakin' civilian court to tell me that the photo is indeed proof that the guy is a terrorist.

The civilian court system in the US often forces us to attempt to refute the irrefutable in order to ensure the integrity of the system. With terrorism, we often don't have time for such a rigmarole. Instead, the integrity of the system is ensured by the promise of poor results for keeping the wrong people detained.

Sure, the system is imperfect. But so is the civilian judicial system. The guilty get off the hook all the time, while occassionally an innocent person languishes in prison.

With the choice between two clearly imperfect systems, I choose the one which promises the best results of keeping our country safe.

If it were Ben and Jerrys ice cream and the masseuse was a redheaded chick, I may sign up for al Qaeda. :rotfl:

I choose sticking to our values and principles of justice. As Jon Stewart on the Daily Show said: "If you don't stick to your values when they're being tested, they're not values. They're hobbies."

In germany we have had our experience with sa lgal system that was not object to any checks and balances and publicly legitimised counter-control. It was a desaster and saw Justitia going to a suicidal orgy. All on the basis of evidences and laws - both of which nobody was allowed to re-check.

We're talking about an extremely limited application, here - with a different, RESULTS-oriented system of checks and balances. I don't see how this could possibly result in any disaster.This is the kind of broad statement liberals love to scream from the mountaintops.

What are, exactly, our "values" and "priciples of justice"?

The Preamble of the US CONSTITUTION specifically mentions "provide for the common defense".

That's a value too, right?

What if a terrorist, whom we have PROOF of being a terrorist, gets off the hook due to some precedural issue? Doesn't that compromise our value of justice that you're so concerned about? Does it not also compromise our value of common defense?

Moving on, what are our "principles of justice"? Constitutionally, our principles of justice apply only to US citizens or to crimes committed in the United States by other citizens. The military has the only judicial system to deal with crimes committed against the US outside of the United States. There are indeed extradiction treaties, but those don't apply to these cases.

I contend that we aren't abandoning our principles of justice at all. In fact, our "principles of justice" weren't designed to deal with this situation.

If that is true it has nothing to do with this administration and any accusations will relate to the last.

If they had "Enhanced Interrogation" They get out scot free and you can thank the ones who came up with that if they go join some radical movement.

If the policy continues under this new administration, then this new Obama administration is culpable and responsible for any sources and methods used to gain any useful intelligence. If Obama truly does close Gitmo, and some of these vermin are set free, and they proceed to rejoin the fight in Afghanistan, with American deaths as a result, it will all fall on Mr. Obama. And Obama should be heavily rebuked for the naive policy which put terrorists back in circulation. There will be no freebies, do-overs or repudiations of responsibility for Obama and his administration. None. As President it now falls completely on him.