closing club gitmo
January 22, 2009
here we go… the deconstructing of our security.
after only a day and 1/2 in office The One, who promised to ‘fight terrorism’ in his coronation speech, signed an executive order to close gitmo and the other black sites (super secret bases in eastern europe and elsewhere where we kept the baddest of the bad guys) within a year.
… on Thursday will order the closure of so-called black sites, where CIA and European security services have interrogated terrorist suspects, under executive orders dismantling much of the Bush admistration’s architecture for the war on terror, according to four individuals familiar with a draft executive order.
Mr. Obama will shutter “all permanant detention facilities overseas,” the draft said, according to the individuals who asked not to be named because the orders have not yet been signed. There are at least eight such prisons, according to published reports. The Bush administration never revealed the number or location of the facilities, although several were said to be in Eastern Europe.
there are currently about 250 very dangerous terrorists at gitmo and The One’s minions are calling for a ’series of reviews’ to decide what to do with them. most likely? they will wind up in the US at military facilities.
so instead of issuing orders to protect the United States from jihadis, which happens to be the first duty listed in the Constitution, and part of the oath of office, he will issue orders to be nice to islamic jihadis. this is probably an attempt to make the world love us to rebuild our image in the world.
these terrorists live at an all expense paid resort, have each gained an average of 18 lbs on our food, are provided all they need in terms of dietary and religious accomodations, and have the best health care in the world. this is simply concrete evidence on how weak Obama will be in fighting the War on Terror. this is also very similar appeasement as in the ’90’s with clinton and we know what happened after that.
it is patently clear the decision to do this was a political nod to the moonbats and not security-driven.
i’m so with rush on this. instead of retiring his ‘club gitmo gear,’ with the closing of the facility, he is simply adapting to the market and the circumstances by ordering more stuff — working toward our economic revitalization mind you — by adding the phrase ‘club gitmo…when america was safe.’
go buy yours, and a spare, as soon as they become available!
Posted in barack obama, moonbats, scary stuff, terrorism
'a wise man's heart directs him toward the right but a foolish man's heart directs him toward the left'
ecclesiastes 10:2
content rss
facebook
twitter
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:47 am
Kate,
You must have missed this part of the inaugural address:
“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.”
You see, just because it’s a scary world (and it is), we must not succumb to fear by stripping away the rights of ALL people… and yes, that includes evil, sociopathic people.
If you can’t understand that, I’m sorry.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:56 am
New to the site - good stuff! I think I came here thru Villainous Company, but my memory is shaky on that - and so many things.
Dade - I hope you never have to experience the raw terror and unending grief that comes when someone you love is slaughtered by one of those evil, sociopathic people. If you have, your view is puzzling to say the least.
I have - the daughter of old friends was on Flight 11 on 9/11/01. Everytime there is a tribute or documentary on TV about 9/11, I get to see her die all over again. Every 9/11 I remember the life that was lost - a young woman, newly engaged, starting a new job. And the 2,999 others just like her - people with lives to live, who were just going about their business on a normal day like any other.
Terrorists are evil and sociopathic - and it is the responsibility of our CinC to defend our nation against such tyrannies and despots. Ensuring that they don’t get interrogated using methods that ensure information is shared - ensures that an attack on our own soil is mere months away - again.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
The first duty of our President is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Get it? The Constitution!
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Hmmm - protect, defend, enemies, foreign.
Got it. What about you? Because I don’t think “Constitution of the United States” means what you think it means.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
hey there dade. of course i get it. and i most certainly did see and then read the transcript too. i know what he said. can you actually believe that closing a prison for terrorists makes us more safe? more protected? how? i dont see the logic there.
i’m not the one who signed the eo to close gitmo. the one did. and frankly, i have no problems whatsoever stripping rights from terrorists. they forfeit those when their main purpose for existance is to destroy the west. and me. and you. and all we know and love and value. the constitution is not for foreign terrorists. it is for us dade. to protect us.
i’m glad we agree they are sociopaths. indeed. however i probably wouldn’t have gone as far as provide even a gitmo facility. i would have killed them.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
hi there kris! so nice to have you here. thanks so much for your perspective. i am so there with you.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Quoth Kate:
hey there dade. of course i get it. and i most certainly did see and then read the transcript too. i know what he said. can you actually believe that closing a prison for terrorists makes us more safe? more protected? how? i dont see the logic there.
First of all, these GITMO detainees are not necessarily going to be released. They are going to be afforded their rights. The rights that are predicated on the clause in the Declaration of Independence which says “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” No exceptions.
Also, it makes you more safe and more protected because it ensures that you can never be denied your rights if you are ever falsely accused of a crime.
i’m not the one who signed the eo to close gitmo. the one did. and frankly, i have no problems whatsoever stripping rights from terrorists. they forfeit those when their main purpose for existance is to destroy the west. and me. and you. and all we know and love and value. the constitution is not for foreign terrorists. it is for us dade. to protect us.
I will take responsibility for my own personal safety. But I demand from the government that I be afforded my rights.
i’m glad we agree they are sociopaths. indeed. however i probably wouldn’t have gone as far as provide even a gitmo facility. i would have killed them.
Constitutional rights are the endowment of the Creator. They cannot be refused by men simply because one is a sociopath.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.”
Remember, Dade, these were Obamas words. Just because he believes the same thing that you do, doesn’t make it right. Obama BELIEVES that those in Gitmo deserve the same rights as U.S. citizens. An interesting question arises, though, with this belief. If tomorrow we go to war with Russia, China, etc. and we capture thousands of enemy troops, what do we do with them? Do we hold them in U.S. prisons and guarantee them the same rights? Do we have civilian trials for thousands of enemy soldiers? Obama has just set the stage for that very thing. Unless you contend that uniformed soldiers of foreign nations don’t deserve the same rights as terrorists in civilians clothes targeting civilians.
Also, as far as the founding fathers, they would usually hang traitors, pretty quickly, like right after the trial. Today that would be construed as denying them due process, yet back then that WAS due process. So did the founding fathers violate their own constitution when they hanged traitors, criminals, etc?
It’s also interesting to see how the left holds people like President Lincoln and President Roosevelt up as shining stars when these two presidents committed acts that were later deemed unconstitutional.
The decision on Gitmo was merely an interpretation of the Constitution, it doesn’t make it a correct one.
There’s also another saying “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I agree with the OP, closing Gitmo and black sites should not be done. These individuals are not US citizens, and therefore are not under our Constitution, should never be considered so, nor should they be given any rights under the Geneva Convention either. They are enemy combatants and they have the right to never be released, but that should be all they have the right to do.
Should any of these individuals be released and return to their former ways that got them the trip to Gitmo in the first place, BHO and his appeasing policies will be to blame and it will be hung around his neck like a millstone.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. ”
During WW2 we gave up the right to have our lights on at night and many other liberties that enabled us to defeat the enemy.
“our ideals” is the catch phrase here.
Speak for yourself.
“Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine,”
Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine,
The simple fact is that Barry should of figured out where these guys were going to go first. This is the same level of thinking that commits to a withdrawal date with no consideration to whatever the status is at the time, or considering that projecting your intentions is the last thing you do in war.
“The first duty of our President is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Get it? The Constitution!”
Hmm…
I always thought the people themselves were a little more important.
“First of all, these GITMO detainees are not necessarily going to be released. They are going to be afforded their rights. ”
” Their rights ” are not American rights.
As it says later in the constitution “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Get it ? “CERTAIN” rights.
So yes, there are exceptions. Otherwise anyone in the world would be able to waltz right over our borders and do as any American would.
“Also, it makes you more safe and more protected because it ensures that you can never be denied your rights if you are ever falsely accused of a crime.”
What crock !
It does not make us safe from terrorists, thats for damn sure.
The laws you speak of that ensure your rights never be denied to you as a US citizen are already in place.
First and foremost we should really be worrying that our citizens are being represented under the constitution and the bill of rights before people who want us dead arer afforded half the consideration.
We just kissed radical Islams a$$ royaly on both cheecks
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
This one got away from me.
“Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine,”
Why couldnt we imagine it ? Its common history. Actually there is no way they could of imagined the perils we face with todays threats.
They didnt have to worry about biological agents being released, planes flying into buldings or weapons that could take out an entire city in a second.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Ken says:
Remember, Dade, these were Obamas words. Just because he believes the same thing that you do, doesn’t make it right. Obama BELIEVES that those in Gitmo deserve the same rights as U.S. citizens. An interesting question arises, though, with this belief. If tomorrow we go to war with Russia, China, etc. and we capture thousands of enemy troops, what do we do with them? Do we hold them in U.S. prisons and guarantee them the same rights? Do we have civilian trials for thousands of enemy soldiers? Obama has just set the stage for that very thing. Unless you contend that uniformed soldiers of foreign nations don’t deserve the same rights as terrorists in civilians clothes targeting civilians.
My point is that they have rights. Whether terrorists are tried in civilian courts or in military tribunals is something that is open for debate. But terrorist suspects, just like you or me or Kate, have a right to try to prove their innocence, and that means, according to our constitution, that they have a right to legal counsel and a day in court.
Also, as far as the founding fathers, they would usually hang traitors, pretty quickly, like right after the trial. Today that would be construed as denying them due process, yet back then that WAS due process. So did the founding fathers violate their own constitution when they hanged traitors, criminals, etc?
The key is that there was a trial. Not an indefinite internment.
It’s also interesting to see how the left holds people like President Lincoln and President Roosevelt up as shining stars when these two presidents committed acts that were later deemed unconstitutional.
Very true! Lincoln suspended habeas corpus at least 3 times during the Civil War. And FDR issued Executive Order 9066, authorizing the internment of Japanese Americans in camps. Egregious constitutional transgressions. (And, didn’t the courts find that the US government must pay restitution to interred Japanese Americans as a result of their interment? I can’t remember…)
The decision on Gitmo was merely an interpretation of the Constitution, it doesn’t make it a correct one.
There’s also another saying “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
Also true. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t the courts (our constitutional interpretters) determined that the facility at GITMO is illegal? And hadn’t Bush already started looking for ways to close GITMO?
And, Ken and Kate, I very much appreciate these civil debates.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:29 pm
One last thing: remember that the Supreme Court has already ruled that Gitmo detainees have a right to appeal their internment in US civilian courts. Here’s the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25117953/
Quoting Justice Anthony Kennedy: The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:37 pm
“And, Ken and Kate, I very much appreciate these civil debates.”
‘As no one confronts me on my BS examples and thinking that will ruin the country.’
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Mickey Mouse.
Shut the hell up. You sound as stoopid as some of those morons who just left the White House! And go back to school to learn to research you dipstick!
Close that stoopid conscentration camp now. We have become the very thing we were suppose to be fighting against. There are reports from humanitarian agencies all over the internet telling of the inhumane things we do to those men. Most who are only there because they got caught up in a dragnet of fearmongering from George Shrub and his criminal administration.
Mickey you are a fool. And you would want rights for yer family wouldn’t you? Why wouldn’t we give thjem to the guys at guantannomo? I bet you are all about torturing too. I think it’s the right thing to do to help us be more civilized. We lost alot with Shrub as the president. We need to get it back. I wish it wasn’t gouing to be a year though.
So get with Mickey Mouse. Or we’ll send you to old Gitmo!
And Blog Lady: Why are you always deleting my posts? He is the nasty one.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
In a blistering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision “will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”
Anthony Kennedy is wrong. There was no reason to give enemy combatants any rights to protection under the Constitution. It was a stupid ruling loved and adored by un-American trash. Ergo it’s the reason the libs like the ruling.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Hoo, boy. We got us another “live” one with Ted. And I quote:
Anthony Kennedy is wrong. There was no reason to give enemy combatants any rights to protection under the Constitution. It was a stupid ruling loved and adored by un-American trash. Ergo it’s the reason the libs like the ruling.
Unfortunately for you, Ted, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And the Supreme Court is the interpreter of the Constitution. And the Supreme Court ruled that the detainees are protected under the Constitution.
So, the “un-American trash” to which you refer would apparently include 5 Supreme Court justices and anyone who defers to their ruling and the Constitution.
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Yeah, we do have a live one, and it’s whackos like you and your friends at DKos and democraticunderground who fit that description.
Unfortunately for all of us who actually love the Constitution, we have judges in all corners of the judiciary who legislate from the bench rather than apply the rule of law. It’s been noticable for a long time now. In this case, those in favor were probably the same 5 USSC justices who consistently rule via legislating from the bench. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito apply the law, the others apply their political ideology.
The ruling was wrong, and Scalia is right in that it will cause more Americans to be killed. But the ideology of libs are obviously more important to them than correctly interpreting the Constitution, otherwise the ruling would have been 9-0 the other way. That’s not even up for discussion among reasonable people.
Once again, these terrorists are released and go back to their old ways, the blood is on BHO’s hands and all those who support this ruling, it will be hung around their neck, and it will stay there until they drown. That’s what they get for being stupid.
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Ted slobbers:
The ruling was wrong, and Scalia is right in that it will cause more Americans to be killed. But the ideology of libs are obviously more important to them than correctly interpreting the Constitution, otherwise the ruling would have been 9-0 the other way. That’s not even up for discussion among reasonable people.
So, Ted, are you a constitutional scholar? How does one determine whether an interpretation of the constitution is “correct?” Doesn’t the Constitution state that the Supreme Court makes such interpretations by majority ruling? And, if so, how could the ruling be unconstitutional?
Now, let’s go back to that quotation from Justice Kennedy:
“The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”
You’ve stated that the ruling was incorrect. So, does that mean that the laws and Constitution only apply in “normal” times? And that, once we enter “extraordinary times” all bets are off?
Do tell!
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Let me put it to you this way; roll back the clock to 1776 and this discussion wouldn’t even be taking place. These terrorists would have been detained, information gathered from them however it was deemed necessary, and they would have been either shot or kept in prison. Individuals crying about the “rights” of those trying to destroy the USA would have been told to shut up in short order. For this discussion to go any further, you need to try and convince me (and I dare say many, many others) that wouldn’t have been the case. And that’s a losing proposition on your part, because we can observe from history how the Founding Father’s dealt with similar situations to see they didn’t mess around with these types of evil people, they got down to business. They understood how the real world works.
In the name of “political correctness” and declaring ourselves to be a more “enlightened and civil” people, we’re writing our own death certificates. Were the rulers of the Greek and Roman Empires to wake from the dead and observe just how spineless we’ve become via these types of rulings, they would laugh themselves back into the grave. The rules of how civilizations survive don’t change through the ages, and rulings like this have us running a sprint towards destruction. It may be a long road, or a short one, but given this we’ll eventually get there.
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Well, at least you managed to restrain yourself from the juvenile name-calling this time. That’s progress.
But, I’m afraid you didn’t answer any of my questions. I’m asking these questions out of genuine curiousity. So tell me:
Are you a constitutional scholar?
How does one determine whether an interpretation of the constitution is “correct?”
Doesn’t the Constitution state that the Supreme Court makes such interpretations by majority ruling?
And, if so, how could the ruling be unconstitutional?
Justice Kennedy said:
“The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”
What is incorrect about this statement?
But this is what you’re really all about, isn’t it, Ted?
Individuals crying about the “rights” of those trying to destroy the USA would have been told to shut up in short order.
You just want people to shut up so very much, don’t you? When people start asking you what you believe they make you feel uncomfortable, don’t they? They make you feel uncertain and confused. They threaten the stability of your black-and-white world, don’t they, Ted?
How dare those five Supreme Court justices make you doubt what you so fervently want to believe? For them to do such a thing makes them “un-American trash,” right, Ted?
If we could go back to 1776, it would be you and Thomas Jefferson and George Washington not taking any s**t from anybody, wouldn’t it, Ted? You’d tell people to shut up, and, by God, if they didn’t you’d make them wish they did, wouldn’t you, Ted?
Ah, well… what’re ya gonna do?
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
“My point is that they have rights.”
That’s just something that we disagree on. Although the Constitution read “All men” its quite obvious they meant for those who mean to be American citizens. I do realize that the Supreme Court recently ruled that Gitmo detainees do have those rights, I just think the Supreme Court made a mistake.
So, too, did some of the justices who sat on that decision:
Judge Scalia:
“Today, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war…. The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thus has no application, and the Court’s intervention in this military matter is entirely ultra vires.”
“It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner. The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
1st time in our nation’s history? Why? Also, didn’t the military tribunals satisfy the elements of trial? Didn’t the tribunals have the approval of Congress? Why stop them and shut down Gitmo now?
I don’t know if there were required to pay restitution or not, but I think I remember a formal apology. Certainly both actions by Lincoln and FDR were unconstitutional, but then the questions begs: Do you go what you have to in a time of war to protect American lives, and then make the apologies later? Or do we try to get it right as we go, and cost the lives of God knows how many people. It would seem that in the case of two American icons, Lincoln and FDR, it was the latter, yet they are both viewed as saviors of our nation, and rightly so.
“Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t the courts (our constitutional interpretters) determined that the facility at GITMO is illegal?”
As far as I know the existence of Gitmo was never declared illegal, just the detention of the combatants without a trial, if memory serves.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Sophia, learn to spell and people might actually take you more seriously.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
That’s just something that we disagree on. Although the Constitution read “All men” its quite obvious they meant for those who mean to be American citizens. I do realize that the Supreme Court recently ruled that Gitmo detainees do have those rights, I just think the Supreme Court made a mistake.
Fair enough.
So, too, did some of the justices who sat on that decision:
Judge Scalia:
“Today, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war…. The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thus has no application, and the Court’s intervention in this military matter is entirely ultra vires.”
“It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner. The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
1st time in our nation’s history? Why? Also, didn’t the military tribunals satisfy the elements of trial? Didn’t the tribunals have the approval of Congress? Why stop them and shut down Gitmo now?
Your point about the tribunals is a good one. I’ll have to ponder that a while.
Do you go what you have to in a time of war to protect American lives, and then make the apologies later? Or do we try to get it right as we go, and cost the lives of God knows how many people. It would seem that in the case of two American icons, Lincoln and FDR, it was the latter, yet they are both viewed as saviors of our nation, and rightly so.
And that my friend, is the nub of the issue, isn’t it? Well, you and I are just part of the Great Debate. Our country is wrestling with that very issue. Let’s see how it turns out…
As far as I know the existence of Gitmo was never declared illegal, just the detention of the combatants without a trial, if memory serves.
Yeah, I think you’re right.
Anyway, signing off. Excellent debate, as usual.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Wow Dade, you consistently project what you want others to say and believe rather than read and comprehend what they actually *are* saying. You also say things on-line you wouldn’t dare say to someone’s face, but I’ve become accustomed to that from the libs. Acoording to your foolishness, anyone who doesn’t agree with a decision by the USSC is automatically wrong. Even justices don’t do that, as they have reversed former rulings in the past. I never said it wasn’t the law, I said it shouldn’t be. Of course if you were reading rather than making it up as you go along, you’d know that already.
Yes, the Founding Father’s wouldn’t have acted like limp-wristed, panty-wastes like the 5 fools who legislate rather than intrepret. Good to see you got that. Yes, those wanting rights for terrorists would have been made to shut up, and rightfully so. Otherwise you get crazy rulings that say “You know those terrorists who wanted to kill us? Well, we got them locked up where they could never do that again. But just for fun, let’s give them the same rights as American citizens and see what happens. Who knows, maybe they’ll be released and kill some more of us. But, we can say we acted enlightened and civil. Boy, aren’t we smart?”
Yeah. That’s the ticket.
Given your tone, maybe this isn’t really your calling. Perhaps discussing how Bush stole the 2000 election, or how the WTC’s were brought down by explosive charges set there by the Mossad, or how the Pentagon was really hit by a missle launched by Dick Cheney from his underground bunker under the Playboy Mansion, or how PNAC is out to take over the world, or how the BCCI is the extention of Prescott Bush’s desire to turn the USA into a fascist country, or some other interesting conspiracy theory is more your flavor.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Sophia.
Would care to educate on exactly what research I need to be doing ?
Sophia;
“Mickey you are a fool. And you would want rights for yer family wouldn’t you? Why wouldn’t we give thjem to the guys at guantannomo? ”
My family already has the rights they are entitle to as US citizens, no one is trying to take those away.
ARE THEY ?
Your argument is as mute and vacant as you are dear.
“We have become the very thing we were suppose to be fighting against. ”
Yes, we fly airplanes into 3000 innocent people.
Our government allows us to beat our women and children in the street.
We honor ourselves by killing our wives and daughters for embracing American morals and ideals.
We behead anyone who converts to Islam.
If you did some research you would realize that Obama is just performing a big public relations stunt.
And what are these “humanitarian agencies” and their accusations ?
These prisoners will more than likely never end up in the United States prisons be it military or civilian. They will more than likely end up in Bhagram Air Force base in Afghanistan and be subjected to a military tribunal simply because Obama has no more options today than Bush did last week. Who by the way actually also had his own plans to close Gitmo in just as short order but of course you’ll never get the moonbat media to report that.
All you saw today was Obama throwing a bone at the code pink radical left so they would shut up and go away for a while.
And if any of you actually really think for a minute that if torture were necessary and ever took place that anyone would know about you have a screw loose.
As we speak there are options being discussed to the adherence to the Army standards that Obama mentioned and signed into order today
And trust me little lady. The prison in Afghanistan will be just as humane and civilized as Guantanamo was.
So quitcherbitchen and go figure out what the hell it is you’re trying to say.
I probably don’t get my posts deleted because I can actually say something intelligent and make a half decent point once in a while.
Dade.
You’re a piece of work hypocrite.
Dade;
“Well, at least you managed to restrain yourself from the juvenile name-calling this time. That’s progress.”
You prop your pompous little a$$ up and pretentiously thank others for civil discourse and then you turn on a dime and come after Ted like a little b*tch calling him “a live one” and saying he’s slobbering.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Good points, micky.
Here’s the message this is sending to the military:
Killing someone who is shooting at you is still OK. Taking the same person prisoner means you will be enmeshed in a legal morass for God knows how long.
If anyone in the military doesn’t get the point now, then they will.
The Law Of Stupid Consequences — B. Hussein kicks it in on Day 2.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Whats worse is the message being sent to our enemies and the world.
That would be that we care more about our image than we actually care about winning a war.
This logic goes totally against the grain of a logic that defeats the enemy.
We should be making it harder for them.
Instead, we just gave them two things more to give cause for dancing in the streets.
The military knows these guys arent going to be let go any faster than they are now.
But you’re right.
Its just one more rule of engagement that adds to the already clusterf*cked impositions put on them that could very well cost lives.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:00 pm
sophia actually ‘blog lady’ would probably be my mother. so you can call me kate. and your posts get deleted when they are completely foul, degenerate, and basically rancid. i hope that answered the question.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Well damn! I missed the party!! Yes it is a happy day indeed that Gitmo is closing. And as usual you fearmongering Righties are trying to gin up fear about where they will actually go. Stupid, stupid people! They will go to prison of course! Just one that will ensure they receive due process and a fair hearing and not abuse and humiliation at the hand of some who may be irrationally angry and overworked.
Ken you are not a constitutional lawyer so don’t try to be. Micky you need to drop your obsession that everyone is picking on you. Get help for that.
Kate you pick the fight and then leave. And who the hell is Ted? Another groupie? Good Lord.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Yea right Kevin.
I would say that the real fear mongers are those idiot moonbats that predict an event in the future like the global warming will kill us before a real and proven enemy such as radical Islam, which has already killed thousands of Americans and millions across the world.
Do you know where they would go ?
Of course it makes sense for you idiots to say you’ll close the place before you even know what you’ll do with them. Just as stupid as announcing a withdrawal date from Iraq no matter what the situation is at the time.
You dont even have a point so I wouldnt be telling anyone what they should and should not try to be. I notice you dont apply the same critique to your wanna be constitutional lawyer Dade.
You need to drop the obsession you have that anything you say has any relevance to knowing what you’re talking about.
And theres nothing that any amount of therapy will do for inbred organic illness compounded with a really bad case of cognitive dissonance.
Kate can do whatever the hell she wants, its her blog. And what fight are you imagining ?
All she did was set the dingbat straight by answering her question.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Micky do you lift whole paragraphs from some manual on how to be a rightwing asswipe on a blog? Because for you to be completely ignorant about climate change is amazing to me. You occasionally have a decent argument. But this little rant is weak. You either don’t feel good, are drunk, or you really have nothing to say and are cutting and pasting from some other place.
Kate were do you get all these bodyguards? I guess you have a charm that I just don’t see.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:37 pm
kevin just hush. sometimes your trolling gives me heartburn.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Kevin.
I would ream your a$$ with the truth about global warming.
I have 15 years of sobriety, you should try 1/2 an hour.
I realize someone of your demure intellect would find it hard to believe that what you hear from me actually comes of the top of my head which is more educated than you think.
Thank you for the compliment, but unfortunately for most I do not write to impress anyone. I speak from the hip and do not ponder over my post or put a whole bunch of time behind it trying make myself look like anything other than who I am by using an unnecessary vocabulary or ostentatious grammar
If my opponent is of a certain caliber I can easily kick it up a notch and be very eloquent and well read or come off like a street monkey when I feel that’s all the opponent may be able to relate to.
In your case what you read from me is a direct reflection of the caliber I think you would be able to comprehend best.
In other words, for butthole surfing a$$clowns like you, in words that you would understand, I dumb it down.
The bottom line is this.
Left wing lunatics such as yourself are placing more caution towards a threat where the science is subjected to whatever contributions come from whatever interests that directly render the science bias.
it is a threat that has not been proven due to the simple fact of the concept that it has not happened yet.
Whereas in the case with radical Islam we know for a fact that it is a proven enemy that has attacked us before and has sworn to do so again.
Logic dictates that his is where I would place my fears and not in the hands of a movement that serves no purpose other than a sublime insertion of socialism that would dictate the movements and lifestyles of society.
Lets use environmentalism/recycling as just one example, shall we ?
When recycling makes sense—and it does with things such as scrap steel and aluminum cans—it makes sense not because of resource scarcity, which is not a problem, nor because extracting the resources will irreparably harm the environment (it won’t), but because it is economically sound to do so. Businesses in free market countries exist to recycle these products. And they’ve existed for many, many decades, long before the environmental craze swept across the country like crack. It’s one of the millions of examples of how free-markets take can care of themselves. Also, no one, in these instances , is forced to save recyclables, or to take them away.
it a force, and force is the opposite of freedom. Coercion, be it direct or indirect, is the only way to violate our freedom.
Coercion and force is exactly what environmentalism and recycling espouses.
One other very crucial factor you must never forget, dear Kevin, is that nothing is ever recycled until it is sorted, collected, re-manufactured, and, most important of all, resold. If a re-manufactured product sits on the shelf until it is taken down and thrown away like so many of these products are - it is not recycled. On the other hand, it’s been a much greater waste than if it had just been landfilled to begin with.
That is where your moonbat government intervention gets you.
But that’s only the tip of the iceberg.
Moving on to moonbats assertion that there are different “styles” or “varieties” of capitalism, be it lunatic-fringe style, or moderate style, or sympathetic by charity: this is an ignorant and false notion. Capitalism, by its very definition, means free trade. Look it up. That is all. That’s what capitalism is. It means that government stays the hell out of our commerce and industry, just as government should stay the hell out of religion, and for the exact same reasons. There is no middle ground to that, PERIOD ! it’s either capitalistic, or its opposite: interventionist.
Which means mercantilist.
Which means protectionist.
“Capitalism is the economic manifestation of freedom( check out Fredrick Bastiat).
“Capitalism is individual rights applied to the science of production and exchange” ( on this check out George Reisman).
Capitalism, by definition, is “a network of free voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at” (Capitalism Versus Statism, Murray N. Rothbard).
The crux of capitalism, and thus freedom, is private property.
The only alternative to private property is communal ownership or governmental ownership, which is precisely what environmentalism and global warming initiatives advocates.
Communal ownership and government ownership are also called socialism. That, by definition, is what socialism is.
As a political philosophy, environmentalism is in every significant way indistinguishable from socialism. Indeed, as many commentators have noted, such as Patrick Moore, one of the cofounders of Green Peace, “environmentalism is repackaged Marxism.”
Socialism, as you presumably know, at least implicitly, is the opposite of capitalism.
Thus, if there is government intervention, it is, to that extent, not capitalism.
And that my dear moonbat is precisely what happens when we see government mandated programs enacted to drive the will of a people based on a morality and ethic that could only be forced by legislation coming in the form of the restraints put on us under the guise of a diminishing environment.
I myself have absolutely no problem with a cleaner planet and a matter of fact have been an advocate for many applications that would ensure a cleaner planet for those to come .
BUT !
I am not one to be led astray and deceived into adapting a lifestyle all for the sake of fears drummed up that only serve to line the pockets of those with their own capitalistic ventures.
Now, if you wanna hang on that level of discourse just let me know, and at the same time kick it up a notch yourself and I guarantee you that from now on this is the level of communication in the same manner you see that you will get from now on.
I hardly think that if consummated a lasting relationship that from now on I could survive by cutting and pasting all my replies to you without anyone noticing.
Are you game ?
Cuz if there’s one thing I’m not.
Its full of sh*t
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:24 am
Obama Executive Order to Close Gitmo…
Barack Obama spent his second day in office signing executive orders to close Guantanamo Bay, Cuba terrorist detention center. It was all awkwardly filmed. Read about it below.
Gitmo Social Club
The Obama has given mixed messages on how he will keep A…
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:45 am
Ah … the classic ad hominem. No substance, just bile.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:24 am
“Ken you are not a constitutional lawyer so don’t try to be.”
I never claimed to be one, Kevin. It’s called having an opinion. I have the right to disagree with what the Supreme Court decided. It’s especially amusing coming from someone who is a self proclaimed expert on the entire world.
So, if we go by your model, Kevin, you’re not allowed to have an opinion on Iraq, since you’ve never been. You’re not allowed to have an opinion on global warming, since you’re not a scientist. You also can’t have an opinion on the economy, since you’re not an economist.
I would do a little more research before I went running my mouth about global warming, Kevin. In case you hadn’t noticed, the moonbats like yourself are calling it “climate change” now. That’s because the earth has actually been cooling in the last few years. The polar ice cap is at the same level it was in 1979, despite the shrieking of you and the Al Goracle.
As I have said to you several times, Kevin, turn off MSNBC and get off the Daily Kos site and you might acutally learn something about reality.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:27 am
“Kate were do you get all these bodyguards? I guess you have a charm that I just don’t see.”
Kate doesn’t need bodyguards, Kevin, especially from the likes of you. You just seem to think that everyone who has an opinion that differs from you is “wrong”. That’s the worst kind of ignorance.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:45 am
Look for more stories like these:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/23/freed-gitmo-terrorist-now-network-leader/
“The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.”
So a former Gitmo detainee is now serving as a deputy leader of Al Qaeda. Wonderful.
“How did Shirhi get released? He told the Gitmo tribunals that he only traveled to Iran and Afghanistan to get carpets for his family’s store.”
So why was Shirhi released? Because of people like Kevin.
“Shihri was fortunate that his review came at a time when the Bush administration was getting enormous pressure to reduce the number of inmates at Gitmo, and Shihri went into the Saudi rehab program. A year later, Shihri disappeared — and now he’s running the AQ network in Yemen.”
Dark days ahead.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:06 am
>Gitmo is closing. Righties are trying to gin up fear about where they will actually go. They will go to prison of course!
Stating that the Gitmo terrorists (That would be the Taliban, etc… that were captured in Afghanistan. I know a lot of libs consider the US military to be the true terrorists, so I wanted to clarify to whom I was referencing) will go to prison does not answer the question of whether or not they’ll stay there or be released to kill Americans again, which is what the discussion is centered upon.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:26 am
And no more blathering on about “climate change” or whatever it needs to be called this week in order to try and keep it relevant. All one has to do is google up the pics of how trashy the Nat’l Mall was left after the B. Hussein cult followers invaded Tuesday to see they could care less about the environment except as a political football.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:00 am
You got it Ted.
But when we on the right are called fear mongers for simply adhering caution to a viable, concrete, real and proven enemy we have to remind those accusers that it is them who are propogating fear in the name of something that may never happen.
“Left unchecked, “the collapse and chaos associated with extreme climate change futures would destabilize virtually every aspect of modern life,” said the report, comparing the potential outcome with the Cold War doomsday scenarios of a nuclear holocaust.”
This one statement was issued by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Center for a New American Security
Among its contributors are Bill Clinton’s chief of staff John Podesta, Al Gore and his former security adviser Leon Fuerth.
Theres more.
“Climate change could have global security implications on a par with nuclear war unless urgent action is taken, a report said on Wednesday,” Jeremy Lovell of Reuters wrote on September 12. Lovell didn’t include any expert skeptical about climate change or its near-nuclear impact on the globe.”
I’m sick and tired of being called a fear monger while these pseudo-scientists turn their BS theories into doomsday scenarios. They try to scare us by telling us that a rash of climate-related diseases are going to invade the planet, that we will burn in the suns rays, starve, or drown in rising sea levels if we don’t buy hybrid cars and solar panels have green sex and eat our own sh*t.
If moonbats put half the energy into defeating our enemy as they do trying to convince the country that the end is near due to the weather we would have defeated these punks years ago.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:06 am
micky you said:
‘They try to scare us by telling us that a rash of climate-related diseases are going to invade the planet, that we will burn in the suns rays, starve, or drown in rising sea levels if we don’t buy hybrid cars and solar panels have green sex and eat our own sh*t.’
i’m thinking the former is preferrable then the latter. call me crazy!
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I’ve never eaten sh*t, but yea.
January 27th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
what is green sex?
May 6th, 2009 at 8:33 am
[...] now after campaign promises that sent his leftist base to nirvana and an executive order signing ceremony only 1 1/2 days into his administration, it seems that gitmo - the worst place in [...]
December 1st, 2009 at 5:28 am
I havent any word to appreciate this post…..Really i am impressed from this post….the person who create this post it was a great human..thanks for shared this with us.
July 6th, 2010 at 8:09 am
Between me and my jelous wife, I won the argument on this subject because he did not agree with you..