Bush talking about closing Gitmo...Liberals outraged!!

[heartsurgeon]

This is just tooooo funny.

The Dems have been screaming that Gitmo is inhumane, and Bush needs to close it down...
So Bush has called their bluff....he's been negotiating with several countries about returning the Gitmo detainees to their countries of origin...primarily Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen.

Well, now the Liberals are up in arms about returning these detainees to their own countries!!

U.S. Holding Talks on Return of Detainees

"

"There are two sides of the coin. It's definitely good to be sending detainees home with proper assurances of humane treatment, but there's no way to get credible assurances from a country where torture is standard operating procedure, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia," said Tom Malinowski, Washington director for Human Rights Watch. "They are doing the right thing with the Uigurs and the Uzbeks, but they should do the same with the Saudis -- either find a third country or keep them."

HAHAHAHA this is toooo funny....Gitmo is BAD, but their own countries of origin are WORSE so we better keep them now??

make up your minds..is Gitmo inhumane, or is Gitmo a far site better than where these folks came from.

 

[dmcowen674]

Where does it say anywhere in that article about Liberals "outraged"???

 

[EatSpam]

Sending them home is a great idea. Too bad all the detainees will tell stories of their time in hell. They could have been talking about how well they were treated, but since they're "A-rabs" and non-Christian, it wasn't going to happen.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Way to take a quote out of context. I wouldn't trust you to slice my sandwich, much less my chest:

A human rights group welcomed the U.S. effort to return detainees, but said the administration is setting up a double standard about where detainees can be sent. "There are two sides of the coin. It's definitely good to be sending detainees home with proper assurances of humane treatment, but there's no way to get credible assurances from a country where torture is standard operating procedure, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia," said Tom Malinowski, Washington director for Human Rights Watch. "They are doing the right thing with the Uigurs and the Uzbeks, but they should do the same with the Saudis -- either find a third country or keep them."

 

[DaveSimmons]

HAHAHAHA this is toooo funny....Gitmo is BAD, but their own countries of origin are WORSE so we better keep them now??

make up your minds..is Gitmo inhumane, or is Gitmo a far site better than where these folks came from

Both of course. There is no contradiction in accepting that both statements are true.

The fact that we "only" practice "light" torture does not make us the good guys.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Way to take a quote out of context. I wouldn't trust you to slice my sandwich, much less my chest:

Shhhhhh... Don't read the whole thing, you might get a cranial hernia.

It's much more effective if you just scream LIBS!!!!!!111111one

In response to the thread, I don't think physically closing gitmo was ever the main goal of objectors. If all you do is move the people somewhere else so they can be treated the same way, you haven't accomplished anything.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So things are so bad for the Bushies that their selling point is that Gitmo is great because it's merely inhumane, and not abominable?

Evidently Bush is in more trouble that I thought.

 

[heartsurgeon]

hey, Bush is gonna close Gitmo eventually, to do it he's gonna send these folks back to their OWN countries....now that's not good enough for Libs because their treatment at home may not be as good as their treatment at Gitmo.....

geez, what do you suggest??set them up in Sweden with a blond, a pension, and high speed internet access?

This could only make sense to a liberal.....to everyone else it's a fair, just and reasonable "solution" to Gitmo...
I dare say, what ever the Gitmo detainees did, a fair number of them will be considered criminals in their home countries, and their final disposition will be determined by the legal system/goverment of their own country. I certainly don't see anything wrong with that. Who knows, maybe when the detainee finds out he's headed home...he might become very cooperative....but i suppose you would classify "sending them home" as a torture tactic.....gimme a break...

 

[zendari]

Mainstream Americans have no problems with Gitmo, setting aside the lunatic left.

Text

 

[Cruise51]

Gitmo itself isn't the problem, it's the practices there that directly violate the Geneva convention that are the problem.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Way to take a quote out of context. I wouldn't trust you to slice my sandwich, much less my chest:

How many others here love to quote pieces of an article to support their view point and/or make a thread title that has nothing to actually reflect the actual item being quoted/discussed.


Does it take much more time to read a whole article and try to present an unbiased account to be discussed
Why? a feeling of inferiority or the fact that the article can not justify the bias spin wanted to be presented by the poster. Third option?

Happens much more on one side than the other.





The article states the the US is trying to work with a European nation regarding some concerns that they feel the reflective nation would not honor their words on fair and humane treatment.

Do the Liberals/laywers want these people to be held indefinetly. NO.
But they are complaining about the way some nations might treat returnees.
Why burden some other nation with either our problem or the host nation responsiblities?

If we had "released" them via a "pick up your things, you are going home", they would not shout; but the fact the US government has concerns, has these "protectors" up in arms against a "early release". Or is it the fact that the US might ask for these people back if additional circumstances warrant it. IF the US had not voice such concerns openly, the if it was found out later, the same people would be complaining that we sent these "terrorist" to certain torture by the host country and attempt to hide the fact.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
This is just tooooo funny.

The Dems have been screaming that Gitmo is inhumane, and Bush needs to close it down...
So Bush has called their bluff....he's been negotiating with several countries about returning the Gitmo detainees to their countries of origin...primarily Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen.

Well, now the Liberals are up in arms about returning these detainees to their own countries!!

U.S. Holding Talks on Return of Detainees

"

"There are two sides of the coin. It's definitely good to be sending detainees home with proper assurances of humane treatment, but there's no way to get credible assurances from a country where torture is standard operating procedure, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia," said Tom Malinowski, Washington director for Human Rights Watch. "They are doing the right thing with the Uigurs and the Uzbeks, but they should do the same with the Saudis -- either find a third country or keep them."

HAHAHAHA this is toooo funny....Gitmo is BAD, but their own countries of origin are WORSE so we better keep them now??

make up your minds..is Gitmo inhumane, or is Gitmo a far site better than where these folks came from.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hmm, now I thought that if they were let loose from Gitmo they would return at terrorists. That was the NeoCons line. Now it's OK? Right.

The problem is that Gitmo never should have been. It COULD have been a place were people were investigated and either cleared or not. Na. It COULD have been an example of how things should be. Na.

So now there is a choice between sending people to a questionable fate, or keeping them in Gitmo.

Interesting mess the Neocons have created.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: DonVito
Way to take a quote out of context. I wouldn't trust you to slice my sandwich, much less my chest:

How many others here love to quote pieces of an article to support their view point and/or make a thread title that has nothing to actually reflect the actual item being quoted/discussed.


Does it take much more time to read a whole article and try to present an unbiased account to be discussed
Why? a feeling of inferiority or the fact that the article can not justify the bias spin wanted to be presented by the poster. Third option?

Happens much more on one side than the other.





The article states the the US is trying to work with a European nation regarding some concerns that they feel the reflective nation would not honor their words on fair and humane treatment.

Do the Liberals/laywers want these people to be held indefinetly. NO.
But they are complaining about the way some nations might treat returnees.
Why burden some other nation with either our problem or the host nation responsiblities?

If we had "released" them via a "pick up your things, you are going home", they would not shout; but the fact the US government has concerns, has these "protectors" up in arms against a "early release". Or is it the fact that the US might ask for these people back if additional circumstances warrant it. IF the US had not voice such concerns openly, the if it was found out later, the same people would be complaining that we sent these "terrorist" to certain torture by the host country and attempt to hide the fact.

Frankly I didn't bother reading it because we make no real difference here. My sarcasm and amusement was really directed that the attitude of the NeoCons who wish to place the blame on people who didn't want this folly to begin with.

I have no reason to trust the motivations of anyone in DC these days regardless of political stripe.

I am exercising my humanity and enjoying the NeoCons twist on a spit trying to point every way but at themselves who created this pile of crap. At least I am not enjoying the bloodshed as they have been.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. Zendari is quick to point out just how effectively the Admin has slathered out the agitprop wrt the detainees... with an article from a couple of months ago, using data collected before that... Probably hasn't noticed that Dub's numbers have been slipping badly in the last few months, for good reason. It's only a matter of time before more folks start to apply their critical faculties to Gitmo, as well... you can only keep people scared of their own shadow for just so long, particularly when you've been shown to be an outright chalatan time and again...

The Admin's plan is basically to institute imprisonment by proxy in countries whose deficient legal systems will allow it. It allows them to have it both ways- to establish that people can be held at their behest in other countries, thus circumventing American law. Detainees will arrive even deeper in legal limbo. The US can claim that they're not holding the prisoners, even though they are being held at US request, and host countries can claim that the prisoners have no rights under their own legal system because they're being held for the Americans...

No trial, no witnesses, no evidence, no prosecution, no defense, no nothing... All this from the highest authority in the land, sworn to uphold the constitution and what it stands for... utterly beneath contempt, and profoundly shameful.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
This is just tooooo funny.

There's nothing funny about it. From a human rights perspective (something you probably flaunt your ignorance of with your dittohead 'Club Gitmo' wear and idiotic posts like this one), it's out of the frying pan (Gitmo) and into the fire (Saudi Arabia). Of course YOU would see no problem in transferring these detainees from one location where they were tortured to another location where they will be tortured even moreso. Something tells me you would need to have a car battery connected to your nuts before you'd see the logic of this issue.