Gitmo, Cuba

[Jhhnn]

From the well indoctrinated Pabster-

That's because the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to enemy combatants.

According to who? GWB?

And this gem from the neocon bag o' rhetorical bullshit-

Hence the enemy combatant. I don't see it as a "legal loophole" but, rather, a necessary category for the new reality we face.

Amazing that the usual rightwing whackjobs have the temerity to refer to their boogeyman creation, "the Terrarists!" as reality...

Lemme get this straight-

We need to toss our moral compunctions out the window, along with 200 years of jurisprudence, because of the Terrarist! threat. And the Terrarists! are whoever we declare them to be, regardless of the fact that we can't or refuse to prove any charges against them... So we can just lock them up and the usual mow-rons will think we're "doing something" and being "tough on Terrar!"...

And this coming from the most incredible gaggle of liars, cheats, thieves and charlatans who've ever disgraced american politics...

There's only one reason to believe them wrt anything at all, and that's plain, blind, stupid, indoctrinated Faith of the Jonestown variety...

 

[Nebor]

If they're not Americans, or in America, then they don't benefit from the American legal system.

The American man they found fighting for the Taliban though, he should have come back to the US to stand try before a real court.

As for ANYTHING that happens at Gitmo, it is outside the jurisdiction of this country's legal system. There's nothing that can be done about it.

 

[Jhhnn]

How dim, Nebor, to offer such backhanded support. If any of the US miltary personnel at Gitmo commit some transgression against the rules of the military, are they exempt, too?

Probably not...

And if the Cubans just decided to take it back, end this charade, that'd be OK, too, because it's not really under american jurisdiction, right?

Gitmo is the most egregious example of the Bushist Imperial Presidency policy yet, the "I'll do what ever I want because I'm the CinC, above the Law!" policy that will enter this admin into the halls of infamy, and it's supporters into the legions of intellectual and moral cripples along side supporters of other nefarious regimes throughout history.

It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when the heirs to the enlightenment and the American Revolution have become so depraved that they're are willing to content themselves with bread, circuses, and perpetual war, which is what the neocons are all about...

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Inspired by another thread.

There is a poll

Against Gitmo, rendition, torture and any other subversion practiced by the present administration? Yes! Any principles on that "G'damn piece of paper!" they took oath to uphold, not flushed down the crapper?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Nebor
If they're not Americans, or in America, then they don't benefit from the American legal system.

The American man they found fighting for the Taliban though, he should have come back to the US to stand try before a real court.

As for ANYTHING that happens at Gitmo, it is outside the jurisdiction of this country's legal system. There's nothing that can be done about it.

That's ridiculous, a facility run by the US, with actions taken by American citizens, is not "outside the jurisdiction of this country's legal system". You can claim that the prisoners are outside of our jurisdiction (although if that's the case, how can we hold them?), but our military and civilian folks certainly aren't. And I'd contend that their behavior is governed by a set of standards that don't change no matter who they are keeping prisoner.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Nebor
If they're not Americans, or in America, then they don't benefit from the American legal system.

The American man they found fighting for the Taliban though, he should have come back to the US to stand try before a real court.

As for ANYTHING that happens at Gitmo, it is outside the jurisdiction of this country's legal system. There's nothing that can be done about it.

That's ridiculous, a facility run by the US, with actions taken by American citizens, is not "outside the jurisdiction of this country's legal system". You can claim that the prisoners are outside of our jurisdiction (although if that's the case, how can we hold them?), but our military and civilian folks certainly aren't. And I'd contend that their behavior is governed by a set of standards that don't change no matter who they are keeping prisoner.

I suppose you're right. Things were better back in the days before Gitmo, when we just turned people like those over to friendly regimes like Saudi Arabia or Egypt. They follow way less rules than the soldiers at Gitmo anyway. Plus we avoided the international attention of being one of those countries that tortures people.

 

[StageLeft]

Against, as any good American should be, even though I'm not American.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

And lastly, as you say we arent cutting heads off. Neither are we using women and children as shields. Neither are we brainwashing our kids. Neither do we treat death and murder like its just stepping on an ant. Sure we torture. Who the fuck cares? It works. Scared they will need therapy afterwards? Gimma a fucking break. You make it sound like we do this to every tom dick and harry we detain.

I pledge allegiance to the flag.....

And if you are lucky enough to live in Texas also, your children get a "Bonus"....

"Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible."

Don't think for a second that we are brainwashing our kids. Instead of trying to educate them on the benefits of making the world a place where everyone has an equal opportunity at success or failure, we train them from their earliest days that they need to think of America first. Forget about everyone else, take care of your own.

Unfortunately, too many imbeciles like you have bought into this concept of Americans first and human beings a far distant second.

As for the rest of your stupid rant, if we treat death so somberly, why do we still have the death penalty? How can you advocate "turning the ME into glass" or "bombing them back to the Stone Age"? The fact is that people like you are still blood thirsty but without the courage to go and fight for what you claim to believe in.

And you keep repeating the lie about torture working. Me thinks that you need to go for a visit to the good camp Gitmo and face these methods and then report back if you told the truth about questions being asked of you or if you just said whatever you thought that they wanted to hear to stop the barbaric and brutal treatment that you were being subjected to at that time. If you are lucky, you will survive with just a little emotional scare that you can put a mental band-aid over because you are such a big, strong, tough man's man that you wouldn't have the need for therapy or treatment.

Every time I think that the right can't get any more idiotic, one of these threads come up and the usual folks chime in with more and more stupidity. Maybe they are staying at the same level of ignorance and it's just that I keep forgetting because I hope that they will learn but they never do.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We should archive all these Democrat vs. Republican polls that are floating around and re-run them about six months after a Democrat President takes over and decides that keeping Gitmo open is our best long term option.

It is real easy to make statements opposing Gitmo when you don?t have to deal with the consequences of your statements.

It is the same thing we are seeing with the Iraq war, all the Democrat candidates were voting to end the war and war funding, but when asked if we will still be in Iraq at the end of their first term they all waffle.

You are the most daft person on this board by far.

Democrats never voted FOR war, they voted for the use of force IF NECESSARY, they did not vote for war funding, they voted for supplies for the soldiers who are there already, they have NO means of getting them home and so they need to see to it that soldiers get their equipment.

This is politics and you are a politician, i despise everything about it and i despise everything about you, things like loyalty and honor is nothing that you know of.

Of course the Dems (and others) voted for the war. They were all gung-ho and on-board until the polls changed. Then get unrelenting, and mostly ineffective, re-writing of history.

Or Congress has not voted for "war" since WWII. The vote they made, and are now tring to recast, is seen as war by our courts. These types of Congessional votes have ben seen that way for over 60 yrs. They knew what they were doing.

Of course they've voted the funds the continue the "war". WTH have you been? As they've continued to vote for the war funding, they've tried (unsucessfully) to insert timetable etc. This has all been well discussed and documented. Moreover, under our form of gov, Congress is 100% for budgeting/funding EVERYTHING. Constitutionally, they have the "Power of the Purse".

-------------------------------------------

As to GITMO, it needs to stay. As I see it, there are two questions: (1) Should Gitmo exist? meaning is it an appropriate place to hold foreign detainees, and (2) operational questions about GITMO (e.g., so-called torture, who to detain, how long to detain etc).

Those now in GITMO (AFAIK) are foreign enemy combatants. I don't read the OP as attempting to discuss GITMO operational issues such as their guilt or innocence, but rather it GITMO the appropriate place. Foreign citizens, accussed of "crimes" in a foreign land do not have the protection of the US Constitution. Although we are bound by it (meaning no torture etc).

Hence, they do not belong in our domestic civilian/civil/criminal system.

Which system should and does cover them? The military (tribunal) and possibly international systems. However, both are flawed because they were NOT designed or constructed with (stateless) terrorism in mind. Neither has been adequately updated to account for this situtation.

Holding the detainees for the duration of the conflict? That's a long established and accepted principle. But because of the unique nature of this conflict taht poses a problem - when is it over?

Repatriate them? We're generally prohibited from that. Can't repatriate because some countries won't accept them. Others might torture or kill them, can't send them there. Others might just release them back to the fight (didn't Sudan just release some AQ leaders?), can't do that. No good answers exist.

I can see b!tchng about the treatment of those GITMO, but not the mere fact of it's existance/use. Nobody has a good answer. The world's experts cannot agree among themselves about this should be handled.

Only two things are rather clear - They don't belong in the USA, and can't just let them go (assuming guilt). Beyond that, it's confusion (under the law) and disagreement.

Fern

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: blackangst1

And lastly, as you say we arent cutting heads off. Neither are we using women and children as shields. Neither are we brainwashing our kids. Neither do we treat death and murder like its just stepping on an ant. Sure we torture. Who the fuck cares? It works. Scared they will need therapy afterwards? Gimma a fucking break. You make it sound like we do this to every tom dick and harry we detain.

I pledge allegiance to the flag.....

And if you are lucky enough to live in Texas also, your children get a "Bonus"....

"Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible."

Don't think for a second that we are brainwashing our kids. Instead of trying to educate them on the benefits of making the world a place where everyone has an equal opportunity at success or failure, we train them from their earliest days that they need to think of America first. Forget about everyone else, take care of your own.

Unfortunately, too many imbeciles like you have bought into this concept of Americans first and human beings a far distant second.

As for the rest of your stupid rant, if we treat death so somberly, why do we still have the death penalty? How can you advocate "turning the ME into glass" or "bombing them back to the Stone Age"? The fact is that people like you are still blood thirsty but without the courage to go and fight for what you claim to believe in.

And you keep repeating the lie about torture working. Me thinks that you need to go for a visit to the good camp Gitmo and face these methods and then report back if you told the truth about questions being asked of you or if you just said whatever you thought that they wanted to hear to stop the barbaric and brutal treatment that you were being subjected to at that time. If you are lucky, you will survive with just a little emotional scare that you can put a mental band-aid over because you are such a big, strong, tough man's man that you wouldn't have the need for therapy or treatment.

Every time I think that the right can't get any more idiotic, one of these threads come up and the usual folks chime in with more and more stupidity. Maybe they are staying at the same level of ignorance and it's just that I keep forgetting because I hope that they will learn but they never do.

Apparently you dont support the concept of sovereignty and defense of your country.

You can think Im wacky and wrong all yu want. Doesnt mean you're right. Some things are true whether you believe them or not. So dream on.

As for your interpretation of my beliefs, of course you got it wrong. Your understanding of the right is fucked up.

America first, allies second, everyone else last.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We should archive all these Democrat vs. Republican polls that are floating around and re-run them about six months after a Democrat President takes over and decides that keeping Gitmo open is our best long term option.

It is real easy to make statements opposing Gitmo when you don?t have to deal with the consequences of your statements.

It is the same thing we are seeing with the Iraq war, all the Democrat candidates were voting to end the war and war funding, but when asked if we will still be in Iraq at the end of their first term they all waffle.

You are the most daft person on this board by far.

Democrats never voted FOR war, they voted for the use of force IF NECESSARY, they did not vote for war funding, they voted for supplies for the soldiers who are there already, they have NO means of getting them home and so they need to see to it that soldiers get their equipment.

This is politics and you are a politician, i despise everything about it and i despise everything about you, things like loyalty and honor is nothing that you know of.

Of course the Dems (and others) voted for the war. They were all gung-ho and on-board until the polls changed. Then get unrelenting, and mostly ineffective, re-writing of history.

Or Congress has not voted for "war" since WWII. The vote they made, and are now tring to recast, is seen as war by our courts. These types of Congessional votes have ben seen that way for over 60 yrs. They knew what they were doing.

Of course they've voted the funds the continue the "war". WTH have you been? As they've continued to vote for the war funding, they've tried (unsucessfully) to insert timetable etc. This has all been well discussed and documented. Moreover, under our form of gov, Congress is 100% for budgeting/funding EVERYTHING. Constitutionally, they have the "Power of the Purse".

Yep. The left is Hitler-ish in their attempt to re-write history. They foolishly think if they tell people "We didnt support or vote for war!!!" they think archives will go away.

Idiots.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From the well indoctrinated Pabster-

That's because the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to enemy combatants.

According to who? GWB?

No, the SCOTUS.

Some of you people remind me of the stupid American tourists I'd see when I lived in Europe.

I still the remember the Amsterdam police dragging away some drunk American Merchant marine sailor after he threaten a prostitute with a knife there. The dumb @ss was yelling "I'm an American ctitizen, I've got my Constitutional rights etc".

Everybody, even the cops, were laughing at the dumb@ss.

No, even if an American citizen, you don't have (USA) Constitutional rights in a foreign country. Neither does a foreigner in a foreign country.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The govt has certain obligations, including speedy public trial and confronting the accused with the evidence against them, neither of which seems to matter at gitmo...

That's because the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to enemy combatants.

We don't know what applies to who, because "enemy combatants" is a bullshit legal term that was invented so we could claim that NO laws covered our treatment of prisoners. I don't think the US Constitution should apply, but I think SOME set of laws and standards should be. We have a reasonable model in the Geneva Conventions, but we're not even willing to apply that.

Yeah, since they are outta uniform we could execute them as spies according to the GC.

GC doesn't require trials for POWs either.

GC doesn't require POWs to be released until the conflict is over, either.

The GC is ill-eqiuped to deal with this situation. It was never designed to do so in the first place.

Fern

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From the well indoctrinated Pabster-

That's because the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to enemy combatants.

According to who? GWB?

No, the SCOTUS.

Some of you people remind me of the stupid American tourists I'd see when I lived in Europe.

I still the remember the Amsterdam police dragging away some drunk American Merchant marine sailor after he threaten a prostitute with a knife there. The dumb @ss was yelling "I'm an American ctitizen, I've got my Constitutional rights etc".

Everybody, even the cops, were laughing at the dumb@ss.

No, even if an American citizen, you don't have (USA) Constitutional rights in a foreign country. Neither does a foreigner in a foreign country.

Fern

I've commented on the same thing too Fern, and have seen it in a couple countries I have been to. It's fucking hilarious. And youre right...the cops laugh. In one case, in Columbia, the cop laughed, grabbed the guy and spun him around, and said "Guess what...you're not in America!"

Unbelievable.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

And lastly, as you say we arent cutting heads off. Neither are we using women and children as shields. Neither are we brainwashing our kids. Neither do we treat death and murder like its just stepping on an ant. Sure we torture. Who the fuck cares? It works. Scared they will need therapy afterwards? Gimma a fucking break. You make it sound like we do this to every tom dick and harry we detain.

lols at the bolded.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
We don't know what applies to who, because "enemy combatants" is a bullshit legal term that was invented so we could claim that NO laws covered our treatment of prisoners. I don't think the US Constitution should apply, but I think SOME set of laws and standards should be. We have a reasonable model in the Geneva Conventions, but we're not even willing to apply that.

No, it is a reasonable term, for a new era. This is the first war where the enemy is not playing by standardized rules of engagement. They are not wearing uniforms and are not members of a sovereign nation fighting on its behalf. Hence the reason Geneva does not apply. I'm glad that you at least agree the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply. Most here won't even go that far.

This is a new kind of conflict, and it requires new rules in some cases. But it does NOT require new principles and ideals. And even if you can come up with some $400/hr lawyer answer about the rules, I think it's pretty clear what side our principles come down on. In cases like that, the only reasonable solution is to get rid of legal loopholes and start acting like Americans.

Hence the enemy combatant. I don't see it as a "legal loophole" but, rather, a necessary category for the new reality we face.

what exactly is this new reality, and in what way is it different than the old reality?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Face it, the American justice system is not set up or prepared to handle the prosecution of foreigners picked up by the military and intelligence professionals in the war against terrorists.

I can see no reason why this should be the case, unless you mean that it is not setup to provide easy conviction and question evidence and allow inhumane torture o people for no real concrete reason other than it makes fools feel good and safe.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Are those the only two alternatives you guys can come up with?

There is no alternative. Gitmo is running just fine. Why fix what isn't broken?

50 years from now the tortures by Americans will be looked down upon with disgust.

This coming from the guy whose country is harboring Osama Bin Laden?

does that make it any less true?

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Face it, the American justice system is not set up or prepared to handle the prosecution of foreigners picked up by the military and intelligence professionals in the war against terrorists.

I can see no reason why this should be the case, unless you mean that it is not setup to provide easy conviction with questionable evidence and allow inhumane torture of people for no real concrete reason other than it makes fools feel good and safe.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We should archive all these Democrat vs. Republican polls that are floating around and re-run them about six months after a Democrat President takes over and decides that keeping Gitmo open is our best long term option.

It is real easy to make statements opposing Gitmo when you don?t have to deal with the consequences of your statements.

It is the same thing we are seeing with the Iraq war, all the Democrat candidates were voting to end the war and war funding, but when asked if we will still be in Iraq at the end of their first term they all waffle.

You are the most daft person on this board by far.

Democrats never voted FOR war, they voted for the use of force IF NECESSARY, they did not vote for war funding, they voted for supplies for the soldiers who are there already, they have NO means of getting them home and so they need to see to it that soldiers get their equipment.

This is politics and you are a politician, i despise everything about it and i despise everything about you, things like loyalty and honor is nothing that you know of.

Of course the Dems (and others) voted for the war. They were all gung-ho and on-board until the polls changed. Then get unrelenting, and mostly ineffective, re-writing of history.

Or Congress has not voted for "war" since WWII. The vote they made, and are now tring to recast, is seen as war by our courts. These types of Congessional votes have ben seen that way for over 60 yrs. They knew what they were doing.

Of course they've voted the funds the continue the "war". WTH have you been? As they've continued to vote for the war funding, they've tried (unsucessfully) to insert timetable etc. This has all been well discussed and documented. Moreover, under our form of gov, Congress is 100% for budgeting/funding EVERYTHING. Constitutionally, they have the "Power of the Purse".

Yep. The left is Hitler-ish in their attempt to re-write history. They foolishly think if they tell people "We didnt support or vote for war!!!" they think archives will go away.

Idiots.

way to bring hitler into a completely random topic. The only people trying to rewrite history here are you and your ilk

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We should archive all these Democrat vs. Republican polls that are floating around and re-run them about six months after a Democrat President takes over and decides that keeping Gitmo open is our best long term option.

It is real easy to make statements opposing Gitmo when you don?t have to deal with the consequences of your statements.

It is the same thing we are seeing with the Iraq war, all the Democrat candidates were voting to end the war and war funding, but when asked if we will still be in Iraq at the end of their first term they all waffle.

You are the most daft person on this board by far.

Democrats never voted FOR war, they voted for the use of force IF NECESSARY, they did not vote for war funding, they voted for supplies for the soldiers who are there already, they have NO means of getting them home and so they need to see to it that soldiers get their equipment.

This is politics and you are a politician, i despise everything about it and i despise everything about you, things like loyalty and honor is nothing that you know of.

Of course the Dems (and others) voted for the war. They were all gung-ho and on-board until the polls changed. Then get unrelenting, and mostly ineffective, re-writing of history.

Or Congress has not voted for "war" since WWII. The vote they made, and are now tring to recast, is seen as war by our courts. These types of Congessional votes have ben seen that way for over 60 yrs. They knew what they were doing.

Of course they've voted the funds the continue the "war". WTH have you been? As they've continued to vote for the war funding, they've tried (unsucessfully) to insert timetable etc. This has all been well discussed and documented. Moreover, under our form of gov, Congress is 100% for budgeting/funding EVERYTHING. Constitutionally, they have the "Power of the Purse".

Yep. The left is Hitler-ish in their attempt to re-write history. They foolishly think if they tell people "We didnt support or vote for war!!!" they think archives will go away.

Idiots.

way to bring hitler into a completely random topic. The only people trying to rewrite history here are you and your ilk

Ah. Sorry I thought most people had a fairly good graps of the Third Reich's techniques. I bring Hitler into it because he was quoted as saying If you tell them something long enough, eventually they'll accept it as truth. Which was a theme for the Third Reich.

Kind of like how Dems keep bleating about not voting for the war, we didnt know, and all the other bullshit they're saying. They think eventually Americans will believe it.

Not sure what history my ilk (who are my ilk anyway since you my friends and thoughts better than I) trying to rewrite? hmmm?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
way to bring hitler into a completely random topic. The only people trying to rewrite history here are you and your ilk

Well, the left-wing nuts here have a habit of comparing GWB to Hitler on a pretty regular basis, so I'd call it fair game.

Unfortunately for them, history won't be kind. And the records will remain.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Are those the only two alternatives you guys can come up with?

There is no alternative. Gitmo is running just fine. Why fix what isn't broken?

50 years from now the tortures by Americans will be looked down upon with disgust.

This coming from the guy whose country is harboring Osama Bin Laden?

does that make it any less true?

Do I care? No. We need a place to cage the animals; Club Gitmo is a fine place for it.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Face it, the American justice system is not set up or prepared to handle the prosecution of foreigners picked up by the military and intelligence professionals in the war against terrorists.

I can see no reason why this should be the case, unless you mean that it is not setup to provide easy conviction with questionable evidence and allow inhumane torture of people for no real concrete reason other than it makes fools feel good and safe.

Do you think you could squeeze a few more lines of bulls*t rhetoric in your next reply? I bet you can!

U.S. courts are not prepared to handle cases involving foreign terrorists caught on foreign soil involved in foreign terrorism! That is simply fact.

There are many reasons, but clue number one is a complete lack of judicial jurisdiction... duh.

Clue number two being the highly classified "evidence" - which cannot even be revealed to the defendants themselves! If the detainees learn of the methods and sources used against them, our operatives and sources would soon be killed.

How would you propose getting past these two hurdles?!

 

[Jhhnn]

Magnificent display of circular logic, Palehorse. By your standards, then, anybody could be declared a Terrarist! and locked up indefinitely- the accusation itself being sufficient for the double-super secret purposes at hand. Whoever they are, they're guilty simply because the Admin sez they are, right?

Kafka would be proud.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
way to bring hitler into a completely random topic. The only people trying to rewrite history here are you and your ilk

Well, the left-wing nuts here have a habit of comparing GWB to Hitler on a pretty regular basis, so I'd call it fair game.

Unfortunately for them, history won't be kind. And the records will remain.

so you complain about 'lefties' using hilter all the time, but then find it justified to do it yourself? If history won't look kindly on the democrats for their votes 'for war,' which they now clearly regret for the most part, what does this say about people like you, who still are diehard supporters. If history will look unkindly on anyone, it will look unkindly on us, who fell for it and bought it hook line a sinker. At least some of us have opened our eyes though.

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Are those the only two alternatives you guys can come up with?

There is no alternative. Gitmo is running just fine. Why fix what isn't broken?

50 years from now the tortures by Americans will be looked down upon with disgust.

This coming from the guy whose country is harboring Osama Bin Laden?

does that make it any less true?

Do I care? No. We need a place to cage the animals; Club Gitmo is a fine place for it.

cool i'll buy your ticket, since you come across as an animal to me.