Subscribe
Notify of
40 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Kid, meet Adult.

Next?

Did we vote to close Guantanamo?

Well, yes if you voted for either Obama or McCain in the last election. Both stated they would close Guantanamo.

Well the one doing the ping-pong match was really clear.

@Fit fit: Did you vote to bring terrorists to the United States?

sizzle, meet steak

I like what Rove had to say about Obama(previous thread). And he nailed it.
And someone brought up a good point about the timing of Obama’s speech. Cheney’s had been in the works for a while. What better way to try and divert attention from Cheney than a speech from BHO?

CNN Poll: Favorable opinion of Dick Cheney on the rise
“But the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, released Wednesday morning, indicates that a majority of Americans still have an unfavorable opinion of Cheney.

Fifty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say they have an unfavorable opinion of the former vice president. Thirty-seven percent say they have a favorable opinion of Cheney, up eight points from January when he left office.”

@Mike’s America: We’ve had hard-core terrorists in US prisons through several administrations now without issue. So yes, the American public has “voted to bring terrorists to the United States,” if that’s what you’re referring to.

No, but I’m not sure why I should care. We detain all kinds of dangerous scum here already. We can handle a few more…

BTW you did vote to close Guantanamo and posted wankathons for a man who authorized the release of gitmo detainees.

I made a post here a few moments ago. I don’t see it now, but should it appear twice, my apologies. Firefox got really weird and crashed moments after.

AND THERE IT IS…. nevermind 🙂

@trizzlor.myopenid.com: Were any of these terrorists from Gitmo? NO!

And you know the reason why we can’t bring them here as well as I do. The minute they set foot on American soil they will receive constitutional protections they are not entitled to at Gitmo.

We bring terrorists to this country to stand trial if we have the evidence according to the standards of our legal system.

That high standard is simply impossible to attain on the battlefield.

Understand? Or do I need to repeat myself?

@Fit fit: You keep posting crap like “wankathon” and your comments will be deleted.

People hate Cheney? CNN opinion poll is all I need to read to know it’s BS.

@Mike’s America: Well, I’m glad we can agree that your sweeping generalization about “releasing” terrorists into the US is bull. As for giving them constitutional protections, I have never seen the president nor the Democratic leadership make this claim? They’re still not citizens, and can still be grouped as “enemy combatants” with only the rights and responsibilities those classifications dictate. The courts have been dealing with this issue for years, and have essentially concluded that the same rights we would uphold on US soil are also in play on a US military base such as Guantanamo (see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld).

Hard Right,
I know it’s cnn but if THEY report a rise like that with their polling methods-think of what the public opinion would be if it were an unbiased poll?

Well, I’m glad we can agree that your sweeping generalization about “releasing” terrorists into the US is bull.

Really?

Don’t be so sure:

BREAKING: White House Overrides FBI and DHS on Gitmo Release
by Jed Babbin
04/30/2009

Moving quickly to release Chinese Uighur terrorists into the United States, Obama administration officials have — for the second time — overridden objections of federal agencies responsible for national security.

The first time — as I reported on April 20 — the White House overrode the inter-agency panel it created from all the national security agencies to review all the cases of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. That panel found that the seventeen Uighurs — members of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement captured at an al-Queda training camp in Pakistan — were too dangerous to release in the United States.

Now — according to a federal agency source who requested anonymity — the White House has also overridden opposition to the release from both the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

Beginning yesterday and continuing today, Obama administration officials are briefing key members of Congress on the release, which may happen as early as next week. There apparently has been no decision on where the Uighurs will be turned loose. Earlier reports suggested they could be released in Alexandria, Virginia or Washington, D.C.

Emphasis added by me.

As for giving them constitutional protections, I have never seen the president nor the Democratic leadership make this claim? They’re still not citizens, and can still be grouped as “enemy combatants” with only the rights and responsibilities those classifications dictate. The courts have been dealing with this issue for years, and have essentially concluded that the same rights we would uphold on US soil are also in play on a US military base such as Guantanamo (see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld).

Hmmmmm…..

Looks like you need to study up on some things.

@Aye Chihuahua: “On 2008 September 30 Gregory Katsas, Assistant Attorney General filed a “notice of status” for the remaining Uyghur captives — stating that they would no longer be classed as “enemy combatants” … “Lawyers for the group say they have been approved for release by the US authorities but cannot return to China for fear of persecution.

The US government no longer classifies them as terrorists, so your point is moot. Regardless, the government is currently looking to export them to countries where they would not be persecuted, so far a few have been released to Albania, other countries have offered to take the rest: “On February 7, 2009, the Hindustan Times reported that the Munich city council had passed a motion to invite the remaining seventeen Uyghurs to settle in Munich.

Both articles you link to at HumanEvents are not sourced and cannot be verified. Moreover, considering other countries with large are Uighur communities are willing to accept them, it doesn’t make much sense that we’d release them here in Virginia.

@trizzlor.myopenid.com: You’re smoking crack if you think that bringing these monsters to the U.S. won’t confer additional rights on them. You already have a major U.S. newspaper referring to them as “abductees” and protesters demanding they ALL be freed.

And as for the “vote” to close Gitmo, the Senate held one such votes yesterday.

Do you recall the outcome?
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00198

From co-sponsor Mitch McConnell:

The bill prohibits Federal funds from being used to transfer any detainees out of Guantanamo to any facility in

[Page: S5595] GPO’s PDFthe United States or its territories. It also prohibits any Federal funds from being used for the construction or enhancement of any facility in the United States in order to house any detainee. Finally, it prohibits any Federal funds from being used to house or otherwise incarcerate any detainee in the United States or its territories.

What Obama is doing is in direct contradiction of the expressed wishes of both the House and the Senate.

@trizzlor.myopenid.com: “stating that they would no longer be classed as “enemy combatants””

That’s right. They are now “abductees” and will be conferred with the Constitutional rights if on U.S. soil.

” … our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford.”

Question:

Was he talking about the post-9-11 WOT and Homeland Security … after being attacked on our own soil …

Or about the stimulus bill and all the government take-overs of banks and businesses … with no end game or pull-out date in sight?

Aye: Notice your pal Triz dismissed your Human Events article but cites the ever so authoritative Hindustan Times?

Always good for a laugh that Triz!

Trizzlor is comparing apples to oranges. The folks that were captured at the AQ training camp aren’t being released.
Chinese Detainees Are Men Without a Country

One at a time.

@Mike’s America: The Uighurs were cleared of all wrong-doing and deemed “approved for release” – they are not and never were terrorists and are therefore entitled of all rights as wrongfully accused “abductees”. By the way, the Hindustan Times is the leading newspaper in India and the second most-read English daily; your complete ignorance of anything even mildly outside the scope of Western culture is glaring. Maybe that’s why you so easily blur the line between the Uighurs, who have been declared not a threat to the US, and the other “monsters” at Gitmo. The fact is, we are quite good at holding dangerous terrorists on US Soil, and there is no evidence that convicted or suspected terrorists will be granted any additional rights by being transferred here. As usual, you choose to argue that Obama will eventually create these rights because of who he is, but his hawkish attitude on military commissions contradicts even that.

@Aqua: The article you cite is from 2005; since then, five of them have been released in Albania and are either been granted or are seeking asylum (depending on the source). As I mentioned, other countries have offered to give asylum to the rest.

@trizzlor.myopenid.com:

As I mentioned, other countries have offered to give asylum to the rest.

Which countries would those be?

A list and source material please.

One small side note. Munich is not a country and a statement from the Mayor and municipal council does not an invitation from Germany make.

By the way, lay off on the uncredited Wiki links.

It’s not my responsibility to trek through a maze of research to figure out where you got your quoted information.

triz, I understand what you are saying about the Uighurs. Fact is some, if not all, did receive weapons training in Tora Bora training camps after fleeing China. However they did so to learn to fight the Chinese, and are not dedicated to the cause of jihad.

This, of course, leads us to that pesky rule of law that Obama seems determined to hold up as a measure of our moral fortitude. Those who receive weapons training in terrorist camps are not to enter the US per law…. period. And that includes those who did not do so well at their weapon training. For as many are pointing out, the best the Uighurs could do is break down and reassemble a single Kalashnikov rifle.

So this begs two questions of you.. and Obama.

1: Laws are either important to uphold to verify our “morality”, or they are not. Or do we just disregard those that don’t fit with our feelings of the moment? Exceptions for some and not for others? Where does that line morph in the future?

2: If they are so all fired sweet and innocent, why are all the other nations refusing their presence?

BTW, INRE Germany and the Uighurs… I posted on this at the beginning of the month. No fat lady singing on that stage yet, and Interior Minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble, is saying no way while Bavarian Interior Minister, Joachim Herrmann says ““We don’t need those kind of people in Germany”.

As of three days ago, nothing had changed. Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder is against accepting the Uighurs saying “Such a decision would put a serious strain on German-Chinese relations.”

The rare supporter, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier is getting cold feet for the same reason.

there is no evidence that convicted or suspected terrorists will be granted any additional rights by being transferred here. As usual, you choose to argue that Obama will eventually create these rights because of who he is, but his hawkish attitude on military commissions contradicts even that.

Really, triz?

No evidence that convicted or suspected terrorists will be granted any additional rights by being transferred here?

Really?

Come on triz, you’re a sharper tack than that.

Aren’t you?

@Aye Chihuahua: Generally I provide the links, in this instance I quoted in-line because it was fairly easy to look up (INRE them being marked for release). Coming from someone who just openly quoted a partisan blog as evidence, I don’t think it’s your responsibility to be anywhere near facts or research.

As for countries:

Canda has offered and is reportedly close to accepting once the identities of the detainees are provided (Globe and Mail).

As you said, Munich has offered but there is controversy with the federal government.

And “France has agreed to accept Algerian Lakhdar Boumediene, 43, held at Guantanamo for seven years and cleared of wrongdoing in November.” (The AP)

So that’s two committed and two in the process, if we really get into the weeds here I’ll dig around to see if this is it or there are more.

@MataHarley: The original argument was about detaining convicted/suspected terrorists in the US, which I support. As for people who were cleared as a threat to the US but still cannot enter, this is not an easy question, especially when deporting them to their home country would essentially be bringing them to slaughter. I would say that they can still be detained in the US, while we look for countries that will provide them asylum. Still, it leaves us in a position where we have to break some law – either by releasing them here, or by holding them indefinitely.

@trizzlor.myopenid.com: “The Uighurs were cleared of all wrong-doing and deemed “approved for release” – they are not and never were terrorists and are therefore entitled of all rights as wrongfully accused “abductees”.”

My my… what a load of Kool Aid.

From the Washington Post. Granted, not as authoritative a source as the Hindustan Times, but perhaps you have heard of it. Speaking of the Uighurs:

U.S. officials have said the men received weapons training at military camps run by the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, which the government designated a terrorist organization in 2004. Garre said immigration law prohibits people who received such training from entering the country.

But why let a little thing like federal law get in your way. After all, you folks are shredding the Constitution faster than Bush ever would have contemplated.

You want the Uighurs in your neighborhood by all means, be my guest.

It’s about time you chickendoves stepped up and put your lives on the line for your beliefs.

@trizzlor.myopenid.com:

Canda has offered and is reportedly close to accepting once the identities of the detainees are provided (Globe and Mail).

“Reportedly close” does not equal an offer of asylum.

Where’s the offer? I looked through your sourced article and it’s not there.

Where’s the green light to fly these guys on up to the Great White North?

Finally, if Canada made an “offer” as you claim, then why are there so many people and outside groups pleading with them (Canada) to “accept” the individuals in question?

Seems to me if Canada made an offer, which is your claim, then the pleading would be directed toward the US to accept the generosity of the Canadians and all would be well.

As you said, Munich has offered but there is controversy with the federal government.

Again, Munich isn’t a country, so there’s no invitation or green light or offer of asylum there either.

And “France has agreed to accept Algerian Lakhdar Boumediene, 43, held at Guantanamo for seven years and cleared of wrongdoing in November.” (The AP)

Ummmm…. hate to break it to you…. Boumediene is not a Uighur which is the group we were discussing.

Focus man.

Focus!

So that’s two committed and two in the process, if we really get into the weeds here I’ll dig around to see if this is it or there are more.

By my count, that’s none committed.

Yeah, you’re in the weeds.

Now triz, do tell me how “detaining” Gitmo grads that have been “cleared as a threat” on US soil in anyway represents any moral equivalency to fair treatment?

If they are “cleared” and “not a threat”, what would be a sound reasoning for “detaining” them while searching for a new country to call home? Especially since any attorney could argue that since they did not enter the US illegally, but came in via the welcome arms of the POTUS, why should they be incarcerated?

So you agree that we have to “break some law”. Interesting. Who gets to decide what law should be broken? And once that precedent begins, where’s the end of it?

BTW, Triz… you are aware that Obama is already considering the indefinite detention bit. For a guy that seems bent on “rule of law” and upholding the Constitution (almost lost my breakfast watching him stand that close to that document…), apparently he sees some legal justification of holding those without trial, compounding it by doing so *on* US soil and not in a foreign facility.

Oh my…. Bagram, Gitmo, and held in US jails. What does a terrorist have to do to get his Constitutional rights observed by this POTUS?

And, have you read my post today about the not so apples-to-apples comparison of Gitmo detainees and US terrorists tried here yet?

Therefore your analogy of terrorists tried and in US jails today is as flawed as Obama’s. And once you start treating those “arrested” on the battlefield as US law enforcement cases, you open a complete new Pandora’s box. The flood of those not only in Gitmo, but Baghram, will flood the court system. Our soldiers will then be forced to act as law enforcement, and read Miranda rights, or they will walk on a legal technicality.

War, enemy combatants, illegal combatants, and battlefield detention are not the same as an arrest on US soil.

upholding the Constitution (almost lost my breakfast watching him stand that close to that document…)

Mata,

Maybe it will make you feel better to know that the documents he was standing by weren’t the real ones.

I have to admit that during one portion of his speech I found myself encouraging him, out loud, to turn around and read them.

My employees were amused.

Why yes, Aye… I knew that from my Hollywood provided education thru National Treasure and the documents sensitivity to heat (which the lights would have caused). LOL

Yes… fake (facsimile) Constitution. POTUS with fake values who wants to “remake” that nation founded on that document. Seems appropos when you think of it.

Glad your employees found it amusing. Try that anywhere in my neck of the woods, and I’d be needing Old Trooper to have my back.

@MataHarley: The issues you raise were key in the Bush decision to put these monsters in Gitmo to begin with.

Bush believed that to bring them to the U.S. would mean they would be subject to the full protections of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has expanded on those protections since then, but it’s entirely possible that housing them on U.S. soil would complicate the issue further than it has been already.

No one thought that Gitmo was an ideal solution. It’s been agonized over for years.

Perhaps that’s the best reason to keep the terrorists there. We’ve already explored the matter in excruciating detail. The issues of detaining these monsters has been debated in Congress and examined by the Supreme Court and worked on for years by the previous Administration.

There is no good reason to close Gitmo other than to fulfill a campaign pledge made by Obama.

And frankly, considering all the other promises that manchild has broken I don’t see that keeping Gitmo open would be any worse.

But of course I knew that, Mr. Mike. The status of Gitmo and sovereignty was key to the SCOTUS decision, as I pointed out in my post on that June of last year. Cuba was prime since it was away from the battlefield, considered Cuban sovereignty, and well protected from attack by those who’d try to free the detainees.

SCOTUS screwed that up by redefining the Cuban-US agreement. And, as a matter of fact, lawyers are working with Bagram detainees to do exactly the same thing. Just needs to work it’s way up the court docket food chain.

@Aye Chihuahua: Obie posed with a fake Constitution?

All the easier to shred the thing!

Speaking of the fake Constitution on display: I wonder if they have Obama’s birth certificate on display as well?

[Craig made me say that}.

@Fit fit #2:

Did we vote to close Guantanamo?

Well, yes if you voted for either Obama or McCain in the last election. Both stated they would close Guantanamo.

I don’t recall a Guantanamo referendum on the ballot in ’08.

I voted for McCain; didn’t mean I supported all his positions, such as global warming.

Actually GITMO is a seaside resort compared to Baghram. Now on those held in the Stans…those are equally dangerous folks. The Military Tribunals under the Geneva Conventions should have been ongoing. Just because Holder can’t bother to read them and the Left Wing Base wants them turned loose or sent to Super Max it is no excuse to bring then to American soil for any reason.

Giving those Terrorists the same rights as American Citizens is clearly not legal or acceptable.
They are Terrorists, not common criminals. They were not knocking over convenience stores, they were captured on the field of battle, not under a Flag or wearing uniforms. This is absurd. The Geneva Conventions covered that years ago, was ratified by Foreign Governments and the US Senate years ago. Treaties and Laws are not a buffet. You cannot just pick and choose the ones you like. Team Obama is too lazy to read the Conventions and too stupid to use them.

I’m all for showing them the same tender mercies that were shown to the folks in the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, Flight 93, Matt Maupin, Berg, Sailors on the USS Cole and others. Forget about world opinion, hearts & minds or other high minded nonsense. Regardless of how they are treated, rest assured that America is not going to lose any friends.