Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Obama to issue close of Guant'anamo


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#46    KRS-One

KRS-One

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,555 posts
  • Joined:24 Apr 2009

  • This Machine Kills Fascists

Posted 03 May 2009 - 05:47 PM

AROCES on May 3 2009, 11:20 AM, said:

Jimmy Carter will be tough to unthrone, no matter how hard you guys try.
And this crime against humanity crap will eventually just fade.


Jimmy Carter, worse than Nixon?  

Would this "crime against humanity crap" fading out excuse the illegal actions taken against detainees do you think?  Are secret torture prisons the ideals you feel the United States stand for and their use encouraged?


#47    AROCES

AROCES

    Forum Divinity

  • Banned
  • 16,312 posts
  • Joined:07 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 May 2009 - 03:37 PM

KRS-One on May 3 2009, 06:47 PM, said:

Jimmy Carter, worse than Nixon?

Indeed he is. Nixon was forced to resign not because of his policies.
Jimmy Carter was booted out of office for very poor performance as President.

Quote

Would this "crime against humanity crap" fading out excuse the illegal actions taken against detainees do you think?  Are secret torture prisons the ideals you feel the United States stand for and their use encouraged?

Illegal? Where excatly does it say waterborading and interrogation was illegal?
By the way, calling them detainees instead enemy combatants or terrorist does not change who they really are. Remember, even the Obama administration agree it is dangerous to release them.


#48    hippomchippo

hippomchippo

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 183 posts
  • Joined:14 May 2007
  • Location:Hamilton

Posted 07 May 2009 - 12:10 PM

I guess Harold and Kumar will like him now.

A voice of reason

#49    Cradle of Fish

Cradle of Fish

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,583 posts
  • Joined:07 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." - Dr. Johnson

Posted 07 May 2009 - 12:25 PM

hippomchippo on May 7 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

I guess Harold and Kumar will like him now.


Kumar went to work in his administration actually. tongue.gif

I am not a man, merely a parody of one.


#50    hecate

hecate

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 146 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2009
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Oz

  • And with strange aeons even death may die.

Posted 16 May 2009 - 01:36 PM

seems the demi god Obama has done somewhat of a massive backflip on this issue ... and in doing so has perpetuated the impression to the rest of the world that the US government can't organise a piss-up in a brewery.

Obama reversal on tribunals angers left

12:33 AM CDT on Saturday, May 16, 2009

The Washington Post

WASHINGTON – As a candidate for president, Barack Obama offered himself as a clear alternative to Bush-era anti-terrorism policies. Governing has proven muddier.

On Friday, President Barack Obama announced that he would revamp, rather than reject, the system of military tribunals that President George W. Bush created to try terrorism suspects. Earlier in the week, Obama indicated he would fight the release of photos depicting alleged abuse of detainees during Bush's tenure.

The reaction has been fierce. The American Civil Liberties Union accused Obama of "stonewalling tactics and opaque policies" after the photo decision. And on Friday, the group threw Obama's own words from the campaign back at him: "You can't put lipstick on a pig," they said of his efforts to revamp the commissions. Human rights groups vowed to fight Obama in court.

Early moves to ban torture and shutter the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba – decisions hailed by human rights groups here and abroad – have been followed by others that left many of his most ardent supporters disappointed and angry.

Obama backed Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, expanded the war in Afghanistan, and opposed prosecution of those involved in alleged torture of detainees – a refusal that continues to echo as the country publicly debates the effectiveness of past interrogations.

Friday's announcement was a unmistakable reversal for a man who, as a candidate, had promised to shelve the military commissions and called their use under Bush an "enormous failure."

"I have faith in America's courts," Obama said Aug. 7. "I have faith in our JAGs. As president, I'll close Guantánamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists."

His message in reversing his stance Friday was more muted. "Military commissions have a long tradition in the United States," Obama said in a statement. "They are appropriate for trying enemies who violate the laws of war, provided that they are properly structured and administered."

Top Obama aides insist the president is staying true to his principles by ending torture, winding down the Iraq war and closing Guantánamo. But they describe as "excruciating" the weight of the responsibility that Obama feels to keep the country safe.

"The president has made some enormous strides in changing the direction of our policies," senior adviser David Axelrod said. "But implementing them has its challenges, because you constantly have to balance equities and responsibilities and make decisions that are in the best interest of the country's security in a way that's consistent with our values."

The decision jolted back to life one of the most controversial elements of his predecessor's terrorism-fighting arsenal, and leaves the administration at odds with some core supporters.

Several Republicans savored the opportunity to find common ground with the Democratic president.

"Today's action will afford us the opportunity to reform the military commission system and produce a comprehensive policy regarding present and future detainees," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in a statement. "I applaud the President's actions."

But the administration moved quickly to soothe some of its critics on the left. White House counsel Gregory Craig led a conference call Friday afternoon with human rights groups to explain Obama's reasoning. But most participants said they left the conversation unconvinced.

"I did not hear him make the case why commissions are necessary," said Elisa Massimino, executive director of Human Rights First. "They seemed fixated on making the case that this is not inconsistent for Obama. But I heard nothing on why this is part of a smart counterterrorism strategy."

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said that "by resurrecting this failed Bush administration idea, President Obama is backtracking dangerously on his reform agenda."

The administration did not say who will be brought before commissions and to what extent the federal courts will be used to try Guantánamo detainees.

Currently, 21 of the 240 detainees at Guantánamo have been charged, and 13 of those defendants have been referred to commissions for trial by a Pentagon official. The administration will now seek a second 120-day delay for nine of those cases while it asks Congress to revamp the commissions.


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...mo.456beed.html

linked-image





#51    Cadetak

Cadetak

    Defender of the Universe

  • Member
  • 6,371 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cleveland, Ohio

  • Sometimes It's Darkest Just Before Dawn

Posted 16 May 2009 - 03:34 PM

Cradle of Fish on May 7 2009, 08:25 AM, said:

Kumar went to work in his administration actually. tongue.gif


And Harold was given the pilot seat of the Enterprise.

Seems to be career in being detained...or atleast in stoner movies. hmm

Between Red Team and Blue Team I stand colorblind

Posted Image

"The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not."-Eric Hoffer


#52    KRS-One

KRS-One

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,555 posts
  • Joined:24 Apr 2009

  • This Machine Kills Fascists

Posted 16 May 2009 - 03:52 PM

AROCES on May 4 2009, 10:37 AM, said:

Indeed he is. Nixon was forced to resign not because of his policies.
Jimmy Carter was booted out of office for very poor performance as President.


Yes.  Truly a man who finished his presidency and was simply not re-elected is much much worse than a man who ended his OWN presidency, which was so disastrous that he had to be preemptively pardoned of his crimes by his successor.  What a well thought out position you have.
Something to note, Nixon's approval rating during and after watergate was around 23%.  Carter left office with an approval rate of 34%.

Quote

Illegal? Where excatly does it say waterborading and interrogation was illegal?
By the way, calling them detainees instead enemy combatants or terrorist does not change who they really are. Remember, even the Obama administration agree it is dangerous to release them.


You are correct.  THOSE types of torture aren't illegal in an America where you can get nice guys like John Yoo to draft you up a nice piece of paper that gives the president the right to perform them at his sole discretion without consulting anyone.  How foolish of me.

Quote

Currently, 21 of the 240 detainees at Guantánamo have been charged

God, don't it just make you want bust out "Oh say can you see"'s when you hear about how good ol' American values such as detaining (which is the proper word, as they were not arrested) individuals in torture prisons for years without actually charging them with a crime?  Good god I love the smell of democracy in the morning.

You failed to answer my question of  "Are secret torture prisons the ideals you feel the United States stand for and their use encouraged?"  And that makes me sad.  I'd really like to hear about how you feel secret torture prisons are a true virtue and blessing of American Freedom™ to the world.


Oh!  And another thing, you realize that we call these people detainees "instead enemy combatants or terrorist(sic)" because if we DID call them that, we'd have to classify them as POW's, and in doing so would make what we're doing to them illegal under the Geneva conventions and various other international laws for the dealing with of prisoners of war, right?  You did know that before saying what you did in defense of keeping them detained in torture prisons, correct?

Edited by KRS-One, 16 May 2009 - 04:02 PM.


#53    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 16 May 2009 - 06:30 PM

KRS-One on May 16 2009, 11:52 AM, said:

Yes.  Truly a man who finished his presidency and was simply not re-elected is much much worse than a man who ended his OWN presidency, which was so disastrous that he had to be preemptively pardoned of his crimes by his successor.  What a well thought out position you have.
Something to note, Nixon's approval rating during and after watergate was around 23%.  Carter left office with an approval rate of 34%.



What's the big deal with this comparison of Nixon and Carter?
Nixon had to get out before he was impeached.
Carter had to get out because he nearly destroyed this nation's economy and national security.  Both had their problems...serious one's.
It's equally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

However, the real issue is a complete misunderstanding of the Constitution and the laws pertaining to enemy combatants...as well as the nature of the enemy here in relation to those laws.

Quote

You are correct.  THOSE types of torture aren't illegal in an America where you can get nice guys like John Yoo to draft you up a nice piece of paper that gives the president the right to perform them at his sole discretion without consulting anyone.  How foolish of me.


What's foolish of you is that expert legal opinion determined that this practice of waterboarding did not constitute torture. What is also foolish is that you don't seem to realize that all senior congressional members were briefed on, and agreed to the practice...despite Pelosi's recent idiocies concerning the matter.  She's cooked.
It's actually harmless, and we subject our special ops troops to it!  The practice has derived critical information that has saved American lives, without harming anyone.  



Quote

God, don't it just make you want bust out "Oh say can you see"'s when you hear about how good ol' American values such as detaining (which is the proper word, as they were not arrested) individuals in torture prisons for years without actually charging them with a crime?  Good god I love the smell of democracy in the morning.


These people are not American citizens, and are not even legal alien enemy combatants.  They are terrorists and suspected terrorists.  It is absolutely amazing that as well as we actually do treat them, we have people who forget who these morons are and that they are not subject to any protections of U.S. Law nor Geneva Conventions.   They get alot of that anyway.  

Quote

You failed to answer my question of  "Are secret torture prisons the ideals you feel the United States stand for and their use encouraged?"  And that makes me sad.  I'd really like to hear about how you feel secret torture prisons are a true virtue and blessing of American Freedom™ to the world
.

They are not secret, and there is no torture.


Quote

Oh!  And another thing, you realize that we call these people detainees "instead enemy combatants or terrorist(sic)" because if we DID call them that, we'd have to classify them as POW's, and in doing so would make what we're doing to them illegal under the Geneva conventions and various other international laws for the dealing with of prisoners of war, right?  You did know that before saying what you did in defense of keeping them detained in torture prisons, correct?


Their status is "Illegal Alien Enemy Combatants".  That implies "terrorist".    We don't call them anything but what they legally are.
I don't think you know the difference between Illegal Alien Enemy Combatant, and Alien Enemy Combatant.  The definitions of each are clear; the former have no legal protections, the latter do.   We are in fact giving the former the same protections in large part as the latter, and, we are on the verge of giving them the rights of American citizens charged with a crime!  That--is a travesty.

What's wrong with you?  Do you not know who these people are and what they do?   You're moaning about a harmless yet effective practice of extracting information that has worked to protect American lives from people who would cut your head off if given a chance?  And all the while, supporting an effort to put these people into American prisons on the mainland????

I imagine your infinite wisdom had an altrernative to Guantanamo, huh?  An enemy that has no rules of engagement, is affiliated with no government or country, and enemy who hides behind people, ambushes and kills indisciminantly...?

Waterboarding, a technique with extreme constraints as pertains to frequency and duration, and which requires medical personnel to be present while it's being carried out???  

Let me ask you, were there medical personnel present when these people took all those people and blindfolded them and sliced their heads off on TV!!!!????

You talk about torture?

Again:  what's wrong with you people?

Guantanamo is the result of America's need to play by rules--rules that this enemy neither acknolwedges or practices.  And you complain about it?  

You forget the beheadings, the attacks...the thousands of defenseless Americans killed by cowards without uniforms?  From my perspective, there aren't and shouldn't be any protections at all for these people.  They should have the information we require taken from them, and then they should be locked away in a cage forever.   In fact, most all of them who were captured shouldn't have been in the first place...they should've been taken out.

Christ, I can't believe some people...
  




#54    KRS-One

KRS-One

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,555 posts
  • Joined:24 Apr 2009

  • This Machine Kills Fascists

Posted 16 May 2009 - 07:07 PM

MID on May 16 2009, 01:30 PM, said:

What's foolish of you is that expert legal opinion determined that this practice of waterboarding did not constitute torture. What is also foolish is that you don't seem to realize that all senior congressional members were briefed on, and agreed to the practice...despite Pelosi's recent idiocies concerning the matter.  She's cooked.
It's actually harmless, and we subject our special ops troops to it!  The practice has derived critical information that has saved American lives, without harming anyone.


It's foolish of me to think that the "expert legal opinion" on torture defined a method of torture as being legal for the administration said legal opinion worked for?  Interesting.  If they determined that the moon was made of cheese, does that mean that it is, in fact, now cheese?  No?  What then is the difference?  
It's harmless.  Being made to think you're dying 266 times certainly doesn't affect someone mentally.  At all.

Quote

These people are not American citizens, and are not even legal alien enemy combatants.  They are terrorists and suspected terrorists.  It is absolutely amazing that as well as we actually do treat them, we have people who forget who these morons are and that they are not subject to any protections of U.S. Law nor Geneva Conventions.


I think the key words in this section are "suspected terrorists".  I have real issues with one man being able to decide at will and for any reason who is or isn't a "suspected terrorist" and then place them, without charge or legal recourse from either their or our own governments into secret torture prisons.

Quote

They are not secret, and there is no torture.


Yes they are.  


Quote

What's wrong with you?  Do you not know who these people are and what they do?   You're moaning about a harmless yet effective practice of extracting information that has worked to protect American lives from people who would cut your head off if given a chance?  And all the while, supporting an effort to put these people into American prisons on the mainland????


Do YOU know who "these people" are?  All of them?  Without a doubt some are truly terrorists.  Others?  Do you even know their names?  How can you or any of us possibly argue for or against them or their case?  Some have already been released, completely innocent, and still tortured.  I am also not supporting a position of putting them in American prisons.  Without a doubt they'd be slaughtered there.  It would also include one heck of a legal fight, since we've denied them any right to a trial or few of the other legal liberties given to American prisoners.


Quote

Waterboarding, a technique with extreme constraints as pertains to frequency and duration, and which requires medical personnel to be present while it's being carried out???

Sorry to Godwin this thing, but the Nazi's, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese all also had many doctors present during "interrogations".

QUOTE
Let me ask you, were there medical personnel present when these people took all those people and blindfolded them and sliced their heads off on TV!!!!????


Let me ask you, are these individuals the same individuals who committed these crimes?  Are you SURE that they are one and the same men, or just men close enough to pacify your apparent need for vengeance?


QUOTE
You forget the beheadings, the attacks...the thousands of defenseless Americans killed by cowards without uniforms?  From my perspective, there aren't and shouldn't be any protections at all for these people.  They should have the information we require taken from them, and then they should be locked away in a cage forever.   In fact, most all of them who were captured shouldn't have been in the first place...they should've been taken out.


I forget nothing.  YOU forget the concepts this country was founded on because you are incapable of anything but black and white decision making and the shortsightedness of taking at face value "These are naughty people".  YOU forget that we owe ourselves and others inalienable human rights and liberties as perscribed by our forefathers and laid bare for us at the founding of this country and for such values many thousands have died.  I have said before and will say again, now, that I would suffer 100 9/11 events, or 1000 if it meant that American virtues and liberty were maintained and not shucked to the wayside in the name of bloody vengeance and tyranny.  You have sold yourself and this country short.

Edited by KRS-One, 16 May 2009 - 07:12 PM.


#55    blinky

blinky

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 445 posts
  • Joined:23 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 May 2009 - 08:29 PM

MoonPrincess on Jan 13 2009, 08:06 PM, said:

I heard that he was going to close it. And bring these people here. I'm kinda scared of the idea really. ><;


what's he gonna drop them off at the Quikee Mart? and see what gels?
Or are they on their way (deservedly, I hope) to maximum security prisons, around the country?

because if that "kinda" scares you, here's a doozey that'll tilt your tiara: those same prisons? are already 'home' to thousands and thousands of "these people" - if by that you meant, "people dangerous to society"

What, you're "kinda" frightened because those same "people" might then escape those maximum security prisons? and wreak havoc, where? In the royal bathroom?

really though, what are the odds?

You justly try these guys (if you CAN, considering that many of them were there solely on hearsay evidence - much of it completely FALSE - invented, in fact!) and let that determine their fate, as  happens to practically any other person justly tried, on the evidence.

Found guilty, after having been "justly tried", they go to prison!

Because of the Bush "War on Terror" incentives, American taxpayers were relieved of millions of dollars by wily war-lords, in Afghanistan and Iraq,  who took advantage of the situation to accuse and/'or arrest people they simply didn't LIKE, but who ended up in Gitmo ANYWAY - hell, it made for great PR for those hopeful to justify the "War on Terror".

In other words, many Guantanamo inmates were there - NOT because they had anything whatsoever to do with "terrorism", but that they had domestic accusers who were motivated by easy money.

The evidence is out there, that, in fact, these incentives were offered NOT so much to "fight terror", but to allow the Bush administration to gather, into public view, as many "terrorist enemies" as they could, simply in order to justify their campaign to frighten the American people into allowing their invasion of Iraq, for example, in the first place!

Iraq had NOTHING to do with the terrorists responsible for 9/11 - THAT has been established - but prior to that happening, the Lying Bush admin needed "terrorists" to parade, and they got them.


http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0226-20.htm

"The Pentagon's files on the six Kuwaiti prisoners we represent reveal that none was captured on a battlefield or accused of engaging in hostilities against the U.S. The prisoners claim that they were taken into custody by Pakistani and Afghan warlords and turned over to the U.S. for bounties ranging from $5,000 to $25,000 — a claim confirmed by American news reports. We have obtained copies of bounty leaflets distributed in Afghanistan and Pakistan by U.S. forces promising rewards — "enough to feed your family for life" — for any "Arab terrorist" handed over."

Edited by blinky, 16 May 2009 - 08:34 PM.


#56    blinky

blinky

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 445 posts
  • Joined:23 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 May 2009 - 08:38 PM

Neognosis on Jan 13 2009, 08:10 PM, said:

I'm not. Not many people escape from the prisons that I'm sure they will be sent to. gitmo is a blemish of shame on our country, and even though it's just symbolic of this, I'm glad it's being closed.

good call Neo...


#57    blinky

blinky

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 445 posts
  • Joined:23 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 May 2009 - 08:46 PM

Repoman on Jan 13 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

No it isn't. It's just a POW camp and we are at war. People like you would have been whining about the POW camps we kept germans in during WWII also.


a "POW camp" assumes that these prisoners were, in fact, captured on some "battlefield", as a result of some "War" we're engaged in.

That's simply not true, in many, many cases.

As I think I've indicated elsewhere, that "POW camp" was set up specifically for torture, or for the type of "cruel and unusual" punishments not allowed on American soil. But why?

Why "torture" them, or subject them to "cruel and unusual punishment" ?

The fact is that the Bush admin - Darth Cheney leading - was desperate to extract "evidence" linking Iraq with 9/11, and saw that extra-judicial avenue as a  way to get it.

So, like, let's apply the correct criteria, please, before just lemming-it, off a cliff, with hair ablaze.


#58    blinky

blinky

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 445 posts
  • Joined:23 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 May 2009 - 08:48 PM

Fluffybunny on Jan 13 2009, 08:49 PM, said:

No, and you really shouldnt make such sweeping statements. Prisoner of War is not what these guys are; and that is what the point is. I dont think anyone here would complain about the German POW camps. That was a pretty straightforward situation, to say what you did isnt fair.

Look at the controversy; there is a reason that people are in an uproar. They are not POW's. They arent prisoners either, they end up in this never neverland without any idea who they are or what they did. If they did something bad, then screw them who cares...problem is that there are people that have come out of there after years that have done nothing. Not cool. Not how we normally operate.

It isnt like WW2 where we are dealing with uniformed soldiers; where a german was easy to tell from an italian and you knew what the rules are. Right now people are not soldiers in the typical sense, so people are getting pulled up into this that have nothing to do with it.

You probably dont care, I dont know...when I enlisted I promised an oath to the Constitution. I like the Constitution, and think it is a good rule of thumb to go by; and what happened here was some trickery to get around the constitution, which I didnt care for.

If they are POW's great, call them pow's. they are not though. If they are prisoners; try them and prosecute them accordingly if they are guilty.

This middle ground is not a good thing. Sets a bad precedent.


"a bad precedent" like Endless War!
good call, Fluffy


#59    blinky

blinky

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 445 posts
  • Joined:23 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 May 2009 - 09:00 PM

ohio traveler on Jan 13 2009, 08:16 PM, said:

Tough call to make here.  

They can't just be kept locked up without ever being put on trial for anything.  So are they to be turned lose in the general public ? And if so, who's general public ?


Well it won't be their own "native" general public, because many will NOT be allowed back into their own countries - specifically because of the accusations made against them - whether real or unreal - or, if they ARE allowed in, by certain of their "governments", the tendency will be to then torture them THERE, in order to attempt to push the envelope on "truth" extraction.

Who or what is responsible for this mess?
The Bush administration, and their lying ways, that's who, and what.

Therefore, each one of these individuals found to be in such a bind, should be assigned a room at either the Bush or Cheney mansions, and adopted by those families as their own...

Karl Rove should have space.

Rush Limbaugh does.

Paul Wolfowitz? Douglas Feith? Richard Perle? Lyin' Lewis "Scooter" Libby?

Hell, they could accomodate a few. It's the least they could do, after helping to create the debacle.

It's only fitting - AND would show the world just how warm and cuddly Americans can be, when they're caught engaging in catastrophic lies, and gross misrepresentation.

Edited by blinky, 16 May 2009 - 09:06 PM.


#60    blinky

blinky

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 445 posts
  • Joined:23 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 May 2009 - 09:19 PM

Owl_Lady on Jan 19 2009, 08:05 AM, said:

My husband was the Resident Officer in Charge of Contracts and Construction (ROICC) at Guantanamo Bay, for two and a half years before he retired.

The base was never intended as a POW camp, in fact the only reason those prisoners/terrorists were sent there was for the complete security the base offers.  

(... )

The annual average temperature at Guantanamo Bay is 85-90degrees.


sorry, but one of the main reasons that those "prisoners/terrorists" were sent to Gitmo was for the completely extra-judicial status it awarded their "interrogators"

Not for "security" so much as for "secrecy " and for whatever "effect" the spectacle might have, on an either generally tuned-out or generally scared-silly American public

Shrouding them all with "reasons of security" helped the Bush admin continue to hype the danger these men may, or may not have, posed, to America, all the while acting - almost exclusively on behalf of the small group of Likudniks working for Bush - to remake the Muslim Middle East!  for the supposed "ultimate" security of Israel!

google  PNAC! blink.gif

Edited by blinky, 16 May 2009 - 09:43 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users