Closing Gitmo
What a great idea. Not. By closing Gitmo and bringing terrorists to the United States, not only does the Bush Administration risk offering them a panoply of undeserved legal rights, not only do they get to come into US territory, but they perhaps get to mix with the domestic prison population -- a group ripe for radicalization.
Way to go, guys. I'm sure now that they've caved to the Democrats, all the criticism will stop, both from them and the "world community." Right. Thank heavens we've decided to bring the enemy combatants to our homeland . . . now I'm sure they'll lose their desire to attack us and start treating our soldiers more nicely. Really.
Is there any better way to send a message to our enemies that (1) our will is weakening and (2) we're starting not to take the war on terror seriously?
Way to go, guys. I'm sure now that they've caved to the Democrats, all the criticism will stop, both from them and the "world community." Right. Thank heavens we've decided to bring the enemy combatants to our homeland . . . now I'm sure they'll lose their desire to attack us and start treating our soldiers more nicely. Really.
Is there any better way to send a message to our enemies that (1) our will is weakening and (2) we're starting not to take the war on terror seriously?
posted by LadybugUSA at 4:36 PM
4 Comments:
But according to Michael Moore, Gitmo has better health care than here on the mainland. If we move the detainees here, couldn't that be called torture because of our crappy healthcare?
This article is FALSE. NBC has been told there are no plans to close GITMO. I wonder that you would choose to even believe this.
It disappoints me to hear someone who went through one of the finest law schools in the nation, and who purports to claim some intrinsic moral high ground for the United States talk about "undeserved legal rights". A grant of legal rights is more about the system that grants them than what the recipient "deserves". If our system is so good, so worthy of preservation that we are willing to sacrifice our own blood and claim the right to kill people to effect that preservation, then we should not fear to see it applied without reservation. To do otherwise it at best hypocritical, and at worst, the rankest cowardice.
Brian - I have to disagree.
First of all, lets drop the personal invective. We all love a good argument, as long as we argue with ideas and concepts.
Now. we are talking about prisoners taken on the field of battle, or taken while attempting to kill Americans. Military traditions go back thousands of years. We are totally justified in holding these folks until cessation of hostilities.
Also - the Geneva convention. As a veteran, I am quite sick of its misuse. In all modern wars we have been careful about observing it. In WWII, the enemy has beaten, starved, tortured, murdered and enslaved American soldiers. In Vietnam the enemy has beaten, starved,tortured, and murdered American soldiers. The Isamo-fascists add a new one - public beheading.
We on the other hand fed them- All of them - properly, clothed them, treated (in the vast majority of cases) their religious values respectfully. At our worst, we embarrassed them.
During the early days of the war there was a belief that an American airplane went into a river there. The Iraqis lined the banks shooting at anything that the see. We on the other hand take injured enemy combatants to a hospital and care for them
Brian, we have the right to survive.
I do not want these people freed by overzealous layers and given the freedom to behead and dismember more Americans.
We have the right and obligation to survive.
Post a Comment
<< Home