Why Are We Getting All NIMBY on Gitmo?

The most satisfying spectacle of Barack Obama's first days as president has been the way he and his crew have gone about striking the theatrical sets of the terror government to reveal the real America that's been backstage to Bush & Co. all along. But even as the backdrops come down and the kliegs are killed, the mainstream media still wander the stage, reciting the same old lines.

The clearest example of this Potemkin play-acting is the Beltway press "debate" about the closing of the extralegal prison on Guantanamo Bay.

After Obama signed an executive order to close the prison within a year, Republicans started shouting that the remaining 245 detainees are far too dangerous to house in U.S. prisons. House Minority Leader John Boehner and Congressmen Bill Young have been trying to sic it to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in her liberal bastion of San Francisco with the oh-so-clever suggestion that Gitmo detainees be housed on Alcatraz.

The idea, of course, is to portray her as a NIMBY hypocrite (if not also someone who'd rather protect her gay pals than your family), a point CNN's John King left wafting in the wind on his Sunday show, even though it makes about as much sense as saying Gitmo inmates should be imprisoned in downtown Cleveland's Art Park, which would be the equivalent in Boehner's home state. By accident, King had already aired Pelosi's response on ABC's This Week, when she politely corrected the congressmen: "Alcatraz," she said, "is a tourist attraction. It's a prison that's now sort of like a national park." But King was busy paying no attention to the soundbite behind the curtain. "That was the wrong piece of sound there," he said when the rogue snippet ran. Later, as he turned to the topic of Guantanamo Bay, King burrowed in: "Not in my backyard. Nancy Pelosi already this morning saying not in Alcatraz. Are the detainees going to end up in red states?"

Talk about declining property values! Everyone knows that everyone else will grab their pitchforks to keep the worst of the worst jailbirds off their lawns. As John McCain told Fox News Sunday, "I don't know of a state in America that wants them in their state. It's going to--you think Yucca Mountain is a NIMBY problem? Wait till you see this one." Then he chuckled, apparently forgetting that during the campaign he pushed the military's maximum security prison at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, as the place to lock 'em up once Gitmo becomes the new Alcatraz.

But why, in the first place, do politicians insist that these tortured and uncharged prisoners are less welcome on U.S. soil than nuclear waste? And why do the media so eagerly accept that premise? These same pols and pundits seem unconcerned that the millions of criminals we've already locked up will escape from the rapidly growing archipelago of prisons scattered from coast to coast. (The U.S. has by far the largest percentage of its population behind bars of any country in the world.) Communities in red states and blue are clamoring to host new prisons, because they're often the only employers around in the new Goldman-Sacked America. It's virtually a Republican-mandated industry, prisons.

Nonetheless, the media propagating this NIMBY frame still look to the Republicans as the folks who say the right thing and swing the most powerful nightstick, all evidence to the contrary. And when the media has at hand an easy-to-understand phrase like "Not in my backyard"--evoking a mob of angry citizens flocking to a populist rightwing issue--they can't help but let it shape, and limit, the entire discussion.

Disposing of Gitmo prisoners is without doubt extremely complex, but the Republicans' top two arguments for keeping them eternally in Cuba are an unholy mix of fantasy and propaganda that folds under its own weight:

First, they say, bringing Gitmo prisoners onto American soil will invite the bad guys to troll your neighborhood like sex offenders. Either because the government will free them on technicalities (like not reading them their Miranda rights, as GOP congressman Steve King absurdly proposed), or because their Qaeda brothers will target the prisons holding them, Middle Eastern jihadists will suddenly descend on America, threatening our way of life and parking in the handicapped spots in front of Rite-Aid.

But we've had terrorists in U.S. prisons for years. At Colorado's secretive "Supermax" prison, where, along with gangbangers and mobsters, more than 40 terrorists are housed, we have a whole nest of bait for anyone intent on freeing them. The residents include World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef, shoe bomber Richard Reid, the so-called 25th 9/11 hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui, the "Blind Sheik" Omar Abdel-Rahman, Osama bin Laden's former private secretary Wadih El Hage, and the Qaeda terrorists who bombed the U.S. embassies in Africa (not to mention homegrown terror jockeys like Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols, and Olympic Park/abortion-clinic bomber Eric Rudolph). No one's come around to rescue them, and they don't appear to be digging tunnels with sharpened toothbrushes, either.

This GOP projection onto terrorists is based on a Hollywood supermax fantasy-Rambo II goes back to 'Nam and frees the MIA/POWs. Or, maybe, it's Fox TV's Prison Break or 24, where terrorists often seem to have nine lives.

Second, Republicans hint, if the inmates do go to trial in the U.S. and are found innocent, we mustn't release them, because they hate us too much. Even the sheepherders and cabdrivers mistakenly picked up in Afghanistan, they'll turn terrorist on us, too. Didn't 61 Gitmoers released by gimlet-eyed Bush ops do just that? CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr, also on John King's show, said, "They [the Pentagon] know that about 60 of the people that were incarcerated at Guantanamo and then released have returned to the battlefield, have engaged in further terrorist activities."

That was shot down as bogus 10 days earlier, in a detailed Seton Hall Law School study by law professor Mark Denbeaux, who represents two detainees (and who you can see here and here on The Rachael Maddow Show.)

Every time they have been required to identify the parties, the DOD has been forced to retract their false IDs and their numbers. They have included people who have never even set foot in Guant namo, much less were they released from there. They have counted people as 'returning to the fight' for their having written an Op-ed piece in the New York Times and for their having appeared in a documentary exhibited at the Cannes Film Festival.... Forty-three times they have given numbers--which conflict with each other--all of which are seriously undercut by the DOD statement that 'they do not track' former detainees.

But even if you compound all those numbers, they are dwarfed by the thousands and thousands of terrorists we've created since the moment we invaded Iraq. And, according to former special ops interrogator Matthew Alexander, author of How to Break a Terrorist, the number-one reason foreign fighters give for attacking Americans in Iraq is the abuse and torture in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

The Gitmo detainees, however, do pose a real threat if they go on trial in U.S. courts: Evidence of government-mandated torture could see the light of day. If Attorney General Geoffrey Holder decides not to investigate or assign a special prosecuter to pursue possible war crimes by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or the torture-justifying lawyer John Yoo, then such trials--harder to keep secret in the U.S. than in Cuba--could do some of that job for him. No wonder Karl Rove was telling University of Miami students last week, "One year from now, Gitmo won't be closed. If it is, there will be an uproar in the U.S. about where to put these people."

Now we're talkin' fear. Especially if the people you're thinking about jailing aren't detainees out of Gitmo, but higher-ups in the Bush administration.

Some journalists have tried to break out of the fear paradigm, but old habits die hard. I'm no trekkie, but all this savage demonization of "enemies" real and imagined does remind me of that classic Star Trek episode, "Day of the Dove," in which an alien entity stokes racism and manufactures atrocities to make Kirk's crew and the Klingons fight each other so it can feed off the energy of their mutual hatred. With the help of the emotionless nonmammalian Mr. Spock, Kirk convinces Kang, the Klingon commander, that the only way to beat the alien is to let positive feelings smother the bad and simply laugh the monster out into the cold of space. (Here is the whole episode; the denunciation starts toward the end. Or you could check out this shorter clip, in which a real trekkie saw the analogy to Ann Coulter's shtick a couple years ago.)

Our own nonmammalian, President Obama, is trying in some fashion to do just that with bipartisan cocktail hours and a charm offensive on the Hill. But let's face it, the Kang and Kodos of laughing at the Republican Party have been Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Here Stewart rings out Bush on Gitmo, with "Guantanamo Bay Watch, the Final Season."

Comments (108)

1. Well, I think the fact that 62 former Club Gitmo guests went right back to being active terrorists after they were released might make people a little nervous about having these people in their neighborhood. Especially when you realize it'll be the liberals in charge of letting them go. One would not be surprised that the liberals would have the terrorists on work-release in elementary schools, given their track record.

   Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2009 @ 5:35pm

2. "Now we're talkin' fear. Especially if the people you're thinking about jailing aren't detainees out of Gitmo, but higher-ups in the Bush administration."

   Wishful thinking.

   I agree that the commentary is silly. NIMBY, Alcatraz and that kind of language is spin. It is possible to close Gitmo down. It just takes a little more imagination than most Republicans are willing to share on a talk show.

   They are also setting the stage to have Obama make them all look like idiots. If it is closed in a year and all these know-it-alls predicted in couldn't be done, Obama can just causually bring it up in conversation with the press everytime someone asks about Republican resistance to something else he is trying to do. I bet he'll get a lot of mileage out of it.

   Posted by srjenkins at 01/30/2009 @ 5:43pm

3. so we're ok having these detianees in cuba's back yard, but not in our prisons?

   Posted by urmygyro at 01/30/2009 @ 6:07pm

4. Shouldn't we follw the same logic the nviro nuts use on a previous thread?

   That being, let's error on the side of saving our planet and lives, so we error on the safe side by using extreme measures on country and life styles "just in case".

   Let's apply the same logic to the terrorists. And error on the side of saving our lives and our life styles.....and take the extreme measure of locking these murders up, or putting them in a nice liberal blue neighborhood where they can all deride the US, Israel, capitalism, and Bush.

   First we check them into KVH house ....

   Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 6:41pm

5. Umbryo,

   Since you are so concerned with their rights over your countrymen well being....YOU get to take in the first 100 of tbses beautiful innocent victims of the US ... Since only about 25% or so return to the jihad, er, ,civil rights movement if the Islam facists world.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 6:45pm

6. so we're ok having these detianees in cuba's back yard, but not in our prisons?

   Posted by urmygyro at 01/30/2009 @ 6:07pm

   Would you be OK with an admitted group of killers living in your backyard?

   Oh hell, why not? If you already have drug gangs living with ya, what's one more?

   Posted by ACook at 01/30/2009 @ 6:46pm

7. so we're ok having these detianees in cuba's back yard, but not in our prisons?

   Posted by urmygyro at 01/30/2009 @ 6:07pm

   Bring em to Oklahoma. We've never played cowboys and terrorists, but I gotta feeling on how it would work out.

   Posted by Benchrest at 01/30/2009 @ 6:46pm

8. Posted by Benchrest at 01/30/2009 @ 6:46pm

   I think they'll do quite nicely, considering OK reminds them of home, sorta.

   Posted by ACook at 01/30/2009 @ 6:51pm

9. OKLAHOMA...perhaps..

   But in reaqlity,

   They never should have left the land in which they were caught, unless on their way to paradise..sent by us or on their own one way ticket.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 7:07pm

10. I'm seventy one years old and we held WW11 prisoners here in Houlton Maine. John Stewart is right if we can hold "the brain eating guy", we most certainly can hold a seventeen year old Al Qaeda cook. What are these politicians on: Palosie looks like she is constantly sitting on a whoopie cushion, Bond looks like he just swallowed a pound of really good Tijuana gold,and McConnell looks like he just zipped his private in his pants. Can't we elect sane people? I'm really proud of my two senators; Snow and Collins. Does any one feel that these politicians have a huge secret that maybe they can be prosecuted for condoning torture? They are not so much afraid that these guys are going to get out, but that our great bumbling media will get access to some of these poor sobs?

    Posted by julien38 at 01/30/2009 @ 7:39pm

11. GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN NON-MUSLIM!!!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2009 @ 7:47pm

12. and no, cuba, they're not going to give back the land they stole.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2009 @ 7:48pm

13. only in america are such conversations had. that there are people in this country who actually think that these few hundred *suspected* terrorists (the government has yet to produce evidence to justify the indefinite imprisonment, and torture, of each *suspected* terrorist) somehow would pose a threat to our person or our property, should they be relocated and subject to a proper trial, is truly astonishing. i mean, i am utterly baffled, flabbergasted, even dismayed. what the f*ck is wrong this country? i am totally serious.

    we have millions of people, some very dangerous, languishing in prison all over this country. some are minimum security; some are in maximum security. prison is american's middle name; it's her primary order of the day. we have the biggest, the best, and the (not so) brightest. i am fairly certain that, if these *suspected* terrorists were relocated, the last thing we should worry about is whether they will escape and f*ck sh*t up. it ain't gonna happen.

    obama made the correct move. the entire world (minus the american conservative nut jobs) embraced it.

    bush's extra-legal time/space warp went waaaaaaaaay to far, and now it's time for the adults to take over and fix his mess.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/30/2009 @ 7:52pm

14. Posted by darladoon at 01/30/2009 @ 7:52pm

    The absolute worst thing you could do to these terrorists is place them in the general prison population.

    The big ones weigh 145 pounds soaking wet. They would be as children among giants, and would require constant protection.

    Posted by Benchrest at 01/30/2009 @ 8:06pm

15. Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2009 @ 5:35pm

    PONTI?

    Who allowed 62 terrorists to be released?!??!?

    Posted by Mask at 01/30/2009 @ 8:08pm

16. "or putting them in a nice liberal blue neighborhood where they can all deride the US, Israel, capitalism, and Bush."

    go ahead. do you think i really give a flying f*ck? california has hundreds of prisons and hundreds of thousands of prisoners. maybe more. many are there for smoking herb. some are there for mass murder.

    only non-sensical and immature americans are concerned with where these *suspected* terrorists go. normal, intelligent people don't really care. the only thing we care about is whether the government can PROVE that these men have actually attempted to kill (or injure) americans.

    how would you like it, john, if you were a young muslim boy, 14 years old, and you were mistakenly picked up by the US military, imprisoned for 6 years, and tortured?

    it's actually a true story. the US military held a 14 year old until he was 21. that's seven years at guantanamo. do you have ANY compassion for him? he lost the best years of his life, and all because of bush's over-reaction.

    you know what bush's first, and biggest, mistake was? invading afghanistan. he never should have went in there. that "war" is not winnable.

    what bush should have done was simple: suck it up, and get over it. the 19 perpetrators ARE DEAD. their supporters? unassailable. their financial backers? invisible.

    arab muslims have every right to destory is, considering what we've done to them. and we should expect more hysteria, fear and delusion until we fincially (and militarily) disengage ourselves from them. we should engage in immediate diplomacy; we should immediatley find new, alternative energy sources.; we should take a more even-handed approach to palestine and israel. we should fund neither of their military wings.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/30/2009 @ 8:08pm

17. and yes, I'm aware one detainee weighs approx 410 lbs.

    Posted by Benchrest at 01/30/2009 @ 8:08pm

18. it's time for the adults to take over and fix his mess.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/30/2009 @ 7:52pm

    Seriously Darla, for once, come back to reality! The men at Gitmo are not gangbangers, but bonified terriorists. They have no qualms about blowing you and your farm up.

    Posted by ACook at 01/30/2009 @ 8:13pm

19. "Well, I think the fact that 62 former Club Gitmo guests went right back to being active terrorists after they were released might make people a little nervous about having these people in their neighborhood"

    ha, totally got suckered there! even our own intelligence agencies do not support this claim.

    from our own pentagon spokesman:

    http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4340

    here's the rub:

    Morrel stated: "The new numbers are, we believe, 18 confirmed and 43 suspected of returning to the fight. So 61 in all former Guantanamo detainees are confirmed or suspected of returning to the fight."

    poof! there goes pontificus's "argument"

    Posted by darladoon at 01/30/2009 @ 8:14pm

20. "Seriously Darla, for once, come back to reality! The men at Gitmo are not gangbangers, but bonified terriorists. They have no qualms about blowing you and your farm up."

    how does one respond to such orwellian paranoia?

    Posted by darladoon at 01/30/2009 @ 8:16pm

21. how is this for stupid?!

    many people here actually believe that, because obama is going to shut down gitmo and relocate a few hundred *suspected* terrorists (i can't stress the *suspected* part enough), that somehow, someway, these guys are going to get released, without a trial, and simply relocated to the streets of main street usa.

    i mean, seriously, if orwell were around today, he'd say, "i told you so, otherwise reasonabl people can get completely brainwashed by the media, the white house, and the pentagon."

    even obama himself has succumbed to this orwellian paranoia.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/30/2009 @ 8:21pm

22. folks, there is NO FRIGGIN' WAY that these suspected terrorists are ever going to walk the streets of the united states again. even if they again walk to the streets of bahrain, that would be because the proper legal course was taken, and the defense found the suspect innocent (something we, in a democracy should champion!)......

    but no, we live in an orwellian nightmare. even on comments section of the nation.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/30/2009 @ 8:24pm

23. Posted by darladoon at 01/30/2009 @ 8:24pm

    Keep tellin yourself that.

    Posted by ACook at 01/30/2009 @ 8:29pm

24. The men at Gitmo are not gangbangers, but bonified terriorists.

    Posted by ACook at 01/30/2009 @ 8:13pm

    prove it.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2009 @ 8:36pm

25. prove it.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2009 @ 8:36pm

    They already have.

    Posted by ACook at 01/30/2009 @ 8:38pm

26. hmmmm,

    lock someone up for 7 years,

    never charge them,

    and you wonder why they're pissed when they leave.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2009 @ 8:41pm

27. Posted by ACook at 01/30/2009 @ 8:38pm

    They were seized, ergo they are guilty?

    Is that how our criminal justice system works, ACOOK?

    Posted by Mask at 01/30/2009 @ 8:43pm

28. prove they've proven it.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2009 @ 8:43pm

29. Is that how our criminal justice system works, ACOOK? Posted by Mask at 01/30/2009 @ 8:43pm

    it does for poor people.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2009 @ 8:45pm

30. "Seriously Darla, for once, come back to reality! The men at Gitmo are not gangbangers, but bonified terriorists. They have no qualms about blowing you and your farm up."

    how does one respond to such orwellian paranoia?

    Posted by darladoon at 01/30/2009 @ 8:16pm

    How does one respond..?

    I will tell you DARLALOON..with a question about the young 14, now 21 year old muslim raised by AQ, most like in a Madrassa studying Sharia Law....

    What, in your worldly wisdom, strengthened by years of dope smoke..

    DO YOU think that same Muslim boy would do to...

    a black, lesbian, dope smoking, loon, not wearing a Fador, with a big loud mouth as she talks back to men about feminism?

    ..remember, these guys have been in the slave trade long before America..

    I can hear you screaming for G W Bush help from here.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 8:47pm

31. Posted by ACook at 01/30/2009 @ 8:38pm

    They were seized, ergo they are guilty?

    Is that how our criminal justice system works, ACOOK?

    Posted by Mask at 01/30/2009 @ 8:43pm

    On the battle field....I vote ..YES.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 8:49pm

32. and you were there john.

    bet you've been brushing up on your pashto (what's that) ¿right?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2009 @ 8:53pm

33. Darlaloon,

    If just ONE of these "innocents" of Gitmo gets released on Obamas watch after he closed the place and this guy gets caught again or kills someone...Obama is toast.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 8:53pm

34. Republicans can't shear the sheep without spooking them first. That's why they get all cut-up and scared because they know they're gonna get screwed when something changes, even if they don't understand what it was to begin with....

    Posted by squidboy6 at 01/30/2009 @ 8:54pm

35. and you were there john.

    bet you've been brushing up on your pashto (what's that) ¿right?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2009 @ 8:53pm

    I vote the same way you do on enviroment..

    I vote to error on the side of safety..

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 8:55pm

36. pashto (what's that) ¿right?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2009 @ 8:53pm

    I like mine with olive oil and pita bread.

    Idiot. You are actualy getting worse...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 8:56pm

37. Republicans can't shear the sheep without spooking them first. That's why they get all cut-up and scared because they know they're gonna get screwed when something changes, even if they don't understand what it was to begin with....

    Posted by squidboy6 at 01/30/2009 @ 8:54pm

    No one scared..just tired of paying for the same real estate ..twice.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 8:58pm

38. Time for a large steak and a bottle of red.

    4 1/2 hour long a flight from California combined with 3 minutes of logic from DARLAOON today..

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 9:00pm

39. Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 8:49pm

    Really? No civilians or innocents on a battlefield?

    So we're in the Napoleonic Era, are we?

    Posted by Mask at 01/30/2009 @ 9:07pm

40. so john,

    in order to be safe your going to lock up all 1.5 billion of 'em, ¿right?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2009 @ 9:07pm

41. They were seized, ergo they are guilty?

    Is that how our criminal justice system works, ACOOK?

    Posted by Mask at 01/30/2009 @ 8:43pm

    As far as I'm concerned, they're guilty. Believe it or not, many of those men were engaged on the battlefield. They were fighting our soliders.

    As for how the criminal justice system works here in America, it depends on your view.

    Posted by ACook at 01/30/2009 @ 9:12pm

42. Fz,

    Your last post show signs you have ingested a little too much pesticides.

    Your thought process really allows your to make that leap?

    I thank God everyday you are Canadian...we have enough troubles with our own loons.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 9:24pm

43. Posted by ACook at 01/30/2009 @ 9:12pm

    "many" of them?

    So some weren't, but are still guilty?

    Posted by Mask at 01/30/2009 @ 9:30pm

44. "If just ONE of these "innocents" of Gitmo gets released on Obamas watch after he closed the place and this guy gets caught again or kills someone...Obama is toast."

    this is precisely how orwellian logic works: it's completley backwards. if someone is found innocent, then what they do after they are found innocent, has nothing to do with happened before they were found innocent. it's quite simple, actually.

    "DO YOU think that same Muslim boy would do to... a black, lesbian, dope smoking, loon, not wearing a Fador, with a big loud mouth as she talks back to men about feminism? ..remember, these guys have been in the slave trade long before America.. I can hear you screaming for G W Bush help from here"

    i am in complete solidarity with the young boy who was mistakenly locked up for 7 years without charges. if i am the object of his hatred, then that is something that he needs to work through. if he ends up killing me, for whatever reason, then i must say: that would be one incredibly unlikely way to die. can you imagine? only 3,000 people died on 9.11. that's something like 0.00000003% of the population.

    maasch, the vast majority of americans are on my side on this one. the democrats swept in 2006 and 2008. they want obama to change the course on which bush had foolishly put us. during his campaign, obama was very clear as to his position on the war on terror:

    *end iraq

    *close gitmo

    *stop torture

    *talk to iran

    and on and on and on.

    and obama won decisively.

    your movement is OVER, maasch. you lost, badly. and not only that, but your children and grandchildren will pay for your mistakes for many generations.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/30/2009 @ 9:41pm

45. they said the same about you and yours in 1993...,

    And Daralaloon, You are their natura enemy. Gay, female, drug user, Godless or worse, pagan, and with amouth to talk back to men.

    Good luck in the future.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 9:47pm

46. let me give maasch just one example of why his "movement" failed: health care. for years, he and his comrades have excorciated anyone who suggests the need for a national health care plan. saying (without any logical footing): "it's socialistic" or "it would cost too much" or "it's a hand out for lazy people."

    but now, with a huge financial collapse upon us, millions of americans, having lost their jobs, will be in need of health care which they cannot access. the need for strong public services and public infrastructure is higher than ever, and because of conservativism and a warped belief in more tax cuts, our public sector is in shambles. we will end up spending more without a strong public infrastructure than we would if we had been investing in public infrastructure these last 29 years.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/30/2009 @ 9:53pm

47. "And Daralaloon, You are their natura enemy. Gay, female, drug user, Godless or worse, pagan, and with amouth to talk back to men."

    "their" enemy? who is they, maasch? the suspected terrorists at gitmo? or the entire swath of arab muslims? or just the ones in iraq? the ones in afghanistan? pakistan? saudi arabia (our friend)?

    who, maasch? and must i really concern myself with what might happen if obama, and the united states, take the most legal and humane course of action? should we really take the non-legal, inhumane course of action, and live in perpetual fear of some elusive enemy?

    sounds to me, maasch, like you are the perfect embodiment of orwellianism. have you read 1984? if you haven't, you really should.

    and i really suggest you try smoking some herb. just once. don't make it a habit. but smoking just a tiny bit of herb might give you some perspective on what's really important in your life.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/30/2009 @ 9:59pm

48. MAASCH, you ignoring me?

    Again, all on the field of battle are fair game, no innocents swept up.

    Those 19-20 year old kids with a few weeks of basic under their belt are solely and ONLY grabbing guys who had taken up arms against them or were part of some "network"....

    no date trader on his way to Kabul...or some sheepherder carrying his M1 Garand (long defunct) protecting his herd from wolves who LOOKED like a Taliban fighter.

    All guilty as sin and in the right place at the right time?

    Posted by Mask at 01/30/2009 @ 10:17pm

49. Funny but NONE of the countries they came from will allow them to RETURN! Now why is that leftist?

    The Europeon nation who first said they will take them are ALL busy backpeddling like madmen to get away from their ILL concieved offer!

    If Leslie Savan will just just give Obamanation her HOME ADDRESS I'm sure he will send them to her to open a half-way house!!! Good luck fools!!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 01/30/2009 @ 10:46pm

50. Frankly, the best place for the prisoners is where they are now. It is a maximum security prison where they are treated much better than they deserve. If they are put in prisons here (like Super Max) life will be much harder. My preference, if we are going to close Gitmo, is to send them back to their home countries especially if they will quickly be executed. Given the current record for releases, most went right back to terrorism - many were killed in the field, the most desirable outcome, while others are still killing. Of course if they are tied up here in endless court battles, living a long life of tedius boredom listening to windbag lawyers, judges and politicians, might be the best punishment yet.

    Posted by pyeatte at 01/30/2009 @ 11:03pm

51. sounds to me, maasch, like you are the perfect embodiment of orwellianism. have you read 1984? if you haven't, you really should. Posted by darladoon at 01/30/2009 @ 9:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Way to go showing how ignorant that really is, it is Obamanation and the Undemocrats of congress that are making Orwells 1984 come to full fruitation and some are too plain dumb to realize it!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 01/30/2009 @ 11:44pm

52. "Way to go showing how ignorant that really is, it is Obamanation and the Undemocrats of congress that are making Orwells 1984 come to full fruitation and some are too plain dumb to realize it!"

    thank you so much for proving my point!

    Posted by darladoon at 01/30/2009 @ 11:47pm

53. thank you so much for proving my point!

    Posted by darladoon at 01/30/2009 @ 11:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Bwhahahahaha! "res ipsa loquiter" lives!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 01/31/2009 @ 12:18am

54. I've heard cynical talking points b.s. before, but this is too much...

    I know they're out of power and desperate, but come on!

    What are the muslims going to do? Burn through the walls of the prison with they're laser vision?

    With so much gun violence in this country, it is absolutely absurd that the GOP would play the fear card like this.

    A little over two years ago, a man took over a school and shot 10 children. Five died. This happened about 3 miles away from where I am right now. I object to guns being sold in my backyard.

    Posted by koroviev at 01/31/2009 @ 01:53am

55. I don't think any one of us here, left or right, really has all the facts necessary to make the right call on the Guantanamo prisoners.

    Fun to discuss, but very light on the facts.

    What is evident is both sides of the aisle have politicized the issue beyond recognition.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 01/31/2009 @ 01:59am

56. A little over two years ago, a man took over a school and shot 10 children. Five died. This happened about 3 miles away from where I am right now. I object to guns being sold in my backyard. Posted by koroviev at 01/31/2009 @ 01:53am

    13,000 murders/year.

    4 9/11's every year.

    yet nada............

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2009 @ 02:12am

57. I thank God everyday you are Canadian...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 9:24pm

    me, too.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2009 @ 02:13am

58. Gitmo is an embarrasment to America and all it represents, it should be closed.

    The detainees, rightly or not, are prisoners of the USA and should be hosted in the US to guarantee that the law of the land and due process is applied.

    Reps as always focus on their marketing strategies of fear. But in the bottom of their Hearts (do they have one??), they want to keep GITMO because "you don't do dirty things in America"?? or don't they? This is their hypocrisy.

    We have about 3 million people incarcerated. Of these, to venture a number maybe say 20% (600,000!!) are really dangerous people. The number in GITMO (say 600??), does not mean anything in comparison. In fact it is highly likely, that the community of inmates would hate them such that these Easterners would be the ones in danger!

    The stories of prisoners escaping and going wild are really rare. Add to this not knowing English or a trade to get by. Let's forget NIMBY, distribute them into 3 or 4 high security institutions and guarantee them due process. And if they need to be liberated, be it. We may consider buying a home for them in a remote village in Irak. At least it would be much cheaper than keeping them and they would not hate us that much. And truly, they would had deserve the economic prize on justice alone. Finally if we leave Irak (and Afghanistan), we will never meet them again.

    It is important to remember that to defend America is to defend its ideals of freedom, justice, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL. We don't have anything to fear when we do justice.

    Posted by Frank42 at 01/31/2009 @ 04:51am

59. I would bet that many of the "red" Congressional Districts of the complaining Republicans would, ironically enough, have no problem with a prison being built in them on the grounds of it being a jobs engine.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/31/2009 @ 06:18am

60. especially if they will quickly be executed.

    grrr, kill, kill

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/31/2009 @ 09:48am

61. Welcome Back Ponti! I see you are continuing with your propaganda spreading ways, totally removed from reality. Maybe an apology to your new p[resident would be in order for you. You could apologize for all the slander you peddled before the election, now that Barak Hussein Obama is your CIC during a time of war.

    Ok, on to propaganda destruction:

    1: # of detainees that have returned to "the battlefield". 7 is the magic number, and 5 of those have been unlocatable. It is not 62, as PONTI would like to believe in his fear induced hatred of American justice. Nor is it 43, or 27, both numbers I have heard from republicans. Read the above article for more on why these numbers do not match.

    2: Picked up on "the battlefield". I guess if the whole world is the battlefield, then MAASCH fear based system is correct. But, if we consider Afghanistan the "battlefield", then again (shocking!) Maasch is WRONG AGAIN. Hundreds of detainees have been picked up in Pakistan, Indonesia, Yemen, Egypt and many other places. Some were picked up for bounties, and released years later never having been shown to be a threat to JOHN MAASCH.

    3: THEY are guilty. 500 have been released from GITMO, after Bush's "system" declared them to be no threat to JOHN MAASCH or PONTIFICUS or ACOOK. If 500 of 750 ARE NOT GUILTY, then why assume the other 250 are too? Only 3 have been tried and found guilty, and one was given time served.

    4: no country will take them. Actually 500 have been taken by their home country or others. China will not take the Uighurs because the Uighurs want autonomy from the communist country that occupies their land. I would think that RIOKORESH and LUVVY would gladly accept these people into their community, so they could talk about the evils of communism.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2009 @ 10:03am

62. The operating assumption here is that the prisoners are terrorists who were captured while fighting a vicious war against the United States. But can the critics be sure? All they really know about the Guantanamo detainees is that they are Guantanamo detainees. To conclude that they are all bloodthirsty jihadists requires believing that the U.S. government is infallible.

    But how sensible is that approach? Judging from a little-noticed federal appeals court decision that came down after the Supreme Court ruling, not very.

    The case involved Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim who fled to Afghanistan in May 2001 to escape persecution of his Uighur ethnic group by the Beijing government. When the U.S. invaded after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Uighur camp where he lived was destroyed by air strikes. He and his compatriots made their way to Pakistan, where villagers handed them over to the government, which transferred them to American custody.

    You might think you would have to do something pretty obvious to wind up in Guantanamo. Apparently not. The U.S. government does not claim Parhat was a member of the Taliban or al-Qaida. He was not captured on a battlefield. The government's own military commission admitted it found no evidence that he "committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition partners."

    So why did the Pentagon insist on holding him as an enemy combatant? Because he was affiliated with the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, a separatist Muslim group fighting for independence from Beijing. It had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks but reputedly got help from al-Qaida.

    But the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, after reviewing secret documents submitted by the government, found that there was no real evidence.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2009 @ 10:04am

63. ...It said the flimsy case mounted against Parhat "comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true." And it ruled that, based on the information available, he was not an enemy combatant even under the Pentagon's own definition of the term.

    Is this verdict just another act of judicial activism by arrogant liberals on the bench? Not by a long shot.

    Of the three judges who signed the opinion, one, Thomas Griffith, was appointed in 2005 by President Bush himself. Another, David Sentelle, was nominated in 1985 by President Reagan--and had earlier joined in ruling that the Guantanamo detainees could not go to federal court to assert their innocence (a decision the Supreme Court overturned).

    The administration could hardly have asked for a more accommodating group of judges. Yet they found in favor of the detainee on the simple grounds that if the government is going to imprison someone as an enemy combatant, it needs some evidence that he is one.

    A 2006 report by Seton Hall law professor Mark Denbeaux found that only 8 percent of those held at Guantanamo were al-Qaida fighters. Even a study done at West Point concluded that just 73 percent of the detainees were a "demonstrated threat"--which means 27 percent were not.

    The Parhat case doesn't prove that everyone in detention at Guantanamo is an innocent victim of some misunderstanding. But it does show the dangers of trusting the administration--any administration--to act as judge, jury, and jailer. It illustrates the need for an independent review to make sure there is some reason to believe the people being treated as terrorists really deserve it.

    --above from REASON.com http://www.reason.com/news/show/127368.html

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2009 @ 10:06am

64. Ok, onto the NIMBYISM of the right.

    1: we have terrorists in jail, have for years. There is not a single incident where his group has attacked a maximum security prison in an attempt to release the master mind of the Twin Tower bombing of 1993. Nor has the rightwing fundies attempted the release of any of their terrorists.

    2: Maximum security prisons create jobs, a needed thing in these post-Bush years. Many are even private, so the cons can have their cake and eat it.

    ----

    PYATTE says "Given the current record for releases, most went right back to terrorism -"

    Bullshit!. Read above.

    Freihet says "I don't think any one of us here, left or right, really has all the facts necessary to make the right call on the Guantanamo prisoners."

    I disagree. We know quite a bit about them. The Supreme Court has said that they have a right to trial, they have a right to have evidence against them supplied to their lawyers. We know that MOST have been released, which brings up a serious question about ALL of them. We know that MOST were not "picked up on the battlefield" but were picked up elsewhere, which calls into question the whole process.

    If Iran can pick up JOHN MAASCH in Venezuela for comments he made in Canada, then the US can pick up people in Malaysia for making threats against the US while they were in Pakistan. Are you good with that JOHN?

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2009 @ 10:17am

65. Put 'em in my back yard -- right here in Northern Virginia. Even though we have a relatively stable employment rate, we always know a good source of employment when we see it. And I'd be happy to have the little buggers right next door to me. Them and their keepers.

    Posted by barnesgene at 01/31/2009 @ 10:21am

66. I wonder, do the conservatives here think that WHATEVER THE GOVERNMENT SAYS IS TRUE???

    If so, your president says "Close GITMO"

    If not, then why the denial of reasonable trials for those held in Castros Cuba?

    ----

    6 Algerians were captured in Bosnia, accused of wanting to blow up the US embassy in Sarajevo. Those charges were dropped, but the men are still being held as "enemy combatants", even though they NEVER attacked US troops or resources.

    "The fiercely nonpartisan National Journal magazine reported, "Notwithstanding Rumsfeld's description, the majority of (Guantanamo prisoners) were not caught by American soldiers on the battlefield. They came into American custody from third parties, mostly from Pakistan, some after targeted raids there, most after a dragnet for Arabs after 9/11."

    Not even the CIA bought into Rumsfeld's "worst of the worst" characterization. Michael Scheuer, who headed the agency's bin Laden unit through 1999 and resigned in 2004, said, "By the fall of 2002, it was common knowledge around CIA circles that fewer than 10 percent of Guantanamo's prisoners were high-value terrorist operatives.... Most of the men were probably foot soldiers at best" who were "going to know absolutely nothing about terrorism."

    The Center for Constitutional Rights, whose lawyers represent many of the Guantanamo detainees, characterizes as "myth" the notion that "The US wants to transfer detainees to the custody of other countries, but no country will take them. " The CCR says the fact is that countries are willing to accept detainees but many are not willing to unlawfully detain them, as the US is requesting they do." "-By William Fisher t r u t h o u t | Report

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2009 @ 10:34am

67. What the fearful cons are also saying is that the US military is incapable of holding bad guys in their military prisons.

    Why do you have such disregard for the US military?

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2009 @ 10:37am

68. It sure looks like, again, the conservatives here are doing their damned best to be like the enemy, rounding up people without charges, union busting, gay bashing, torturing teenagers because the cons are afraid, holding people forever in Cuban jails, causing Americans to be killed via their policies.

    All fear based ideology, fed by indoctrination via propaganda from the government. Is that about right PONTI ?

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2009 @ 10:44am

69. Just think Cons, .6% of those you fear have been shown to be terrorist, or terrorist helpers.

    .6%

    Why do you live in fear of .006 of the population of your Gulag?

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2009 @ 10:51am

70. oops, bad math.

    You actually live in fear of 3/750= .004

    .4% make you tough cons shake in pants shitting fear.

    Lets add in KSM, make it 4/750=.53%

    Let's round up all the Pro-lifers! Many of them have killed Americans in acts of terrorism!

    That would be the outcome of your ideology here, con folk. Is that where you want to go?

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2009 @ 11:07am

71. Listen to the troops

    [ By Josh Meyer October 12, 2008

    WASHINGTON -- Darrel Vandeveld was in despair. The hard-nosed lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve had lost faith in the Guantanamo Bay war crimes tribunals in which he was one of the prosecutors.

    His work was top secret, making it impossible to talk to family or friends. So the devout Catholic -- working away from home--contacted a priest via the Internet.

    "I am beginning to have grave misgivings about what I am doing, and what we are doing as a country," Vandeveld wrote in an August e-mail. "I no longer want to participate in the system, but I lack the courage to quit. I am married, with children, and not only will they suffer, I'll lose a lot of friends."

    He even reached out for advice from his opposing counsel, a military defense lawyer.

    "How do I get myself out of this office?" Vandeveld asked Air Force Maj. David Frakt, who was representing the young Afghan Vandeveld had been ordered to prosecute for an attack on U.S. soldiers -- despite his doubts about whether Mohammed Jawad would get a fair trial.

    Last month, Vandeveld resigned from active duty, becoming at least the fourth prosecutor to quit under protest. Their assertions raise fundamental questions about the fairness of the war crimes tribunals from the very people charged with implementing them, according to legal experts, human-rights observers and some current and former military officials.

    In a declaration and subsequent testimony, Vandeveld said the U.S. government is not providing defense lawyers with the evidence that it has against their clients, including exculpatory information--material that is considered helpful to the defense.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2009 @ 11:12am

72. ...In a declaration and subsequent testimony, Vandeveld said the U.S. government is not providing defense lawyers with the evidence that it has against their clients, including exculpatory information--material that is considered helpful to the defense.

    Vandeveld testified that he went from being a "true believer to someone who felt truly deceived [by the tribunals]."

    Vandeveld, now 48, once lived a relatively placid life outside Erie, Pa., with his wife and four children. He worked as a senior deputy state attorney general in charge of consumer protection in the region.

    Called to active duty after the Sept. 11 attacks, Vandeveld received outstanding evaluations as a Pentagon legal adviser and judge advocate in Bosnia, the Horn of Africa, Afghanistan and Iraq.

    "One of the Corps' best and brightest," his commanding officer, Gen. Charles Barr, wrote in Vandeveld's June 2006 evaluation. "Save the very toughest jobs in the Corps for him."

    From his Iraq assignment, Vandeveld went to Guantanamo, where he began locking horns over the Jawad case with Frakt.

    Frakt believed that his client was, at worst, a confused Afghan teen of about 16 who had been brainwashed and drugged by militant extremists who coerced him into participating in a grenade-throwing incident with other older -- and guiltier --men.

    Vandeveld told the L.A. Times he kept finding information that appeared to bolster Frakt's claims that evidence was being withheld -- including some favorable to the defense, such as information suggesting that Jawad was underage, that he was drugged before the incident and abused by U.S. forces afterward. -

    Chicago Tribune .com

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2009 @ 11:14am

73. Close it, blackcoptermedia.com. Waste of money and what did it prove, nada. Make it a museum, when Cuba finally opens up.

    Posted by thesid at 01/31/2009 @ 11:31am

74. Americans did not know who the enemy was in Vietnam. The innocent citizens were not that innocent in most cases.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/31/2009 @ 12:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Sure, Americans knew who they enemy was..but it was just too late ..the enemy was the Dems and the American left.

    LVL,

    You have it wrong...all VC and No VN are the innocents..we, the UN in those days, the US aggressors, baby killers,imperialists are the ones who should have been put on trial. If only we had sunk the boat people and left the Hmongs alone, all would be well. The Communists and the North Vn all just wanted to live in peace...like the North Koreans.

    and AQ...Taliban...Chavez, Castro, ARMYJIHAD, who BTW,

    ..just blasted Obama after his desire to talk to Iran.. and now demands an apology going back to the 50s from the US..He says Obama proves the demise of the US, capitalism and our status as world dominating aggresive power is at an end...as Obama is passive and asking for talks.

    kinda what all have said..that when you agree to talk without parameters..you already lose to certain cultures..but thats OK..we will send a respected person whom all Islamic leaders admire yet fear, honor, and listen to without reservations and take seriously in a culture that does not count women among the population as relevent...a woman.....Hillary.

    I am sure they can't wait to get consessions....ours.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/31/2009 @ 1:02pm

75. military war prisoners are not part of the "criminal justice" system....not per geneva or any other int'l agreements you are so fond of.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/31/2009 @ 11:57am

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/31/2009 @ 11:57am |

    POW's are not covered under the GC?

    Fascinating.

    ------

    Let's put it in terms the cons might understand.

    You come to your boss with a list of 750 potential clients, saying "Boss, these are the best of the best sales leads."

    After 5 years, 500 are no longer on the list.

    3 have bought your product, although one only bought enough to cover the deposit.

    Fewer than ten have agreed to abide by past contracts, although they too are waffling.

    The Supreme Court has told your company several times to re-evaluate your sales procedures to bring them in line with the law.

    International trade groups have refused to honor your agreements, and most countries allow franchises to be brought to their countries.

    A couple of your sales staff quit, citing misuse of company policy as well as violations of basic ethical standards.

    Question: how long do you follow this business plan?

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2009 @ 1:55pm

76. The Communists and the North Vn all just wanted to live in peace...like the North Koreans. -JOMAMAMA

    They trade with us now...in peace

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2009 @ 1:57pm

77. They never should have left the land in which they were caught, unless on their way to paradise..sent by us or on their own one way ticket.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 7:07pm

    agreed

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/30/2009 @ 7:15pm

    Whom would Jesus kill, Larry? And, Maasch, by your logic, the same could happen to US service men and women in foreign lands. Of course, they're little but cannon fodder to you, so I suppose, while feigning outrage, you really wouldn't give a rat's ass, would you? And, Larry, Maasch, Rio, et al., the last 28 years have proven beyond a doubt that right-wing Republicans are the enemies of all that is America. You people have left this country in critical condition, and while you may be anxious to finish the job that your saint Reagan began and your hero Bush nearly finished, your repudiation at the hands of the American people has left us, at long last, with decent and intelligent human beings at the helm of government.

    Posted by jmusolino at 01/31/2009 @ 2:01pm

78. They never should have left the land in which they were caught, unless on their way to paradise..sent by us or on their own one way ticket.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 7:07pm

    even the ones let go?

    You would have killed them?

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2009 @ 3:23pm

79. Again, why do the cons want to keep the Uighurs in custody? Don't they both hate communism?

    So, the cons are in favor of communist parties winning seats in Iraq, because it shows how democracy works.

    But, they are opposed to letting commie fighters go free from being held in Cuba? even though those commie fighters have been shown to not be a threat to the cons?

    and the cons want tkeep people on the say so of the CIA, and LUVSLIBERTY has told us in no uncertain terms that the CIA is full of liberal socialists. But liberal socialists are the worst part of American society

    I am soooo confused.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2009 @ 3:28pm

80. Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2009 @ 1:55pm

    "POW's are not covered under the GC?

    Fascinating. "

    Since when do Gitmo terrorists qualify as 'Prisoners of War'? Seems to me that terrorists use tactics that precisely qualify them for summary execution under the intent of the Geneva Convention. If the Geneva Convention allows for the summary execution of spies, certainly it can be read to allow for the summary execution of terrorists.

    And in any case, why are you hard core lefties so concerned about the rights of terrorists at Gitmo, 62 of whom have returned to jihad after release, presumably to kill more innocent people in the name of Allah? Because it's a useful issue to use as a rallying point to oppose George Bush and the policies he used to keep America safe? Or do you feel kinship with the terrorists, because they hate America as much as you do? Just wondering.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/31/2009 @ 4:46pm

81. "And in any case, why are you hard core lefties so concerned about the rights of terrorists at Gitmo, 62 of whom have returned to jihad after release, presumably to kill more innocent people in the name of Allah? Because it's a useful issue to use as a rallying point to oppose George Bush and the policies he used to keep America safe? Or do you feel kinship with the terrorists, because they hate America as much as you do? Just wondering."

    every aspect of this statement is retarded.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/31/2009 @ 5:14pm

82. Yeah Axis, get those damn guerrillas in uniforms so this entire "enemy combatant" conundrum can be laid to rest.

    This is your doing A.O.E. Very clever. I swear, we're gonna figure this out!

    Posted by Sorelish at 01/31/2009 @ 5:45pm

83. If the people detained at Gitmo are guilty, then why have they not been officially convicted? Thus, aren't they innocent until proven guilty or does that not apply to them either?

    And as far as NIMBY... that's just the American way, there are plenty of examples: immigration, homelessness and domestic prisoners, to name a few. If one supports the government detaining the people at Gitmo, then they should support the government moving them to domestic prisons (although those are grossly overcrowded, but that's a separate issue), otherwise it is a clear case of NIMBY . Face it, regardless of what side of the political spectrum one may identify with, Gitmo is getting closed and fear mongering about the risks is pointless. What is necessary is actually figuring out the logistics of where these people are going to go.

    Posted by bluemango at 01/31/2009 @ 7:36pm

84. Love Jon Stewart's take on it...

    the Right is terrified of some lame-ass punks (among those that are actually guilty) being transfered to American prisons...

    and we've already got AMERICAN serial killers who ate a dozen people's brains there, and no concern about them!

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 01/31/2009 @ 9:49pm

85. military war prisoners are not part of the "criminal justice" system....not per geneva or any other int'l agreements you are so fond of.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/31/2009 @ 11:57am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Except of course, if they were turned in because of a dispute over a sheep-related debt or governments in Egypt or Yemen turned them in, then you don't actually know that they are military war prisoners. They weren't taken on a battlefield and you have no proof that they were with the Taliban or al-Qaida.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/31/2009 @ 10:05pm

86. "And in any case, why are you hard core lefties so concerned about the rights of terrorists at Gitmo, 62 of whom have returned to jihad after release, presumably to kill more innocent people in the name of Allah? Because it's a useful issue to use as a rallying point to oppose George Bush and the policies he used to keep America safe? Or do you feel kinship with the terrorists, because they hate America as much as you do? Just wondering."

    every aspect of this statement is retarded.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2009 @ 11:16pm

87. If just ONE of these "innocents" of Gitmo gets released on Obamas watch after he closed the place and this guy gets caught again or kills someone...Obama is toast.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 8:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    Hogwash!

    If that were to happen, the raging dipsticks will have a field day trying to **claim** that it was Obama's fault.

    But the other 80% of the population, the ones who actually have the capacity for rational thought, will understand that the people who created the terrorist factory that is Gitmo, Bush and his incompetant cronies, will be the ones with blood on thier hands...

    ...not the people who closed it down.

    Posted by Lillian at 02/01/2009 @ 02:17am

88. http://tinyurl.com/35voxw

    BREMEN, Germany, Aug. 25 -- Lawyers for Murat Kurnaz, a German native released Thursday after spending more than four years locked up at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without charges of any kind said he was mistreated to the end by U.S. military personnel, who kept him shackled and blindfolded until his flight home landed and though he never meant the United States any harm before would now like to "fuck America up."

    The reason Kurnaz was singled out may always be a mystery. But at the time, the U.S. was paying bounties for suspicious foreigners. Kurnaz, who'd been rambling across Pakistan with Islamic pilgrims, seemed to fit the bill. Kurnaz says that he was told that U.S. intelligence paid $3,000 for him.

    Posted by Lillian at 02/01/2009 @ 02:36am

89. Believe it or not, many of those men were engaged on the battlefield. They were fighting our soliders.

    Posted by ACook at 01/30/2009 @ 9:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    The absolute ignorance and stupidity displayed by that statement is astounding to me!!

    Based soley on what she's been spoonfed by proven incompetants, without so much as a quizzical look or moment of reflection, Akook simply swallows it whole, then regurgitates it on cue!

    Here's a question for Akook...

    ...if they were captured on the battlefield, why can't they be charged, tried, and convicted in a military court? If they were indeed "engaged on the battlefield" "fighting our soldiers" the military tribunal would return a conviction in about 10 minutes. These people aren't being tried, precisely because they WEREN'T picked up on the battlefield while enagaged with our military!

    For a VERY large number of these people, there is NO evidence whatsoever. A large number of them were picked up based on the word of someone who was paid to provide 'tips' to the military.

    http://tinyurl.com/9y3axh

    For others, the only 'evidence' is the kind of military intelligence that is, by its nature, conjecture, presumptions, or probabilities...

    ...exactly as is being discovered right now.

    http://tinyurl.com/ckw4am

    Posted by Lillian at 02/01/2009 @ 03:00am

90. that's not what I said; GC says Prisoners are tried by tribunal, not civil courts.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/31/2009 @ 3:48pm |

    uh, you wrote "military war prisoners"

    Now you want to say they are not "Prisoners of War"

    Make up your mind, loon.

    ----

    , 62 of whom have returned to jihad after release, presumably to kill more innocent people in the name of Allah?-PONTIFICUS the Temporarily Lost

    List the 62, by name if you have it, and the place where they killed Americans. Careful here, it could be 43, or 12 or 7 or 5.

    Now, list the republicans that wrote a report that said YOUR tactics of torture are actually strengthening our enemies. I will help with one- John McCain.

    Then I have a "troop" that says in his experience as a military intel officer, your tactics have killed more Americans than it has helped.

    ---

    You guys have proof that only 10% of those in GITMO were on "the battlefield" ( the militaries OWN figure. . Only .4% have been convicted in any form of tribunal. The Supreme Court has handed down a couple of bitch slaps to these kangaroo courts. You have been shown that many of these people NEVER should have been picked up. You cannot provide a constant steady number for those that have "returned to kill Americans". Our own congress, including EVERY republican on the Armed Services Committee wrote that harsh tactics are HELPING AQ.

    Yet you continue to spread propaganda from the government.

    BOO!

    Tell us again about the dirty bomber, Padilla. What happened to those charges?

    Tell us again about the drone planes Saddam had.

    Tell us again about how President Obama is actually a Marxist.

    Tell us again how experienced Sarah Palin is, and how her husbands belonging to AIP is nothing like Obamas connection to "domestic terrorists".

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/01/2009 @ 09:05am

91. Tell us again how we are a "nation of whiners" and the recession is "mental".

    Tell us again about how the "fundamentals of the economy are strong"

    Tell us again how there is no recession.

    Tell us again about how I cannot buy a US made shirt for under $200, or a US made ladder for under $900, because unions have done bad things.

    Tell us again how Bush NEVER lost a court case.

    Tell us again how Bush, a politician, NEVER lied, but how ALL politicians lie.

    Tell us again how Iraqi security forces will be ready in 2005 or 2006 or 2007 or 2008,

    Tell us why we have "won" in Iraq, but we still need 140,ooo troops.

    Tell us again that we are still at war in 2 palces because of "the left"

    Come on Cons, sing us some more of these little diddies you are so fond of...The PROPAGANDA SONG.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/01/2009 @ 09:15am

92. Here you go PONTI, from an America Hating Leftist

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content

    /article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242_pf.html

    "I'm not some ivory-tower type; I served for 14 years in the U.S. Air Force, began my career as a Special Operations pilot flying helicopters, saw combat in Bosnia and Kosovo, became an Air Force counterintelligence agent, then volunteered to go to Iraq to work as a senior interrogator. What I saw in Iraq still rattles me -- both because it betrays our traditions and because it just doesn't work.

    ...Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.

    I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. "

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/01/2009 @ 09:21am

93. Come on PONTI, tell us again how Abu Graib was just "a few bad apples".

    [A report released Thursday by leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee said top Bush administration officials, including Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, bore major responsibility for the abuses committed by American troops in interrogations at Abu Ghraib in Iraq; Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; and other military detention centers.

    The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the report says, "was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own" but grew out of interrogation policies approved by Mr. Rumsfeld and other top officials, who "conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees."

    The report also says that the policies of torture and harsh treatment "helped strengthen the hands of our enemies"

    ----

    Got that PONTICUS? Your policies helped AQ grow it's membership.

    And you want to come around here and blame us? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? I thought that was one of your core beliefs. Now you want to blame others for your failings? Sounds awful "lefty" to me.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/01/2009 @ 09:33am

94. Just think PONTI, you live in pants shitting fear of a 14 year old. He is "the worst of the worst"

    Until a republican appointed judge orders him released because there is insufficient evidence to hold him, after having held him for YEARS, because you were afraid of a 14 year old boy.

    Maybe you should go hide behind some more women and children so AQ can kill them on there way to you. I know that is your core philosophy " Fight them behind their women and children over there so we won't have fight them in airport checkpoints here".

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/01/2009 @ 09:41am

95. "The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans."- American troop that served in Iraq.

    PONTI, why don't you think US servicemen are Americans?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/01/2009 @ 09:48am

96. Forget about McCain's senior moments. What you need to worry about is Obama's ignorance of fundamental subjects and his inability to operate outside of a scripted environment. This guy is going to be a regular gaffe-o-matic once he gets into a debate environment where he has to think on his feet outside the adoring throng of MSM boosters. You're right it won't be close; McCain will take 300 electoral votes, easy.

    Posted by pontificus at 08/22/2008 @ 10:53am

    Shit, we haven't even BEGUN with that. I think we're going to be seeing quite a bit of archival footage of Obama's 20 year spiritual advisor in 527 campaign commercials this fall. "God Damn America" might make your little hearts flutter here at The Nation, we'll see how that plays across America.

    Posted by pontificus at 08/22/2008 @ 12:49pm

    Anybody for another slurp of kool-aid?

    Posted by pontificus at 09/20/2008 @ 10:41pm

    Obama is an empty suit. Little or no qualifications whatsoever, other than that he's black, and leftist

    Posted by pontificus at 09/20/2008 @ 10:55pm

    Did I tell you I predicted a McCain landslide? Of course, this is predicated on my premise that the good people of the USA have more common sense than, say, the OJ jury. Ah, the wild card!

    Posted by pontificus at 09/20/2008 @ 10:57pm

    "A you just called america stupid."

    No I didn't. They haven't elected Obama, yet.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/21/2008 @ 09:05am

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/01/2009 @ 10:03am

97. ....will understand that the people who created the terrorist factory that is Gitmo, Bush and his incompetant cronies, will be the ones with blood on thier hands...

    ...not the people who closed it down.

    Posted by Lillian at 02/01/2009 @ 02:17am

    Oh, boy........well on her way to the Path of Insanitation....LOL!

    Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 02/01/2009 @ 11:34am | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    Hey HappyHS, Bush created the situation where his merry band of incompetents managed to pick up a complete innocent named Murat Kurnaz, hold him for years without evidence or trial, tortured him regularly, and now, after hisr4elease, he would now like to "fuck America up."

    So as a perfect example of the breed, tell us, how big of a blindly partisan dipstick DO you have to be...

    ...to not see the connection?

    Posted by Lillian at 02/01/2009 @ 12:41pm

98. "What are the muslims going to do? Burn through the walls of the prison with they're laser vision?"

    OH CRAP!!!

    It's amazing how short-sighted these right-wingers are. But that's been Republican politics for thirty years, short-term expediencies at the expense of long-term security (economic, health, safety, environment). You look across the board, that's what's happened.

    And, finally, after they somehow foisted 8 years of George W. Bush and D*** C***** on us, the chickens have come home to roost. The American people have finally suffered the results of their short-sighted policies -- and they don't like it!

    Guantanamo Bay is just one example. It sounds great: We're gonna lock up terrorists and beat the truth out of 'em! But when you actually sit back and think about the negative impact on our image (the most important component in the battle against al-Qaeda and their allies), you realize it's fools' gold.

    We encouraged recruits to fight American soldiers in Iraq. We destroyed our moral credibility. We denigrated the concerns of our most important allies. We eliminated the rule of law. We most certainly have turned captured innocents into siding with al-Qaeda. We played right into al-Qaeda's ideology, we gave Osama bin Laden a propaganda tool that was better than he could've ever hoped.

    If you don't get this, that's why you are now the minority party, suffering through a president you think is totally unqualified and naive. You did it to yourself. You earned it.

    Posted by georgewfan at 02/01/2009 @ 12:56pm

99. Oh, boy........well on her way to the Path of Insanitation....LOL!

    Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 02/01/2009 @ 11:34am | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    BTW HappyDipstick, "insanitation"!?!?! What is it you thought you were saying?

    Do you even have the **slightest** idea what the word means - or what you just said?

    (Yea, I didn't think so.)

    LOL!!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Posted by Lillian at 02/01/2009 @ 2:20pm

100. I can't help thinking that there is another agenda going on here. America is the biggest prison-state in the world. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, as of June 30, 2007, American prisons and jails held 2,299,116 inmates. As of year-end 2007, a record 7.2 million people were behind bars, on probation or on parole, perhaps 27% of them non-citizens.

     The US has more expertise in incarcerating people than any other country in the world, and has all sorts of folk like the Unabomber and so on well locked up. There is surely place among the vast archipelago of "correctional facilities" to take the few hundred prisoners at Guantanamo?

     So what is the problem (apart from being a prison state?)

     Posted by mikecope at 02/01/2009 @ 2:22pm

101. I'm not denying the importance of reality, I'm just disputing that people from the left have any particular claim to it. Considering the track record of the statist philosophy they espouse, I would think it's quite the opposite.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 12:52pm

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/01/2009 @ 2:28pm

102. Hey lefties, I don't know about you, but this convention is shaping up to me to be hugely entertaining, and not only that, I'm pleased to say it's following what I have predicted will be the scenario for major landslide material for McCain.

     First, we have the news that McCain has taken the lead after the Biden pick. Wait til Biden starts actually TALKING - we're talking major tankage in the polls!

     For yuks, what could beat Nancy Pelosi telling demonstrators to avoid 'victim politics'. LOL! As if the Democratic Party was about ANYTHING ELSE!

     I usually avoid Democratic Party coronations, but I may have to pull up a seat with some popcorn and watch you folks continue the process of self-destruction that happens every 4 years when you folks nominate a far, far lefty that is unacceptable to the majority of America!

     Posted by pontificus at 08/26/2008 @ 3:11pm

     Thanks, PONTI, I was waiting for you to predict a "McCain landslide"....just tuck that away for later.

     Posted by Maskdelta at 08/26/2008 @ 3:15pm

     ---

     #

     Excuse me, but isn't Obama's career tied with Bill Ayers, who was and remains an unrepentant domestic terrorist? Didn't they work together for years to indoctrinate children in Chicago schools in left wing propaganda, and didn't Obama launch his political career in Ayers' living room? I believe that's all on the record and accurate. Just fact checking here.

     Posted by pontificus at 10/17/2008 @ 11:02am | ignore this person | warn this person #

     ponti-No.Obama did not launch his career in Ayers house and did not work together to indoctrinate children,but,in fact,sat on a board together that was put together by a Reagan republican and the board included conservative business people.Try to get informed so we don't have to tell you this stuff.

     Posted by i'm nobody

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/01/2009 @ 2:35pm

103. ...The very same Alaskan Independence Party that the "First Dude" Todd Palin was a registered member of from 1995 until 2002.

     That very same Joe Vogler that said: "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government...and I won't be buried under their damn flag."

     ---

     -- The Alaska Indepence Party believees that the 1959 vote by Alaskans to join the Union was flawed and they want to secede from the US.

     -- Joe Volger -- killed in an explosion when he mishandled plastic explosive -- has been quoted time and again as demanding secession.

     -- Todd Palin was a member of the AIP.

     -- Sarah Palin was a member at least in 1994. After she was elected governor, she videotaped a speech that was delivered at the AIP annual convention in 2008. In that tape, she proclaimed that she "supports your policies."

     -- Joe Volger was sponsored by Iran to speak at the UN where he planned to denounce the US. He was killed beforfe he could appear.

     So -- tell me -- WHO IS "PALING AROUND WITH TERRORISTS?"

     Obama was 8 years old when Ayers was throwing bombs. Sarah Palin is governor of Alaska and all her associations with the AIP occurred when she was and adult and governor

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/01/2009 @ 2:40pm

104. If Gitmo helped the image of AQ, which sure seems is what the Left believes & wants, why close it?

     Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 02/01/2009 @ 3:23pm

     That is an incredible slander.

     We oppose Gitmo precisely because it helps al-Qaeda and hurts America.

     I understand that you believe that Gitmo helps our security, but I believe it harms our security.

     Just because you think Gitmo helps our security doesn't mean that people who oppose Gitmo oppose our security. You think I want my flight blown out of the sky?

     Posted by georgewfan at 02/01/2009 @ 6:08pm

105. What the fearful cons are also saying is that the US military is incapable of holding bad guys in their military prisons.

     Why do you have such disregard for the US military?

     Posted by crabwalk

     Not at all, the military prisons are quite secure. I just don't want the vermin here period. There is no real reason to bring them here other than to satisfy some weird left wing agenda.

     Posted by pyeatte at 02/01/2009 @ 11:16pm

106. Posted by pyeatte at 02/01/2009 @ 11:16pm

     Oh, that explains it.

     Did you notice that when Obama issued the close order, other nations opened up their dialogue ?

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2009 @ 07:01am

107. Not at all, the military prisons are quite secure. I just don't want the vermin here period. There is no real reason to bring them here other than to satisfy some weird left wing agenda.

     Posted by pyeatte at 02/01/2009 @ 11:16pm

     that's right!

     leave 'em for the cubans to deal with.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2009 @ 09:34am

108. It is daunting to read a message like the opening post from Pontificus, who is unable to recognize an obvious lie like the 62 (61? 43? 18?) former Gitmo inmates who have "returned to the battlefield" (if you enjoy that childish metaphor). The evidence that this number is a complete fabrication is now overwhelming. Then again, perhaps to extreme conservatives writing for or to the NY Times is akin to committing an assault. Flattering to the Times, perhaps.

     Posted by tonyzito at 02/02/2009 @ 10:45am