Obama's Guantanamo obsession

[BBSA]

On Wednesday, Nigerian would-be bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was indicted by a Michigan grand jury for attempted murder and sundry other criminal charges. The previous day, the State Department announced that his visa had been revoked. The system worked.

Well, it did for Abdulmutallab. What he lost in flying privileges he gained in Miranda rights. He was singing quite freely when seized after trying to bring down Northwest Flight 253 over Detroit. But the Obama administration decided to give him a lawyer and the right to remain silent. We are now forced to purchase information from this attempted terrorist in the coin of leniency. Absurdly, Abdulmutallab is now in control.

And this is no ordinary information. He was trained by al-Qaeda in Yemen, and just days after he was lawyered up and shut up, the United States was forced to close its embassy in Yemen because of active threats from the same people who had trained and sent Abdulmutallab.

This is nuts. Even if you wanted ultimately to try him as an ordinary criminal, he could have been detained in military custody -- and thus subject to military interrogation -- without prejudicing his ultimate disposition. After all, every Guantanamo detainee was first treated as an enemy combatant and presumably interrogated. But some (most notoriously Khalid Sheik Mohammed) are going to civilian trial. That determination can be made later.

John Brennan, President Obama's counterterrorism adviser, professes an inability to see any "downsides" to treating Abdulmutallab as an ordinary criminal -- with a right to remain silent

Link

You just got to love these liberals:erm:

 

[Other Pineapple Smurf]

This beats our Mbekis Quiet-Diplomacy approach ... viva le liberals !!!!

 

[Alan]

You just got to love these liberals:erm:

Yeah never underestimate the loony left. They'd far rather risk the lives of hundreds of innocent people than have a suspected extremist thrown into Gitmo :erm:

To emphasize how muddled these buffoons are Brennan said Some Guantanamo detainees will go to Yemen a few days before Obama stopped it. So much for his terrorism "czar"

Like Krauthammer wrote in a previous article. If they knew Farouk Abdulmutallab's plans and he was in Pakistan they would have targeted him with a drone strike. No fuss, no problem but he gets caught on a plane setting his explosives off and suddenly he's given a lawyer and treated like an isolated criminal case.

Rudy Giuliani was recently interviewed about the Khalid Sheik Mohammed case and what a moronic mess they've made out of that. They're going to try him in a civil court in New York. Obama's race baiting moron attorney general Eric Holder is already saying he'll be found guilty, so much for a fair trial and presumption of innocence. Imagine if he gets off

Bottom line is if you're a small time foot soldier then you're fair game but if you commit a major atrocity on U.S soil against U.S citizens then you're a common criminal with a right to a lawyer and civilian trial with all the benefits that come with it.

Liberalism must be a mental disorder. What other explanation can there be

 

[semiautomatix]

What happened to the thousands campaigning for the closure of Guantanamo just over a year ago?

 

[Balstrome]

Imagine one or more of these ex-Gitmo Terrorists, coming back to bite the USA in the butt. Play with mud and it will stick to you.

 

[Alan]

Imagine one or more of these ex-Gitmo Terrorists, coming back to bite the USA in the butt. Play with mud and it will stick to you.

Many have already. Of course the loonies have an tinfoil hat excuse that they were angered by their incarceration and hence were driven into the arms of the extremists.

The whole [-]criminal[/-] terrorist is a victim crap again.

 

[WilD_CaT]

Many have already. Of course the loonies have an tinfoil hat excuse that they were angered by their incarceration and hence were driven into the arms of the extremists.

The whole [-]criminal[/-] terrorist is a victim crap again.

So because they have been wronged by being kidnapped and imprisoned, then let go, they feel they should attack the US to get "justice" and you seem to think its a silly excuse?

I would agree if their was recourse available for the detainees of Gitmo who are let go because they were innocent, but there isn't.

Besides its well known that there are unintended consequences of armed intervention/invasion.


Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said so in 2003.
Doug Bandow said so in this article: http://mises.org/daily/2595 He is a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan and the Robert A. Taft Fellow at the American Conservative Defense Alliance.
Ron Paul, the Republican Congressman from Texas has said so on many occasions.
CIA have said so, they call this "blowback".

 

[BBSA]

A few good point from the same article:

Jihadism's list of grievances against the West is not only self-replenishing but endlessly creative. Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwa commanding universal jihad against America cited as its two top grievances our stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia and Iraqi suffering under anti-Saddam sanctions.

Today, there are virtually no U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. And the sanctions regime against Iraq was abolished years ago. Has al-Qaeda stopped recruiting? Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's No. 2, often invokes Andalusia in his speeches. For those not steeped in the multivolume lexicon of Islamist grievances, Andalusia refers to Iberia, lost by Islam to Christendom -- in 1492.

This is a fanatical religious sect dedicated to establishing the most oppressive medieval theocracy and therefore committed to unending war with America not just because it is infidel but because it represents modernity with its individual liberty, social equality (especially for women) and profound tolerance (religious, sexual, philosophical). You going to change that by evacuating Guantanamo?

 

[WilD_CaT]

Please don't be so quick to use the term liberals, and this goes out to people who these days would call themselves "liberals" as well.

"Liberalism" in the historic sense is the struggle of man to assert his liberty against authority. In the political field, this struggle is against the authority of the state. Those who, today, call themselves liberals believe in increasing the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty. It is true that they do so for the laudable purpose of advancing the public welfare but, whatever their motives, they have taken their stand against individual liberty and in favor of authority. Whatever they may call themselves, they are not liberals.

"Liberalism" in the historic sense regards government as a necessary evil. It looks upon all governments, including our own, with suspicion. It believes that the only way to safeguard liberty and protect the individual from the tyranny of government is to limit the functions of government. It fears government and seeks to impose restraints upon the power of government.

"Liberalism," as the term is used today, looks upon the citizen with suspicion and upon government with approval. It seeks to build a strong government to control and regiment the individual for the good of society, to prevent the strong from taking advantage of the weak, to offset inequalities in wealth and incomes, and to play the historic role of Robin Hood, who robbed the rich and distributed some of the proceeds to the poor.

 

[daveza]

I'm sure you're right and detention without trial is a much better option.

 

[Alan]

So because they have been wronged by being kidnapped and imprisoned, then let go, they feel they should attack the US to get "justice" and you seem to think its a silly excuse?

I would agree if their was recourse available for the detainees of Gitmo who are let go because they were innocent, but there isn't.

Besides its well known that there are unintended consequences of armed intervention/invasion.

Rubbish. It's moronic to claim that out of anger at the their incarceration they would then join a group killing innocent Muslims amoung others who have no connection to the U.S . We saw the same stupidity when it was claimed that the insurgents in Iraq were "resisting the U.S occupation" by driving truck bombs into markets full of innocent people going about their daily lives far removed from any association with the "occupiers".

Anybody with even the most rudimentary ability to rationalize knows it's far more likely that the individual was an extremist in the first place.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said so in 2003.
Doug Bandow said so in this article: http://mises.org/daily/2595 He is a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan and the Robert A. Taft Fellow at the American Conservative Defense Alliance.
Ron Paul, the Republican Congressman from Texas has said so on many occasions.
CIA have said so, they call this "blowback".

Oh no crazy uncle Paul. Of course there are unintended consequences to any action. The cold war was an unintended consequences of fighting Nazism for example.

 

[WilD_CaT]

And Wolfowitz, Bandow, the CIA. I guess they are crazy nutters too?

 

[WilD_CaT]

Today, there are virtually no U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. And the sanctions regime against Iraq was abolished years ago.

Saudi Arabia is regarded as Muslim territory. They might have moved out of Saudi Arabia, but then they have drastically increased troops in other "Muslim" territories in the Middle East.

Also the Oil Sheiks are sometimes regarded as Western puppets as they have been propped up the US for years, despite their promotion of Islamic theology. Osama bin laden I believe wanted to go to war with the Sheiks.

The US and its allies have also proposed increasing sanctions on Tehran because the "secret" nuclear facility fiasco.

What I am saying is that you correctly pointed out what some Osama's justifications were, then said that these no longer apply, and extremism is growing, thus extremism is an ideological force only, its a religious war, you cannot negotiate or find peace with religious nutters, thus you can justify bombing them.

Except his reasonings apply even more now than ever. There are far more troops in the Middle East now than there ever has been. How can you ignore this fact?

You are taking some facts and truths, ignoring others to justify your own emotional feelings on the issue.

If you don't like Muslims, thats fine. Say so. But don't try to prove they are all a bunch of nutters and try to falsely justify your bigotry as necessary to fight some great evil.

 

[sutekj]

Please don't be so quick to use the term liberals, and this goes out to people who these days would call themselves "liberals" as well.

"Liberalism" in the historic sense is the struggle of man to assert his liberty against authority. In the political field, this struggle is against the authority of the state. Those who, today, call themselves liberals believe in increasing the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty. It is true that they do so for the laudable purpose of advancing the public welfare but, whatever their motives, they have taken their stand against individual liberty and in favor of authority. Whatever they may call themselves, they are not liberals.

"Liberalism" in the historic sense regards government as a necessary evil. It looks upon all governments, including our own, with suspicion. It believes that the only way to safeguard liberty and protect the individual from the tyranny of government is to limit the functions of government. It fears government and seeks to impose restraints upon the power of government.

"Liberalism," as the term is used today, looks upon the citizen with suspicion and upon government with approval. It seeks to build a strong government to control and regiment the individual for the good of society, to prevent the strong from taking advantage of the weak, to offset inequalities in wealth and incomes, and to play the historic role of Robin Hood, who robbed the rich and distributed some of the proceeds to the poor.

I don't know who thinks of liberals as believing in increasing government power, but I definately don't. I'm what you call a liberal in the historic sense. I don't even know where you got that liberals want to increase goverment power, please enlighten me?

 

[Frankie]

Saudi Arabia is regarded as Muslim territory. They might have moved out of Saudi Arabia, but then they have drastically increased troops in other "Muslim" territories in the Middle East.

Are you referring to the NATO troops in Afghanistan that are there to address the Islamic terrorist training camps?

Don't hear calls from Buddhists for US forces to leave South Korea, a majority Buddhist "territory" .

 

[BBSA]

Saudi Arabia is regarded as Muslim territory. They might have moved out of Saudi Arabia, but then they have drastically increased troops in other "Muslim" territories in the Middle East.

Those troops are there on the invitation of the democratically elected governments. Who the hell is Osama bin Laden to decide what these Governments must do.

If you don't like Muslims, thats fine. Say so. But don't try to prove they are all a bunch of nutters and try to falsely justify your bigotry as necessary to fight some great evil.

You know I have never said anything bad about Muslims, so you can keep you insults to yourself.

But yes terrorism is evil and most of them are nutters.

 

[Alan]

I'm sure you're right and detention without trial is a much better option.

There's that niave idealism again.

So every extremist must be supplied a lawyer and tried in a civilian court.

Yeah that's how you fight a war. Battalions of lawyers on the front line in Afghanistan.

For every one of the thousands of talibunnies caught in a firefight they must go through an entire judicial process. Guess that rules out air strikes too and they'll need search warrants when enemy strongholds are found.....

What a joke

@ BBSA

Great sig

 

[MidnightWizard]

Diplomacy

Yeah that's how you fight a war. Battalions of lawyers on the front line in Afghanistan.
What a joke
@ BBSA
Great sig

WHERE WHEN was any WAR ever declared ......?????????

I think the joke is on YOU.

In a case like this one declares Martial Law -- this is the way that has been evolved for the system to work.

Obviously things are a lot more complicated as the Americans hide behind "Democratically" elected governments -- just like in Indo-China.

These puppets take all the heat and leave the Americans pretending that every thing is just hunky-dory.

They do not want to / cannot declare war as then there are pesky things like the Geneva Convention to worry about as well as all the political fallout.

So they just blunder on in this never-never land -- just like Indo-China.


MW

 

[WilD_CaT]

I don't know who thinks of liberals as believing in increasing government power, but I definately don't. I'm what you call a liberal in the historic sense. I don't even know where you got that liberals want to increase goverment power, please enlighten me?

Modern liberals tend to vote/promote for socialist programs, such as "free" healthcare and "free" education. Policies that advocate taxing more of the rich and less of the poor, promote anti-gun legislation etc.

E.G. The modern liberal in the US is pro-Obama generally.

They want to try and right perceived injustices.

 

[WilD_CaT]

Yeah that's how you fight a war.

Why hasn't the US formally declared war then?

Can you formally declare on a specific group of people and then invade a country?