After the closure of the Guantanamo camp, the jihadis we be transferred to:
Posted on 06/12/2005 7:57:07 AM PDT by SmithL
For an instant last week, President Bush appeared to toy with the idea of closing the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. "We're exploring all options'' with the lockup, where more than 500 terrorist suspects are kept.
But within hours, the doors clanged shut on the notion as a White House spokesman and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld affirmed that Gitmo would stay for now. A later blast from the United Nations, charging that the 10,000 prisoners in Iraq are denied legal due process, didn't get a rise from the administration.
Bush's unbending intent should make this country think: What is the best way -- the American way -- of dealing with captured terrorist suspects? This country needs a better answer than the legal twilight zone of Guantanamo.
After Sept. 11, and with the daily death counts from Iraq, no one wants to go easy on terrorism. The arrests in Lodi of two men with alleged al Qaeda ties are a fresh reminder of possible peril close at hand. Terrorism remains a worldwide danger that needs thorough eradication. A tough foe should expect no favors in a deadly game that targets this country.
The prison on a Navy base at the southeastern tip of Cuba is part of this response. Captives are held with few rights, not even those given to conventional prisoners of war. Military tribunals designed to hear charges have sputtered and stalled under lawsuits. The Supreme Court ordered the Pentagon to allow inmates legal challenges. The FBI complained about rough tactics by interrogators. But the suspects are still locked up tightly in a remote location clearly chosen to evade public notice and legal protections available on U.S. soil.
The camp has turned from a quick-and-dirty effort to lock up dangerous suspects into a symbol of injustice andcruelty
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Being discussed on Fox News now.
In other words, protecting America is inherently evil because it offends our enemies.
I recommend a nice cozy, remote spot like, say...The North Slope of Alaska.
Pretty much.
Bush even suggesting that he might close it just brings up more of this from the left. He should plainly state that the left is more concerned about the legal rights of these terrorists, then about defending the US. this administration is never on offense, always on defense.
"All will be well if we simply don't Piss Them Off." (Explaination from a liberal regarding the war on terror but sounds strangly like kids dealing with the schoolyard bully and his gang.)
The prison on a Navy base at the southeastern tip of Cuba is part of this response. Captives are held with few rights, not even those given to conventional prisoners of war. Military tribunals designed to hear charges have sputtered and stalled under lawsuits. The Supreme Court ordered the Pentagon to allow inmates legal challenges. The FBI complained about rough tactics by interrogators. But the suspects are still locked up tightly in a remote location clearly chosen to evade public notice and legal protections available on U.S. soil.
If these little rascals would don Al Qaeda uniforms and treat THEIR prisoners with respect then they would inherit Geneva Convention protection. The way they are conducting this war, we would be justified shooting them as spies.
Anyone who is inspired to particular outrage by Abu Ghraib or Gitmo (and they're not comparable, IMO) is an enemy of the United States.
What should inspire outrage are terrorist bombings in streets and markets and police stations, random rocket attacks against Israeli cities, serial assassinations of police officials in Mexico, rampant sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers, systematic slavery of South Asians by Saudis, the starvation of millions by the pathological regime in North Korea, genocide in the Sudan, etc.
Where are the SF Chronicle editorials on those?
To date, how many people have been beheaded at Gitmo?
They are not (for the most part) American citizens; therefore they have no claim on Constitutional protections,
They have, through their own machinations, placed themselves in a twilight world, a limbo where they have no protection and are subject to any treatment or mistreatment deemed necessary by their captors. They'd best be happy that Dubya makes the decisions and not me.
Does that include having your head up you a$$? In that case, it would include representatives ofthe media, Amnesty International and the International Red Cross that have been there to provide aid and comfort to terrorists.
I sure wish someone would transplant Reagan's cojones onto President Bush.
The man should be out there saying what needs to be said instead of beating that dead horse, Social Security.
If Clinton, Gore or Kerry were in the White House now, there would be several American cities in ruin and a nuclear war in the Middle East.
$3 a gallon gas would be a bargain.
Bush's biggest mistake is to coast to the finish line in 2008.
Now is the time to grab those dangerous anti-American Democrats by the neck and squeeze the disgusting life out of them.
Dean alone can't sink the ship of fools!
Complacency won't work.
Due process? Since when has there ever been due process anywhere in the ME? Is there "due process, in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Kwait, Pakistan, or any other country run by a Islamic fundamentalist dictaor? What joke the UN is. The only country where there is "due process" is the USA. The UN has made it clear that it's Islamic fundamentalist members do not want the USA to impose it's values of freedom and democracy, law and order which includes 'due process' anywhere in the M.E. The 10,000 prisoners in Iraq are prisoners of the Iraqi government, not prisoners of the USA. They will get whatever 'due process' that country feels they deserve.
I have no problem with anything that has happened to this human deritrus to date. If anything, we treat them way too well. They should not be given Korans, and should be treated like the scum they are. They deserve zero human dignity.
Good idea. Put'em to work building a pipeline from ANWAR. No fences, no walls, no guards. Just send a C-130 over every day or so. If they've laid enough new pipe, he drops a couple of day's food supply. No new pipe, no food! Any body wants to leave, fine. The nearest outpost is 500 miles that-a-way over those snow mountains. By the way, watch out for the Polar Bears; They're hungry and in a foul mood. And the outpost is armed and doesn't like mooselimbs.
After the closure of the Guantanamo camp, the jihadis we be transferred to:
Sounds to me like they are suggesting we enforce the rules regarding un-uniformed "spies" and execute them all rather than have them suffer the hot meals and 5 a days. Harsh measures they are advocating.
No wonder the Army can't meet it's recruitment quota.
Just that fact of bringing it up helps the enemy. GW got his war machine elites their monitary wishes but as one sees his TRUE so-called conservative agenda is full of holes. As I stated when he 1st was elected that we will not have a true conservative Supreme Court when he leaves. BTW we will probably have the same crapola going on with the illegals with his exit. His No Child Left Behind will bomb out & we the taxpayers will have shorted our children a better standard of living. Gov larger. No talk of closing the Dept of Ed or Commerce etc but expansions - Homeland security. And most of all he will be reciting that Islam is a religion of peace. Not an outstanding legecy IMO but Dems will call him a devil & pubbies will call him close to a MT Rushmore tribute. Then he a Bubba can smoke some stogies & play pool together - all under the context of respecting "the office" with no mention of Mena, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.