Ann Coulter: Guantanamo loses 5-star rating

If you still have any doubts about whether closing Guantanamo is the right thing to do, Jimmy Carter recently cleared that up by demanding that it be closed. With any luck, he'll try to effect another one of those daring "rescue" attempts. Here's a foolproof method for keeping America safe: Always do the exact 180-degree opposite of whatever Jimmy Carter says as quickly as possible. (Instead of Guantanamo, how about we close down the Carter Center?)

Sen. Dick Durbin says it is reminiscent of the "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime – Pol Pot or others." (He then offered the typical Democrat "if/then" non-apology: i.e., "if my remarks offended anyone," based on the rather remote possibility any sentient, English-speaking adult who didn't hate America could have heard them and not been offended.) Amnesty International calls Guantanamo a "gulag." Sen. Teddy Kennedy says he cannot condone allegations of near-drowning "as a human being." And Sen. Patrick Leahy calls it "an international embarrassment," as opposed to himself, a "national embarrassment."

On the bright side, at least liberals have finally found a group of people in Cuba whom they think deserve to be rescued.

In the interests of helping my country, I have devised a compact set of torture guidelines for Guantanamo.

The same acts performed on a live stage have been favorably reviewed by Frank Rich of the New York Times;

It's no worse than the way airlines treat little girls in pigtails flying to see Grandma.

It turns out that the most unpleasant aspect of life at Guantanamo for the detainees came with the move out of the temporary "Camp X-Ray." Apparently, wanton homosexual sex among the inmates is more difficult in their newer, more commodious quarters. (Suspiciously, detainees retailing outlandish tales of abuse to the American Civil Liberties Union often include the claim that they were subjected to prolonged rectal exams.) Plus, I hear the views of the Caribbean aren't quite as good from their new suites.

Even the tales of "torture" being pawned off by the detainees on credulous American journalists are pretty lame.

The Washington Post reported that a detainee at Guantanamo says he was "threatened with sexual abuse." (Bonus "Not Torture" rule: If it is similar to the way interns were treated in the Clinton White House.)

"Shut up and do as we say, or we'll issue empty, laughable threats guaranteed to amuse you. This is your last warning."

One detainee in Afghanistan told a hyperventilating reporter for Salon that he was forced to stand with his arms in the air for "hours." Doctor, I still have nightmares about the time I was forced to stand with my arms up in the air ...

Others claimed they were forced into uncomfortable, unnatural positions, sort of like the Democrats' position on abortion. Next, the interrogators will be threatening to slightly undercook the Lemon Chicken!

According to Time magazine, this is how the "gulag of our time" treats the inmates: "The best-behaved detainees are held in Camp 4, a medium-security, communal-living environment with as many as 10 beds in a room; prisoners can play soccer or volleyball outside up to nine hours a day, eat meals together and read Agatha Christie mysteries in Arabic."

So they're not exactly raping the detainees with dogs at Guantanamo. (I still think the gift shop T-shirts that said "My dad went to Guantanamo and all I got was this lousy T-shirt" goes too far.)

The only question is: Why do Democrats take such relish in slandering their country? If someone was constantly telling vicious lies about you, would you believe they supported and loved you?

"I love John Doe, and that's why I accuse him of committing serial rape and mass murder. Oh, he doesn't do that? Yes, but how dare you say I don't love John Doe!"

"...Next, the interrogators will be threatening to slightly undercook the Lemon Chicken!" - Ann Coulter
Great minds think alike!

See also THIS thread:

DC Chapter FReeps Senator Durbin's Democrat Fundraiser & Debates Congresswoman
DC Chapter ^ | June 23, 2005 | BillF
Posted on 06/23/2005 12:35:50 AM PDT by BillF

FReepers from the DC Chapter conducted a FReep of Senator Richard Durbin at a Democrat fundraiser on June 21. DNC Chair Howard Dean, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada were among those in attendance in addition to Senate Minority Assistant Leader Durbin of Illinois.

(Here is the announcement thread for the FReep.)
The honor roll of those in attendance as shown on below photo (L-R): BufordP, Jimmy Valentine's brother, 3-D Joy, kristinn, and (off-camera, taking the photo) BillF.

We set up our protest on the sidewalk about 15 feet away from the entrance door where the Dems had to wait in line to get in. Most of the Dem officials went into another door around the corner from our location.

The theme of the DNC fundraiser was "Paint the Nation Blue" and the people waiting in line certainly seemed blue. Of course, they may have been blue because of our presence. Possibly it was kristinn telling them to turn their backs on Durbin or maybe it was BufordP telling them "If you think American troops are Nazis, you can go to the front of the line."
CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread

Why Detain Terrorists? Maybe This Will Explain It

According to a Congressional study on the proliferation of WMD and the threats posed by state and non-state actors, the likelihood of an attack on a civilian population using WMD runs between 50-70% over the next ten years. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee surveyed a group of 85 security analysts from around the world to reach this gloomy prediction:

The study was commissioned by committee Chairman Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., whose nonproliferation efforts in Congress have been credited with helping the states of the former Soviet Union lessen their stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
"The bottom line is this: For the foreseeable future, the United States and other nations will face an existential threat from the intersection of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction," Lugar said in a statement.

Committee aides sent out surveys asking respondents the percentage probability that a biological, chemical, nuclear and radiological attack would occur over the next five and 10 years.

"If one compounds these answers, the odds of some type of WMD attack occurring during the next decade are extremely high," the report said, using the acronym for weapons of mass destruction.

These same analysts agreed that the most likely of all scenarios would be a radiological attack by terrorists, rather than a state-on-state attack. This differs from a nuclear attack in that the weapon would not necessarily produce a fission reaction but instead spread radiological waste in a densely populated area to kill or injure as many people as possible. The probability for this kind of attack was described as "significantly higher" than any other kind of WMD attack scenario.

Given these predictions, how would people propose handling those terrorists captured in open combat or operating active networks to plan and stage attacks on the US and elsewhere? Releasing them will only allow them to return to their planning. Creating public trials for such unlawful combatants will necessarily draw the resources needed to catch their co-conspirators and fellow terrorists into civilian courts designed for criminals, not for foreign saboteurs and terrorists in time of war. This will also create massive legal headaches for the soldiers who capture the lunatics, imposing civil requirements for arrest rather than the flexibility needed to capture those who shoot and bomb them in the field.

We tried the civil-court system in the 1990s, and it didn't work. That's why we need a Gitmo, regardless of wherever we put it or what we call it. We have to understand that this is a war -- and it has been since the first attack on the World Trade Center, at least. It isn't an organized crime family with Osama bin Laden as a Muslim capo di tutti capi. The only way to get those odds reduced is to capture and keep as many terrorists away from the opportunities to attack us. Once we've identified who they are, then we need to keep them locked up. And even though we haven't addressed this specifically, the most secure option is to throw away the key.

This bothers civil-rights advocates who believe that everyone deserves due process. As Michelle Malkin notes, however, under the rules of war as defined by the Geneva Convention and US regulations, they get the due process to which they're entitled. Nothing requires us to go beyond this, and given the existential nature of the threat, nothing should compel us to do so with these murderous thugs.

If life imprisonment at Gitmo seems like a harsh punishment for unlawful combatants captured during a time of war, keep in mind that we could have just lined them up against the wall and had them shot instead, after their tribunal. Keep in mind that big hole in lower Manhattan where their comrades slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11. And keep in mind that unless we start taking this seriously, those probabilities mean that they will succeed in doing the same, or worse, and possibly in your community.

Personally, I think life at Gitmo is too good for them.

-- Captain Ed, captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

Once we've identified who they are, then we need to keep them locked up. And even though we haven't addressed this specifically, the most secure option is to throw away the key.

I disagree. The "Golden Rule" of the War on Terror is, "Kill others as they would kill us, only do it first."

Anything else - Geneva Conventions, Constitutional Rights for terrorist combatants - is pissing in the wind.

I suspect that the real rationale behind the ACLU and liberal congress critters harping for the detainees' rights to a fair trial is motivated by what always motivates lawyers: Free publicity and attorney fees. Their advocacy for closing down Gitmo means to me that they want them moved to stateside to give the lawyers easier access.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

The chicken is orange-glazed, not lemon!
From the Washington Times:

...During a speech Monday at the National Press Club, Cheney said: "Those most urgently advocating we shut down Gitmo probably don't agree with our policies anyway."
He added that the prisoners at Guantanamo are "treated far better than they could expect to be treated by virtually any other government on Earth."
That seemed to be the party line Monday. California Republican Duncan Hunter held a press conference to discuss the treatment of detainees at the island jail, and spent his opening statement going over a daily menu for prisoners that included oven-fried chicken and fresh fruit.
"This is what Osama bin Laden's bodyguards will eat several times a week. Lemon chicken, rice, broccoli, carrots, bread and two types of fruit," Hunter said, inviting a reporter to come eat with him...

From lexisnexis.com:

...Cheney's remarks were echoed in a news conference on Capitol Hill later in the day by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who is one of the Pentagon's most committed allies. Hunter appeared with prison menus and two plates of food, one of lemon chicken and one of fish, which he said were examples of the meals served to inmates at Guantanamo.
Mohamed al-Kahtani, who was believed to be the planned 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 terror plot, is being held at Guantanamo, and Hunter said that he is eating well and given the materials he needs to practice Islam.
"The guy who wanted to drive that plane into the building at the World Trade Center is going to dine tomorrow on lemon fish with two types of vegetables, two types of fruit, and then he will be afforded his taxpayer-funded Quran, taxpayer-funded prayer beads and oil so he can pray, presumably to kill more Americans," Hunter said.

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.

GUANTANAMO LOSES FIVE STAR RATING
	Posted by smoothsailing On News/Activism 06/23/2005 6:53:01 AM PDT · 23 replies · 487+ views uexpress.com ^ \| 06/22/05 \| Ann Coulter

Guantanamo loses 5-star rating
	Posted by perfect stranger On News/Activism 06/22/2005 4:28:00 PM PDT · 60 replies · 1,389+ views WND.com ^ \| June 22, 2005 \| Ann Coulter