by ruining their life to a point where they have nothing left except their hatred for "the freedoms america provided them in guantanamo". of course not. people react to oppression in different ways.
So what's the plan for these prisoners? It's against the Geneva Conventions to place enemy combatants into a general population. Is the plan to build some new prision? If so, there is a functional one in Gitmo right now.
Hopefully, they'll be dropped off in every district represented by some loudmouth who claimed that these people were harmless. Heck, Nancy Pelosi rarely uses her house in San Francisco and President Obama doesn't need his digs on Greenwood Ave. And if Barney Frank can have a brothel run from his house, there's no reason he can't host some friendly bearded folks who believe in Allah.
I love how some of the token conservatives on this board are citing examples of released-detainees-turned-terrorists under the Bush administration as some sort of indictment of the Obama administration. Oh, and by the way, you might want to read the actual executive order rather than a random take from some jerk-off with a blog. I think some of you actually believe that we're a few days away from them just opening the gates to Gitmo and letting all of the detainees walk. -Pop
Ah, to be a token. Whether we open the gates today or next year, they're still terrorists. It's not like an extra year of curing under the Cuban sun is going to turn them into fork-tender Boy scouts.
Again ... read the executive order. Each detainee is going to be evaluated by a committee consisting of - among others - the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. The committee will recommend what should happen with the detainees. You can expect many of them will remain in US custody. The "one year" part of the order gives them time to conduct the evaluations as they see fit. At no point are they simply going to just "let the detainees walk." But I understand that it serves your Obama-bashing to ignore the facts and sensationalize the story. -Pop
-Pop, you forget MaxieP is still hiding in their nuclear fallout shelter, scared that the terror in the desert is going to strike at any moment. Living in fear is ridiculous....
I don't need to bash Obama. He ran against the War on Terror, pretending it didn't exist. It's a safe bet that many won't be staying with us and will be responsible for the death of American soldiers in the future.
Lol, hey, whatever floats your boat.... just believe what they tell ya, keep hidin' under the desk, and give give give all your money to the "war on terror" effort. Hey, if you give just a little bit more, w/o question, we just MAY find those WMD, in a spider-hole.
You're right. You don't need to, but you will. Just like the rest of the conservative lemmings. Interesting interpretation. And by "interesting" I mean "ignorant." Maybe you should read his homeland security agenda. What part of that agenda suggests to you that he's ignoring the threat of terrorism? Well, if that happens, then you can lay the blame at the feet of plenty of people, including current Secretary of Defense and G.W. Bush appointee Robert Gates, considering he's the main individual responsible for evaluating the threat each detainee poses. You'd know that if you actually read the executive order I posted a link to yesterday. -Pop
It's sad how your side takes security for granted. I guess you think Al Qaeda just stopped trying to attack us after September 11th.
First, I'm not a conservative. Second, given the slant of this board, calling someone right of center a "lemming" is hilarious. Third, I hope he succeeds in keeping us safe as his predecesor did for seven years. I look to what he says rather than some shiny policy document filled with platitudes that he's likely never read. I remember him saying how US soldiers bombed villages and killed civilians in Afghanistan. I listen to him say that "perhaps some of the people at Guantanimo might actually be dangerous" as if they just happened to be on the field of battle having a picnic at the time they were captured. I listen to him say that he would meet without preconditions to chat with those who have been sending men and materiel to kill our soldiers. I find his Blame America First worldview not only naive, but dangerous. And I'm sure that if Robert Gates said they all need to be detained in perpetuity and Guantanimo was the best place to hold them, President Obama would agree wholeheartely.
What's funny to me is that I post actual links to information that is fact-based. You post your biased interpretation of things, with no factual background to back it up. But I suppose if you don't actually have anything solid to point to other than a "hunch" you have, it becomes pretty transparent. -Pop
I posted actual things Barack Obama said. I don't know how that counts as a "hunch". I bet if you looked at President Bush's policy prescriptions posted on the Whitehouse.gov website, they would bear little resemblance to what he actually did.
Conveniently enough for you, we'll just have to "guess" since you can no longer access that information. But my sense is the agenda he had on there pretty closely resembled what he tried to do. -Pop
Please. President Bush talked about limited government and grew it faster than you can say "Jimmy Carter".
I thought we were talking about homeland security / "war on terror" here ... Like I said, my guess is that you'd probably find his agenda of surveilance, detainment, large-scale military occupation, etc. fairly close to what he actually did. -Pop
I was talking in general about how politicians try to put the best face on their policies through vanilla policy targets and pronouncements vs. what they really think and do.
