BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

[email protected]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:02:48 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:20:36 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 02:16:51 -0500, wrote:

There was a good reason why we used Gitmo and once Obama got inside
the tent, he couldn't come up with a better idea.
He is CnC and he could close the prison at Gitmo with a stroke of the
pen. He just doesn't know how do deal with the "detainees". So far,
virtually every one we have released, turned up back on the
battlefield fighting us.
The only mistake B/C made is we should have instituted the Obama
policy and not taken any prisoners. Just kill them. I am OK with that.

Untrue. He's been trying to close it in a responsible fashion

But you notice we are not taking prisoners now.

?? You're claiming we don't take people prisoners??????

I haven't heard about any, have you?
Where are they keeping them?

I guess you don't watch the news very often. People are being captures
all over.

We're not putting them in indefinite detention if that's what you
mean... beyond Due Process.

Where are they?

No idea. Not in Gitmo thanks to Obama.

detainees we released turned to terrorism thanks to Bush putting them
there in the first place. Many of them didn't deserve to be there, and
they were radicalized because of it. Some were basically children.
Sure, we needed Gitmo like another hole in the head.

How old do you have to be to be a terrorist? 14-15?
I agree we should have just asked them a few questions and thrown them
out the door of the helicopter before they got back to the base

Ah.. the humanitarian in you. That's gross.

I guess killing them all on site may be more humanitarian. Drones do
not take prisoners and that is how we are waging the war now.

Here come the drones.... whoosh... Keep talking about them... maybe
one will show up. Why don't you tell us again about throwing people
out of helicopters.

There's never been a successful escape from a super max prison. Many
terrorists are already in them. We don't need Gitmo, but try telling
that to the wackos who don't want them on our "soil."

That is not the issue. Because these people were taken in combat we do
not usually have the chain of evidence to prosecute this in a US
court.

Actually, it is the issue. If we hadn't tortured them, we would have a
chain of evidence. In any case, they could be held in humane
conditions.

We really only waterboarded a couple of guys, in spite of all the
hype. The problem is that we did not build a chain of evidence before
we took these people. (no Miranda, probable cause etc) They were taken
as combatants in a war zone.

Yes, in spite of all the hype. So, I guess just torturing a few
people, well that's ok? The fact is that there are other ways people
were tortured, but I guess you don't remember Abu Ghraib.