Europeans balk, and who can blame them?

I can’t blame them in the least. If we Americans are too chicken to step up and help solve the problem, why should they?

from the Washington Post:

BERLIN, May 28 — The Obama administration’s push to resettle at least 50 Guantanamo Bay prisoners in Europe is meeting fresh resistance as European officials demand that the United States first give asylum to some inmates before they will do the same.

Rising opposition in the U.S. Congress to allowing Guantanamo prisoners on American soil has not gone over well in Europe. Officials from countries that previously indicated they were willing to accept inmates now say it may be politically impossible for them to do so if the United States does not reciprocate.

“If the U.S. refuses to take these people, why should we?” said Thomas Silberhorn, a member of the German Parliament from Bavaria, where the White House wants to relocate nine Chinese Uighur prisoners. “If all 50 states in America say, ‘Sorry, we can’t take them,’ this is not very convincing.”

140 comments Add your comment

Bubba

May 29th, 2009
12:03 pm

I agree with the Europeans on this one. If we won’t take them, they shouldn’t either. And since we won’t take them, that leaves one perfect solution: Leave them at Gitmo.

Midori

May 29th, 2009
12:10 pm

wow Bubba.

what sound reasoning!!

Paul

May 29th, 2009
12:13 pm

So much for the Democrats’ calls for ’shared sacrifice.’

Well, that might be changing. After a couple days of Senate Majority Leader Reid’s “read my lips, no detainees, ever” pledge, the Pres hosted a fundraiser and said “sure, by golly, great idea!” He even said we ought to take the Uighurs because ‘they hadn’t done anything.” Apparently Sen Webb didn’t get the memo because he followed with “they sure did… this and this and this.” Or maybe Reid didn’t get the Uighur memo. Who knows.

Jay’s point is a fair one. It also illustrates, again, how on national security issues the Democrats are in disarray. It’s happening so often some people are becoming numb.

But the advantages of Gitmo are becoming clearer. Do they outweigh the disadvantages? Good question. The idea to just rename it and keep them there has merit. I like the suggestion of “”Sunshine Center for Implementers of Man-Caused Disasters.”

Bubba

May 29th, 2009
12:14 pm

Thank you, yes it is. Actually, the “problem” that Jay wants us to solve was not a problem at all until Fearless Leader decided to announce closing Gitmo on his second day in office, with oh….probably 5 or 10 seconds of thought devoted to what we would do with them. And you people think Bush is stupid. LOL.

Paul

May 29th, 2009
12:17 pm

Oh, and as far as putting them in Supermax (full) or building another one: the prisoner conditions at Gitmo (for foreign terrorists) are far better than they are at Supermax (US citizens). Interesting how Democrats may support a call for harsher treatment of detainees, eh?

I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(

May 29th, 2009
12:17 pm

I get it, bookman puts a lie out there from other sources and tries to make it the truth-

Rising opposition in the U.S. Congress to allowing Guantanamo prisoners on American soil has not gone over well in Europe. Officials from countries that previously indicated they were willing to accept inmates now say it may be politically impossible for them to do so if the United States does not reciprocate.

~~~~Danish politicians oppose offering Guantanamo detainees asylum …
Nov 14, 2008~~~~

~~~~Europe Balks on GTMO Detainees. 17.03.09~~~~

Junk journalism bookman, nothing new.

Blame freaking everything on Republicans, liberal stooges.

S GA dem

May 29th, 2009
12:19 pm

Bush is stupid, Bubba –

Tell me, why can’t we put them in American prisons on this continent? Do you actually have a reason or has Rush not told you what your answer should be?

I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(

May 29th, 2009
12:19 pm

I’d say it is the exact opposite, Hairy Reed took his lead from the euroweenies.

eewwww

Midori

May 29th, 2009
12:20 pm

And you people think Bush is stupid. LOL.

how can one argue against such solid, painfully researched reasoning?

Paul

May 29th, 2009
12:22 pm

Has anyone stated just why the Europeans should take any of them?

I wonder, did Europeans offer to during the Bush Administration? If so, this is a case where Bush had the support of our allies!

And Obama doesn’t.

Numb.

Bubba

May 29th, 2009
12:25 pm

Rush who, S Ga? Personally whether they come here or not is not the biggest issue on my radar. What amuses me is the absolute inanity of the whole mess. There was no need to close Guantanamo in the first place. It’s a model prison, so says the IRCC. Fearless Leader only did this to kowtow to his far-left constituency. And then to make matters worse, he just HAD to do in on his second day in office. And quite obviously he gave no thought — none — to where they would go. But like everything else, Obama feels it has to be done immediately – before anyone can object. Bush may in fact be stupid. I doubt it. But he’s far more intelligent than Obama.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 29th, 2009
12:26 pm

Thanks again, “Give ‘em Head, Harry” Reid, for all the courage and leadership you’ve shown so far!

I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(

May 29th, 2009
12:27 pm

Paul- Remember all the whining the liberals did about “overseas rendition” while Bush was in office?

What, pray tell, is this?

ty webb

May 29th, 2009
12:27 pm

But he apologized. He admitted our arrogance. Aren’t they our allies?. So much for “Change”. At least we still got “Hope”.

Paul

May 29th, 2009
12:27 pm

Bubba

[[Fearless Leader only did this to kowtow to his far-left constituency.]]

Sen McCain also pledged to close Gitmo. And end torture.

I don’t think he had much of a far-left constituency.

Bubba

May 29th, 2009
12:30 pm

I meant ICRC. er RCRC, er CRCR, er Red Cross….Yeah Paul, but not on his second day in office.

S GA dem

May 29th, 2009
12:39 pm

Bubba, Obama probably didn’t realize the chicken hawk right wing would act like the sky is falling if we put those prisoners in the American federal prison system. Tell me why that’s such a bad thing again because I missed your answer the first time.

getalife

May 29th, 2009
12:39 pm

Yeah, the cons are scared as usual.

Poor things.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 29th, 2009
12:39 pm

Paul

The thing about “shared sacrifice” is that it’s “shared”, all the Europeans are saying is – you go first. No Biggie.

Actually, if you look closer Harry Reid started to backpedal the night of President Obama’s speech on the subject. Senator Webb is his own man to be sure and a major reason even those who disagree with him on the left respect and admire him.

The Democrats are most certainly not in disarray on national security!
They are wading through the disarray they walked into on innauguration day – and doing a damn fine job at it as well! People who are numb – well they are just numb, and have been for years.

There are not now nor were there ever any advantages to Gitmo.

If we listen to the Generals on the ground (remember that phrase?)
we close it for good cause.

You’re being Uriah Heep-ish again.

ANd to what’s his name this week….

do you know the difference between extraordinary rendition and rendition – apparently not.

Bottom line – Gitmo will close and we will take some in our prisons.

Count on it.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 29th, 2009
12:40 pm

Ty, I’m getting a little tired of hearing “he apologized” from people who should know better.

that speech that had the right wing’s collective panties in a twist contained no apologies; I’ve quoted from it before and asked someone, anyone, to tell me what exactly they disagreed with, and I’ve yet to hear from anyone.

I’ll ask it again. With what in that speech do you take issue? And where’s the “apology”?

N.J,

May 29th, 2009
12:40 pm

Even of more interest, Iraqi oil production has recently been discovered to be much higher than reported. In order to avoid paying for the U.S. presence in Iraq, a lot of underreporting is going on and “pervasive leakage” is occuring. Of course a British company “Heritage Oil” has just made a huge find in Iraq and its shares jumped by 20 percent on the news. Somwhere in between 2.3 and 4.2 billion barrels in the Miran West area of Kurdistan. The beleive that they will be able to pump 10-15 thousand barrels a day almost immediately because the ease of access to the oil in this region.

Of course, because the central government in Baghdad and the regional government in the Kurdish region cannot agree on how to divvy up their share of the profits, none of the oil can be exported yet.

My money’s on the probability that there are major American owners of these British companies to avoid the issue of having Iraqis foot some of the bill for the American protection of Iraq, so that the American taxpayer will pick up the tab, and the British companies, which really paid a lot less of the cost of their military presence in Iraq, will be able to keep more of the money, with nothing being used to pay for part of the costs of maintaining U.S. troop levels in Iraq.

But that just speculation on my part.

Many people in America got pissed off when the Iraq oil laws that were written and passed after Saddam was overthown allowed almost everyone to bid on starting the Iraqi oil flowing again. In particular on the surface, American companies are having little to do with that aspect of the Iraqi economy. But given the nature of multinational corporations these days, its possible for American petroleum interests to have considerable stakes in the petroleum corporations of other countries, other than Russia, which has kept much of foreign interests out of the exploiting of the Russian national resources.

In 2004 and 2007 similar sized finds were made by two other British firms.

Doggone/GA

May 29th, 2009
12:42 pm

Well, *I* think the British, at least, ought to take some. After all they DID enable the whole fiasco by signing on to it. There’s no glory to share, but they should at least share ALL the “pain”

Bubba

May 29th, 2009
12:44 pm

Here are a few, SGA:
1. they could escape (I know Supermax and all that). 2. They will indoctrinate and/or recruit fellow prisoners. 3. It will cost lots of money to close Guantanamo and move them up here. 4. It will make you happy.

getalife

May 29th, 2009
12:44 pm

cons,

They can’t play soccer, enjoy a warm tropical breeze or escape at supermax.

Man up cowards.

Copyleft

May 29th, 2009
12:46 pm

You’re almost right, Bubba… What you mean to say is “There was never any reason to HAVE Guantanamo in the first place.”

Remember, the Bushies set it up as a prison they could operate safely beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. courts and out of reach of the U.S. Constitution… a criminal bit of arrogance the Supremes laid the smackdown on years ago. Why maintain the facade, when the lie has already been exposed?

So, they DO have rights in our system, and they ARE going to get a hearing. That’s settled law, and whining won’t change it. Therefore, why should we treat the detainees any differently from any other U.S. prisoners?

@@

May 29th, 2009
12:47 pm

Misfires often happen when the sparkplugs aren’t calibrated properly.

Engine run-on….sputter, sputter, BANG!!!!

ty webb

May 29th, 2009
12:47 pm

DB,
Okay, He only admitted our arrogance. I apologize. So much for the “Change”. At least we still got “Hope”.

TUESDAY VANDY GIRL

May 29th, 2009
12:48 pm

WASHINGTON(newyork slimes/times) — An unreleased Pentagon report concludes that about one in seven of the 534 prisoners already transferred abroad from the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, are engaged in terrorism or militant activity, according to administration officials.

Two administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said the report was being held up by Defense Department employees fearful of upsetting the White House, at a time when even Congressional Democrats have begun to show misgivings over Mr. Obama’s plan to close Guantánamo.

When the truth hurts, obama shirks!

I have no love for our Euroweenie socialist, cradle to grave nannystate, devolving , overrun by the brown muslim horde , so called allies…but in this case, they make a lot more sense than Obambam

Bubba

May 29th, 2009
12:50 pm

Dang I forgot one reason not to move the terrorists her, and this is the most important of all, aside from No. 4 listed above: THERE’S NO NEED TO!

Midori

May 29th, 2009
12:52 pm

At least we still got “Hope”.

so very preferable to the “dope” (his predecessor)

Mrs. Godzilla

May 29th, 2009
12:52 pm

Prisons are money makers now boys and girls.

That’s were most of the detainees will end up, and many of the
same folks crying from fear over this will be making $$$$$ off of this before it’s all down.

TnGelding

May 29th, 2009
12:53 pm

Duh, because you owe us!

Just release the ones that can’t be prosecuted for lack of evidence back to where they were captured/abducted/bought/betrayed.

@@

May 29th, 2009
12:56 pm

Dang, Mrs. G! Are you advocating pain and suffering in the interest of money?

Bubba

May 29th, 2009
12:56 pm

“why should we treat the detainees any differently from any other U.S. prisoners?”

Most of them were arrested fighting without flag, without uniform, indiscrimanately targeting civilians. They are not guaranteed rights under the constitution. Therefore, they don’t get them. Even Obama tacitly admits this. He says he wants to capture OR KILL bin Laden. Gee, why doesn’t bin Laden get rights? So Obama would kill bin Laden, but he wouldn’t waterboard him? Or hold him at Gitmo?

Mrs. Godzilla

May 29th, 2009
1:05 pm

@@

No silliness please. It’s a time waster.

Anyway,

Here’s a neat piece on the subject at hand:

“SHARING THE BURDEN, REDUX…. It appears that our European allies have noticed the rhetoric — and recent bipartisan votes — from Congress on Gitmo.”

whole thing here:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_05/018388.php

My favorite cut:

Imagine that. These European governments were largely inclined to help out when they assumed a wide variety of nations would share the detention burden. But now that these foreign officials have heard U.S. lawmakers — from both parties — suddenly come to believe that Guantanamo detainees are far too dangerous for U.S. soil, their willingness to cooperate is waning.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 29th, 2009
1:06 pm

Bubba

At what latitude and longitude does the State of Terror exist?

Paul

May 29th, 2009
1:07 pm

S GA Dem 12:39

[[Obama probably didn’t realize the chicken hawk right wing would act like the sky is falling if we put those prisoners in the American federal prison system.]]

Spkr Pelosi and Sen Reid are members of the chicken hawk right wing?!!?

Mrs. Godzilla

Well, I listed the other day all the Pres’s ‘reconsiderations’ on nat’l security. Not that I disagree with many of those, but the point is, the fact a reconsideration was even necessary in the first place…

Add to that the lack of cooperation with Congress… outrage by the farleft on Iran, Afghanistan, FISA, tribunals, etc… well, it may not be ‘disarray.’ Just a lack of unity?

:-)

“NO” advantages to Gitmo? None? How about the advantages of not having the Democratic Congress at odd with the Pres over what to do with the prisoners?

Maybe “you go first’ isn’t such a big deal. Wanna bet which Democrat facing election in the next round will volunteer?

:-)

Uriah? Just looking for consistency regardless of party. Diogenes, maybe?

CopyLeft 12:46

[[So, they DO have rights in our system, and they ARE going to get a hearing. ]]

In military tribunals. Not civilian court. And some ought to be held indefinitely. At least according to Pres Obama.

Bubba

May 29th, 2009
1:10 pm

Exactly, Ms. Godzilla.

clyde

May 29th, 2009
1:10 pm

I would advocate shipping them back to their country of origin in a body bag.That will solve all the peoblems.

Joey

May 29th, 2009
1:10 pm

Jay has an adversion to printing names of elected Democrats, but maybe this is one time he could proudly post them.

Who are the Democrat Congressmen, Senators and Governors who are eager, or just willing to have the detainees transfered to their state?

Once Jay, or Obama, has identified these willing Democratic states, the problem is solved. Right?

josef nix

May 29th, 2009
1:12 pm

What to do with the prisoners at Gitmo? Tag ‘em and turn ‘em loose around my home digs up in North Mississippi. Won’t never be heard from again. Problem solved.

Jake

May 29th, 2009
1:13 pm

Mrs. G, Copycommunist, and Midori can take 83 each and let them camp out in their back yards. Problem solved.

mike

May 29th, 2009
1:16 pm

Isn’t the whole point of where they are located irrelevant? I mean if you are going to hold people without trial indefinitely, is it really any better to do it here than at Gitmo? Do you really think that any of the untried detainees really have that much more of a preference for a Supermax prison than for Gitmo?

Doggone/GA

May 29th, 2009
1:16 pm

“An unreleased Pentagon report concludes that about one in seven of the 534 prisoners already transferred abroad from the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, are engaged in terrorism or militant activity, according to administration officials”

And they were ALL released by the Bush Junta…but don’t let FACTS get in the way of your attempt at propaganda.

Copyleft

May 29th, 2009
1:17 pm

Jake: Right, because transferring them to a super-max prison for due process is exactly the same as releasing proven terrorists into our lily-white suburbs.

Is it any wonder no one listens to the far right any more? They’ve gone completely insane now that the grownups are in charge.

mike

May 29th, 2009
1:18 pm

“And they were ALL released by the Bush Junta…but don’t let FACTS get in the way of your attempt at propaganda.”

What is your point? That Obama shouldn’t let prisoners go?

TnGelding

May 29th, 2009
1:20 pm

Bubba

May 29th, 2009
12:56 pm

WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE! DAY 2,811. But who’s counting?

Do we even know who “most of them” are?

UBL will get rights if he is captured. Burial rights if he’s killed. The USA doesn’t torture. Gitmo is scheduled to be closed for PR as much as anything else.

mike

May 29th, 2009
1:20 pm

“transferring them to a super-max prison for due process”

What is the due process for the folks that Obama has said he will hold without trial? Why does it matter if the “due process” is applied to them in a Supermax prison or at Gitmo?

Midori

May 29th, 2009
1:21 pm

Jake,

I’ll even save room for you.

@@

May 29th, 2009
1:22 pm

Like Paul, I’m gonna forego the link application.

[[No silliness please. It’s a time waster.]]

And posting an article that basically repeats what jay’s says isn’t?

You come off as a person who advocates the “do as I say, not as I do” mantra. That is, of course, after someone (and we all know who that someOne is) has rendered the pork.

Have you no shame? You used to be such a principled person.

Bubba

May 29th, 2009
1:24 pm

I repeat Obama’s Gordian knot of logic: He would kill bin Laden, but apparently would not waterboard him or put him at Gitmo. On what level does this make sense?

Jake

May 29th, 2009
1:24 pm

Copyleft – When they get those hearings thanks to that horrendous SC 5-4 decision subverting the will of the people that you referred to earlier, they’ll be released from that SuperMax prison. At which point they will get back to killing Americans. See your commieleft idea of justice is what OJ got, but that isn’t justice, that’s just our flawed system of due process that frequently lets the guilty go free.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 29th, 2009
1:27 pm

Okay, He only admitted our arrogance.

You did read the thing in context, yes?

Sorry to belabor the point but I think it’s important:

It’s always harder to forge true partnerships and sturdy alliances than to act alone, or to wait for the action of somebody else. It’s more difficult to break down walls of division than to simply allow our differences to build and our resentments to fester. So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we’ve allowed our Alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there’s something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what’s bad.

On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America.

I just can’t imagine what any sensible person would find objectionable to anything stated in those paragraphs. It would’ve been noncontroversial coming from any president, absent some very serious hyping of the word “arrogance” out of context.

N.J,

May 29th, 2009
1:27 pm

Obama would rather capture or kill Bin Laden because in any action where a military is involve on one side, the other side has rights even when they are not “fighting under a flag or wearing a uniform” according to every convention on war the United States is a signatory to. When the fight is against an insurgency, rather than a nation state, its uniforms and flags are optional. When the United States used the Mujjihaddin insurgency against the Russians and Afghani government, this was the U.S. assertion. That the insurgents were “freedom fighter” fighting to expel a foreign occupier from its territory.

The rule of war and these treaties did not change. The United States and Israel have simply drawn new rules on their own in opposition to the treaties they themselves have signed.

One of the primary examples is the civil war. The confederacy was not recognized as a sovereign state and its soldiers rarely wore what could be called a standard uniform. However its was recognized as a belligent insurgency, and its warships were given the same rights as the warships of the United States in foreign ports. The Confederacy launched attacks on the North from foreign soil, violating the articles of war as well as the neutrality of that nation as well. (The confederated attacked Vermont from Canada)

The Hague Convention, because of the differences of opinions between the large nations and the smaller nations on this issue assert in the Martens clause that:

Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.

Or simply put where there is no clear law on the treatment of this sort of insurgency or combattant, the rule is to err on the side of humane treatment, rather than inhumane treatment.

Judicial review of the Martens clause has pretty much come down on the side of treating them in the same manner as a civilian or a uniformed combattant would be treated:

Several national and international courts have considered the Martens Clause when making their judgements. In none of these cases however have the laws of humanity or the dictates of the public conscience been recognised as new and independent right. The clause served rather as general statement for humanitarian principles as well as guideline to the understanding and interpretation of existing rules of international law

And finally, the Nuremberg Convention simply ruled that some acts, whether taken by a state or an individual following orders is always a crime against humanity. One Nazi, who never raised a gun, never killed in war, never executed a civilian, never performed an act against a concentration camp prisoner was executed simply because he published an inflamatory newspaper.

josef nix

May 29th, 2009
1:27 pm

What’s all this hooplah about detaining without charges and torture? Anybody ever heard of Ft. Delaware and Ship Island? And Brother Barack claims Lincoln is his model? Better watch out.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 29th, 2009
1:30 pm

Jake

I would never have pegged you for a yellow belly. Give me the appropriate manpower and materials, and hell yes.

Paul

Uriah Heep is accurate.

Reconsideration is not a bad thing. Perhaps if a certain somebody we all know had read a certain PDB more than once and reconsidered history would be different.

Hell, I love the fact that we no longer have a rubber stamp congress!
That’s what we voted for.

Is Chuck Schumer up for re-election in 2010?

Jake

May 29th, 2009
1:31 pm

Midori – Did you also applaud the OJ acquittal? The problem here is that many of these detainees are in fact terrorists sworn to convert or kill people like you and me. But when they get their habeas rights, many of them will presumably be released. Not because they are innocent, but because the evidence necessay to hold or convict them will be inadmissable because it was obtained through torture. I’m all for letting the innocent go free, but that’s a far cry from releasing terrorists on technicalities.

Bubba

May 29th, 2009
1:34 pm

Questions that I, Bubba, ponder in this matter:
–Why do the Guantanamo detainees deserve equal or more rights than the Japanese and German prisoners we captured during WWII?
–Should we have brought all WWII POWs to American prisons and given them lawyers?
–If Bush is evil, and possibly a criminal, for sending terrorists to a detention camp, what did that make FDR for sending American citizens to internment camps?

Question

May 29th, 2009
1:35 pm

And the double standard continues — EXCLUSIVE: Career lawyers overruled on voting case — Black Panthers had wielded weapons, blocked polls

getalife

May 29th, 2009
1:38 pm

Poor cons.

Another part of their mental disorder is being scared to death of everything making our country look weak.

TnGelding

May 29th, 2009
1:39 pm

Bubba

May 29th, 2009
1:24 pm

He would be killed in the line of battle. Once captured he would be treated humanely, as Saddam was.

Jake

May 29th, 2009
1:41 pm

Mrs. G – No manpower needed, these will be free men after the liberal courts get through with them. BTW, yellow bellies are people like you that live under the blanket of security others provide and then have the temerity to criticize the manner in which they provide it. FYI, I did my time in A Schau valley with the 101st Screaming Eagles so I know a little about duty and terror.

N.J,

May 29th, 2009
1:42 pm

This is pretty much why the U.S. is rarely liked under Republican presidents and admired under Democratic ones. Simply put, under Democrats, the attempt to live up to the best that the law has to offer with regard to international relations and treaties is attempted, even if it is always not successful, while under Republicans, the attempt is usually to weasel the worse, to interpret in the most inhumane and uncivilized fashion, making the excuse that the way to deal with most crimes, is to commit another one yourself.

This current set of events is basically one in which those allies that have become entangled by the Bush Administrations interpretations of NATO and other obligations, are all seriously starting to discuss dissolving the organization completely. And that would leave the United States with serious problems in Afghanistan.

RW-(the original)

May 29th, 2009
1:43 pm

We don’t have a rubber stamp congress?

Obama–I need a stack of cash by tomorrow night

Congress–No problem, how much?

Obama–A trillion or so

Congress-Stamp

getalife

May 29th, 2009
1:47 pm

Well, our President is not scared like the cons.

Just made another burger run among the people.

Bubba

May 29th, 2009
1:48 pm

NJ, this from the Third Geneva Convention. Note 2 (b) and (d):

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

mike

May 29th, 2009
1:49 pm

DB –

“I just can’t imagine what any sensible person would find objectionable to anything stated in those paragraphs.”

I agree. I think that those comments are as unlikely to cause any harm as they are to produce any results.

@@

May 29th, 2009
1:49 pm

Whadd’ya know Iraq’s Oil Ministry and al-Maliki have agreed, albeit reluctantly, to let the oil flow from the northern (Kurdish) territory. 100,000 barrels per day (bpd), with production growing to 450,000 bpd by 2011.

mike

May 29th, 2009
1:50 pm

getalife –

Yes, those cons are bad, bad people. I mean how could someone not share your political views and be anything but bad?

mike

May 29th, 2009
1:52 pm

NJ –

“Obama would rather capture or kill Bin Laden because in any action where a military is involve on one side, the other side has rights even when they are not “fighting under a flag or wearing a uniform” according to every convention on war the United States is a signatory to.”

Do those rights include being turned over to foreign countries to be tortured as Obama does now?

Joey

May 29th, 2009
1:53 pm

You posters who keep trying to make this a cowardly Republican issue are just looking foolish.
Right Jay? Wasn’t that Senate vote 94 – 3?

Has John Lewis expressed an opinion on this?
When Barnes announces for Governor next week, maybe he will step-up and agree with Jay about bringing the detainees to Atlanta. NOT!

mike

May 29th, 2009
1:53 pm

Quick question for the group:

If you were to be detained indefinitely without trial, would you prefer to be held in a Supermax prison to being held in Gitmo? If so, why?

getalife

May 29th, 2009
1:54 pm

Man up mike.

We have the best socialism in the world.

The American military and can beat a group of thugs without torture, stealing American freedoms and they will hate supermax like the other thugs.

Grow a spine and stop making us look weak.

Cowards.

mike

May 29th, 2009
1:55 pm

“You posters who keep trying to make this a cowardly Republican issue are just looking foolish.
Right Jay? Wasn’t that Senate vote 94 – 3?”

Well, to be fair, I don’t think that Jay was pinning the “cowardly” label on Republicans. It is the posters on the blog that are making that silly argument.

@@

May 29th, 2009
1:57 pm

Personally, I’d prefer the tropics where the world is watching to insure my well-being.

mike

May 29th, 2009
1:57 pm

getalife –

“Grow a spine and stop making us look weak.”

What am I doing to make us look weak? Why am I a coward?

Be specific.

Doggone/GA

May 29th, 2009
1:59 pm

“Well, to be fair, I don’t think that Jay was pinning the “cowardly” label on Republicans”

Nope, he pinned the “too chicken” on ALL Americans: “If we Americans are too chicken to step up and help solve the problem, why should they?”

getalife

May 29th, 2009
2:00 pm

You are a con mike.

Scared of everything.

Boo!

mike

May 29th, 2009
2:02 pm

getalife –

LOL. As usual, you are unable to provide any backup for your silly arguments, other than “You don’t share my political views, so you must be bad”.

Your empty argument can be just as easily applied to you as it can to the cons that you hate so mindlessly. It is grade school nonsense, but standard rhetoric for you.

josef nix

May 29th, 2009
2:02 pm

Mike–Gitmo, of course, nice balmy sea breezes, nothing to fear from my fellow inmates, the eyes of the world on me…

mike

May 29th, 2009
2:05 pm

josef –

“Gitmo, of course, nice balmy sea breezes, nothing to fear from my fellow inmates, the eyes of the world on me…”

I would tend to agree. Supermax inmates are in solitary 23 hours a day. I don’t really see why the folks on this blog think it would be such a win for detainees to be held there instead of Gitmo.

The real issue is the abrogation of the rights of detainees to a trial. In that regard, Obama is offering nothing more than Bush did.

2Cents

May 29th, 2009
2:11 pm

I don’t remember being more “liked” under Democratic presidents, NJ. And what great attempts did America try to live up to with democratic presidents that was thrown away under republicans?

Parties believe there are different ways to do things and party policy disagreements have been going on for ages. But this is the first time that, instead of just changing policy when party power changes, past policy is touted as criminal. This is a bad future precedent, no matter how good it makes the party in power feel right now. Because, inevitably, the party in power becomes the party out of power.

Oh, and the hyperbole from individual partisans, like NJ, is just embarrassing to read.

getalife

May 29th, 2009
2:12 pm

Oh geez mike.

Are you freaking serious or just a kid playing troll?

w let them go, obama wants to prosecute but thanks to torture he can’t.

Gitmo is a mistake and a mess.

mike

May 29th, 2009
2:15 pm

getalife –

Oh please. You calling anyone a troll is laughable.

“obama wants to prosecute but thanks to torture he can’t.”

There were three detainees who were waterboarded. What is preventing Obama from trying the rest?

Joey

May 29th, 2009
2:17 pm

I agree it is not Jay today, but other posters.

The Jay connection is an earlier post. When this 94-3 Senate vote took place and Jay used cowardly in the post headline. Then specifically named only Republicans.

TnGelding

May 29th, 2009
2:18 pm

2Cents

May 29th, 2009
2:11 pm

I guess that’s why every candidate in the last election was running to get the country back on track.

getalife

May 29th, 2009
2:20 pm

I am laughing.

At you mike.

So gullible and yes you are trolling.

mike

May 29th, 2009
2:23 pm

getalife –

And as usual, you are unable to back up anything you say. I’ll give you another chance to demonstrate that you are capable of understanding, let alone justifying your own statements.

“obama wants to prosecute but thanks to torture he can’t.”

There were three detainees who were waterboarded. What is preventing Obama from trying the rest?

Simple question.

Midori

May 29th, 2009
2:24 pm

Did I applaud the OJ acquittal? Did you?

What has that to do with ANYTHING

getalife

May 29th, 2009
2:26 pm

Three huh?

And you believe the liars.

I don’t and all can say they were tortured.

He is reviewing the cases and the Senate voted no because he is not done and there is no plan yet.

josef nix

May 29th, 2009
2:29 pm

Mike…agreed. The pundits who keep calling him Bush Lite and his administration as Bush’s third term are on target. La plus ca “change,” la plus la meme chose.

getalife

May 29th, 2009
2:29 pm

mike,

Did you believe w when he said we do not torture ?

Did he lie mike?

mike

May 29th, 2009
2:31 pm

It’s interesting that we spend a lot of time talking about the Gitmo detainees who were captured while Bush was in office.

Anyone notice that we have not seen a foreign terrorism suspect being captured since Obama was in office? Anyone think that we just stopped finding these guys after Obama took office? Or instead are we just killing these folks or quietly shipping them somewhere in secret?

josef nix

May 29th, 2009
2:31 pm

TnGelding…they weren’t running to get the country back on track. They were running to get elected. They’re turning out to be victims of their own success.

mike

May 29th, 2009
2:34 pm

getalife –

Well, why is Obama continuing to say that only three were waterboarded? Is he a liar too?

“Did you believe w when he said we do not torture ? Did he lie mike?”

I think W didn’t believe it was torture, so I don’t think he was lying. That being said, torture is a subjective term and his claims never made me feel that waterboarding wasn’t torture.

mike

May 29th, 2009
2:37 pm

Tngelding –

“I guess that’s why every candidate in the last election was running to get the country back on track.”

Well that is the case every election, particularly in the middle of recession. Do you really think that Obama was the first candidate to run on “change”? So did Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter.

getalife

May 29th, 2009
2:38 pm

Yeah mike.

Obama is covering it up. Presidents do that son.

Water boarding is torture, has been prosecuted before and he lied over and over again.

Those are the facts.

Debate that.

Normal

May 29th, 2009
2:39 pm

Only three waterboarded, but the rest were tortured by being told
they were going bird hunting with Cheney.
The Geneva Convention states that prisoners of war will be interred
in the same geographic conditions that they were captured in. The
Arizona Desert sounds like a good place…just saying.

mike

May 29th, 2009
2:42 pm

getalife –

“Obama is covering it up”

Do you have any evidence for that belief? Or is this another claim based on your gut feel, like the silly notion that Bush started the Iraq War to intentionally exterminate all Iraqis? Please provide some evidence.

“Water boarding is torture, has been prosecuted before and he lied over and over again. Those are the facts. Debate that.”

Normally one debates facts instead of baseless allegations. That being said, I just said in my last post that I think waterboarding is torture.

2Cents

May 29th, 2009
2:45 pm

TNGelding – I think, if you check your history books, politicians have been runnig on “getting the country back on track” since time began. It’s not really all that unique to Bush and his presidency.

Bush wasn’t a great president. So what? He’s gone. Move on. And don’t say stupid things like “other countries liked America until Bush became president” – blogs like that make the writer look ignorant.