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?
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.”
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
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.
mike
May 29th, 2009
2:45 pm
“The Geneva Convention states that prisoners of war will be interred in the same geographic conditions that they were captured in”
Interesting, if true.
However these guys were picked up mostly in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Neither of which have much in common with Arizona.
md
May 29th, 2009
2:47 pm
Those here (NJ) that think the US didn’t look bad under democrats need to take a stroll through some european blog sites and see what they have to say about Clinton and the balkans.
And just the other day, we went to war in Iraq for oil. Please tell us why 50 other countries are exploring/drilling/producing Iraq’s oil if the big bad US went there for oil and still have 100k troops on the ground. Shouldn’t we be kicking some foreign booty out of the oil fields.
getalife
May 29th, 2009
2:48 pm
mike,
You first gullible mistake is believing a politician.
Number one rule in politics son is never, ever trust a politician.
They have not earned it.
Not even close.
Use that premise in your arguments and I might engage again but now you are just a gullible fool.
md
May 29th, 2009
2:49 pm
Close gitmo, open a prisoner of war facility in afghanistan, ship them all over there. With luck, collateral damage will occur when they are rescued by their brethren.
josef nix
May 29th, 2009
2:50 pm
Normal…heh, heh!
Getalife–G-d alone knows what he’s covering up, but, well, don’t ask, don’t tell, eh?
Mike–Is Obama a liar, too? Out of both sides of his mouth.
BTW I’m no Republican and was glad to see the Bush lot go, but I didn’t jump on the Obama band wagon either.
mike
May 29th, 2009
2:51 pm
getalife –
That’s fine and dandy, but do you ever base your beliefs on any evidence? Or do you just make stuff up in your head and call it fact?
All the name calling in the world doesn’t overcome your complete inabilty to provide any basis for your claims.
TnGelding
May 29th, 2009
2:54 pm
josef nix
May 29th, 2009
2:31 pm
Every one of them said we had gotten off track.
mike
May 29th, 2009
2:37 pm
It wasn’t just the recession. It was Iraq, illegal spying, debt, deficits, oil, education, crumbling infrastructure, jobs, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, N. Korea, etc. The others had one main theme. As I recall, Bush wanted to restore dignity to the WH. Mission NOT accomplished! With Clinton it “was the economy stupid.”
Midori
May 29th, 2009
2:24 pm
Bush should have pardoned OJ so he could have somebody to play golf with.
mike
May 29th, 2009
2:56 pm
josef nix –
I recognize that all politicians lie on occasion. getalife has just taken that as an excuse to make up whatever absurd nonsense he wants and then call folks names for not being in lockstep with his baseless allegations.
Turd Fergusen
May 29th, 2009
2:57 pm
All you whiners, crybabys and PeaceMongers should volunteer to house some of these poor souls lost in the Gitmo Shuffle, as it were. Cmon all you mollycoddling democrats!! Its time to stand up for what you believe. Why do we not see the PeaceMongers demonstrating and offering their humble abode as shelter for these weary war hero’s.
All talk, bluster and hot air just like your messiah Al Goron and/or your Lord and saviour, Jesus Christ Obama. Johnny Milktoasts everyone of ya. Cmon…stand up and be counted for your silly and ignorant beliefs.
We are awaiting…and while we are waiting smell this —> *POOT*
Com
getalife
May 29th, 2009
2:58 pm
Yes mike.
There is a very long list of lies to cause distrust in history but you still choose to believe them.
Poor mike, so gullible.
I rest my case.
TnGelding
May 29th, 2009
3:03 pm
Turd Fergusen
May 29th, 2009
2:57 pm
Believe me, you don’t want to get into a pootin’ contest.
My house is my abode. We have facilities to hold and process suspects. If they can’t be convicted, then they should bee freed back to there homeland.
mike
May 29th, 2009
3:05 pm
TnGelding –
Oh please. Every candidate running against the incumbent party runs on “change”. The issues might be different, but the message is the same.
Also, don’t know if you notice but most of the items you want to pin on Bush as issues for change are not great examples –
illegal spying – Actually the spying was ruled legal and Obama is keeping the programs in place
Debt – Bush ran up a lot fo debt, but nothing like Obama has
Deficits – see above
Oil – An issue that goes back to the 70s
Education – Bush’s educational record is pretty good and NCLB was a bi-partisan success
Crumbling infrastrcuture – Obama’s stimulus has very little infrastructure spending
Jobs – Unemployment rate under Bush was very low until the end.
Afghanistan – Obama is proud to say that he supported it from the beginning
Pakistan – Obama continuing Bush’s policies exactly
Iran – Been a problem since the 70s and no change in sight
N Korea – Is this going better under Obama?
mike
May 29th, 2009
3:07 pm
getalife –
“I rest my case.”
You did nothing of the sort. As usual, you avoid the question which is:
“Do you ever base your beliefs on any evidence? Or do you just make stuff up in your head and call it fact?”
mike
May 29th, 2009
3:08 pm
getalife -
One other question, since you are so big on bravery.
Do you call people names to their face? Or do you just do it when anonymous?
It’s one or the other and I am just curious which.
getalife
May 29th, 2009
3:09 pm
Hump somebody else’s leg mike.
I am done with you.
Normal
May 29th, 2009
3:10 pm
Mike: It’s true…That’s why we had german WWII prisoners all over
this country. Some even escaped, most were captured, some were never
heard from again. Maybe a sidewinder got ‘em ;>)
—————
Let’s take that first step so the Europeans will come on board.
Actually, you could re-open Alcatraz. Big rock, large body of water,
sharks…problem solved!
josef nix
May 29th, 2009
3:11 pm
TnGelding–yes because that’s what we wanted to hear not because they had any clear plan for putting us back on track, whatever that track was or is…
Mike–yeah, whenever the occasion presents itself!
Copyleft
May 29th, 2009
3:14 pm
I see Jake is still confused…
“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.”
Gosh, that would be a troubling scenario… IF THEY WERE ACTUALLY GUILTY OF ANYTHING.
You see, we don’t have any of that pesky old “evidence” that has to be examined and judged in a “trial” in order to convict them of actual wrongdoing.
Believe me, if the Bushies HAD enough evidence to actually prove these guys were evildoers, they would’ve been screaming it from the rooftops and conducting media-friendly show trials around the clock.
The snag is, there’s NO PROOF THEY DID ANYTHING. That’s why so many have already had to be released.
See how it works? It’s called ‘justice,’ and it’s something that matters to real Americans.
Are you a real American, Jake?
josef nix
May 29th, 2009
3:16 pm
Mike–hate to disagree with you, but NCLB was a bipartisan FAILURE. Among other things, I teach and have to deal with NCLB in other than the theory. A curese on them all for this particular travesty and, no, I’m not a teacher union activist, educator or what have you. I’m an old-fashioned school TEACHER. Get the government the hell out of my classroom!
josef nix
May 29th, 2009
3:22 pm
oops…a CURSE on them! I’m a teacher, I ain’t expected to spell very good!
mike
May 29th, 2009
3:31 pm
getalife –
Way to duck the question. You are truly brave! LOL
n22s
May 29th, 2009
3:38 pm
You want to know why I’m not an Obama fan? The way in which this whole Gitmo affair has been handled.
First; false concern about the rights of the Gitmo detainees. Some will be tried, some through tribunals. Some will be released. Some who are so dangerous they cannot be tried in any way or released.
In other words, we are giving rights to some but not to others. If detaining a non-uniformed combatant is wrong for one it is wrong for every one of them.
Those who are to be detained indefinitely are judged guilty until proven innocent.
You applaud Obama for “closing” Gitmo and giving some detainees some hope of trial or tribunal but close your eyes to his denial of the right to trial for others.
Translation; anything Obama does is quite alright with you.
You, oh intelligent liberal, fail to ask yourself one simple question; what if Bush did it?
What if Bush gave rights to some but not others? What if Bush nationalized banks and car companies? What if the Bush administration had flown Air Force 1 over NY for a photo op?
Would you ask if anyone besides essential personnel were on AF1?
No…you pride yourself on your “open mind”, “compassion” and “intelligence” while you question NOTHING coming out of the Obama administration.
You ignore the tick…tick…tick…of impending economic doom because a Peter Griffin look-alike said something about green jobs. You condemn Bush’s spending but applaud spending at a rate 4 times Bush’s worst.
And the best defense your ignorant mind can arrive at is; “Bush was worse” or “It’s Bush’s fault”. You wouldn’t let your 15 yr old get away with it after denting the car but you’ll swallow anything out of the mouth of Obama’s corpulent mouthpiece.
Jake
May 29th, 2009
3:44 pm
Copyleft – I believe in the ‘provide for the common defense’ part of the Preamble, but I most have overlooked the ‘let sworn, known, and proven enemies of the people go free’ part, probably because that part isn’t in the Constitution! I think most of the innocent little wrong place wrong time stopped at a roadblock guys have already been released. There might be a few innocents mixed in but most of these guys are terorists. They haven’t been convicted because the liberal members of the SC subverted the will of the people effectively ending the trials by military tribunal, which is all they deserve as prisoners of war. Here’s a link listing the scumbags you claim aren’t guilty of anything, and some of the evidence against them. http://wid.ap.org/documents/detainees/list.html
BTW, thirty eight years ago today I was with the 101st, B Company 2/506 in the middle of a 114 day stay on a lovely little mountain in Vietnam known as FSB Ripcord so, unlike a traitorous little coward like you, I believe I’ve earned the right to call myself an American.
N.J,
May 29th, 2009
3:45 pm
I traveled to Europe at least once during every presidency since Nixons and it pretty definite. The United States was ALWAYS more highly thought of when Democrats were in office, and not much liked when people like Reagan and his “cowboy diplomacy” was the U.S. Foreign policy. You could easily tell, because whenever a Republican was in office, some sort of appellation that had a negative connotation was invented by other countries to describe the new president’s policies.
Last time I was in Ireland, a few years back, Bush was ill thought of, but Clinton was still loved, right up there with JFK and the painting of JFK that hung in almost every Irish home. Last trip I was given a one of a families precious JFK paintings which had been on the wall of their living room since 1960. They loved Clinton, they loved Carter but there was no love lost between them and Nixon, Reagan or either Bush president. They were very happy to find out that John McCain really wasnt Irish.
n22s
May 29th, 2009
3:49 pm
And what else do you swallow? Rendition started by the Clinton administration. Abducting people and bringing them to a third country where they can be tortured and detained without trial. Your lovable President from Arkansas started that one.
When will you ask for Clinton’s war trial or his participation in a “truth commission”? Try never because show trials are only important when they embarass Repbulicans.
How many of you ever heard of Miguel Estrada? Or heard of the memo expressing concern of his nomination to a court because the Dems can’t allow a Republican Hispanic to be confirmed? He was filibustered by the same Charles Schumer who says Republicans deny Sotomayor at their own peril.
You, my liberal friend, expressed your empathy for a Hispanic from a disadvantaged background by saying nothing.
And what of the wiretaps on overseas calls to terrorists you claim the Bush admin was using to listen to you? As if you all don’t think alike. You need only listen to one liberal to know what they ALL think.
Now that the Obama adminstration continues this practice we don’t hear a peep from you. You’re all about rights and justice and whatever until your pal denies them…then you turn a blind eye to his abuses, muttering to yourself “Bush was worse”.
Jake
May 29th, 2009
4:03 pm
Copyleft – I’m all for justice. Unfortunately, it’s only mentioned once in the Constitution in the phrase “fleeing from justice” in regard to extradition. That’s actually been one of my points. There is no right or guarantee of justice anywhere in the Constitution, and, perhaps consequently, our legal system does a pretty poor job of administering it. What we get instead is a guarantee of due process. I’ll tell you again OJ got due process, but do you think that was justice for Nicole and Goldman? Justice for the terrorists is not be convicted or be released. We are at war and these are combatants that can be held without trial as long as the war is going on. True Americans have a right and a duty to protect ourselves from enemies in a time of war, to protect the innocent from the cowardly terrorists. That’s justice.
n22s
May 29th, 2009
4:03 pm
NJ – Why is it we attach so much weight to the opinions of the Europeans? I’m not implying that we should ignore it but, instead, view it with a bit of perspective.
Why is it a point of view from a white person of European descent is so valuable when spoken abroad but discounted when expressed on our shores? Apparently white people lose intelligence when they are born in Paris, Texas instead of Paris, France.
I remember the appeasement of Hitler, colonialism, ill-fated forays into the Middle East, etc. etc. Yet NOW, when they love Democrats and hate Repbulicans, the white people are to be counseled.
I don’t dismiss European opinion out of hand. I paid attention during history class enough to take it with a grain of salt.
TnGelding
May 29th, 2009
4:08 pm
mike
May 29th, 2009
3:05 pm
I posted a lengthy reply, but it got caught.
Suffice to say we’re paying for the sins of the last 28 years and more, and it’s too early to judge Obama.
n22s
May 29th, 2009
4:16 pm
NJ, you spoke of one reason for European approval of Democrats over Republicans is the formers’ closer adherence to treaties. You mean the same Europeans guilty in the oil for food fraud? The Europeans who jump right in to enforce stern warnings and really, really strongly worded resolutions? THOSE Europeans?
Have you ever considered that Europeans love Democrats because they are more closely aligned in goals? Has it ever crossed your mind that the real debate should be whether the policies of Europeans/Democrats or Republicans are correct?
Perhaps the world would be different if Europeans took more responsibility for their defense, the care and feeding of the world, etc.?
N.J, is a Nitwit
May 29th, 2009
4:17 pm
Why do we even need a President? Why can’t we just let the Eurotrash and the U.N. tell us what to do? They’re so wise and wonderful they only needed us to preserve their liberty twice last century. 90% of the world views us with some combination of fear, hatred and envy, no matter which party is in the WH. But I am surprisd to learn the Irish liked Kennedy; who would have thought they would have liked an Irish, Catholic President. You sir, are a moron.
n22s
May 29th, 2009
4:28 pm
TNGelding – you speak of the sins of the last 28 years. Yet you ignore the experience of the last 200 years when it comes to socialism, fascism, profligate spending and the denial of human rights.
Please show me where socialism and economic fascism has fed, clothed and housed as many people and as well as has capitalism?
Bush spent too much but we should ignore spending that is four times Bush’s worst year?
Bush and Obama threw money down a car company rat hole to delay bankruptcy, what, five months? And only Bush is to blame?
Fiduciary responsibilities to bondholders in car companies are pushed aside to save unions and you’re okay with that concept? In the future, when credit isn’t extended to companies because of concerns over being screwed by the government, you’re going to blame Bush?
And when inflation skyrockets because we have monetized the debt, you’re going to blame Bush?
We have piled on so much debt that our Secretary of State has stated she won’t discuss human rights with the Chinese because we need them to buy our debt. And that is Bush’s fault?
What, pray tell, is Obama’s responsibility, if anything?
n22s
May 29th, 2009
4:30 pm
Enter your comments here
md
May 29th, 2009
4:57 pm
tn,
“If they can’t be convicted, then they should bee freed back to there homeland.”"
And there in lies the problem for their “homeland” wants nothing to do with them and will not take them back.
Best solution if they claim to have been sightseeing – give them some spending money and put them back in the afghan mountains with their cameras. Problem solved.
md
May 29th, 2009
5:01 pm
NJ, I would think that common sense dictates that socialist leaning european countries would prefer socialist leaning american presidents.
And no, Clinton was not liked for his actions in the balkans as europeans tend to be weenies and believe there is no evil in the world and the military is a waste of money. Again, visit the blog sites over there and watch the comments on clinton/nato and the balkans. We were not looked at lovingly.
catlady
May 29th, 2009
9:32 pm
I understand what the Europeans are saying. However, some would argue that we have saved their azzes a lot of times and they owe us a few hundred favors.
Coplyleft
May 30th, 2009
8:24 am
Jake: That’s encouraging, to see that you understand at least some of the ideas that make up America.
Now, if we’re going to protect the innocent and punish the guilty… don’t you think we should try to find out which is which?
You’ve already admitted that many Gitmo detainees have been released because they were, in fact, innocent… and you know that many of the others haven’t had any kind of hearing at all. So how do you KNOW that they’re “probably” “mostly” terrorists? You casually label them all sworn enemies of America… but there are MILLIONS of those around the world, and we don’t have the right to lock them up for life either, much less shoot them (or torture them).
That’s because we’re a nation of LAWS that we continue to obey, even when our enemies do bad, awful things that scare us and make us pee our pants. We don’t abandon those laws and turn into bloodthirsty bullies out for revenge… at least, the REAL Americans don’t. The cowards always resort to that kind of crap, but we can ignore them.
So again, I’ll ask: What kind of American are you? Do you believe in our laws, or do you just want to feel “safe” by breaking our own laws in the name of national security?
N.J,
May 30th, 2009
10:41 pm
My favorite quote was:
When the Spanish PM Jose Maria Aznar told Bush that in Europe he was “nearly as unpopular as Ronald Reagan” Bush replied, “I’m keeping pretty good company”.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2148
N.J,
May 30th, 2009
10:45 pm
ACtually that statement that Americans saves European azzes is again another American myth. The Russians had swept clear across Europe and it was only fear that they would sweep across the rest that got the Americans to jump in. As it was, the Allies in the west only faced 10 percent of what the Nazi Army was at its full strength and odds are that the British and the other groups in exile could have done the job just as well. General Montgomery was no slouch when it came to battle and probably the job could have been done without American assistance.
Roberto Heffe
May 31st, 2009
2:51 pm
I actually don’t mind if the prisoners are brought to a Supermax. What confuses me is that the left is outraged at the waterboarding and sleep deprivation at Gitmo but has no issue sending them to a Supermax where they will be “violated” beyond belief. But the left will then say “No, they will be isolated from the general population so it is OK” at which point it will be very clear that the left does not mind the horrid treatment of regular US inmates and the nightmares they encounter as long as the foriegn inmates who have no US legal ties are treated with bouqets of chocolate and hourly back massages.
It is not we “neo-cons” are scared, we are just amazed at the amount of naive people out there….
William H. in Lithonia
June 1st, 2009
5:34 pm
Those people in guantanamo have not been proven guilty of anything because we have denied them habeas corpus and a fair trial.
On the other hand, Dick Cheney has admitted to the War Crime of torture in his continuing tortuous speeches supporting torture and bragging about his torturous days as Vice President. I think he needs to be arrested for this admission of guilt and given his day in court.