For all that we've lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims.
Dick Cheney
The darkside forces are out there trying to stoke the fears of the American public on this gitmo thing. We can't let the evildoers into this country.
Now why, I ask you? Do we have such little regard for the capabilities of our prisons to incarcerate these dangerous scourges? Are they going to pull a Magneto or Lex Luthor and somehow walk through the prison walls and start terrorizing the soccer moms of America? Do they in fact have superhuman powers?
Unfortunately, the whole underlying rationale for Guantanamo is laced with deceit. The thinking was that since it is in a murky no man's land that we rent from Cuba, normal laws of criminal defense do not apply there. So if we bring them here, they will have the ability to meet their accusers and prepare some kind of a defense. Sounds so unamerican. Hire fancy jew lawyers and all.
So the fearmongering is just maybe really based on our fear that some of these guys just might not be the bad guys they have been made out to be and that the Bush Administration looks even more sloppy and evil than it is already portrayed. It is common knowledge that many of the detainees were turned in by enemies with vendettas against them and actually had no terrorist role. But like Masri, they don't shut up when they are released and Uncle Sam ends up looking bad. And in the heat of battle, speaking arabic and wearing funny foreign garb might have been all the evidence we needed.
Is Dick Cheney so afraid of his long time enemy, the trial lawyers, that he no longer trusts the American justice system? He's right - martial law would be so much cleaner. Harry Reid and the spineless Democratic leadership have weighed the political wind and are in full complicity.
I say bring 'em on. Toss the poor feckless jay walkers out of the slammer and make room so these nefarious scads can do their hard time at Pelican Bay or Fort Leavenworth. What are we really scared of?
In his speech from the National Archives, President Obama spoke of an "uncertain threat." It was this same threat which was the motivation for the last administration's decisions regarding terrorism, and how to deal with those terrorists, including those who may fall into the hands of our armed forces. Thus, Guantanamo. A place where we could hold enemies who were not a part of an opposing army, while we fought this war.
ReplyDeleteNow, despite his claims of "indeed, once and for all" ending the Bush/Cheney policies of how to deal with terrorists, and the "closing of Guantanamo", President Obama has quietly embraced those same policies which he regularly denounces:
-The restoration of military tribunals.
-The Patriot Act
-Wiretaps
-E-mail intercepts
-Predator drone attacks
-Rendition
-State Secrets (to quash legal challenges to these policies)
-Denial of Habeas Corpus - to detainees in Afghanistan's Bagram prison (Obama's Guantanamo)
It appears obvious to all but the most fervent of his political believers, the "change" we can all believe in is the change we are witnessing, the flip flop from campaing rhetoric to decisions made while dealing with a harsh reality.
As for bringing these enemy combatants/terrorits to our prisons:
1. Prislam (Prison Islam) would be a welcome wagon to these jihadist true believers.
2. With thousands of inmates being released daily, the potential for a would be brother in arms to be let loose on our streets is inevitable.
3.Those terrorists who have been placed in our prisons, were tried and convicted. Whereas,the men being held at Guantanamo have not. But, the President still wants to put them in prison! Amazingly, we cannot hold them, but we can sentence them. Or, would we just inprison them, alongside the convicted criminals and pretend it is better than keeping them at Guantanamo alongside their fellow believers.
Democrats & Republicans are aware that Obama's "uncertain threat", is the same as Cheney's "catastrophic threat."
Crafty and well written masked man, but sophistic and dishonest in a sense. There is no moral equivalency between the two approaches. The restructured tribunals for instance will have rules in place that ensure fundamental fairness. And I don't think he will be pouring a couple of gallons of water down some poor bastard's gullet. Obama has been far too pragmatic for the true believers. But your hatred for him blinds you to the fact that he is trying to steer around controversies with you and trying to find middle ground. On one hand you ask for bipartisan thinking, and yet when the olive branch is extended, your lust to recapture your former glory puts you in full attack mode - see he's a flip flopper and just as immoral as we are...Na Na.
ReplyDelete