Originally Posted by Adept1

Obama is the one "BRINGING them back".
We had them detained and were holding them in even BETTER conditions than required. We were doing our "responsibility".
They MUST be detained until they are no longer a THREAT........yes, an INDEFINITE period for many. Until they die of natural causes for others.
More terrorist fervor........BS. Having a PUBLIC TRIAL and allowing them a HUGE platform from which to speak and to martyr themselves IS the terrorist recruitment tool they WANT.
Eye for eye....blind.....foolish gibberish that I did not propose nor condone.

Silly you, if all you do is drop bombs from high altitudes and kill innocents and destroy civilian targets (Clinton's war) you never get ANY prisoners because they cannot jump that high.
Bush first war. There was a surrender and a prisoner agreement....duh. It was because the agreement was NOT KEPT because BILLY was too weak that we had to go back again.

Try again you had no logic.

Originally Posted by dabateman

I'm saying don't take possession of them and bring them back to a permanent US facility and keep them for 6+ years. Field evaluations are generally the most effective and efficient. The reason we win wars is because the American public is out of the loop. The only way to keep it that way is to keep it off American soil.

Originally Posted by Adept1

It is Cuban soil.
We have a LEASE.


Bush and his legal team were ten times smarter than Obama's


Wiki
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is located on 45 square miles of land and water at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba which the United States leased for use as a coaling (fueling) station following on the Cuban-American Treaty of 1903. The base is located on the shore of Guantánamo Bay at the southeastern end of Cuba. It is the oldest overseas U.S. Navy Base, and the only one in a country with which the United States does not have diplomatic relations.[1]

The Cuban government opposes the presence of the naval base, claiming that the lease is invalid under international law. The U.S. government claims that the lease is valid.

Since 2002, the naval base has contained a military prison, the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, for persons alleged to be enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan and later in Iraq. These are combatants who are considered "unlawful combatants" and who were formerly not being afforded protection under the Geneva Conventions for various reasons.

Originally Posted by dabateman

Lets not. Lets not bring them back to any US facility. We are seeing that there are consequences for trying to run a gulag. There are lots of lessons we didn't learn from the Russians...

Originally Posted by Adept1

How dare you compare our ultra-modern facility to a GULAG.

This "moral relevatism" leads you to a lot of inane conclusions. The two are far from the same. Just as us taking a prisoner is not the same as the terrorists taking a prisoner.....duh.

Originally Posted by dabateman

1. Guantanamo Bay is AMERICAN SOIL. It's an American base. We own it. It's ours. Everyone brought o Guantanamo was brought there BEFORE Obama took office. Therefore they were brought to US custody and became a US problem long before the current President took the oath.

2. I don't like giving them a platform, but holding them indefinitely isn't an option either. It's a drain on our resources, it's an offense to human rights, and it doesn't work to stop terrorism or prevent attacks.

3. We wouldn't have had this problem if the Bush/Cheney policy had been to fight a war instead of playing CIA games that don't work. Had we killed enemy combatants on the field, we wouldn't have this problem.

4. Clinton's war was more than just bombing, there were troops on the ground and our servicemen and women who served in Kosovo would and should be offended at your characterization of the war.

5. Your failed logic basically said it was okay to bring them back in the first place. I'm saying that if we were really out to win, we would have not left one enemy combatant standing.

Originally Posted by dabateman

The condition of the facility is irrelevant. The effects of keeping people at the facility alive allows them to be reasons to continue the fight. If they died on the battlefield we wouldn't have this issue. An assertion you've yet to correct.

Originally Posted by Adept1

So we should just put a bullet in the head of all wounded?
You ARE the animal in this logic. You are still trying to use our compassion against us just like the terrorists do. It is your false logic that makes you want to play "their game".

Originally Posted by Adept1

I can blame him for getting us INTO an ethical, moral, and legal field of landmines. Gitmo WAS an excellent solution. If we had attempted to house such high value prisoners anywhere else the facility would have become a target and hostages would have been taken to "trade". We had to get the prisoners away from the battlefield. I wonder what the UN would have said if we had just built a facility at one of the poles? As it is Germany (the source of much evidence because of the Hamburg connection to 9/11) is already saying that we can NOT seek the death penalty if we use any of the evidence that they gathered.
Are you seriously saying that we cannot "detain" people that we had every right to KILL?
Are you seriously saying that we must spend MILLIONS of dollars providing them a PLATFORM for their supposed grievances?
Are you seriously saying that they should be freed if we do not have "evidence" that they did a crime when all they want to do is commit WAR on us?
Are you seriously saying that when we get hold of any person that is intending to kill us, our families and do as much destruction to our way of life as possible that we cannot simply "stop" them?

You have this conflation problem with the fact that THEY are at war with US. They do not want to be criminals (they probably don't even steal) they want to be martyrs or warriors.




1. What's the name of the country where Gitmo is?
Yes the prisoners are in our custody on our base in CUBA. The base was put there during the Spanish American war and been there ever since. We do not even have an EMBASSY with Cuba and therefore have no diplomatic relations. During any war if you set up a base does that place become one of our territories on it's way to statehood? We have no claim other than a lease that allows us to BE THERE. That and Cuba was never strong enough to remove us.

2. I don't like giving them a platform
Terrorist recruitment at it's best. Instead of terrorist fear incitement of being sent to Gitmo because they know they can't escape, be heard, recruit, fight, or kill.

holding them indefinitely isn't an option WRONG
until they are no longer a threat IS the ONLY correct answer. NO Time limits.

It's a drain on our resources The facility is built and paid for and it is staffed by military personnel who will be paid whether they work at Gitmo or somewhere else. It is also a training facility. All the military does when it is not fighting is TRAIN. The cost of the first 5 trials in NYC is going to be enough to have kept the facility at Gitmo running for 10 years. And if it provokes a new attack what is that "cost"....... terrorist recruitment at it's OTHER best. It was 9/11 that recruited terrorists. Lots of people will join a winning team but VERY FEW want to join a losing team.....you guys just get EVERYTHING bass ackwards.

offense to human rights Darn I thought we already agreed that not killing them was an act of compassion. Perhaps we should give them 72 virgins on a desert island stocked with free food.

doesn't work to stop terrorism or prevent attacks. Really what act of terrorism has been commited by a detainee. Oh that's right a few that we let go and a few that we turned over to other countries.........And oh yes we did PREVENT some attacks with the INFO we got from some detainees.
How many times can you be WRONG in one short paragraph?

3. Pretend that we did not kill enemy combatants on the field all you want and then make like we should not ever interrogate prisoners. They are not criminals.....we are NOT seeking evidence of the LAST CRIME they committed (it's already too late for that), we are attempting to keep us and our country safe from people that wish us great harm and want to kill and destroy as much as possible.
By the way WE WON the war quite rapidly. We deposed the Taliban and routed Al Qaeda from Afghanistan. 14 months later we deposed Hussein (Not Barack) and freed his people. It was you silly liberals with the "you broke it policy" insisting that we had to "fix it". When the military is finished it is time for the "peace corps" to go in.......ya'll didn't have the stones to go.

4. BS.....We sent NO forces to Kosovo until it was over. I am offended. Give me the casualty figures.

5. None left standing......foolish you do you really think that they just "stand" there. You can't kill what you can't find and these "forces" HIDE amongst innocents that we do not wish to kill. We could very easily have just gone in and killed EVERYBODY but again in our compassion YOU want to take advantage of US just like the terrorists do.

Originally Posted by dabateman

Had we killed them on the field it would have been self defense and the loss of an enemy combatant.