Today's Poll: Should the U.S. close Guantánamo?
Bottom Line: the prison at GTMO is costing an est. 443 million this year! If you don't care about justice and the American Way, at least care about cutting this out of the runaway budget.
BUT, closure should be contingent on either:
A) selling the land to China for 17-TRILLION $$$ , or
B) selling it to Kim Basinger for twenty-bucks, with guaranree her "ex" moves there to live - Wegman's can always get a different spokesperson.
Guantanamo can't be closed because the do-nothings in Congress won't agree on where to relocate any of the current (prisoners, detainees, enemy combatants, add euphemism of your choice). With all likelihood, there will never be any agreement on closing until a) a Republican is in the White House or b) Republicans lose control of the House. Why? ...Because the brainiacs at Republican Central forbid cooperation on anything that might check-off an Obama agenda item. The party of obstruction wants to be able to wave a banner of Obama Unfulfilled Promises at the culmination of his term of office. See... It's not about Congress' utter failure to do anything of merit in eight years; it's about the president's legacy. They really should change the names of the two major parties: the nay-sayers and the bickerers. When referring to both major parties: the blamers.
I'm with Dave Olsen on this issue. This has gone on for far too long. If these prisoners are truly a danger (and there's evidence that many who have been held there for years now are NOT a danger), then give them a trial, and -- *if* they are found guilty -- lock them up in one of our high security prisons, where many *equally* dangerous criminals and terrorists are already housed. Enough is enough. We're supposed to be better (and stronger!) than this, here in the U.S.
I'm afraid that I also agree with C.M. Barons' assessment of the current situation. It's a sad state of affairs -- and a giant mark of shame for our nation.
Here I'm also with Dave, And with CM's analysis of the situation, and with Emma. My God, things are getting cozy around here!.
Sure! If we are just nicer to the people that have sworn to destroy us (and ALL non-Muslims) they're certain to forget the hatred and we can all hold hands while singing Kum Bay ya.
Who the heck is saying THAT, Bob Harker?! Nobody on this thread.
You seem to missing the fact that we weren't fighting in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 and nonetheless they got together and harbored the terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans. Just because we don’t have boots on the ground there, doesn't mean they don’t want to kill us.
I'm not missing any facts. Did you actually read the comments on this thread?
Yes, Emma. I've read every single post, most of which are in favor of closing Gitmo. What I have NOT read is any viable alternatives of what to do with those that are committed to destroying us as a society, with the possible exception to Dave's link to a far left organization whose idea is flawed from the get go. These are NOT civilians and therefore cannot be tried in a civilian court.
Play nice and they'll play nice? I don't subscribe to that thought at all and consider it naive. obama has proven it does not work.
So what would you do?
ACLU? Far left? Huh? They exist to protect the civil rights of the individual. Protect it from government overreach mostly. Unalienable rights such as Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. You know the stuff that crazy lefty Thomas Jefferson wrote about.
Bob; It has been my position for a long long time that if we stopped messing in other county's affairs, they'd stop hating us. Its called "Blowback" We need to mind our damn business
I'm pretty sure you and i have had this discussion before.
I don't think Gitmo will be a problem much longer. With the recent swap of one of our
boys, for five of their cowards, I feel this is going to catch on, and the place will be
empty in no time.
Problem solved.......solved until the next 9/11 that is....
Guantanamo is one of our great embarrassments. Holding people indefinitely, in a foreign country, without charging them with a crime and without the right to counsel, while subjecting some of them to torture is immoral and inhumane. We should be better than this. Unfortunately our fear of terrorism has been so artfully cultivated by the federal government that we seem willing to ignore all manner of war crimes committed in the name of patriotism and national security. Close Guantanamo, Restore some small piece of our humanity.
And remove God from schools, have taxpayers fund abortion (including late term murders), restrict how parents discipline their children, advocating removal of tax exempt status for churches (while preserving it's own), removal of movie ratings potentially allowing youngsters to watch porn, help illegal aliens obtain government benefits, continually advocate for proven violent criminals, loudly states it's opposition to the second amendment, and picks and parses the US Constitution to further IT'S cause, not America's.
""The ACLU no longer represents the best interests in America, but the worst interests, from pedophiles and sex offenders, to Marxists and Communists. The ACLU has become an ugly destructive force undermining the greatest nation civilization has ever known." Written in 2005 by Gordon Bishop. What has happened to society since then?
Mathew Vadum: ""The ACLU’s intellectual incoherence seems to stem from the views of its principal founder and longtime leader, Roger Nash Baldwin. The group was founded in 1920 by Baldwin, an avowed anarchist, pacifist and Communist... Nowadays the ACLU stumbles from controversy to controversy, roughly following Baldwin’s playbook. It defends terrorists, illegal aliens and child molesters, while letting law-abiding Americans and victims of reverse racism fend for themselves."
Mathew Nowak ""The American Civil Liberties Union has a public agenda, and that agenda appears to be this: to make the United States in all her public manifestations reflect an atheist's view of the nation's Founding and continuing existence."
Debbie Schlussel: ""[T]he radical, minority ACLU is picking which type of speech will really be free for America. That deviant, offensive speech, like flag burning, nude dancing, and instructions on how to build bombs, will be free; But moral, laudable speech, like voluntary prayer, will not."
Joseph Farrel: "Generally speaking, [the ACLU] is a terribly subversive organization. It is a clear and present danger to national security and the long-term health of our free republic."
Examples of the detrimental nature of this organization are too numerous to mention.
Membership in the ACLU is about 500,000, yet they claim to represent the interests of 300,000,000?!
Bob; I don't care what others think, how about sharing your own thoughts?
Those held at Gitmo cannot be brought stateside as they would no longer be considered enemy combatants.
I believe they should have a long time ago been given due process through military tribunals and if found guilty been punished appropriately. That did not happen, so complete isolation from the obvious areas/groups is the next best thing.
obama pledged to close Gitmo within 6 months of his first term. He did not. Don't you think even he recognized at that time the need to keep terrorists from being free to act again? Though he seems to have lost focus on that (and every other important damn thing) 6 years later it is still there.
Hillary still remains mum - or maybe she thinks "What does it matter".
As far as the ACLU, I stand firm in my assertion that they are a far left organization with a political agenda.
A statue of Jesus soaked in urine, yes. Voluntary prayer or reading of the bible in public schools no. ACLU supported the former and opposed the latter. If that's not on far left ragged edges of socialism, I don't know what is.
Statue of a religious figure soaked in urine... Disturbing (and disgusting)? Yep. Legal? Hell yeah. It was a private individual making a statement.
Voluntary prayers in school... Legal? Depends...a student or teacher on their own time interfering with no other activity? Yep, perfectly legal. A teacher (a representative of the state) praying aloud to a classroom? Hell no - students are a captive audience, and a representative of the state preaching is effectively the state promoting that particular religious belief. Students praying at a voluntarily attended event (football game, for example)? I believe that is legal. A coach at the same event? Nope - (s)he's another representative of the state.
I have to laugh at those who claim prayer is not allowed in schools... Anybody can pray as they wish on their own time (as well as in their own heads - who said prayers have to be stated aloud to be valid?), as long as it does not interfere with the business of others. I can read my Lord of the Rings on my own time in study hall, you can read your holy book of choice at the same time. Both of us are happy.
" ... an avowed anarchist, pacifist and Communist ..."
It is impossible to be both an anarchist and a communist. That right there calls into question the source.
Until we rid the world of radical islam, keep gitmo open, and torture every friggin
terrorist they can get their hands on.
Dave, they hate our way of life, it doesn't matter what we do or don't do, we are the great satan in their eyes. Islam and terrorism are one and the same.
Victims of reverse racism.....
You do realize that the reverse of racism is non racism.
Racism is racism doesnt matter if its black on white, red on black or yellow on red or any other combination thereof.
Here is a thought I picked up on the internet ages ago
Reverse racism, in actuality, shouldn't even be a term... It's described as the act of racism against a majority (typically used in context of whites). But...isn't that just plain old regular racism? Last time I checked, Caucasian WAS a race. And I'm willing to bet that any other majority suffering from "reverse racism" is a race too. So why isn't it just racism? Why give it a fancy new term? If you wanted to take the literal definition, reverse racism would actually be the opposite: supporting a race as equal to another. Just a thought.
Bob, did you consider John Adams a far left? He defended the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre. He knew it was unpopular but he did it. He could be considered the father of the ACLU.
We are taught that everyone is entitled to a fair trial. The ACLU ensures that.right is respected. Obviously, you prefer to be judge and jury and determine who is worthy of counsel and who isn't. If the ACLU is far left, then is it the right.s belief that not every citizen deserves to be represented?
You are way off base, Bea. Where do you get the idea I want to be "judge, jury, and executioner? If you had actually read my post, you would have seen that I advocated due process through the proper channels - a military tribunal.
The ACLU certainly does NOT represent everybody. As I said before (again, please make the effort to actually read what I right before trying to chastise me) they have a little less than 500,000 members. There are over 3.13 MILLION million legal citizens in the US. How do they represent everybody. Certainly not me, or other conservatives.
Now I ask this question seriously. Why is it that liberals such as yourself stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to accept ANY discourse that is not Pelosi/Reid/obama like?
BTW, What would YOU do with those nice folks being held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Air Station?
You also have the choice to not look at the statue covered in urine,as well. You also have the right to protest outside the place displaying it. Protecting civil along with constitutional rights for everyone and national defense are about the only 2 legitimate functions of the federal government, in my humble opinion.
And those 2 functions should be non-partisan.
"A statue of Jesus soaked in urine, yes."
You're confusing content with principle.
The Bill of Rights is about principle. It doesn't state, 'You have the right to display a Jesus soaked in urine.' It says you have a right to free speech. Sometimes freedom is ugly and disgusting and messy.
Reminds me of a joke from MASH. Frank Burns: "Individuality is fine, so long as we all do it together."
Well, we don't all get to do it together. We all get to be ourselves and go our own way and that freedom and personal liberty is what men and women have fought and died for for generations.
The ACLU repeatedly stands on the side of liberty, regardless of the content of the speech. There isn't a more conservative value on the planet.
Anyone who can't defend the rights and freedoms of people who disagree with them, or they find disagreeable, is hardly holding up conservative values.
Aren't we supposed to stand for "liberty and justice for all"?
"Anyone who can't defend the rights and freedoms of people who disagree with them, or they find disagreeable, is hardly holding up conservative values."
People certainly have the right to hold individual ideas - even if they're wrong and uninformed - and you and I both served to defend their rights.
My point has been - and will be - is that the liberal agenda and political correctness have more weight in this society today than does the Constitution. The ACLU itself has agreed that the Constitution should be considered a evolving concept. BS! Can you honestly say that society as a whole has benefited by the left's agenda??? Look at the state of our Union today as compared to pre-obama/holder and the like. We have no foriegn policy a POTUS and AG that have proven many times they believe they are above the law, an administration literally wracked with scandals and failures.
Liberalism has established a fairly strong foothold, unfortunately, but I'm willing to bet you lunch anywhere in Batavia that traditional values will not just be underscored in the midterms - they will be celebrated.
People have had enough.
And it looks like it started tonight in Virginia- score 1 for the Tea Party!
Do nothing republicans are as at risk as the democratic liberals.
Howard, a couple of weeks ago a liberal called you a conservative, today a conservative calls you a liberal.
That's the mark of a libertarian.
THAT was funny Dave! Helluva observation.
I'm not calling Howard a liberal, but I do think he is more accepting of the liberal train of thought.