We agree with the Winfield Daily Courier, which said in an editorial last week that the posturing by Kansas politicians on the subject of what to do with the Guantanamo detainees is “appalling.”
To that, we would add the word “silly.”
The first response to President Barack Obama’s executive order to close down the military prison in Cuba within a year came from a national chorus of politicians, declaring that whatever was done with the suspected terrorists moved from Guantanamo, they could not be housed in the politicians’ states or cities. Kansans joined in, fearing that some of the detainees would be transferred to the military prison at Leavenworth.
At the risk of setting off another case of political vapors, allow us to ask: Why shouldn’t detainees be sent to Leavenworth — or to any other prison in the country with a maximum-security unit?
The people of the United States are falling for their own government’s propaganda when they react in fear to the possibility that the feet of Guantanamo detainees might actually touch American soil. Time and again, the detainees have been referred to as “the world’s most dangerous prisoners.”
Are they? Are any of them more personally dangerous than any of the serial killers and mass murderers already in American prisons?
Certainly, some of the detainees can be very dangerous in the right circumstances — say, when they are surrounded and supported by a wide network of terrorists, have the sympathy and support of a government and have access to bushels of cash, guns and explosives and the freedom to move about the world.
None of those things is available to inmates of prisons in the United States.
The prisons in this country are good at their job. They should be; they’ve had lots of practice. The United States has more than 2 million people in prison. That is 700 inmates for every 100,000 people in the population. The nation has a greater percentage of its population in prison than any other country, including China and Russia.
The detainees at Guantanamo are not magicians and they do not have super powers. They cannot walk through the walls of Leavenworth or fly over the walls of the maximum-security prison at Florence in Colorado. Bringing them to the United States does not mean that they get legal residency or that they would be allowed to stay in the country if they are released.
The national motto of the United States is E pluribus unum — “From many, one.” It is a testament of both shared destiny and shared responsibility.
Unless we want to change the motto to “Not in my backyard,” it is time to stop this silly wrangling about where the detainees should be placed and let the military and the prison system work it out on their own.
Patrick S. Kelley
Editorial Page Editor
justthefacts (anonymous) says...
Mr. Kelly, the difference is that most of the killers, rapists and others don't have Al Queda operatives plotting to blow up or kill thousands of Americans to break their comrades out of jail and conduct their jihad against the United States. Placing these terrorists on U.S. soil makes any location they are at a potential target to fly another plane into or some other type of terrorist event.
Please don't compare apples to oranges.
January 29, 2009 at 7:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
The we in Pat's comments obviously refer to himself and the Gazette. His last statement is the one I aree with, let the military and the prison system work out where they want them. Obviously the military wants them where they are, otherwise they'd be some place else aready. Why should Ks. or any other state accept them and put yet another tax burden on us? They are military prisoners of war and should be treated as such, yet the messiah and his followers would treat them as private citizens, offer them free public defenders and let them go on their way.I'm frankley surprised that Obama didn't just turn them loose. I only hope and pray that we survive the next four years under this socialist or communist president that people unlike myself elected.
One thing about this paper though, you don't have to guess where they stand,and the only reason they stay in business is becuase the only competion they have is themselves. They make me want to puke half the time and the other half I just come back to see if it can get worse.
January 29, 2009 at 7:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
JOB INTERVIEW BETWEEN CHRIS W. & PAT K.
CHRIS: I want someone to stir things up in Emporia.
PAT: I think I can do that .
CHRIS: Your'e hired!
Steve
January 29, 2009 at 8:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
I like the fact they are closing GITMO. To me, it shows a "take no prisoners" attitude.
January 29, 2009 at 9:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Could someone explain to me why it is so important about getting the prisoners out of Gitmo. Is there something there that is not fixable? I honestly do not understand the importance.
January 29, 2009 at 9:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Anyone? Anyone?
January 30, 2009 at 8:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I agree with seriously. Why do they have to be removed from ultra-secure Gitmo? I say leave them there and just change procedures. Develop more humane standards for tortu, er, obtaining information from prisoners. Besides, there is evidence that those released from other prisons have returned to their jihad battlefields. All the more reason not to release these prisoners.
Is it the cages? They don't like being in cages? Clean, breezy cages in the tropics? What about our countrymen who disappeared suddenly and horribly into a clear, crisp September morning in New York? They deserve answers.
January 30, 2009 at 9:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Does President Obama have a reason? That is my question. The only thing I can think of is his P.R. campaign in the middle east. I personally hope it works but have my doubts. The president of Iran was on 60 Minutes and said something to the effect of he would like to see Israel bloodily wiped off the face of the Earth. This is coming from a mid east leader. That is the mentality we are dealing with. I'm not bashing the Pres but I don't feel this is going to work. I think it is going to make us look weak. It may make us look better to the world but if we are more vulnerable is it worth it? I'd rather be alive and look bad to the western Europeans and others than dead and loved by them. I'm sure the victims of 9/11 would echo my sentiments.
January 30, 2009 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Observation
I am trying to take the high road. I have vomited too long over all the political hyperbole that was directed at our last Pres so now i will show them the error of their ways by example and try to bring my disagreements with the new Pres up in a calm and rational way. Believe me it is not an easy thing to do. I want to throw it in their face so bad when they call for unity now and acted the way they have for the last several yeas but I will try not to. When they bring up the unity stuff it reminds me of something the Apostle Paul asked the Pharisees "you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself?". I just have to hold back the vomit and laugh.
January 30, 2009 at 12:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
allintogether (anonymous) says...
I listened to the prison spokeswoman on the news and her objections to holding these terrorists in Kansas sounded very reasonable and logical. The problem is that like it or not, Gitmo was probably the best place to keep these criminals. I don't really mind the fact that they don't get due process like a regular citizen because they are not United States citizens. We do a good job not making this distinction in our courts because we want to extend all the rights US citizens enjoy to anyone and everyone in the world when most countries would not extend us the same courtesy. Kelley and his ilk apparently won't get it until more buildings fall and more people die. I don't live in fear of a terrorist attack but I think short memories regarding 9/11 are a very dangerous thing.
Justthefacts,
I am basking in the glory of your pragmatic posts to this thread and others (Peeved specifically). Comparing serial killers and rapists to the global terrorism network of Al Queda leaves me wondering how Kelley got a journalism degree let alone a job at the Gazette. The Gazette should change his title to "Obama toe kisser".
January 30, 2009 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blulitespecial (anonymous) says...
These are not prisoners of war.They are not members of a standing army.They wear no uniform.They come from various countries.The situation is closer to a spy caught on the battlefield.Even if someone "thinks" they may be pow's,it's illegal to house them with the civilian prison population.Solution-question them for 30 days,then the firing squad after being found guilty as a spy in wartime.
January 30, 2009 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blulitespecial (anonymous) says...
Not in my country.Not in my back yard.
January 30, 2009 at 1:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Observation, knock off the name calling, will you. As upset as I was over Bush and his mistakes, I never called him any names because he was the president. Calling our new president "Barmy" is uncalled for. Less than a month in office and you want to nail him to the wall. It's just that your man didn't get in and you're pi$$ed. Tough!
January 30, 2009 at 2:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
thebigO (anonymous) says...
Finally someone makes sense of this mess. Brownback,Roberts, Jenkins and now even our Gov. Have all sounded like Chicken little with some alarm of the"sky is falling". If, and it is a big if, they move the Gitmo group to Kansas, it isn't to Aunt Bea's home for way ward boys. They aren't getting work release to Wolf Creek or a chance to hire on at the new Bio defense lab in Manhattan. They will be held in the most secure prison in the USA. Some of the Politians pandering for votes would have you believe the place is as secure as unattended keg at a college frat party. Keep selling the idea that it is out of date, to close to populated areas, to hard to transfer prisoners in and out, etc. if you do it well enough I am sure some will suggest "lets close it down and take all those jobs and money out of the state of Kansas. I am not happy with the whole problem but the last administration created this mess when they went into foriegn lands and "profiled" hundreds of young men as possible enemies of the USA. After years of hold these men we still can't prove that most of them did anything, and those that weren't our enemy before being held for years, far from home, with out trial or contact with the outside world clearly are now as are their sons, brothers, uncles and neighbors. My solution to the whole thing, there is this little ranch in Crawford , Texas that i think would be ideal.
January 30, 2009 at 3:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I'm anxious to hear what Observation and everyone else thinks now that Michael Steele, former Lt. Governor of Maryland, has just been elected the first African American Republican National Committee Chairman. He says he will build the party like no one has ever seen before, "a new storm in the midwest" among others. He is talking about a "new direction."
January 30, 2009 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I hope Steele can rebuild the Republican party. We sure need more than just one party. After the media destroyed Bush and are now going after lower level Republicans he's got his work cut out for him. I'm not saying that Bush was a good President but that the media blamed him for things that couldn't have been all his fault. Hurricane Katrina comes to mind. Perhaps the POTUS is the most powerful man on the planet but I always suspected that blaming him for a hurricane might have been a slight exaggeration.
Still no one can answer my question as to why there is such an urgency to move the detainees. Anyone? Why move them at all?
January 30, 2009 at 7:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
You can find numerous reports like below, here's a few snippets from the particular one I googled...
The report, .... will provide fresh details about 62 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo and are believed by U.S. intelligence officials to have returned to terrorist activities......One such example, involving a Saudi detainee named Said Ali Al-Shihri, who was released in 2007, received widespread attention Friday when Pentagon officials publicly confirmed that he has recently reemerged as a deputy commander of Al Qaeda in Yemen. Al-Shihri, once known publicly only as Guantanamo detainee No. 372, is suspected of involvement in a thwarted attack on the U.S. embassy in Yemen last September.
......Among the examples: Mohammed Ismail, one of the "juveniles" at Guantanamo who, upon his release in 2004, had praised his treatment by Americans, saying at a press conference, "They gave me a good time at Cuba." He was recaptured four months later, participating in an attack on U.S. forces near Kandahar, Afghanistan.
January 30, 2009 at 10:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Those seem to be good reasons for leaving them where they are. So why move them? Is it simply p.r.?
January 30, 2009 at 10:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Anyone? Anyone?
January 31, 2009 at 7:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
JMO - Obama garnered alot of his support/votes pandering to many demands from the far left, who seem to place much more emphasis on the rights of bloodthirsty psychopath killers than on their hated Americans, whom they like to blame for all the worlds ills. This is simply one of his promises he is making good on. Now that he has daily intelligence briefings, he probably is having second thoughts, but it's too late. Ya gotta make good on at least a few of the promises to the horses that brought ya.
He kept Gates, he's backing off on immediately reversing some of the Bush tax cuts, everyone knows if we make it out of Iraq in 16 months it will be BECAUSE of the surge he opposed, he's already reversing himself on hiring lobbyists..... we're finding out daily little by little "change" isn't all it was cracked up to be, and Bush wasn't quite the Satan some made him out to be, but Gitmo I think was a fairly easy "change" promise for him to keep.
JMO
January 31, 2009 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Observation, thank you for your response. No, I've never called anyone "Barmy," nor have I ever heard of the term. It's still disrespectful to use it when referring to President Obama.
January 31, 2009 at 9:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
That sounds about right open_eyes but I was hoping to hear what his supporters had to say about my question. Perhaps a good argument for moving them like there was something wrong with Gitmo that can not be fixed. Your statement about Bush not being Satan is going to shake a lot of people's faith, you know. Be prepared for the tongue lashing.;)
January 31, 2009 at 10:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Again, just my opinion, and anyone feel free to correct me on this if they believe I am in error, but part of the left outcry against Gitmo is because since they are not on US soil there are questions that they are thus outside US jurisdiction and judicial oversight? So the first step is to get the detainees moved to American soil, that way they can use and abuse our legal system and have a good laugh doing it. I mean, that is straight out of Bin Laden's jihad manual, how to use the American legal system against itself. Those that believe the 3,000 dead from the Twin Towers had it coming and deserved what they got are patting themselves on the back. Job well done.
I don't mind the tongue lashings too much. Most of the time it's like "here, have some more rope". LOL
January 31, 2009 at 10:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Hmmm..... "disrepectful" towards our President & Vice President...... now, where have I heard those things before? I just KNOW I've seen/heard things like that in the last several years..... hmmmm......... if only I could remember where, and from who...... hmm......
Oh well, doesn't mean everyone has to act that way. I'm still rooting for Mr. Obama to succeed. Doesn't mean I have alot of faith that his policies actually will, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.... not much else I can do..... pray..... (oops, that's not popular).
Anyone notice how many times he invoked "God" & talked about faith in his inaugural speech? Every time he did, I was reminded of a certain candidate who many were dead-set against because of her "faith"....oops, shouldn't have said "her", I might have given it away..... darn.... if only my delete/backspace keys hadn't quit working the other day.... LOL
January 31, 2009 at 10:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
". This is simply one of his promises he is making good on. Now that he has daily intelligence briefings, he probably is having second thoughts, but it's too late. Ya gotta make good on at least a few of the promises to the horses that brought ya."
No if that was the case he would have left it open a little longer, we are not privileged to said intelligence briefings so speculating on what they might say is that just that. We know that he promised to close it, we know that he is doing it, we do not know anything beyond that.
"He kept Gates, he's backing off on immediately reversing some of the Bush tax cuts, everyone knows if we make it out of Iraq in 16 months it will be BECAUSE of the surge he opposed,"
Your right he did keep Gates, and with that another promise to Republicans in his cabinet, and as far as the surge goes, I think your missing the point in just why he voted against the surge, it was because the people he represented(American people) oppose this war and want it to end. People want their kids home and the cost of this thing gone, people give a damn anymore who won or lost. Far as Bush tax cuts goes, they expire in a year anyways and he is NOT renewing them so yes they will be gone, not immediately as he planned, but gone all the same as he promised.
Far as the lobbyists goes, too early to tell just what and how much different he will be from the previous incumbents, he has been in office what, 2 weeks now and already your saying:
"we're finding out daily little by little "change" isn't all it was cracked up to be, and Bush wasn't quite the Satan some made him out to be, but Gitmo I think was a fairly easy "change" promise for him to keep."
Change in this country takes time, we are not a speedboat that can stop on a dime, we are more akin to an aircraft carrier. And I have said before Bush is not Satan, but he was a failure as a President and your in vast minority if think otherwise.
January 31, 2009 at 5:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Anyone notice how many times he invoked "God" & talked about faith in his inaugural speech? Every time he did, I was reminded of a certain candidate who many were dead-set against because of her "faith"....oops, shouldn't have said "her", I might have given it away..... darn.... if only my delete/backspace keys hadn't quit working the other day.... LOL"
I was never againist her because of faith, only her IQ. At least I know Africa is a continent, are you smarter than a 5th grader? We can go on and on about her but the best thing the republican party can do is get the hell away from her, else its easy pickens again in 2012, and we need that competition.
January 31, 2009 at 5:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
It's good to see you're coming around a little bit oleboy. I figured this discussion would eventually peak your interest. Since you seem to lean pretty far to the left maybe you can answer my question. Why was it so important to move the detainees from Gitmo? What was so bad that it couldn't be fixed?
Bobby Jindal 2012!!!
January 31, 2009 at 9:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
It's getting rather humorous how you follow me around and try to pick my posts apart line by line, goodoleboy, did I get under your skin a little too far once and now you have a personal axe to grind????
Apparently you haven't kept up with the news that the "Palin didn't know Africa was a continent story" turned out to be a hoax. At least, I'm sure they never ran it on any of the news that you watch.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arch...
or
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/11/...
And of course, let's not forget the "planted" story, about the person at the McCain yelling "Kill Him", that turned out to be made-up by one reporter.
I really don't know if I should claim that I am smarter than a 5th grader, since I see daily on these boards how easily people that like to brag about their degrees and education are duped, but at least I'm smart enough to not drink every glass of Koolaide someone hands me. I think we'd all be better off if we didn't eat candy & Koolaide from people that have proven they cannot be honest and objective. Most 5th graders DO have that high of an IQ.....
January 31, 2009 at 10:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Not picking anything apart, no personal axe to grind sir, whether its that story or one of the many others there is way too much of an if factor with her, I don't need to pick her apart, she has done it to herself. I really do not hope she is anywhere on the ticket in 2012, else Repubs will likely be dead in the water. Far as the rest, just trying to clarify things a bit.
February 1, 2009 at 2:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"It's good to see you're coming around a little bit oleboy. I figured this discussion would eventually peak your interest. Since you seem to lean pretty far to the left maybe you can answer my question. Why was it so important to move the detainees from Gitmo? What was so bad that it couldn't be fixed?"
I really don't lean that far left, i agree with conservatives on a great many issues, hell their tax plans favor me lol. The problem is that I am utterly disgusted with what the republican party has become and I think that Obama was the better of the 2 choices we had since there is not viable 3rd party candidate. Far as the prison, goes, really does not matter where the hell it is, we still have to pay for it, it was a PR blemish for the US and and long as the detainees were in fact guilty I would rather just see them put down and not have to pay for them. We do set an example for the world though and the President did make a promise to shut it down, is it the best answer?, well my opinion does not matter on it anymore, its gone now, this issues was not a deal breaker one way or another with me so meh, I do like to see a politician actually keep their words though, rare as it might be.
February 1, 2009 at 2:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"I hope Steele can rebuild the Republican party. We sure need more than just one party. After the media destroyed Bush and are now going after lower level Republicans he's got his work cut out for him. I'm not saying that Bush was a good President but that the media blamed him for things that couldn't have been all his fault. Hurricane Katrina comes to mind. Perhaps the POTUS is the most powerful man on the planet but I always suspected that blaming him for a hurricane might have been a slight exaggeration."
Seriouslyfolks,
You know I thought about this the other day. Back when 9/11 happened, this country really did come together for time and untied behind our government and president trusting that he would do the right thing. The problem is that he did not and many people felt betrayed. He had everyone on board with him until things started coming undone that was his mistake, he is the one that pushed so hard for this war without concrete evidence. If anything what I dislike the most about Bush is turning the ultra patriotic state we had in our country after 9/11 into apathy and dismay.
And Steele? What I know of him is not good; it looks desperate to me, like they are just trying to counter Obama. He lost a bid for the Senate seat because he was an unpopular in Maryland, I have seen quite a few people talk about how he his deregulating public utilities in that state in order to promote competition and lower prices did exactly the opposite. Even you might think I am a Dem I am not, I vote best for the job, I would love to see the Republican party reform and become a player again, but our current President hit the nail on the head when he said "they just don't get it". Right now I have no choice but to vote left, it’s my duty to do so in order get the message out to the republicans that have failed us.
February 1, 2009 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
Back to the Gitmo question at hand, there are two reasons why it is important to close that facility: First, it is an international public relations pariah. Why did the Republican administration choose to bulldoze Abu Grab when the facility could be "fixed"? They destroyed the facility because it had become a symbol of torture and US hypocrisy. I'm not alleging torture at GITMO, but there is a feeling internationally that the legal limbo detainees face is hypocritical for a nation that is supposed to value the rule of law. Second, the Supreme Court already ruled that GITMO doesn't allow for a legal limbo status, and that each detainee is guaranteed due process under the law. The reason GITMO was opened was because of a flawed legal opinion that habeas corpus could be ignored if the US held a prisoner off of US soil. The Supreme Court ruled that reasoning unconstitutional, thus, the original reason to open GITMO no longer exists and the facility should be closed.
Our existing prison system already houses terrorists. A friend of mine was blown back across her desk and blew out an ear drum in Oklahoma City. That domestic terrorist group would have an easier time operating inside the US than a foreign group would, yet we haven't seen any sort of break out attempt, have we? Second, having these terrorists exposed to a general population in a maximum security setting would be interesting, as opposed to the current situation where they are simply held up with compatriots. Our legal system made GITMO untenable, and although I do believe that international law may need adjustments to compensate for armies without a homeland, we cannot advocate democracy and the rule of law throughout the world with any moral authority if we do not respect due process at home.
February 1, 2009 at 11:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Not trying to henpeck you, momus, just a slight correction. The Abu Ghraib facility was never bulldozed or demolished, althought at one time that was the plan. In March 2006 the U.S. military decided to transfer the 4,500 inmates to other prisons and hand over the Abu Ghraib prison to Iraqi authorities. It has since gotten a facelift and been renamed, and the Iraqi government announced recently that it will be re-opened next month.
And since you mention habeas corpus, here's just an interesting sidebar example on how far certain segments of our media like to put their own slant on things:
Quote from Keith Olbermann on MSNBC: "The president (Bush) has now succeeded where no one has before. He’s managed to kill the writ of habeas corpus."
Actual list of presidents that have suspended or limited habeas corpus:
Abraham Lincoln
Ulysses S. Grant
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Harry S Truman
Bill Clinton
George W Bush
What follows is gleaned from several sources:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus," our Constitution tells us, "shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
Habeas corpus was suspended during the Civil War, but Congress didn't do it. President Lincoln did. Chief Justince Taney of the Supreme Court told Lincoln, repeatedly, that suspending habeas corpus was not among the powers granted him by the Constitution.
President Grant suspended habeas corpus in the Reconstruction era to stem Ku Klux Klan terror. President Franklin D. Roosevelt did it in World War II, when 110,000 Japanese - 75,000 of whom were American citizens - were relocated from the West Coast to internment camps.
In none of those cases did Congress challenge the president for usurping legislative power. Taney had to challenge Lincoln. The Supreme Court held Roosevelt in check in 1944.
I'm not arguing either way. Just trying to correct yet another instance of MSNBC/Olbermann's usual twisting of the facts. Next thing ya know they'll be trying to spread the story that FDR didn't know Japan was a country (even a 5th grader would be able to see thru that baloney, but unfortunately, it sure fools alot of adults). But, hey, we live in a country where that is taken as fact, but opining that Iran is a tiny country that doesn't pose a serious threat will get you elected President - LOL
February 1, 2009 at 12:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
MSNBC makes me vomit anymore, why anyone would waste their time with them or Foxnews is beyond me.
February 1, 2009 at 2:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I'm really disappointed that Alan Colmes left Hannity & Colmes. I rarely watch that segment anymore, I enjoyed seeing both sides, now we only get one. Whether or not I agree with that side most of the time, I still respect and want both sides to get their equal due voice. I still see other segments that do give fair representation, (and yes, many of them on Fox, CNN...), but MSNBC doesn't even try to pretend to be non-partisan anymore.
February 1, 2009 at 2:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
Not a Wal-Mart shopper, so I don't get my news there, and I'm not sure what your point is... I didn't say the Republicans were "mean" for their handling of Abu Grab, I think that discontinuing the facility was about the only choice we had. I think we have about the same options at GITMO. Again, why would housing the GITMO prisoners in a super max facility be any different than housing domestic terrorists, or gang members that have an extensive network inside the US?
February 2, 2009 at 8:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
My question was was there something wrong with the location, or buildings, or procedures that couldn't be fixed. If it's just a bad reputation, that is a stupid reason to shut it down, same with Abu Grab. What does this say about us? That we have no resolve. That we can't correct our mistakes without completely abandoning it. "OH, the bath water's getting cold let's throw out the baby with it." This doesn't seem very logical to me. It seems to be purely driven by emotion. It reminds me of Somalia. We pulled out of there after one operation that went horribly wrong and left that place in shambles. I watched a documentary(The true story of Black Hawk Down) and the soldiers didn't want to leave, they wanted to stay and complete their mission. It is said that pulling out of Somalia sent a message to the Islamic terrorists that we are weak and have no resolve and it emboldened them. Perhaps Abu Grab and Gitmo needed to be shut down but I hope it was thought through and not just an emotional decision.
February 2, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )