Yesterday, the House voted 258-163 to approve a non-binding recommendation prohibiting the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to the U.S. for trial or imprisonment. 88 Democrats voted with the majority.
Here's the typical defense for continuing, indefinitely, American offshore gulags…..
"There is no reason these terrorists, who pose a serious and documented threat to our nation, cannot be brought to justice right where they are in Cuba," said Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky. "I certainly think that is where the American people stand on this issue —they don't want these terrorists in their hometowns."
Because these detainees have not had their day in court to hear charges against them and to defend themselves against those charges…there is no substantiation for the claim that they are all "terrorists." None. If it has not been proven (and it hasn't) that all of these detainees are "terrorists", then it is also not clear that they "pose a serious and documented threat to our nation."
Yes, SOME of the detainees being held in America's first torture gulag are guilty of planning or perpetrating crimes against the U.S. Khalid Sheik Mohammed proudly spouted off about being the mastermind of 9-11, for example. But with the other 240-some detainees…..guilt is not so clearcut. If the detainees have not been proven by the rule of law to be "terrorists" yet….then it follows that it also hasn't been proven that these detainees "pose a serious and documented threat to our nation."
258 House members, however, knowing full well that the guilt of these detainees has still not been determined, are willing to go on record in support of this unsupportable statement…."they (American people) don't want these terrorists in their hometowns."
The presumption by, in this case, a Kentucky Republican demagogueing dimwit, is that if detainees are taken from Guantanamo and brought to the U.S….they will simply be dropped off in the center of every major U.S. city to do as they will. That concept, naturally, is ridiculous…..but we live in very ridiculous times.
I've said it many times before…..American prisons, on American soil, CURRENTLY hold numerous convicted terrorists. Is there a threat to "hometowns" everywhere because convicted terrorists are being held, right now, in prisons located on American soil? Will it become necessary for America to send ALL violent, or potentially violent offenders to offshore secret prisons so those same prisoners won't threaten the stability of "hometowns?"
How ridiculous would that be? Or would it be ridiculous?
It's crystal clear what Republicans in the House are doing. Proven to not have any interest or competency in the job of governing when they were in the majority, the only interest GOP'ers have now is to destroy the current Democratic majority and be reinstalled (god forbid) as D.C's power group. Obama promised to close Gitmo in a year, and by god, Republicans will do everything to make sure Obama, as the RNC Chief Rush said, "fails."
It has also become clear what the spineless Democrats are doing….at least 88 of them in this case. Many Democrats, as in the ACORN defunding embarassment, are p*ssies (in the "weakling" sense of the word). Even though the "keep prisoners off U.S. soil" resolution is knee-jerk, guilty-before-proving-your-innocence, nonsense…..some Democrats are timidly fearful that mean, mean Republicans will accuse them of not being manly enough to defend their constituents should they vote to close down America's first Soviet-style gulag.
As much as I detest the current Republican nuts in Congress, I have only contempt for Democrats who instantly cave in to cartoon characterizations by dishonest GOP brokers.
The House "Operation Scaredy-Cat" resolution is even worse than what I've already described….
The vote also put House members on record as backing the Obama administration's refusal to release new photos showing U.S. personnel abusing detainees held overseas.
President Barack Obama has already said he would use every available means to block release of additional detainee abuse photos because they could whip up anti-American sentiment overseas and endanger U.S. troops. His powers include issuing an order to classify the photos, thus blocking their release.
This Obama-led nonsense is just as indefensible and stupid as the "we can't close Gitmo because we'll all die" p*ssy chorus. Does anyone believe that Muslims worldwide don't already know that the U.S. has violently and inexcusably tortured detainees? Anyone?
To comprehend how absolutely off-the-wall crazy Obama's, and now the House's, releasing "photos could whip-up anti-American sentiment overseas" statement is…..ask yourself this question: Isn't it true that for weeks, if not months now, every media outlet in the U.S., and virtually every federal government representative, have been talking openly about increasing U.S. troop numbers inside Afghanistan? Isn't that true?
Does anyone who believes that the release of torture photos (according to U.S. law) "could whip-up anti-American sentiment"…..not believe that open discussion of sending thousands more troops into Afghanistan might also "whip-up" the same "sentiment?" Anyone?
Obama refuses to follow the rule of law on the photos issue, just as George W. Bush did before him. Obama has decided to unlawfully deny the release of the photos to further protect George and Dick from any messy investigations or (gasp) prosecutions. You see, that would be looking "backwards."
In reality, Obama, by violating Freedom of Information laws and using idefensibly ignorant excuses to do so, is not only concealing damning evidence, but has also now become complicit in the war crimes of the Bush Gang. Republicans and p*ssy Democrats, on the other hand, have incestuously joined together in a resolution of raving imbecility….defending the permanency of Soviet-style gulags while jettisoning the rule of law altogether.
What's particularly galling about all this?…..These are the same folks who repeatedly spout off about how "exceptional" the United States is.
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
What's with the header? This post isn't any more imbecilic than most of your other ones, Reverend.
The Big O shouldn't have shut down the military commissions. He knows we can't try all those detainees in U.S. civilian courts.
"Da King" please don't criticize the dear leader's assistant rev.He is such a paragon of ethics and morality. Why wouldn't other nationals such as these detainees deserve to have you and me pay for lawyers to defend them.Afterall they were captured trying to kill our troops -err-impounded by those facists thugs that pose as U.S. troops.First thing this week that Dear Leader Big O did that really makes sense.Sorry rev…
Why is it that detainees can't be tried in civilian courts? Is it because the verdict has already been determined and a fair trial can't be chanced?
How is it that the recently rounded up would-be terrorists who bought chemicals from hair salons for nefarious purposes are going to be tried in…wait for it….civilian courts? Shouldn't they be sent to Guantanamo?
Rev,
Have you ever fought in a war ?????
No, didn't think so, or you'd know why prisoners of war, taken off the battlefield, can't all be tried in a civilian court.
Liberals. Delusionary twits living in a fantasy, blogging from Pretend World.
Everyone, knows the following things, right?
After World War II, it was not uncommon for us to hold German prisoners for 18 months or longer.
After WW2, we forced German POWs to remove landmines. This should put the pretend drowning and second hand smoke nonsense to bed once and for all.
When the hostilities have ended, that is the time for considering releasing people, not before.
"Why is it that detainees can't be tried in civilian courts?" Because we are in the midst of a war. You are confusing a military operation with a police crackdoen on crime. To fight a war with the tools of the criminal justice system, such as writs and courts, is a recipe for defeat.
I see no reason that they simply shouldn't be excecuted.
I noticed no one wanted to take a shot at answering this question….
"How is it that the recently rounded up would-be terrorists who bought chemicals from hair salons for nefarious purposes are going to be tried in…wait for it….civilian courts? Shouldn't they be sent to Guantanamo?"
I realize that neo-cons are nitwits and would kill or imprison or torture virtually anyone at a second's notice….but…I thought the "battlefield" of the "war on terror" was the entire world. Recently, "terrorists" in this "war on terror" were captured on American, you know, soil. They were arrested and put in jail….and will be tried in civilian courts.
Now all you Einsteins……tell me why it is that the newly arrested "terrorists" are not being sent to Gitmo. AND….shouldn't all conservatives be shaking like bunnies, afraid that the newly arrested "terrorists", now being held on U.S. soil, will do something really, really scary…you know, while in prison?
Your question was already answered, Rev. Several times. You are just pretending not to see the answer.
Rev says, "neo-cons are nitwits and would kill or imprison or torture virtually anyone"
And by torturing "virtually anyone," the Rev means – three high-level Al Qaeda members who had already carried out attacks, including 9/11, and who had knowledge of future attacks. By imprisoning "virtually anyone," the Rev means prisoners taken off the battlefield or terrorists attempting to carry out attacks. That's "virtually anyone."
And to think, you call neocons "nitwits."
No, not even close. When I said "virtually anyone"…I meant virtually anyone. Naive isn't a strong enough term to describe folks who believe only 3 detainees were tortured. "taken off the battlefield" is but a cartoonish characterization by neo-cons to justify tyranny. And….at least 100 detainees died while being, you know, detained. Many as a result of the torture.
Dress that pig up….but the oink still can be heard.
I repeat, you think "virtually anyone" means terrorists and/or people we are at war against. You just confirmed that.
You have more info on those 100 people who died while we detained them ? The only place I ever heard that contention made was right here. Would they happen to have been enemies who were seriously wounded on the battlefield and then died, or what ?