CNN, AP falsely claim that Pentagon says 61 Guantánamo detainees have returned to terrorism
SUMMARY: The Associated Press falsely stated, "The Pentagon recently reported that 61 former prisoners at Guantanamo have returned to the fight against the U.S. and its allies." Similarly, on CNN Newsroom, anchor Kyra Phillips asserted, "New Pentagon figures actually say 61 released detainees have been linked to some kind of terror activity." In fact, the Pentagon's figure includes 43 former prisoners who are suspected of, but not confirmed as, having, in the AP's words, "returned to the fight."
In a January 22 article, the Associated Press falsely stated, "The Pentagon recently reported that 61 former prisoners at Guantanamo have returned to the fight against the U.S. and its allies." Similarly, during the 1 p.m. ET hour of the January 22 edition of CNN Newsroom, anchor Kyra Phillips asserted, "New Pentagon figures actually say 61 released detainees have been linked to some kind of terror activity." Both the AP and Phillips were discussing President Obama's executive order requiring that the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay be closed within a year. But the Pentagon has not confirmed that 61 former Guantánamo detainees have, in the AP's words, "returned to the fight"; that figure includes 43 former prisoners who are "suspected" of doing so.
Indeed, during a January 13 press conference, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell asserted: "The new numbers are, we believe, 18 confirmed and 43 suspected of returning to the fight. So 61 in all former Guantanamo detainees are confirmed or suspected of returning to the fight."
Additionally, as Daily Kos contributing editor Joan McCarter noted, Seton Hall University School of Law professor Mark Denebeaux has disputed the Pentagon's figures, asserting: "Once again, they've failed to identify names, numbers, dates, times, places, or acts upon which their report relies. Every time they have been required to identify the parties, the DOD has been forced to retract their false IDs and their numbers."
i'm not convinced, sorry mmfa. it's not false at all, 43 suspected, 18 confirmed equals 61. suspected is good enough for me. and I will not take some left wing contributor from the nutty daily kos as some backup for your assertion here.
Suspicion is good enough to imprison a man for life?
it's fair enough reporting by cnn and the AP to not have it slapped with a misinformation label by mmfa or some law professor or the daily kos.
Yeah, what does "some law profvessor" that actually studied the claims of the pentegon gonna offer. Something silly such as some of these that "returned to the fight" did nothing more than disparage gitmo and the US on the radio or teevee? They should just rot! =>
Guilty until proven innocent is a common theme among the right. Totally unconstitutional, but it makes them sleep better at night. I just wonder how they are able to continue claiming the cloak of "defenders of the constitution" when they have been doing anything but...
Hey jamesB are you one of those, as long as they don't infringe on my gun rights you can throw away the rest of the Constitution, kind of people?
I think "suspected" is the operative word here.
The Conservative argument seems to be that we must continue to detain these people for what they MIGHT do in the future.
Is it only us pointy-headed libruls who see a problem with that policy?
Why not just expand that philosophy to our domestic judicial system? If a man is convicted of assault and sentenced to 5 years, isn't it possible that, upon release, he may commit murder? Shouldn't we just imprison him for life, in deference to the crimes he MIGHT commit in the future? Just think of the lives we MIGHT save.
That, in essence, is the Conservative argument against closing Guantanamo. The main difference is that most of those detained at Guantanamo have been convicted of nothing. The Conservative assumption is that they are all terrorists. Do we know that for a fact? How do we know?
If there is evidence to suggest that the probability and likeliness of a crime or act of terrorism to occur is alarmingly high, then the best course of action would be to prevent the crime from occuring.
If that evidence is lacking, then there little one can do, except observe and see if a favorable outcome occurs.
How does that jibe with the "kill them all and let God sort them out" mindset?
If there is evidence to suggest that the probability and likeliness of a crime or act of terrorism to occur is alarmingly high, then the best course of action would be to prevent the crime from occuring.
WRONG, Sir! WRONG!
There are already crimes on the book to cover what you describe (conspricay to commit..., attempted..., possession with intent...) all of these ACTUAL crimes cover the "high probablility of a greater crime being committed" and they all prevetn that crime. BUT A CONVICTION ON THESE OFFENSES STILL REQUIRES A TRIAL, AND EVIDENCE AND THE SENTENCE IS ALWAYS LESS THAN THE SENTENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THE FULL CRIME BEEN CARRIED OUT. You don't punnish people who have not commited a crime, and you don't do it without evidence and a trail.
WHY DO YOU HAT AMERICAN VALUES SO MUCH? WHY DO YOU HATE THE CONSTUTION?
I think there are many people in this country who DO subscribe to using the same policy for domestic justice. Isn't that the whole premise behind the 3-strikes rule? Fear is a powerful rationale for a lot of policies.
imposing just sentences is done to keep criminals off the streets, as in the 3 strikes law. it's not fear, it's punisment.
"just sentences" - life in prison for leaving the state without permission or having a joint? Your just sentence is my cruel and unusual.
agree to disagree.
Lock 'em up and throw away the key, says James. Seeing as we've got the highest percentage of people behind bars in the WORLD says something about our priorities and policies, doesn't it? Or are you just vewy vewy scared of the big bad criminals in your little slice of paradise?
Nerz, there's another angle to this that bugs me.This is a popular bit of righty propaganda going around lately , the number of detainess who have "gone back to the battlefield".
The implication is that they were captured attacking us. How many innocent people were turned in by enemies for the bounties, or grabbed when their home was raided on faulty informarion, and detained? If these people are finally released to their home countries, and only after that experience join the fight, are they counted as recidivist terrorists?
Put it this way--If another country invaded the U.S., came into my house in the middle of the night, and put me away in a foreign prison for a few years, if they tortured me and withheld rights that enemy soldiers would have,if they then released me, and when I got home, my neighbors were still fighting these guys, would I get into it? Probably.
I'm not saying that scenario happens often, I have no idea, but neither do the screechmonkeys who call every Gitmo inmate a terrorist, and describe them as "returning to the battlefield".
The Righties always refer to those being held at Gitmo as "terrorists"- not suspects, TERRORISTS. As far as Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity etc are concerned, they are guilty because they are in Gitmo. That's it.
And you are absolutely right- plenty of those "enemy combatants" were dragged out of their homes and SOLD to us as "terrorists" for a bounty. We've behaved shamefully throughout this whole thing, and thank God Obama is taking steps to bringing this sad episode in US History to an end.
Given the competance of the Bush administration, I would not be surprised if Bin Laden took refuge in Gitmo, and is one of the released people.
And you are absolutely right- plenty of those "enemy combatants" were dragged out of their homes and SOLD to us as "terrorists" for a bounty
Ok...time to sack up and post some links to back this up. No fringe sites, only reputable news outlets please.
TBONE- McClatchy did an entire study on the Guantanamo detainees and here is the link and part of the article pertaining to what you are asking for:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html
HOW FOOT SOLDIERS, FARMERS AND GOAT HERDERS GOT SWEPT UP
How did the United States come to hold so many farmers and goat herders among the real terrorists at Guantanamo? Among the reasons:
After conceding control of the country to U.S.-backed Afghan forces in late 2001, top Taliban and al Qaida leaders escaped to Pakistan, leaving the battlefield filled with ragtag groups of volunteers and conscripts who knew nothing about global terrorism.
The majority of the detainees taken to Guantanamo came into U.S. custody indirectly, from Afghan troops, warlords, mercenaries and Pakistani police who often were paid cash by the number and alleged importance of the men they handed over. Foot soldiers brought in hundreds of dollars, but commanders were worth thousands. Because of the bounties — advertised in fliers that U.S. planes dropped all over Afghanistan in late 2001 — there was financial incentive for locals to lie about the detainees' backgrounds. Only 33 percent of the former detainees — 22 out of 66 — whom McClatchy interviewed were detained initially by U.S. forces. Of those 22, 17 were Afghans who'd been captured around mid-2002 or later as part of the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, a fight that had more to do with counter-insurgency than terrorism.
American soldiers and interrogators were susceptible to false reports passed along by informants and officials looking to settle old grudges in Afghanistan, a nation that had experienced more than two decades of occupation and civil war before U.S. troops arrived. This meant that Americans were likely to arrest Afghans who had no significant connections to militant groups. For example, of those 17 Afghans whom the U.S. captured in mid-2002 or later, at least 12 of them were innocent of the allegations against them, according to interviews with Afghan intelligence and security officials.
Detainees at Guantanamo had no legal venue in which to challenge their detentions. The only mechanism set up to evaluate their status, an internal tribunal in the late summer of 2004, rested on the decisions of rotating panels of three U.S. military officers. The tribunals made little effort to find witnesses who weren't present at Guantanamo, and detainees were in no position to challenge the allegations against them.
Shut Tbone's yap pretty good, Chris. I'm still amazed, even with constant exposure to these wingnuts, when they're completely unaware of this stuff.
Nice "sackin' up", like the momentarily tough guys say.
Like I told my conservative friend before. Lock yourself in the basement and we'll protect you from the big bad SUSPECTED terrorists.
MMFA is spot on, I think repugs want to harm America, I more than suspect they are up to something, lets jail all of them. Keep them for 30 years or longer.
Do we have any moral standing left when it comes to how we expect Americans to be treated should they be captured by a hostile foreign entity?
Gee, 61 have "returned to the fight" -- and the sky hasn't fallen yet. How about that!
So, the "confirmed" number is only about 20? Whew!! Man, I am relieved!! I thought it was alot more. But only about 20, pffffftttt!! That's nothing. After all, what significant damage can a group that small possibly do? Oh, wait............
After all, what significant damage can a group that small possibly do?
Especially when we have an idiot-in-chief who prefers - wait, make that preferred - clearing brush, fishing with his poppy, or biking the trails than keep the country safe.
After all, what significant damage can a group that small possibly do?
Yeah, especially when we have an idiot-in-chief who prefers - wait, make that preferred - eating Big Macs, smoking "taint"ed cigars, or tooting his saxophone over keeping the country safe.
I'm curious fhlh, if that's your lame excuse for the SECOND world trade center attack, what's your lame excuse for the FIRST world trade center attack. Hmmmm?? Somehow I don't think you'll put the blame on BillyBoy at all, will you?
You imply that you DO blame Clinton who was inaugurated on January 20, 1993 for the first WTC attack on February 26, 1993. And you also seem to want to absolve GW Bush for the second attack almost 8 months after he was inaugurated.
If you're trying to blame Clinton, was he warned about the first attack in his PDB? Did his attorney general try to cut funding for counter intelligence the day before the first attack? Did his counter-terrorism chief warn him before the attack?
Oh, it is fun to watch you guys circle the wagons, isn't it? Didn't the 9/11 attackers receive their flight training while Clinton was in office? What about the embassy buildings in Kenya and Tanzania? Cole bombing?
How many times did Billy give lip service that these terrorists would be "brought to justice" only to sit back and watch him do nothing? ("nothing" is my code word for Monica)
What a joke. And now we've sworn in an even "bigger joke". Or something that rhymes with that.
You must have become a Republican in the 60's.
Please don't flag this fool. Leave his idiocy for everybody to see.
FD is very, very history-challenged.
Please don't flag this fool.
I second that.
Crazy profanity filter!
I like the comments of these phony soldier, pretend -former- liberals to remain here as they fall apart.
How many times did the Republicans say Clinton was "wagging the dog" when he went after terrorist targets?
FD, if they are all terrorists, why not give them trials and convict them? Do you think holding innocent people (some of them are) without a trial encourages or discourages ill feelings towards the United States?
I honestly think that it encourages ill feelings toward the United States.
But it sure beats the heck out of slicing their heads off and posting it on the internet, wouldn't you agree?
Operation "Ignore Craig's post and hope he goes away and stops being a meanie" is Under Way!
Tell you what, if you show people what a great country we are fewer and fewer will want to cut heads off. I'll go that route instead of creating enemies, I'll fight the ones we currently have.
How many times did Billy give lip service that these terrorists would be "brought to justice" only to sit back and watch him do nothing?
Newsflash - the perpetrators of the first WTC bombing were arrested, tried, convicted and jailed.
Where's Osama?
If you're trying to blame Clinton, was he warned about the first attack in his PDB?
Why yes he was...PDB Dec 4, 1998. The Washington Post reoprted this when it was declassified in July 2004.
Our unit was briefed on this by '98 and I could have sworn it may have been a year before that. So now the question becomes...did clinton INGONRE the warning? Was he having a Lewinsky moment? If so it was clearly dereliction of duty on his part.
This article shows clinton knew about plots as early as '96:
What did clinton know and when did he kown it?
The SMOKING GUN: Go down to the second to last brief.
PDB dated 4 DEC 98
Will you now agree that clinton was at fault?
"The first attack" means the one in 1993.
Read the whole article.
It can't possibly be relevant to my point. "The first attack" meant the one in 1993, according to the post you were responding to. Therefore anything that happened in 1998 or 1996 can't be a warning of that.
WorrierKing:You imply that you DO blame Clinton who was inaugurated on January 20, 1993 for the first WTC attack on February 26, 1993.
The guys who pulled off the first attack are also in jail forever. Now where did bin Laden go to? Oh thats right the Shrub said he, ya know, doesn't spend that much time on the master mind of the 09/11 attacks.
You repugs scare easy and stay scared for the longest time. Get a pair and move on, America defeated the Nazis, Soviets, and these terrorists are not even close to the threat posed in the past.
We get it. You might get more respect around here if you didn't unilaterally decide that all the Guantanamo prisoners were terrorist who enabled 9/11. That view is so ridiculous and dishonest. And yet you hope posting all the photos will make some kind of point.
It doesn't, except it makes you look cheap and small.
Keep pretending that it didn't happen. I hope it makes you feel better.
Pretending it didn't happen? How obtuse are you? The point is how YOU'RE using this tragedy to condemn everyone swept up into Guantanamo. Either you're just messing around or you believe nonsense. Or both.
So now the 19 high-jackers and a few hundred guys we're holding in GITMO are more dangerous than the Third Reich? Caused more terror than Stalin? More bloodthirsty than the Khmer Rouge?
You can't be serious?
scaredycatqueen,
Remember, all those dangerous guys were freedom hating leftists, too!
Remember, all those dangerous guys were freedom hating leftists, too!
This lie has been debunked on this site and elsewhere too many times to count. Please back up your lie with evidence cut and pasted from a wingnut website. I'm in need of a good laugh.
Umm I could show you a picture of a baby crushed in a stroller, that wouldn't make strollers the most dangerous things ever. Stop posting pictures attempting to get a rise out of people.
I challenge you to find one person on this site who doesn't think 9/11 was a horrible unforgiveable tragedy that should never be allowed to happen again. If you do find such a person, feel free to show them shock value pictures to your heart's content.
This all happened because your former president decided that tax cuts for the rich and vacation time were more important than focusing on terrorism. Unfortunately, it took the deaths of 3000 Americans for him to pay an iota of attention to it.
What, did you miss the second half of what I said? Those pictures are horrible to anyone seeing them. I lived in New York then. It was a terrible tragedy. It is upsetting to have to see the pictures again, especially when it's being used to score a cheap political point. (which, by the way, I'm not sure what that would be, since categorically the people responsible for 9/11 can't be in Gitmo, since they're dead)
You can use caps and flash your military service around, it doesn't make you any less obnoxious
Your opinion is noted. I will post pictures as I see the need to.
I read what you wrote. Oddly enough, you are the only person so far who has acknowledged that what happened was actually a BAD thing. Everyone else just blames George Bush...as if the radical muslims flying the planes were merely "crying out for help" instead of attempting to murder as many people as they could.
You are a lunatic. Please list the posters who don't acknowledge that 9/11 was a "bad thing."
Even strawmen have to have some level of credibility. You just jumped the shark with that one.
"Everyone else just blames George Bush...as if the radical muslims flying the planes were merely "crying out for help" instead of attempting to murder as many people as they could. Great nominee for Nonsense Sentence of the Year. "Everyone else" blames George Bush "as if the radicals were crying out for help? Translation, please?
Talking points work better when you lay them out slowly, not all garbled together into one sentence. Just a tip.
By all means, keep posting pictures. They are a great tool for illiterate knotheads who can't use the English language to get their points across in a coherent manner.
You are beneath contempt.
Can I assume that you were so enraged by these pictures that on September 12, 2001 you went down to the nearest recruitment office and bellowed "SIGN ME UP?" Or are you just like Hannity, Limbaugh, etc- all talk and chest-pounding, no action?
The SHIP that i was STATIONED ON pulled into New York Harbor on the morning after the attack to offer NORAD air support. 22 hour days for almost 3 solid weeks. AND YOU???????
YOU ARE BENEATH CONTEMPT
Then get psychological help, seriously. Because you aren't winning any arguments by showing photographs of what Non-Iraqis and Non-Gitmo Detainees did to us in October 2000 and September 2001. You've obviously become unhinged and need the services of a professional.
You're advice is neither required nor appreciated.
And I asked you when, exactly?
You're advice is neither required nor appreciated.
My advice apparently has a lot in common with your moronic posts.
And it's "your," not "you're." Is English your second language, Comrade?
Oh, slamming on grammatical errors. YOU'RE one of those, huh?
Oh, slamming on grammatical errors. YOU'RE one of those, huh?
One of those educated people, yes. Obviously an Elitist Liberal with a College Education. America's greatest nightmare.
The meter is off the chart.
FormerSanePerson has made it clear that he thinks his war is not against Terrorists, but against all Muslim people. I think he's fighting another war against the nice guys in white jackets who keep telling him he needs to take his meds.
Yeah, I'm guessing another rich 15 year ols who's tired of World of Warcraft and can't talk to girls.
I refuse to believe that any branch of our military would let this deranged sissy get past the first line of psychological evaluation.
Former human being could be telling the truth about his background, but his messed up thinking and false judgements negate any credibility he might have.
He does indeed sound like a 15 year old sissy.
Showing pictures of the twin towers SHOULD pi** you off considering the majority (15 of the 19) of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
And do you remember how Bush punished Saudi Arabia?
Oh, I get it now. You're anti-Muslim.
Only when they claim that destroying ME and MY COUNTRY is "God's will." Other than that, we cool!!
You're anti-Muslim. There was no reason to mention religion in your previous post.
Besides, as Sarah Palin pointed out God's will is actually destroying them and their countries...
Well that was obvious. Once someone conflates "9/11" with "Muslims everywhere" it's pretty clear that they aren't speaking from a non-bigoted point of view
Is it just me, or do our current crop of wingnuts (And I may be insulting some of them) seem unusually strident in the last week or so?
Oh and FD, Hold me I'm scared.
The poor old hate horse has seen a lot of use today, but there's some calls you just can't ignore.
As Fieldmarshall Funkmaster "Bootsie" Collins is wont to say, HIT ME!
It's not just Muslims. Note the last line here.
Good call- I missed that. I have to give this fruitcake credit, he's convinced us to keep responding to his pathetic whimpers.
As for Radical Muslims "crying out for help," I think we are witnessing projection at work. I hope someone close to him gets him the help he obviously needs.
No one is defending terrorists. But most are defending the constitution. Most of us believe in the rule of law. Most of us believe in what every other generation before us believed, that we hold ourselves to a higher standard than other groups and nations.
Some of us still believe in the oath that we took.
"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
former democrat,
What in the heck are you trying to accomplish with the grisly and scary photos? Have you lost your mind? What earthly good can come of giving this pictoral display of history?
I'll tell you what it does...it gives us a very vivid reminder of what the war on terrorism is about...and the consequences of downplaying the aim of radical muslims.
Grand words by Pres.Obama...we'll offer our hand if you unclinch your fist...which have exactly ZERO affect on those bent on destroying Americans and our way of life.
I think your perspective is a real bulls-eye...it scrambles the thought process of the appeasers who think radical muslims can be negotiated with.
Thank you for your service in defending America...and your invaluable insight into what the struggle with terrorists really means to the future of our way of life. It's not a matter that can be solve by lawyers, judges and habeas corpus...it's a war for survival.
Awwwww, FormerSanePerson has found himself a friend! That's so sweet!
Maybe if you guys clasp your hands and concentrate real hard, you can conduct electricity.
I don't know if you caught it Wesley, buy the person your holding up as some kind of hero just called the President a n*****.
Whoa, what the heck are you talking about?
Oh, a racist and a coward.
Seriously, what are you talking about.
"What? Who? Me? You Mean ME? What are you talking about? I just got here!"
--FormerSanePerson, now Cowardly Person Who Won't Stand By My Own Posts
Yep, right now he's trying to figure out how to explain that "rhymes with bigger joke" wasn't a racist statement. Wait for it..... wait for it....he's not the kind to just ignore your post, he'll come up with something insanely stupid and lame, then blame you for not believing him....wait for it...
Wrong. I'm just proving a point that you're as ignorant and primal as you seem to think I am. The reality is that I said nothing. I know exactly what I typed. Your perception is what caused you to form your prejudice. Read my post further down and maybe you'll understand.
I KNEW IT. It's "our perception" that's the problem, not your racism! I win the office pool!
Please, educate me. What did that line of your post mean, if it wasn't racist? I'll be waiting right here.
What a joke. And now we've sworn in an even "bigger joke". Or something that rhymes with that.-- Former Democrat
Just to refresh your memory. Come on, we're all waiting. Explain why you weren't displaying your racism here. Don't fudge, don't hem and haw, don't change the subject. Just defend your own words. What's taking you so long?
"rhymes with bigger joke"
Maybe FD was referring to Tigger - you know, from the books he's been reading lately.
Can you let FD use that one? It's been more than an hour since Craig has called him out, and apparently he's just not going to come up with anything better.
Did you get that, Craig? WE are the racists! That's why we read what we read in Former Democrat's post!
Didn't see THAT coming, did you?
No, I didn't. Somehow, a racist remark was just created, out of thin air presumably, in our minds.
Yes, FINALLY you understand!!!
What a joke. And now we've sworn in an even "bigger joke". Or something that rhymes with that.-- Former Democrat
Gutless. Clueless. Coward.
Oh, and it's "you're" not "your". jjamele gets picky about stuff like that.
Thank you wesley. I can tell by the level of vitriol on this thread that....
a.) these folks don't have a sense of humor, and......
b.) I've made my point. Unfortunately, they will never understand until it's one of THEIR family members whose remains were found smashed between floors 95 and 96 of the south tower.
Fair winds and following seas.
Oh, were you JOKING this whole time? Well, THAT makes sense, then!
It's also a HUGE relief! Thanks!
hold on - you consider 9/11 a joke? And the pictures are funny? You disgust me.
No, you have obviously missed the point of something that I posted earlier in an attempt to illustrate the hypocrisy of the treatment I receive for something I may or may not have said. The "perception" is that I said something terrible. The "reality" is that I said nothing at all. The "offense" which never occured, was created in the mind of the reader.
On the other hand, the detainees at Gitmo are to be treated as complete innocents who would never, and could never, do anything to harm anyone else and us conservatives are judging them by something that they could do when in reality, they have likely done nothing. Ergo, the "offense" is created in the mind of the conservative. They must be punished although they haven't really done anything, but the perception is that they might do something if left to their own devices.
What I have illustrated is that we all react the same when something that is dear to our hearts is ruthlessly and viciously attacked. In the end, we're all pretty much the same. Our thought processes are identical, but our interests are different.
Hey, you forgot to explain your racism in a previous post! You remember, Craig asked you about a previous post in which you revealed yourself to be a racist? You forgot to answer Craig! I know you wouldn't want to miss the chance to defend yourself!
Glad I could help!
OK, college gradumate. The perception of "racism" is the "offense" that you created. The reality is that the offense never occured. You are reacting in the same way you accuse conservatives of treating Gitmo detainees. You are blinded by hatred and you are unable to afford me the same courtesy that you demand the terror suspects receive.
Remember, I used to be one of you. I know the thought pattern. Right now you are flat out furious and you want blood. You want to scream "RACIST" from the hilltops and maybe even get me banned. You don't even entertain the notion that I may NOT be a racist. In short, you are convinced that I am a dangerous person.
But I have said nothing to the effect. Now you battle with your own belief structure. You preach tolerance, but you refuse to practice it. Not this time. You know that the truth is that I have done nothing wrong, but you can't bring yourself to admit it. You have convinced yourself that I am what you have branded me. You still want the world to see me as something that I am not.
Now you see how conservatives feel about the Gitmo prisoners.
FormDem, I got your "racism" metaphor. See my response below. It's not the same, and using big words won't make it so.
By the way, you are claiming that you're not a racist, but we have seen what we want to. By your logic, the Gitmo prisoners, are, in fact, innocent.
So you're advocating for the mass imprisonment of innocent people. Great. We tried a similar policy during WWII. I know I see that as one of our greatest decisions...
How much money does your Straw Man Business make? Good lord, do you believe your own manure?
Clearly, you aren't going to answer your question. You tossed out a racist nugget out there, got called out on it, and now you are just thrashing around trying to turn the subject to something else, ANYTHING else. "You know that the truth is that I have done nothing wrong...." no I don't. Because you won't even TRY to defend yourself. Do you really think that this Reverse Psychology 101 crap works on anyone over the age of six?
No wonder you are so comfortable in your conservative mindset. It's all about bloviating, then denying you said what you said when you get questioned. Misdirection, smokescreens, anything except ADMITTING YOU SCREWED UP. No, better to claim that everyone who read your post is sick and bigoted because they saw the racism that "isn't there."
You are an absolute riot. For the record, I don't think you are a dangerous person. I think you are a sad, severely limited person, but not dangerous. No one who is as obviously frightened as you are is at all dangerous.
What a joke. And now we've sworn in an even "bigger joke". Or something that rhymes with that.-- Former Democrat
Stilll waiting. Just explain this sentance. Go on.
I'm neither "blinded by hatred" nor "flat out furious." That's you. If anything I may have enjoyed watching you crash and burn a little too much.
And no, you're not a dangerous person, any more than any other pathetic sap who, looking at this historic election, sees how marginalized he has become.
So your interest is "America" and ours is "Obama"? You have done nothing on this thread but tell us what we believe. We all want the terrorists who attacked us. We don't want innocent people to be held indefinitely - and there WERE innocent people there. Also, as the good Colonel pointed out above, if YOU were detained by a foreign nation, would you be more or less likely to attack them when you were released?
There is a reason why the left decries Bush's response. We do hold the terrorists responsible, but we can't stop crazy psychos who want to kill us. We have to rely on our government to protect us. Bush didn't protect us on 9/11, and he arguably created more enemies than he captured.
I don't think that Obama being President will end terrorism. But I don't think Obama will ignore terror threats just because the information came from holdovers from the previous administration that his political allies didn't like (see; Richard Clake).
i don't know how we'll stop people in the Middle East deciding that they want to kill us. I know your response would just be to kill them all. Unfortunately, unless you are advocating for mass genocide, there will always be more people to fill their shoes, and the more we act like them, the less of a moral foothold we have.
if YOU were detained by a foreign nation, would you be more or less likely to attack them when you were released?
If I were detained by a foreing nation, I wouldn't count on having my head attached to the rest of my body for long.
In fact, if I were detained (innocent or not), I would probably PRAY that I would wind up at a place like Gitmo, and I would PRAY for the kind of food that is served there. I would PRAY for a good waterboarding break. It would, no doubt, be MUCH better than what would really happen.
But for some reason, WE are the ones that need to take the moral high road? Someone please explain that one to me.
But for some reason, WE are the ones that need to take the moral high road? Someone please explain that one to me.
Because that's what it means to be good and moral. It means trying your best to do the right thing, not simply the emotionally satisfying thing. A radical Islamic terrorist blames his personal suffering on a myth of "Evil America" and strikes out any and every thing that he can find that represents that to him. One's immediate gut reaction is to strike back with the same indiscriminate rage. But the right and moral thing to do is to strike at those responsible, not just lash out blindly, making the cycle of violence grow and most likely missing those who were guilty.
Shutting down Gitmo is not about appeasement or reasoning with terrorists, it's about following the moral rules of this country and determining guilt based on reality, not on fear and imagination. Given the history of intelligence failures leading up to 9/11 and through the beginning of the Iraq war, how can anyone simply take it on faith that those locked away in those times were done so because they really were a threat?
Or a simpler answer- Nobody has to take the moral high road. But if you don't, then where have your own morals gone?
"Someone please explain that one to me."
Again, it has to do with the oath you took when you were inducted into the US Navy.
"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Unfortunately, they will never understand until it's one of THEIR family members whose remains were found smashed between floors 95 and 96 of the south tower.
Your really are a scared little boy/girl. Read John Dean's book Conservatives Without Conscience. It's all about people like you.
former dem,
Notice the recurring theme in this thread about the terrorists detained at Gitmo? They haven't been proven guilty...they were swooped up with no justification...the policies of Pres.Bush have gone beyond the pale in usurping civil liberties and justice...what proof do we have to suspect their bad intentions.
On the other hand...many of those same criers of jingoism and unwarranted actions by Pres.Bush in detaining these terrorists without proof...claim that the twin towers attack could have been averted if only Pres.Bush had paid attention to an obscure and unspecific Aug01 PDB memo.
It's laughable, unprincipled and nothing more than rancorous partisan yammer.
The guy had numerous warnings in the summer of 2001 and he chose to focus his attention on other things.
obscure and unspecific Aug01 PDB memo
You mean the one with the headline "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"?
Yes, he should have paid attention instead of staying on vacation, eliminating Richard Clarke from the cabinet meetings, cutting anti-terrorist funding, fishing with poppy, clearing brush, and biking through scenic Maryland.
Failure through trying is acceptable. Failure through ignorance and denial is treasonous.
No I mean the PDB dated 4 DEC 98 with the headline "Subject: Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.
PDB for clinton 4DEC98
Yes, he (slicky) should have paid attention instead of staying on vacation with the kennedy's , listened to Richard Clarke, erecting walls between the clandestine services, playing with buddy, and philandering with monica.
I agree...failure through ignorance and denial IS treasonous.
It is a possibility that had his admin taken the threats more seriously they may have been prevented. But that does not make Bush actually responsible for the attacks and I really hate it when my fellow utra-lib leftist elitists go down that road. Bush failed to stop 9/11, but he may not have been able to if he had tried and he did not cause it and certainly did not want any such thing to happen.
That does not excuse his over-reactions in engaging in extra-constitutional tactics and pursuing a war of agression that has severly damaged this country. We should have stayed in Afghanistan and finished the job, not run off to settle a decade old score that posed no imminent threat of any kind to this country and further destabilized an extemely volatile global region.
It's laughable, unprincipled and nothing more than rancorous partisan yammer.
Wesley, it's alright. I forgive you for it.
It's you and Wesley who don't understand. You guys want America to sell its soul because you’re frightened. And I say grow a set.
By way of innuendo, FD called Obama the N-word. What valuable insight.
Former member of the democrat party,
I applaud your reminder of the hatred that radical islamic terrorists have for the life of freedom which we enjot in western culture. We need to have those images before us to keep us from the September 10th mindset that leftists cling to.
Many here see victory in our loss of safety and national security, you know the 'chickens coming home to roost' crowd. Even the fact that that acts of terror on our soil have virtually disappeared, except for a few eco-whackjobs, is not reason to celebrate but to impunge the work the last 8 years to prevent this.
I marvelled at the response at a press conference today of Obama's spokesman when asked what will happen when/if Osama is captured now that Guantanimo will be closed. It was basically, "duh? I'll get back to you." They have no plan which probably means this administration has little desire to persue terrorists to the full extent. If they had thought about, they would have indicated what specifically they will do with terrorists captured on the battlefield from here on in. Maybe they will follow goofy Jack Murtha's lead and move them into his district, I guess he is planning an addition to his doublewide!
Keep up the good work and reminding lefties of how they positioned themselves against victory over terrorists whether in Iraq or here in America.
What is a "September 10th mindset"?
Something Sean Hannity told ProudTalkingPointBleater that liberals have.
I've only encountered one group of people that seem to have forgotten 9/11, and those are conservatives who insist that Bush kept us safe for 8 years.
That's why they need to post pictures of the horror- to keep themselves scared enough that they can rationalize abandoning all of the values that America stands for.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
I find it interesting that others and yourself are sooooo offended by those pictures.
Very telling.
More projection. And another racist. Get better soon.
Very telling (Bonelesschicken)
I don't know if I'd say I'm offended at the pictures. A little disgusted that some of my fellow Americans need to look at them like terror pornography in order to get in the mood for Constitution--f***ing.
Nobody has forgotten 9/11, except, possibly, those of you who want to appease the terrorists by making America more like the backwards theocracies that produce them.
If my post is "telling" you anything other than what a pathetic sissy you are, you're not listening.
That these terrorists are just criminals that experience poverty in their childhood, have rights that enemy soldiers in uniform possess, have reasonable grievances against us that deep down, leftists believe justify their actions against mean America, we ought to look at rehabilitation rather than punishment, America is just as bad as the terrorists and terrorism, trying to kill them is way over the top and not a proportioned response to their misbehavior.....Shall I go on?
<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} p {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
1. Bin Laden and Zawahiri come from wealthy families.
2. Anyone who is accused of committing a crime has rights.
3. We should not change our way of life based on what some thugs do.
4. I would say Bush is as bad as any terrorist and should be prosecuted for war crimes.
5. The way you marginalize and destroy extremists like Bin Laden and Zawahiri is to shrink the pool from which they recruit. Bombing countries that are predominately Muslim has the opposite effect. It massively increases that pool and puts our country in more danger.
Where do you get this stuff? Your response is a parody of the stereotypes created by the right but have little to do with reality.
Until each sides stops defining the other side there can't be a dialogue.
Calling the President of the United States of America a N*****?
That, mein freunds, is comedy gold!
It's hilairty like that that makes me wonder why-ever did the American People decide that these racist, fear-addled psychos needed to be forced away from the wheels of power?
Don't prejudge Former Democrat! I'm sure he's going to defend himself, and explain how it was all a misunderstanding. Any moment now...
"And now we've sworn in an even "bigger joke". Or something that rhymes with that." - Former Democrat
C'mon, you can do it! If you can lie about having been a Democrat, and lie about your military service, surely it won't be a problem to lie your way out of calling the President of the United States of America a N*****.
Hey, here's an idea: You meant that President Obama is a "Bigger Poke". See? Clever huh?
Or a "Bigger Bloke"?
How about a "Bigger Toke"? See there, you can get a cowardly deniable jab into Preident Clinton too. Its a twofer!
You know you want to lie your way out of it. Lying is second-nature to you. Isn't it, "Swabby"?
USS George Washington (CVN-73) OPS/OC division 1999-2003. Don't go there.
I called Obama a joke. You're dreaming up the rest. Where's the habeus corpus? Where's the tolerance? Where's the fair trial? Where's the cry to defend my innocence?
I've made my point.
Too much. Who do you think you're kidding? Seriously.
What a joke. And now we've sworn in an even "bigger joke". Or something that rhymes with that.-- Former Democrat
Rhymes with what?
And please, stop the bawling, it's beneath you, Mr. Soldier Man.
I hope you are retired military. We expect more of our Defenders than the whiny, bed-wetting crying that you have been doing since being confronted with your own words.
Come on, if you can't defend your own posts, how can we expect you to defend the Homeland?
USS Taussig (DD-746) Fire Control Technician 1964-1968, E5, Vietnam vet. I'm going there.
Former Democrat / Current Mentally Disturbed Liar, you have made no point--certainly not in this thread
You are a "Greek of nature"...or something that rhymes with that.
Maybe he delivered cargo to the ships. He may be a docktrucker. Or something that rhymes with that.
(shhh.. I've played a very clever psychological trick , while saying nothing)
"Whoa... what the heck are you talking about?"
Are you saying he's an "unceasing wit" or something that rhymes with that?
Silly bunt?
After your little fright fest above I'd say your being treated lightly.
Serving on George um. I've worked on her and every other CVN in the fleet. So how many decks between the hangerbay and the main deck? What is the most significant item in an RAR? Just to see if you might have credibility somewhere.
The "Main Deck" is just below the hangar bay. It would be referred to as deck 2. Above the hangar bay are levels. The 01, 02, and 03 levels are above the hangar bay. The flight deck is above the 03. My berthing was 3-64-2-l just below the forward galley in a little nook behind the pay phones. My work space was 03-180-0-C. CATCC. The repair locker that we reported to during GQ was 7b. So to answer your question. there aren't any "decks" between the hangar bay and the main deck, as the main deck is just below the hangar bay.
You clearly paid close attention to the tour guide, and kept your brochure. Mazel tov!
So what you're saying is seaman eweston doesn't know what in hades he's talking about...
Fraud. In any current CVN you descend two decks from the hangerbay to enter the main deck. Did you somehow overlook the RAR question? Each carrier has two. The significant item is a reacter.
Like many here I'm also a nam viet, Sensor#1, Crew 5, VP-1, and its been a long time since I've been on a P-3B Difar retrofited airplane. I think I can remember creditable details of it.
Well that's a flat out lie. The third deck is highly compartmentalized and there are no main passageways that connect one section of it to others. Hardly a main deck. In fact, in most spaces on the third deck, the only exits are ladders that lead to the second deck. If you have truly "worked on her and every other CVN in the fleet", surely you would realize that it's a hangar bay and not a "hangerbay".
There is only one "main" deck on any vessel. That intermediary deck does have limited access. Still somehow you do have to phyisically pass though its height. Sorry, trick question?
Naval jargon spelling is optional for a yardbird, much less using a ships name. We usually reffered its hull# and perhaps hull type, as in CVN,CGN, or SSN I enjoyed no opportunity to have to spell hangerbay professionally in a quarter century of employment as a yardbird.I've never in that time there, had the pleasure of meeting anyone there quite like you. Some displayed parts of you, but homicidal idiocy just never seemed enter the places I was. The closest would be the private contractors who would do a bad job on cleaning the shipyard heads and leave racist graffetee behind.
Assuming that you now have some access to CVN information you should be able to tell me what RAR means.
You still have many options for burying yourself deeper.
101st Airborne Division, 1969-70 Hue/Phu Bai 11B
You are a disgrace.
"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
I suspect that someone needs to explain to Former Democrat that going to the gift shop at Valley Forge isn't exactly the same as serving on the USS George Washington.
Profanity?
Spectacular wingnut meltdown, FD.
it's not unusual for you guys to eventually lose your cool and lash out with a racist comment or two, but...
Coming back and explaining your "bigger joke" comment as some sort of social experiment mixed with a very bad analogy and a parlor trick,... Kudos!
I actually feel kind of bad about it now. But really- if, almost two hours ago, he had just posted "I apologize, it was a bad, off-the-cuff joke," it would have been over.
Instead, he tried to ignore Craig's post pointing out the "joke," then lashed out that WE were the ones with the problem.
Sigh. "It's not the lie, it's the cover up." Every time.
I know it's probably just some lonely kid with a bunch of video games and no girlfriend, so it's a little sad, but it could actually be somebody who votes. Best bellyflop I've seen in a while here, though. Mind-boggling failure.
What took you so long? Your search engine running slow tonight?
What a joke. And now we've sworn in an even "bigger joke". Or something that rhymes with that.-- Former Democrat
Want to give it another try?
How could we rule out the possibility that those who committed terrorist acts after being released did so as a result of their being wrongfully detained without trial or contact with the outside world or their families? How do we know they committed acts of terrorism before being detained?
Troglodytes like Former Democrat apparently believe that mere suspicion is enough to lock these guys up indefinitely. If you ask them to defend their position, they point to 9/11 as if that act summarily condemns all Muslims.
I suppose we could post pictures of black men hanging from trees and say that we are therefore justified in locking up all Southern white racists indefinitely without trial. Please explain the difference.
These Republicans were all about the "Rule of Law" when they were trying to drag down Bill Clinton. Now they're so afraid that they are willing to sell their souls to be safe from the evil Muslims.
Former Democrat's argument is based on emotion and blind fear. There is no way to prevent all future crimes or all future acts of Terrorism. Even if you drag all the Guantanamo detainees out and shoot them tomorrow, some terrorist is still going to kill some American somewhere sometime.
Life just sucks that way. Come out from under your bed.
Here's what's offensive to me in this thread. 1) FD has not explained what his rhyme is, and probably won't. 2) Clinton has to take responsibility, according to some posters for both the 1993 attacks and the 2001 attacks without logical explanation. If Bush gets credit for no attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11/01, Clinton has to get the same credit from 1993-2001.
Here are the problems I have with the notion Bush is to be given credit. 1) He didn't want a 9/11 commission initially to investigate the attacks. 2) He would not testify about 9/11 under oath, without Dick Cheney or publically. Why? 3) According to the 9/11 commission, his reaction to their bi-partisan recommendations was a complete and abject failure. The commission gave them 5 D's, 12 F's and two incompletes among other grades: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/05/AR2005120500097.html
As far as Gitmo, etc. If you want to make more enemies, keep picking up fathers, sons and family members and deny them justice. Keep torturing people without giving the United States its day in court as well. If we keep holding people without evidence, we lose our moral superiority. We are the greatest country on earth. Its time we act like it.
Remember these comments about Clinton going after terror targets?:
Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV):
Oh, and before you go off on me, FD. I lost someone I knew, not too well, but I knew him on 9/11.