• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group

QUOTE=Arch EnemyHell, read the document, it's loaded with examples. Do your own homework... educate thyself.







And it goes on and on and on...

We have bombed Libya. They have partaken in terrorism. They have killed innocents, and they had tools to start a nuke program.

With your reasoning, your reaction to bin laden would be... hell... they sit in caves and train like it was the 1920's. What can a bunch of (using Clinton's words to Mansoor Ijaz) "ragheads" do?


Aide: Clinton Unleashed bin Laden

Libya had greater capabilities and resources than Osama.



See, my eyes started bleeding as soon as I scanned your post and realized you are on the "blame Clinton for Osama" band-wagon. I am not even drunk anymore don't make my eyes bleed. These partisan cheap-shots make me sick "Bush unleashed Osama!" "No! Bush got the danger that Clinton left intact" "No! Wait! Bush Sr was in the region at one point, screwing around just blowing up the entire Iraqi military, it's his fault" "No! It was Jimmy Carter and his CIA goonies who trained and supplied Mujahideen!"

The rest makes sense.

I don't see the point in pointing out he who failed. With the exception of the whole CIA arming thing, that was a bit ridiculous in my opinion, way too much fear over Leninism.
 
Quit playing stupid yourself. Just because fuhrer Bush and his minions claim that the people at Gitmo were or are terrorists does not mean they are. In the western world we still try to live after the rule of law, including the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty.

I'll believe Bush sooner than what non-Americans will say. He has to live here, so he's going to be a tad more concerned.

Also it seems to me, that you are willing to give a far more legal rights and access to the legal system, than you are a bunch of men that you have only the word of a fascist Bush administration that they are "dangerous".

It's the Bush Admin. not the fascist Bush Admin. These detainees are not American citizens, so they don't have to get the same access as citizens would, but many of them could well be "child rapists, a mass murder and other criminals" because usually if you do very hate-filled things in one area you'll do it in all areas. Criminals are criminals.

Fact is that out of the 500+ men and boys held at gitmo (yes there have been children held there and still are), a majority, yes a majority have been released, without charge but also labelled as innocent of any "terrorist activities". It is funny how this, to a right winger, who supposedly is the staunch defender of the rule of law and the ideals of the USA, suddenly totally ignores these facts.

Hey, if they got released that means they haven't been forgotten. Kids can be considered adults for various offenses in the US. A judge will make that decision based on the severity of the crime. Kids can kill, so I don't feel sorry for them. Usually kids can reason well before the age of 8.

Yes there are bad men at Gitmo, but if the US has proof that they are bad.. put them on trial.

Different rules apply for these detainees. They aren't citizens, but they may also not be considered POW's, so this is not a super easy thing to decide what to do.

If you believe in the principles of the USA, then you should never ever accept that your government hold people of any nationality, in prison without charge, without any legal access or any access at all for long periods of time, and let alone let them be tortured by your own government. You should be up in arms defending the very principles that your troops, your father, grandfather and others died defending in WW2 and other wars.. and yet you are not only silent, but actually supportive of such fascist acts by your own government.

You know some countries might just accidently kill them. Now that would be more like fascism. Innocent people do get caught up in situations that can be uncomfortable. This is a fact of life. I'd say in old Iraq if a reporter threw his shoes at Saddam he would end up in a wood chipper. Bush smiled about it, and joked. Wonder if Obama would do the same. I bet not, but who knows. You want the US government to be especially courteous to people who have acted in ways that were possibly harmful to US citizens. Most are there for a reason. You can't say that they all are completely innocent. There were like 14 men involved in 9/11 that killed almost 3,000 people, so I think it's definitely better to err on the side cautiousness.

As for this guy. This happens in a world where we believe in the principle of the rule of law. Murders do get off free because we can not prove they did it. It is the price we have to pay for not having a dictatorship that locks up undesirables in gulags for most of their lives. It is the price of freedom and the difference between us and them..

We know this, but it works both ways. Sometimes murderers get off, but it's pretty rare. Sometimes innocents get caught up because of the company they keep. If you are hanging with your best buddy and he decides to kill some guy who owes him $10, you are guilty by association. The triggerman takes all his buds with him if they are with him in the commission of a felony.

Also Laila is absolutely correct. He could very well have been turned to a life of terror in Gitmo, because he was abused and now wants revenge against those that abused him. I am not saying that it is the truth, but I can also not claim that it is rubbish.. you and I have no idea what is going on in this man's mind after being held at Gitmo.

This is his choice. People validate what they do in many different ways. It's just as easy to turn yourself around and learn from your mistakes, and be grateful you still have a life left to live.

Yes the US is at war with this mythical no discript thing called terror.. but where is the limit of what terror is and what you can do to not only prevent terror but punish those that are suspected of this terror. Do you give up the very principles that so cherish because of fear? This is what the US has done.. today a woman slapping her own children on an air plane can be charged and convicted of terror... is that right? Is that what the US has come too? A person robbing a bank.. is he now a terrorist and can be held under terror laws? A person smuggling drugs.. is she a terrorist and be held under terror laws? Where do you stop?

This is a vast exaggeration. Terror isn't a myth, it's a fact. A woman slapping her kid might get charged with child abuse. A person robbing a bank is committing robbery. A person smuggling drugs is a drug smuggler. Someone who carries a bomb onto a plane is a terrorist. Same goes for any weapon with the intent to commit terror. There are names for a gazillion different crimes and terror has it's own way to be defined as such.
 
OK. I have read this thread, and here is what I see:

1) There is a huge debate in this thread about whether Obama is soft on terrorism, because one of the released detainees showed up at a terrorist training camp.

2) The rabid dogs of the GOP smear machine (Yes, those roaches haven't been stomped out......YET) are using this issue to smear Obama.

3) Much of the information presented by the smear machine is debatable, with no hard sources. I am not talking about this particular case, but the point that they are making that there are 61 of them, a point drudged up on the Sunday talk shows.

But guess what? I am willing to give Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Drudge the benefit of the doubt. For my final point, let's assume that what they are saying is true.....

4) The terrorist was not released by Obama. In fact, Obama had not even taken office. He was released by George Bush!!

Republicans are soft on terror!!
 
Last edited:
See, my eyes started bleeding as soon as I scanned your post and realized you are on the "blame Clinton for Osama" band-wagon. I am not even drunk anymore don't make my eyes bleed. These partisan cheap-shots make me sick "Bush unleashed Osama!" "No! Bush got the danger that Clinton left intact" "No! Wait! Bush Sr was in the region at one point, screwing around just blowing up the entire Iraqi military, it's his fault" "No! It was Jimmy Carter and his CIA goonies who trained and supplied Mujahideen!"
The left made a big stink about "connecting-the-dots". Clinton had the opportunity to get Osama; twice the Sudanese offered him up.

http://archive.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3
He admits to passing on Osama, even though he was an unindicted co-conspirator for the 1993 WTC bombing.

That's what happens when you have a president concerned about image vs. substance, polling his way through his presidency.

Sandy Berger thieving classified documents from the national Archives wasn't to protect Osama.

I don't see the point in pointing out he who failed. With the exception of the whole CIA arming thing, that was a bit ridiculous in my opinion, way too much fear over Leninism.
I think it is wise to find breakdowns and identify them publicly; Gorellick inspired roadblocks, missing the opportunity to bring a terrorist to justice. It helps make officials accountable for their actions and non-actions. Someone must be accountable, and that someone is The Clintons and their gang.
 
Back
Top Bottom