• 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!

Guantanamo Detainees May Be Released in U.S

Goobieman

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Guantanamo Detainees May Be Released in U.S.

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Eric Holder said some detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may end up being released in the U.S. as the Obama administration works with foreign allies to resettle some of the prisoners.

Mr. Holder, in a briefing with reporters, said administration officials are still reviewing individual cases of the approximately 250 detainees to determine which will be put on trial and which may be released to comply with plans to close the detention facility by next year.
Click to expand...
Guantanamo Detainees May Be Released in U.S. - WSJ.com

Question for The Obamanation:
If one (or more) of these ex-detainees blows up a US city (or whatnot) how do you blame Bush?
 
Goobieman said:
Guantanamo Detainees May Be Released in U.S. - WSJ.com

Question for The Obamanation:
If one (or more) of these ex-detainees blows up a US city (or whatnot) how do you blame Bush?
Click to expand...


Since a maximum 24 of 700 Guantanamo detainees were actually terrorists, I would say that releasing a detainee who is known to be innocent would create a very small likelihood of a city being blown up. Or are you a subscriber of the mosaic theory?
 
Well i'm probably going to piss alot of people but good. US should be forced to take them
 
WillRockwell said:
Since a maximum 24 of 700 Guantanamo detainees were actually terrorists, I would say that releasing a detainee who is known to be innocent would create a very small likelihood of a city being blown up. Or are you a subscriber of the mosaic theory?
Click to expand...





I have never seen any poster just make up bull**** "facts" as often as you do. Jeesh... :lamo
 
WillRockwell said:
Since a maximum 24 of 700 Guantanamo detainees were actually terrorists
Click to expand...
Because I know you can't, I wont bother asking you to show tis to be true.


I would say that releasing a detainee who is known to be innocent would create a very small likelihood of a city being blown up. Or are you a subscriber of the mosaic theory?
Click to expand...
You didn't answer the question.
 
Laila said:
Well i'm probably going to piss alot of people but good. US should be forced to take them
Click to expand...
Don't you think that their home countries refusing take them says somehing?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I have never seen any poster just make up bull**** "facts" as often as you do. Jeesh... :lamo
Click to expand...

If you followed the news, you wouldn't keep referring to proven facts as bull****, and possibly even wouldn't look so ignorant

even for those two dozen or so of the detainees who might well be hardcore terrorists, there was virtually no chain of custody, no disciplined handling of evidence, and no attention to the details that almost any court system would demand. Falling back on "sources and methods" and "intelligence secrets" became the Bush administration's modus operandi to camouflage this grievous failing.
Click to expand...
Guest Post by Lawrence Wilkerson: Some Truths About Guantanamo Bay - The Washington Note

Perhaps you missed that article, it is fairly new, but then there's this...from 2004.

But as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on the legal status of the 595 men imprisoned here, an examination by The New York Times has found that ... only a relative handful -- some put the number at about a dozen, others more than two dozen -- were sworn Qaeda members or other militants able to elucidate the organization's inner workings.
Click to expand...
The New York Times > > U.S. Said to Overstate Value of Guantánamo Detainees

So I think I've proved the only bull**** here is BETWEEN YOUR EARS! Have a nice day :2wave:
 
WillRockwell said:
So I think I've proved the only bull**** here is BETWEEN YOUR EARS! Have a nice day :2wave:
Click to expand...
If you had actually looked at your sources, you'd note that neither of them -- one of them, an op-ed piece -- supplies any real backing for your claim.

...some put the number at about a dozen, others more than two dozen...
Click to expand...
Boy, thems HARD facts, there!!

:roll:

And you still havent answered the question.
 
Last edited:
WillRockwell said:
If you followed the news, you wouldn't keep referring to proven facts as bull****, and possibly even wouldn't look so ignorant


Guest Post by Lawrence Wilkerson: Some Truths About Guantanamo Bay - The Washington Note

Perhaps you missed that article, it is fairly new, but then there's this...from 2004.
Click to expand...


That's an "article"? :rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl


please prove no more than "24 of 700"....

I will wait.


The New York Times > > U.S. Said to Overstate Value of Guantánamo Detainees

So I think I've proved the only bull**** here is BETWEEN YOUR EARS! Have a nice day :2wave:
Click to expand...



Nice opinion piece, short on any facts. You suck at teh personal attackz.
 
WillRockwell said:
If you followed the news, you wouldn't keep referring to proven facts as bull****, and possibly even wouldn't look so ignorant.
Guest Post by Lawrence Wilkerson: Some Truths About Guantanamo Bay - The Washington Note
Click to expand...

Your link is an op-ed piece. People are certainly entitled to their opinion, but that doesn't make their opinion fact.

WillRockwell said:
Perhaps you missed that article, it is fairly new, but then there's this...from 2004.

But as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on the legal status of the 595 men imprisoned here, an examination by The New York Times has found that ... only a relative handful -- some put the number at about a dozen, others more than two dozen -- were sworn Qaeda members or other militants able to elucidate the organization's inner workings.
Click to expand...

The New York Times > > U.S. Said to Overstate Value of Guantánamo Detainees
Click to expand...

The NY Times has found that: only a relative handful--some put the number at about a dozen, others more than two dozen

So anywhere between 12-595 weren't high ranking members of AQ.

Just because they weren't part of the hiearchy of AQ, doesn't mean they're not "man made disasters", or enemy combatants/terrorists (as they were formerly known as).

The NY Times sources for all this "factual" information were:

In interviews, dozens of high-level military, intelligence and law-enforcement officials in the United States, Europe and the Middle East
 
Only if they happened to be American citizens, otherwise dump them off in their home countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom