Guantanamo Bay

[Either lost or never posted.]

January 25, 2009

barry wants to close down Guantanamo bay and give detainees due process?

How can you release savages whose only expressed purpose in life is to kill Americans and rally more to do the same? The Geneva Convention did not have these evil killing machines and human detonators in mind. WWII vet still can't understand the Japanese Komikaze's actions but they were defending their honor, their Emperor and their country during a war against their known enemy, who was willingly engage in the fight. Pearl Harbor was not entirely unexpected.

The guilty beasts do not deserve to roam free. The problem is deciphering the truly innocent. But if the innocent have been treated as if guilty - what are their sentiments now? Is it possible to walk out of their without hatred toward their captors and American in general?

What is clear is that the evil ones can never be let free. And that they do not deserve the benefits afforded American citizens, including due process. To do so would fly in the face of the 2973 innocents murdered on 911 and disrespect all the American POWs.

Why can't Guantanamo Bay still be utilized with UN overseeing? They needed to be housed somewhere and not in America. Sending them to foreign lands - especially Arab countries will accomplish nothing. What interest do they have in them? The Arab world doesn't even care about keeping the innocent Palestinians safe.

Bottom line will always be retribution. If nations help - they will be targeted. Simple as that.

And if you don't want them in Guantanamo Bay then lock them up in Alcatraz.

Anyway. Here's a couple of interesting articles to read for thiose who want to bring these beasts to the American mainland.

The Memri blog has a story about a video Message from Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula posted on Al-Faluja on January 23rd that reportedly shows four beasts - two of whom were released from Guantanamo Bay - urging their fellow savage beasts to:

• Assist the Palestinians in Gaza.
• They called for attacks on Western interests in order to pressure them to stop aiding Israel.
• They warned imprisoned mujahideen of the Saudi "counseling program to reeducate extremists".
• And they cautioned the Saudis to stop protecting Western embassies, churches, and military bases.

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this report and in order to read the rest one has to register to sign in. Not happening. Our blog has enough problems with censorship.

It's time for barry and The American People to realize that a stump line promise made before hearing a single Intelligence briefing means absolutely nothing.

Yes. Torture is not acceptable.

Yes. Innocents should be weeded out.

And yes. Future captured guilty and avowed killers should be treated humanely.

But they should never be allowed on US mainland soil. The risk is too great. Witness how American gangs already operate from inside American prisons.

Recall how barry made a politically expedient speech about Iraq in 2002. Recall how he said folks should have read the intelligence briefings before making a decision about Iraq. Recall how he took that speech off his website until it was politically expedient again. Recall how he ever spoke out in 2004 at the Convention. Where was his superior judgment and readiness to lead then?

Recall how he said he could not have been sure what he would have done. Recall how he did not speak out about Iraq until over a year passed once he got to the Senate. Recall how he voted exactly the same as Senator Clinton once he got there and that he did not hold meetings in his Senate committee to further efforts in Afghanistan - the reason why he spoke out against Iraq.

Recall his stance when he announced his run for presidency in February 2007. He said he would have combat troops home by March of 2008. Home 13 months from his announcement - 2 months after the Iowa caucus - 5 months before the Convention - 8 months before the general election and 10 months before his potential Inauguration.

Superior judgment?

Recall his changing position on Iraq prior to Iowa, throughout the Primaries, during the general, during the transition and now. What are they at present? Anyone? Deferring to his commanders and a responsible withdrawal? Why is he conferring with Senator McCain who wants to keep troops there "for a 100 years"?

How did barry's positions on Iraq differ from Senator Clinton's? The woman he said only experience in visiting 83 countries - at least 50 countries and 2 continents more that he - was having tea with ambassadors? The woman who received the same amount of votes? The woman he picked for Secretary of State?

Experience vs judgment?

Whose judgment and experience is he relying on?

Who had it all along?