Bush Read my Blog
I must have made a pretty decent argument here for closing Guantanamo bay. A mere three months later, it looks like the president has finished reading the post and has seen the logic of my argument.
Read how he has come to his senses here.
From the article...
"Our top court must still rule on whether they should go before a civil or military court," he said.
I had no idea that this entire time it was just a procedural hold-up! It sounds like the Supreme Court has way too many things to decide if five years on, they are no closer to a decision. Maybe they should get some flowers and pull petals,"Civil, Miliary, Civil, Military... ." Who knew it was that good for nothing Supreme Court who was holding up justice? (Don't worry, the irony hasn't been lost on me).
It sounds like there is a potential spoiler though...
"Every once and a while someone pops up and gets some press for saying 'Oh let's close Guantanamo Bay.' Well, if someone has a better idea, I'd like to hear it," Rumsfeld said in a February speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.
Yes Mr. Rumsfeld, like myself. I didn't get a lot of press at the time, but it looks like your boss read what I wrote and he is convinced that closing the place is a good idea. It only took five years for him to come to the conclusion many of us came to years ago, but better late than never.
I've said it before and I will say it again...
Close Guantanamo Bay.....Please!
Read how he has come to his senses here.
From the article...
"Our top court must still rule on whether they should go before a civil or military court," he said.
I had no idea that this entire time it was just a procedural hold-up! It sounds like the Supreme Court has way too many things to decide if five years on, they are no closer to a decision. Maybe they should get some flowers and pull petals,"Civil, Miliary, Civil, Military... ." Who knew it was that good for nothing Supreme Court who was holding up justice? (Don't worry, the irony hasn't been lost on me).
It sounds like there is a potential spoiler though...
"Every once and a while someone pops up and gets some press for saying 'Oh let's close Guantanamo Bay.' Well, if someone has a better idea, I'd like to hear it," Rumsfeld said in a February speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.
Yes Mr. Rumsfeld, like myself. I didn't get a lot of press at the time, but it looks like your boss read what I wrote and he is convinced that closing the place is a good idea. It only took five years for him to come to the conclusion many of us came to years ago, but better late than never.
I've said it before and I will say it again...
Close Guantanamo Bay.....Please!
posted by Praguetwin at
2:07 AM
13 Comments:
I've got a better idea for ya Rummy, how about making a firm decision as to whether the detainees are "prisoners of war," and therefore entitled to rights under the Geneva Conventions or...declaring them criminals and handing them over for prosecution.
Sheeesh!
By
Anonymous, at 3:18 AM
Good job! Now the prisoners will be tucked away where we can really get some info from them! Let the flogging begin!!!
In other words closing gitmo does at best nothing and at worst (or best depending upon how you look at it) opens the door to a whole "new" approach to interrogation. Do you think they will be getting hallal meat at their new digs??? You lefties crack me up sometimes.
Kvatch: How about we do to them what general Patton did to "insurgents" that were captured post WWII: tie them to a pole and shoot them.
By
Anonymous, at 5:54 AM
Twin my friend,
Please don't hold your breath. Take note he said this in Germany without his interpreter, and leaves plenty of room to sidestep it later. My thought is this will become a CIA project when the new director sits.
By
p_jordan_sr, at 9:36 AM
Kvatch,
That was the pretty much the thesis statement from my original article.
Word.
Arch, your sadistic fantasies aside, these prisoners are far too high profile to be "tucked away" as you say. If (and that is a big if), they close the prison, each prisoner will be either released or tried with plenty of fanfare.
I'm not sure what you think is so funny. Perhaps you should read the original post and you would understand why I think it should be shut.
Oh I get it, you think that they are living the high life in Gitmo, and any transfer, hell even freedom, would be a step down for them. Ok. Sure. Ok. I follow. Yea.
P. Jordorn Sr.,
No, I'm not holding my breath, I just had to post this because Bush himself was saying what I said back in Feburary. It is a good feeling when the politicians start to parrot your basic premises. That is the beauty of a blog: it is all documented and dated so I have proof!
I thought it already was a CIA deal, more or less.
By
Praguetwin, at 11:45 AM
Kvatch; Who’s to say that upon release, these detainees would not then be swept up by the indigenous law enforcement agencies of the country into which they were released? Furthermore I do not see that my advocating for a practice that is time tested a true as any sort of sadistic fantasy, rather I see it as an acknowledgment of the horrors of war. Do you think general Patton was sadistic? Or perhaps just a person doing a job that most of us cannot - and would not - want to relate to?
What I think is funny is this: If these people are released and then swept up as I suspect they will be, the place where they end up might just well make Gitmo look like a stay at the Holiday Inn relatively speaking.
By
Anonymous, at 5:10 PM
Yea,
But that is between them and Yemen. They get justice on their own countries terms.
I was the one talking about sadistic fantasies, arch, not Kvatch.
By
Praguetwin, at 5:43 PM
Kvatch
Duhh, Sorry, so much for putting an intelligent face on for conservatism.
PT
So tell me then, was general Patton a sadist.
By
Anonymous, at 7:32 PM
Never met the man.
By
Praguetwin, at 8:45 PM
OK, so could you not pass judgment on Hitler having never met the man... enough is enough, quit evading the question. Were general Patton’s executions of "insurgents" sadistic?
By
Anonymous, at 10:22 PM
No answer???
By
Anonymous, at 5:43 PM
That wasn't the question.
I don't know if the act was Sadistic. I don't know if he actually got pleasure from it: like I said, I never met the man.
I do know that those actions would be considered illegal today.
And while we are on it, since you seem to be schooled in the "horrors of war" why do you seem so fond of it?
Arch, I think you might be the sadist.
By
Praguetwin, at 5:15 PM
Please site for the audience at large how it would be illegal in the current day situation in Iraq for general Patton to execute saboteurs/insurgents. Saboteurs/insurgents are in no way protected by the Geneva Convention or international law. That you have a belief that they are protected as such is symptomatic of just how well the left has propagandized this war. Now it may well be that the generals are instructed not to do this in an effort to make the war more palatable for the good viewing TV audience back home, or to help the U.S. win the propaganda war that the “Islamic” fundamentalists and American left are waging so effectively, however; I do not believe it to be illegal. That this post is old and not actively being viewed, I would be interested to see if you would bring these issues up again as I think they are worth debate in the blogosphere.
As to your continued personal attacks on me: Just as a plumber may know how to remove fecal matter from blocked drain does not make him a scatopheliac, my understanding of the horrors of war doesn’t make me a sadist. Does your study of insurgency/counter insurgency make you either?
By
Anonymous, at 5:48 PM
It is not your understanding of war, but rather your fondness for war that leads me to suspect that you might be a satist. Let me ask you this: when you watched the first Gulf War on television, and you saw trucks getting blown up on bridges, did you get a thrill from it. You don't even have to answer me, just ask yourself.
Also, ask yourself this: did you ever see an American war you didn't like?
Yes, I'm sure it is only us viewing this at this point, so I will bring it up. I don't get a whole lot of traffic, but what little I do is pretty well informed.
I didn't say it was illegal according to the Geneva convention.I said it would be illegal today. You can't just line people up and shoot them, arch. It is illegal. Once you capture someone, they have to be given POW status, or tried as a criminal. (current actions of the administration notwithstanding)
The rule of law, and of humanity dictates this point. Even the wingers will agree with me on this. You can not just line people up and shoot them if you claim to follow the rule of law. Period.
By
Praguetwin, at 8:34 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home