Don't Listen To The Useful Idiots: Hold The Line On Gitmo
Someday, politicians will surprise me again, but don't count on it.
Now, it looks like it's the Republicans who are crying out for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison. The funny part is, they want it closed just to avoid media scrutiny. Forget doing what they know is right - keeping illegal combants locked away, individuals who would be (WARNING: downloading and watching the the conent from the following links will be highly disturbing - You Have Been Warned) more than happy to saw off your head as a publicity stunt.
So...the Republicans are simply chicken, a bunch of cowards. They don't want to withstand media scrutiny. Who the hell is running things?
I have no illusions...politicians have rarely been accused of being brave enough to do the right thing. Democrats are just as guilty of this as Republicans.
To those who would release the Gitmo prisoners - I'd be interested to hear your reasoning, although I probably won't agree and would ask questions in return to see if I could understand where you're coming from. I'll make the opening salvo: Why would you support radicals who would force you to live under Shar'ia law? Are you that desperate? As a people, we shouldn't even put up with anything that smacks of support for those people.
To those who would move the Gitmo prisoners to the continental US - Same thing, but in addition, why would you allow these scum to have the same rights that you enjoy as a US citizen? By moving them to the US, they become subject to our laws. This seems like an awefully generous gesture to a group of people who want us all dead.
Remember, the Gitmo prisoners are there legally - they were captured on the field of battle bearing arms against US troops, without a uniform, or any indication of belonging to any military force. This makes them illegal combatants under the Geneva Convention, and per that document, they do not enjoy any rights of a "normal" soldier, much less a citizen of the US.
As an aside, it's a real hoot how foreign media sources are calling Gitmo a "torture facility". They apparently bought into the Amensty International "Gulag of our times" statement. Calling Gitmo a gulag is like equating Disneyland to Auschwitz.
Yes...I'm saying that the Gulags were worse than Auschwitz. The Gulags killed 10x the number of people killed by the Nazis, in equally, if not more, horrific methods. At least as a prisoner of the Nazi's you had a chance of simply getting gassed. In the Gulags, you'd be tortured into confessing a crime you probably didn't commit, then either being executed, worked to death, or a combination.
Now, it looks like it's the Republicans who are crying out for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison. The funny part is, they want it closed just to avoid media scrutiny. Forget doing what they know is right - keeping illegal combants locked away, individuals who would be (WARNING: downloading and watching the the conent from the following links will be highly disturbing - You Have Been Warned) more than happy to saw off your head as a publicity stunt.
So...the Republicans are simply chicken, a bunch of cowards. They don't want to withstand media scrutiny. Who the hell is running things?
I have no illusions...politicians have rarely been accused of being brave enough to do the right thing. Democrats are just as guilty of this as Republicans.
To those who would release the Gitmo prisoners - I'd be interested to hear your reasoning, although I probably won't agree and would ask questions in return to see if I could understand where you're coming from. I'll make the opening salvo: Why would you support radicals who would force you to live under Shar'ia law? Are you that desperate? As a people, we shouldn't even put up with anything that smacks of support for those people.
To those who would move the Gitmo prisoners to the continental US - Same thing, but in addition, why would you allow these scum to have the same rights that you enjoy as a US citizen? By moving them to the US, they become subject to our laws. This seems like an awefully generous gesture to a group of people who want us all dead.
Remember, the Gitmo prisoners are there legally - they were captured on the field of battle bearing arms against US troops, without a uniform, or any indication of belonging to any military force. This makes them illegal combatants under the Geneva Convention, and per that document, they do not enjoy any rights of a "normal" soldier, much less a citizen of the US.
As an aside, it's a real hoot how foreign media sources are calling Gitmo a "torture facility". They apparently bought into the Amensty International "Gulag of our times" statement. Calling Gitmo a gulag is like equating Disneyland to Auschwitz.
Yes...I'm saying that the Gulags were worse than Auschwitz. The Gulags killed 10x the number of people killed by the Nazis, in equally, if not more, horrific methods. At least as a prisoner of the Nazi's you had a chance of simply getting gassed. In the Gulags, you'd be tortured into confessing a crime you probably didn't commit, then either being executed, worked to death, or a combination.
posted by cookies at 7:41 AM
3 Comments:
Fair enough - but innocent of what? It's my undertanding that they're there as illegal combatant POW's.
The only ppl in Gitmo, at least to the best of my knowledge, were those taken from Afganistan after fighting with US forces.
I certainly don't have perfect information, so any info you have to contradict or supplement mine is certainly welcome.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
there has to be at least one that was illegitimately detained. Those people, if they exist (and statistically it's likely), are being treated harshly and will not receive trials until their release a long time from now
There has to be at last one? What statistical method and/or study suggests there must be one? Even if you have a 6 sigma CI for "at least one" the idea that there "must be one" is nonsense and contradicts to the very nature of probability itself. "Must be X" and "statistics" are contradictory.
Even though you back off a bit later with "(and statistically, it's likely)" what evidence, study, statistical sample are you using to arrive at this conclusion? Do you have a CI (and what value) for this statement?
Don't toss around mathematical ideas you don't understand to prop up your argument. You damage the credibility of stats when you do that. Everyone's an armchair statistician it seems.
Post a Comment
<< Home