I guess I'm missing something because why is this such huge news and why is Obama spending so much time with this issue???

And why the hell are the S.OB's in Prison still alive?? Throw these terrorists in the electric chair and GET RID OF THEM!! They are a waste of human flesh.

Kill 'em all!!!! Who cares if they are guilty or innocent????

What I want to know is why all of a sudden is Guantanamo Bay such a bad place?

It was fine to keep prisoners there for almost 60 years before Bush took office and put the terror suspects there.

Oh wait. I know. It's because the liberals hate Bush.

Might as well turn the terrorists loose. Maybe Lord Obama will welcome them to the US with open arms like Carter did to the criminals that Castro let out of jail.

http://obamaclock.org/

Obama clock is wishful thinking. I can remember Limbaugh had a countdown clock during Bill Clinton's first term.

It was fine until Bush decided to store people there without trying them. That's the issue. If they are indeed terrorists, try them and sentence them. If not, we shouldn't be holding them there indefinitely. When Iran did that to US citizens, we called them hostages.

Yes, but the US Citizens wern't tied to terrorist groups.

Fine. I agree try them and if found guilty execute them.

However it looks like Lord Obama want to put an end to the Military tribunals too.

Bill, Gitmo has become a symbol worldwide of what is wrong with the "war on terror:" torture and American hypocrisy about how prisoners should be treated. The message is: it's OK for America to detain prisoners indefinitely and even torture them if we wish, because we're America. But if you do, we'll condemn you and maybe even impose sanctions. Do as we say, not as we do!

Now, I have no doubt that there are some bad people at Gitmo. Unfortunately, they have not had access to any sort of fair legal process. Even if they aren't granted the rights of American citizens in US courts, there should be some sort of fair process. If they are guilty of crimes, then punish them as appropriate, even by death if the crime is that severe. From what I have heard, not all the detainees at Gitmo are murderers who should be executed, though, and some may even be innocent of any crimes. The few who have made it into the US court system have not exactly shown overwhelming evidence of guilt. The evidence against them may be tainted or trumped-up.

But detaining them forever makes America look bad around the world. It gives al Qaeda another recruiting item. America should be a symbol throughout the world of justice and fairness, a model for new democracies. Gitmo contradicts that entirely. I say, close it down.

If they want to close it, that's OK.

But only AFTER they try ALL the terrorists there.

Isn't it too bad the Bush administration dragged its feet for most of Bush's eight years in office on this? And any action at all happened only after the US Courts finally stepped in and forced them to do something about it.

Actually, from what I understand, Bush himself was long frustrated with the Guantanamo issue and wanted it "solved" - but this seems to be one area where Cheney held sway.

It's an established fact some of the prisoners released from Guantanamo have "gone back to the battlefield" overseas and killed American soldiers. The big question is where do we put them after closure? They're all Jihadist...only motive is to kill the infidels...us...the US...and a lot of US don't get it.

Terrorists caught in Iraq could possibility get off on a technicality - Bush's lies about WMDs -- so naturally Bush wouldn't dare have them tried on American soil and/or bases.

They're all Jihadist...only motive is to kill the infidels...us...the US...and a lot of US don't get it.

They all are? All of them? Then lop their heads off without a trial.

You make God weep Broadway.

It's an established fact some of the prisoners released from Guantanamo have "gone back to the battlefield" overseas and killed American soldiers.

Post a link to the American soldier(s) killed by someone released from Gitmo Bay.

Yeah, I'd like to see the "established fact" too.

...although to be honest, if you held me at Gitmo for seven years without trial or hearings then released me, I'd probably devote my life to revenge also, even if I had previously been innocent of a crime.

No doubt!

And doing the torture and denying them due process kind of hoses up the fair trial bit.

It's a no win, which is why the last administration really should have thought things through until the end.

BTW: Our constitution limits what government can do. If it's bad for us, it's bad for anybody. That's how it works.

>>see the "established fact"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/08/guantanamo.usa

Broadway, can you post a link to back up your claim above that, "some of the prisoners released from Guantanamo have 'gone back to the battlefield' overseas and killed American soldiers?" Evidence of that - anywhere?

Yup, killed American soldier, Broadway. Your words.

You apparently fabricated other parts of your story as well. The prisoner wasn't "released" as you stated, he was tried and aquitted in a Kuwaiti court.

Post a link please.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_yemen_al_qaida

Yes here is another... How many of these people do we deem nonrisk enough to release? yes while it is bad to hold these people for such long periods of time. I really think there is too much risk in letting them go.

I was just going to post that!! You beat me to it, David!

Here it is anyway; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481849,00.html

Transfer them and the responsibility to Iraqi prisons! And if the boat gets bombed and sinks en-route, well I guess it's just Ala's will be done!

DT, works for me!

Better yet, open the gates to the prison and when they step outside the fence, shoot them.

Hey. They were trying to escape!

Shoot 'em all!!!! Who cares if they are innocent or guilty of any crime?

Hell! They're all Mooslims!
The real God hates them anyway!

Skybill, David, and Broadway are all showing the "Ugly American" syndrome that has been so symptomatic of the Bush Adminstration policies and one of the reasons why our neighbors abroad no longer respect the US.

What ever happpened to "treat others as you'd like to be treated"? Does that only apply to Americans? Would you like to be treated like the detainees if you were picked up in a foreign country? I'll bet not!

It seems like a pretty simple concept to try these people and punish them or let them go. The implication that they "may" go out and committ more terrorist activity is not really a reason to not let them go. Otherwise we'd never release anyone from prison if we upheld that kind of threshold.

Gotta love how some here are whining about getting a taste of being reamed in the butt. And its only day three.

Oh wait. I know. It's because the liberals hate Bush.

Oh...... And the neo-CON fascist extreme right wing nut bags hate Obama. LimBLAH wants him to FAIL! He said it outright on his show. What a POS!

Hey, I'll take some. I need a roof and someone to keep up the yard. I figure I can use 4 thru September, then you can send them home as re educated with REAL SKILLS.

This dilemma of how to release, how to hold fair trials and such is a direct result of our former leaders inability to both understand our process and abide by it.

The quick and easy shortcuts just didn't turn out so quick and easy did they?

Of course they didn't.

This is why we don't do these kinds of things. Our options remain open, we have the higher ground and with that comes the ability to act in a just way, and not enter into unwinnable and untenable situations!

Now we've a Republican mess to clean up! The truth is there is very likely no solid solution for a lot of what was done. Best to end it, do the best we can, and take that as a direct object lesson as to why we shouldn't ever go down that road again.

Day three indeed!

Broadway!

It's standing room only here as we await a link to the dead American soldiers.

Yep, closing it is a good thing. Right.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483764,00.html

Maybe the new regime should negotiate with the terrorists before they let them go.

>>The real God hates them anyway

Not according to John 3:16.
(how can I get that is red?)

Just don't tell them which direction it is to Mecca,and feed em some bacon every day???

Actually, we would be wise to just preserve due process and not torture, so that we have a viable case and can render appropriate judgment.

That's why this whole thing is a mess.

Broadway, you do the color bit like this:

\red{Your Text}

So, if you insert your text between the curly braces thus:

\red{ your text here }

You get:

your text here

\khaki green{ I have a secret message that you have to copy over to see }

No I don't.

>>The real God hates them anyway

Not according to John 3:16.

Broadway,
FWIW I was being facetious.
It was a swipe at the hypocrisy of religious zealots (whatever their religion) to assume that God hates their enemies as much as they do.

Jon Stewart had an interesting take on the closing of Guantanamo (and where the prisoners will go) on Monday's episode of "The Daily Show:"

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=216568

It's in the first segment, before the Jimmy Carter interview all you conservatives will surely want to watch in its entirety.

>>>The real God hates them anyway
>
> Not according to John 3:16.

Why is it that the people of faith on this board--and not exclusively the more conservative ones--seem to have an inability to detect sarcasm or rhetorical irony when it appears in reference to religious concepts? This reminds me of the Ten Commandments discussion where several people "lectured" me that only Jesus himself would be able to keep the Commandments. I find the assumption that because somebody doesn't self-identify as a Christian or doesn't belong to a specific church, then that person must know nothing about Christian doctrine to be pretty insulting.

>>only Jesus himself would be able to keep the Commandments

True...can you?

>>that person must know nothing about Christian doctrine

he just needs to know more about the Creator God, Jesus Christ.

On topic...waiting to hear about Obama's post Guantanamo Bay policy...should be real interesting. Don't think he'll have one soon.

Broadway sez: On topic...waiting to hear about Obama's post Guantanamo Bay policy...should be real interesting. Don't think he'll have one soon.

Sort of like how we're waiting for a link to your claim about dead Americans. I don't think you'll have one soon either.

You dispense BS in your posts.

As Herb used to say; Not so fast!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/29/military-judge-refuses-halt-trial-uss -cole-bombing-suspect/

However, the Judge may get over ruled by his superiors.

They're moving Gitmo to Skamania County. They are going to beef up security up on Larch Mountain. Hey Skybill, you've got neighbors !!

http://www.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/gitmo_relocation_354

Skeptical-- go to NoLimits.org that is the new web site that Hillarys friends set up to network. You belong there. And go ahead and report me for being against Hillary.

Oh dear, Steve, shall we dig up a website or two where we think you "belong" too?

Andy--Please feel free to. By the way. This is the only site I usealy post on. I read Real Estate sites too. Skeptical has been gunning for me lately. I thought I would give him a positive suggestion.For a change. Regards Steve.

StevetheDJ, I gun for people who post claims on this forum that cannot be backed up with evidence, You're not the only one that ever came here and made stuff up.

So far you've not produced one single law that shows Hillary has been found guilty of breaking.

Not one.

You're making stuff up. Your reputation is shot because anything you say could be made up.

I don't appreciate being lied to so that's why you're under the gun.

DEar skeptical--Just because Hillary was found "not guilty" didn't mean she was not guilty. She is a lawyer and skilled stonewaller. Now please answer for me a question. O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of killing his wife. Do you believe him. Would you let your sister date him. Or for that matter let MIchael Jackson babysit your kids. After all Jackson was found not guilty.

Gitmo is probably more comfy than all "joints" in middle east!!!????

Stevethedj, your lack of education isn't serving you too good right now. You cannot make claims of fact based on a hunch or gut feeling. Either it is a fact or its not.

Also, trying to use emotional arguments would get you kicked off a junior high debate team. Refrain from doing that please.

If you THINK OJ is guilty of murder, then can say you THINK OJ killed his ex-wife. But the FACT of the matter is OJ has been found not guilty of killing Nicole Simpson.

To go around and say Hillary Clinton has been found guilty of breaking the law is libel. You don't have one single piece of evidence to support a comment like that. You'd lose your house should she take you to court.

You can say that you THINK Hillary is guilty of a crime because you'd be expressing your opinion. Had you done that I would have just ignored your post because everyone has opinions and are entitled to them.

Making a claim is a statement of fact. If no evidence exists to support it, don't make it.

Do you THINK OJ is guilty??

Ask Johnny Cochran!!!

https://www.goofball.com/photos/INC20050415125107?comment_id=520615

skeptical--
You dodged the question. Hillary is a public figure and can't sue me. There was enough evidence to have a special proscecutor and endless hearings in Congress. This can be found in the Congressional Record. So my opinion is not without fact to support it. Would you let your sister go out with O.J. and would you let Michael Jackson babysit your kids? It's like defensive driving. You can't prove the person in the next car or an oncoming car is drunk or distracted. Yet you watch out for your own safety.
Still waiting for your answer...
Your personal attack on me shows I have hit a nerve. I watched the hearings. It was not gut feeling or a hunch. Many times the only answer out of Hillary was "I don't recall..." or "Senator, I don't recall". I did not hear one straight answer to ANY of the questions asked. Now a honest person would not have any trouble answering some questions truthfully. But I suspect a liar "Just can't recall..." ANYTHING.

Ken Starr spend years and millions of dollars of US taxpayer money hounding the Clintons and in the end found nothing but lying about a BJ. Hillary did nothing wrong or Starr would have nailed her to the wall with it.

Did it ever occur to you, Steve, that the Whitewater issue was nothing but a Republican-led political witch hunt? This becomes quite clear after one reads the book "The Hunting of the President" by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons. Even the New York Times and the Washington Post - pillars of the so-called "liberal media" - wound up trying to beat each other to printing what turned out to be often false stories about the Clintons and Whitewater. Of course, you rarely saw the retractions on Page 1, because those aren't news.

Whitewater was a very sad chapter in American political history, which in some ways rivals the McCarthy era. Fewer lives were ruined, but too many were - and in the end a president was almost brought down.

Balance the read of "The Hunting of the President" by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons with a read of "The Strange Death of Vincent Foster" by Christopher W. Ruddy.

Just like any of the political books, they should be taken with a grain of salt.

Even Ken Starr concurred with every other investigation (of several conducted) that Vince Foster died of suicide. Period. Let the man rest in peace.

On the other hand, Conason and Lyons prove quite convincingly that the whole Whitewater thing was a sham. There's not political bias in showing how story after story in the "liberal media" was later proven completely false - and later published as such in those same newspapers, but with little fanfare. Or showing the real funding sources of the people who created the scandal. This is one of those cases where reality seems to have a liberal bias.

For an inside story on the smears of the Clintons:

Read "Blinded by the Right" by David Brock.

And Google "Arkansas Project"

stevethedj, just because one pulls a jr high school stunt doesn't mean I have to answer to your emotional plea. Hillary Clinton was found guilty of nothing. If a nationally recognized Clinton-hater like Kenneth Starr couldn't find Hillary guilty, musings from you are next to worthless.