Gitmo stuff...where's the outrage from Obama?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

well, that's certainly better than the nanny-nanny boo-boo trolling.

I think he was originally captured because someone thought that he'd trained in a terrorist camp, and that he was helping to fund and transport terrorists.

yeah, "someone thought"...

repeating, he was neither tried nor convicted of any crime, and further there was no crime committed on american soil either.

the question really is why anyone took him into custody, shipped his ass half way around the world, and interned him for what? 7 years, after which they realized they couldn't prove any crime and then sent him to saudi arabia.

those actions seem to be more criminal than anything this guy has been shown to have done.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the question really is . . .

The question really is whether this should all be treated as a war on terror or as a criminal case on terror.

You simply cannot win a war by taking every individual through their own personal episode of law and order.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

The question really is whether this should all be treated as a war on terror or as a criminal case on terror.

You simply cannot win a war by taking every individual through their own personal episode of law and order.

the treatment should be as per the existing laws and treaties we are party to.

if that requires a "personal episode of law and order", sobeit.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the treatment should be as per the existing laws and treaties we are party to.

if that requires a "personal episode of law and order", sobeit.

uh, yeah. If it were clear, there would be no argument.

I think Obama's outrage is being shipped to Bagram, by the way. Is yours following?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

uh, yeah. If it were clear, there would be no argument.

I think Obama's outrage is being shipped to Bagram, by the way. Is yours following?

what is not clear? we follow our laws, we follow the geneva convention.

me, I don't really have any "outrage". do you?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

what is not clear? we follow our laws, we follow the geneva convention.

ask the judges that keep overturning each other on whether geneva conventions apply to al qaeda, and ask all of the very well educated lawyers who keep arguing over exactly what aspects of Guantanamo Bay (and now Bagram) are legal.

me, I don't really have any "outrage". do you?

by that statement, I'm asking whether Obama's supporters will protest Obama's use of Bagram like they've protested Bush's use of Guantanamo.