0
   

What's happening with those poor devils at Camp Xray ???

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2003 10:08 pm
:-)
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 06:16 am
(Edited to make quote look like a quote)

Can anyone make sense of this? The Wall Street Journal is hardly an evil liberal media outlet for discrediting the Bush administration; so the following report should be for real.

The Wall Street Journal wrote:
Bush Presses for Release
Of Guantanamo Detainees

By JACKIE CALMES
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WHITE HOUSE PRESSES Pentagon and Justice on Guantanamo detainees.

The push to return prisoners to home countries follows Bush's visit to Britain, which wants its nine citizens back. U.S. lawyers draft letters to foreign governments offering to return prisoners, but seeking assurances they won't then be freed once home. Most of the 84 prisoners released so far have been deemed low-risk.

The next group -- several hundred detainees considered dangerous -- shouldn't go free, the U.S. says. But the post-9/11 detentions have become so controversial, even Pakistan, Kuwait and other authoritarian allies seek evidence to justify incarceration. U.S. officials fret they can't supply it in many cases.


But why would the White House have to press the pentagon and justice? This is very strange.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 08:08 am
thomas

To placate the Brits and other foreign states...and, for domestic consumption, to give the impression that this administration gives a **** about the lives and liberty of humans who are neither wealthy nor American.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 08:20 am
Most likely because they have gleened whatever information they can from those detainees and have assurances from there home countries that they will be dealt with instead of praised as heros.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 08:57 am
McG

So what of the question Thomas asks?

And I love your use of 'gleened' there. Like casually reading a newspaper for interesting bits. No hint of the violations of international laws, of the inhumane treatment and torture of folks who looked suspicious. Good word, gleened.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 09:12 am
LOL!

Violations of International law...let 'em take us to the world court!

Inhumane treatment...that's a good one. They should have sent them to one of the chain gangs in Texas if they really wanted to be treated inhumanely.

Torture...prisoners whine about everything. The IRC found no use of torture, yet you continue to harp on that...

As for what thomas asked, the military works at it's own speed, the Bush administration is working at getting re-elected. The military could give 2 shits about that, but must heed the voice of it's CIC.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 09:16 am
McG

Yes, we will take you to the world court.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 09:53 am
Blatham -- Actually, my puzzlement has to do with the implication that the Whitehouse needs to press some independent entity that wants to do stuff the White House doesn't want them to do. My current understanding of the US constitution is that the White House is supposed to be in charge of the Pentagon and the department of justice. That would mean it can remedy the situation just by making two phone calls. No pressure needed, because it's the boss.

Am I missing something?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 09:59 am
Thomas

Yes, the White House is in charge, the President being the commander-in-chief of the armed services, not to mention being the one from which all agences (such as the State Department) take their orders.

The civil folks surrounding a President may well be at odds regarding strategy, policy, and procedure with the military folks (just as the military folks or the civilian folks can have disagreements amongst themselves).

Add in to this picture, the commonplace observation that this administration is particularly severe regarding holding up a presentation of solidarity of view and opinion, and your question becomes even more pertinent.

Thus my thesis as to why this particular tidbit that's caught your attention (and which was almost certainly leaked purposively) has the aims I stated.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 09:15 pm
The US government is both large and relatively transparent. The various national reporters of the WSJ and other major media institutions make it a point to stay close to the staffs of the departments they track and the White House as well. They track and assiduously report all the chatter they hear, the talk of delays, disagreements, and just gossip of the people who are their sources. Often this is no more than the inevitable noise of the machinery of government in motion. One can even get a glimpse of this in the somewhat disjoint WSJ article quoted above. Some department lawyers are trying to get assurances from other governments that they will detain the prisoners as a precondition of our release of them; other staffers think the process isn't moving quickly enough; etc. Overall, much ado about very little.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 06:05 am
georgeob1 wrote:
The US government is both large and relatively transparent. The various national reporters of the WSJ and other major media institutions make it a point to stay close to the staffs of the departments they track and the White House as well. They track and assiduously report all the chatter they hear, the talk of delays, disagreements, and just gossip of the people who are their sources. Often this is no more than the inevitable noise of the machinery of government in motion. One can even get a glimpse of this in the somewhat disjoint WSJ article quoted above. Some department lawyers are trying to get assurances from other governments that they will detain the prisoners as a precondition of our release of them; other staffers think the process isn't moving quickly enough; etc. Overall, much ado about very little.


That is true.

I think glimpses of this 'machinery of government in motion' are valuble nonetheless. They should not be considered hard facts though.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 06:21 am
Blatham I consider you one of the sharpest blades in the a2k drawer and am therefore shocked that you would be drawn into a conversation with McGentrix about prisoners.

McGentrix would volunteer to drop the ZyklonB gas into the ovens on these people in my opinion and would probably gas their wives and children along with them. He is, in my opinion, a final solution kind of guy. He earns his position as a true Bush supporter.

Thank God we aren't quite that far down the road yet in America, although I'm sure GWB's handlers are working on it, and with the support of citizens like McGentrix you'll be reading about it eventually I fear.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 07:29 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Blatham I consider you one of the sharpest blades in the a2k drawer and am therefore shocked that you would be drawn into a conversation with McGentrix about prisoners.

McGentrix would volunteer to drop the ZyklonB gas into the ovens on these people in my opinion and would probably gas their wives and children along with them. He is, in my opinion, a final solution kind of guy. He earns his position as a true Bush supporter.

Thank God we aren't quite that far down the road yet in America, although I'm sure GWB's handlers are working on it, and with the support of citizens like McGentrix you'll be reading about it eventually I fear.


Nice. Way to get the nazi reference in.

Final solution? not quite that bad. I do know that while they are being held in Gauntanamo they are not planning against, implementing plans or killing any Americans. That makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

You seem to lose sight of the idea that EVERYONE being held in Guantanamo was caught trying to murder Americans. That's right, murder. They are ILLEGAL combatants under the rules of war and they are know being treated as such. Why is that so painful for you to understand?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 07:45 am
McGentrix wrote:
You seem to lose sight of the idea that EVERYONE being held in Guantanamo was caught trying to murder Americans. That's right, murder. They are ILLEGAL combatants under the rules of war and they are know being treated as such. Why is that so painful for you to understand?


You don't read, listen or watch to news, do you? Just posing here all by intuitution?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 07:58 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
You seem to lose sight of the idea that EVERYONE being held in Guantanamo was caught trying to murder Americans. That's right, murder. They are ILLEGAL combatants under the rules of war and they are know being treated as such. Why is that so painful for you to understand?


You don't read, listen or watch to news, do you? Just posing here all by intuitution?


Are you offering up proof of their innocence?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 08:46 am
Quote:
The US government is both large and relatively transparent.
Large, yes. Transparent relative to whom? China? Sure. Let's give them a blue ribbon.
Quote:
The various national reporters of the WSJ and other major media institutions make it a point to stay close to the staffs of the departments they track and the White House as well. They track and assiduously report all the chatter they hear,
No they don't. A more accurate portrayal is that they report assiduously what is portioned out to them, with the hope that they will continue to be fed more (usually quite innocuous) tidbits so that their columns will appear 'on top of things' and 'in the know' so that they continue to keep their jobs. Far more rare indeed is the deep investigative reportage that rocks the boat.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 09:06 am
Glad you liked it...simplistic, not too abrasive,never outright accusatory..... gets the point across without screaming....not bad for a dumb bed wetting liberal if I do say so myself....
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 09:26 am
McGentrix wrote:


Are you offering up proof of their innocence?


Obviously the CIA and other US_American authorities, agencies etc did so - or why, do you think, are dozens of Pakistani set free, a couple of British, Swedish, Canadian imprisoned citizens sent home?
" EVERYONE being held in Guantanamo was caught trying to murder Americans"? (Attemted murderers, btw, get in Germany usually between 8 and 10 years prison. At courts.)
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 02:43 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
McGentrix would volunteer to drop the ZyklonB gas into the ovens on these people in my opinion and would probably gas their wives and children along with them. He is, in my opinion, a final solution kind of guy. He earns his position as a true Bush supporter.

I don't think McG has written anything to deserve this kind of attack. Please take it down a notch or twelve, BPB. There's a lot of field between the notion that the Gitmo guests are innocent victims and the notion that they and everyone like them ought to be exterminated.

I for one don't think that they are all good boys who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and think that their plight stems from the belief of this administration that they'd rather err in handling these potentially dangerous individuals too harshly than err by not doing enough and have it lead to another 9/11. (And by "handling harshly" I do not mean to condone torture. So let's not pretend I do.)

Consider the voices on the left asking what the President knew or should have known and whether 9/11 could have been prevented. Imagine what those voices would be saying if someone who was let go from custody after taking Afghanistan brought an airliner down on US soil.

I do have reservations about some aspects of the Gitmo solution, but I don't think there is any solution that would leave me with no reservations. In the end, I look at this one and think we could do worse, and I've not heard anything better suggested, so I have to come down on the side of what we are doing now.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 02:54 pm
Quote:
In the end, I look at this one and think we could do worse, and I've not heard anything better suggested, so I have to come down on the side of what we are doing now.
Scrat

There are a LOT of voices within the US and outside which argue that the US could be doing very much better here through adherence to international codes governing the treatment of POWs and through adherence to America's own principles and practices of legal justice. There is no good reason to simply assume that what this administration has chosen to do with these prisoners is in some way self-evidently optimum, in the same way that there is no good reason to assume that the Pentagon should take over the entire justice system or civil administration.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/07/2025 at 10:59:17