I agree that releasing these suspected terrorists will not keep our country safer.  We've had 5 years to try these people in court.  We've had 5 years to make our cases against each of these suspected terrorists, and now because we just essentially locked them up and threw away the key, civil rights attorneys have been given a wide-open door to walk through and claim unfairness.  If these people were truly threats (and I believe many of them are) then we should have taken every opportunity to treat this whole Gitmo mess with care, with foresight, and follow the letter of the law.  We didn't, and now we're less safe.  OUR BAD!

How many will return to terrorism?  Well, according to the Department of Homeland Security, it is as much as 10% of them.

"HSToday.us reported last year that defense and intelligence officials have consistently stated that many of the men held at Guantanamo would kill again if given the chance. At that that time they believe at least 22 – but possibly many more – former detainees have returned to the global battlefield to engage in terrorism against the West and allied infidel Muslim nations.

According to a Defense Intelligence Agency report, as many as 36 former detainees have taken part in terrorist acts against Western targets.

In the wake of the suicide bombing involving Al Ajmi, Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that five to 10 percent of former detainees have returned to terrorism."

Of course there are those that think it is Bush's fault that they return to terrorism, just like there are those that believe that Bush and/or Israel did 9-11 and are also holding back a cure for aids and have a device that can neutralize hurricanes before they reach New Orleans, but didn't use it cuz they're evil. You can probably toss Cheney in there for some blame too.

motopoet: "I see the bleeding hearts have won their argument on Habeas Corpus where enemy combatants are concerned, seemingly making Gitmo an unnecessary plot of land. Fine. Now we can take these non-citizens and meld them into the already overloaded American court system and give them rights and priveleges they really don't possess at who knows what cost to the very taxpayers they would just as soon see dead."
 

Except that you don't know that, moto. You have no idea who these people are, why or when they were picked up, or anything about them. All you know is what the Bush Administration has said about them. And they wouldn't lie, would they? What would they possibly have to gain from lying?

"What gets my goat about this is that it never really about Gitmo or terrorism or humanity. The majority of the folks clamoring about the rights of the detainees could care less about the detainees. Hell, most of these do-gooders don't even believe terrorism is a real threat anyway! "


Actually, many of us are concerned for them. Not just because they are human beings, but because there for the grace of god goes us. Many of these people were picked up not by US forces, but by "allied" forces, who were being paid ransoms for bringing people in, who had grudges against neighbors, or any of a myriad of other reasons. Now I'm not saying that everybody in Gitmo didn't do what they are accused of doing; I'm saying that a good number of people in Gitmo didn't do what they are accused of doing. And unless you want to live in a country where people are keep in jail forever on trumped-up charges, and never get a fair day in court, well, you shouldn't be living in the US. But some of us like it here. Some of us want to keep living here, freely. Some of us want to keep rights that our forefathers fought and died for. Some of us see the Great Writ, the right to have your day in court, as paramount. Some of us don't want to live in fear- not of terrorism, but of our own government. Some of us are tired of living in a country which has become a pariah in the world because of our treatment of other people. But then again, doo-gooders are funny like that....

"No, this has always been about the lefts hatred of Bush and their burning desire to do anything, no matter the cost or consequence, to see his policies, even the ones that help keep us and parts of the world a bit safer, fail. I will admit that, as I stated previously, this has a lot to do with these people believing terrorism is a phantom menace anyway. Why detain people who are accused of doing something that isn't happening? Again they have missed the big picture so they can feel good right now."

This wasn't just about Bush- this was about Congress overstepping their bounds and trying to take away the Court's role in justice. You see, at least 5 of the Supremes didn't like Congress (and the President) trying to take away their Constitutional powers. By the slimmest of margins, the Court decided to do their job, when the other two branches of government made a power play. (The hatred of Bush comes in a distant second. But we don't hate him, we hate what he's trying to do- there's a difference.) Some of us believe that the Constitution is bigger than one man. Your strawman arguments about "people believing terrorism is a phantom menace" is bs. Just like the rest of your arguments. Some people (many on these boards) are so focused on "terrorism" you miss the Big Picture of what the Executive (and in this case, the Legislative) Branch has done, and is trying to do. Just cower in your little home worrying about "terrorism" and give up your rights. That's ok, you don't want them anyways, apparently. You know what Franklin said about that.

"I am no big defender of many of this administrations policies, but keeping an eye on and keeping the military in charge of our enemies is, in my opinion, a vital policy. It has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with the long term security of the USA. I mean, come on, these guys at Gitmo weren't rounded up in a raid on a nursery school. They mean to do harm to us and our way of life, and simply because they had yet to succeed, have been in custody and are now going to be released is no sign that they won't keep trying to accomplish theur sworn goals."

Do you know how they were rounded up? Each and every one of them? How do you know none of them were captured in that manner? You don't. Because if you knew how many of them came to be in Gitmo, you wouldn't be making those statements.

"And what if we end up in a REAL war with REAL enemies? These short-sighted bleeders have created a loophole that could very well destroy our ability to charge people with war crimes because we din't have concrete evidence when we took them into cistody. Could you imagine this in the aftermath of WW II?"

How were people tried after WWII? Or at any other time in our history? What makes this moment so special that nothing we've done before can be done again? Your "loophole" was just the law for... oh, at least 700 years. You don't need "concrete" evidence to hold someone. You know that. You just need some evidence. But if you can't even manage that, what good is it? I mean, just to have your "day in court" to see what they have against you, who needs that? Certainly not you, right? You're content to give up that right, right?

"Go ahead, call me paranoid and tell that is not the way this change works and I'll tell you "Not Yet". Opening one door has, historically, always led to others being kicked in. I will also be interested to see which of those who end up being released on their own recognisance wind up involved in future acts of terrorism against us or our allies. Mark my words. It will happen."

Do you watch many movies, Mark? I do. I really like movies. Action movies, sci fi movies, crime movies, and once in a while I can even be dragged to see a musical (given the right enticement). Did you see Sweeny Todd when it was out last year? A guy gets thrown into prison for a crime he didn't commit, and he gets out to get revenge on the person responsible for putting him away. Do you figure that could ever happen? Have you ever heard of the idea that someone will be put into jail for a minor crime, and while they're in jail they become "hardened", and when they're finally released they do serious crimes? You don't figure anything like that could ever happen in real life, right? Guess when you're living in the "real" world, you know what's possible, right?

"I know there those who will castigate me for this opinion. Well, go ahead. You can spin it anyway you like, but the only winners in this are the suspected terrorists."

Fixed that for you.

This has nothing to do with "spin", and everything to do with "do-gooder" things like "rights", like "justice", like "fairness", like simple empathy for another person's situation. But go ahead, live in Fear. I would rather live in a country where I don't fear the government. If you don't, you are welcome to leave.

Good one Mattloch, there is going to be some revenge taking place for sure, If someone had did the same thing to YOU for being a American terrorist against whoever deems you a terrorist and tortures you, keeps you isolated ,restricts your religion, makes you disappear without any of your family knowing where you are or if you are alive and not giving you 1 chance to a trial to face the charges...would you just say..gee golly let`s forget it,everything is ok now and walk back into a life and culture that is destroyed ...I think you`d be a little pissed off and prime material for recruiting again...

M&M -- Mattloch & Maggie -- what a pair -- haven't seen one like that since last branding..........

You're known by the co. you keep Mattloch -- You've come a long way since the BC Debate Team.........

Matt, I found it funny that you would talk about how you don't want to live in fear and yet in the same post you express your distrust of the gov't.  Fear, distrust.  Your comment about leaving the country was also funny as it sounded more like something a conservative would say to a liberal than the other way around.

Maggie, moto DID say that you guys would find a way to blame Bush (admin) for the "suspected" terrorists for going back to their old ways.  Didn't take you long did it?

Who else is to blame? wasn`t me....

Gosh, I don't know who you'll blame for all the messes IF Obama wins.  If I wasn't so concerned about what the liberals would do to the country, I'd vote for Obama myself just to see what kind of excuses you guys would come up  with and who you'd blame.  After all, we're llikely to have more hurricanes and tornados and Lord knows you need to blame even the weather on someone.

America's prison for terrorists often held the wrong men

GARDEZ, Afghanistan — The militants crept up behind Mohammed Akhtiar as he squatted at the spigot to wash his hands before evening prayers at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

They shouted "Allahu Akbar" — God is great — as one of them hefted a metal mop squeezer into the air, slammed it into Akhtiar's head and sent thick streams of blood running down his face.

Akhtiar was among the more than 770 terrorism suspects imprisoned at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They are the men the Bush administration described as "the worst of the worst."

But Akhtiar was no terrorist. American troops had dragged him out of his Afghanistan home in 2003 and held him in Guantanamo for three years in the belief that he was an insurgent involved in rocket attacks on U.S. forces. The Islamic radicals in Guantanamo's Camp Four who hissed "infidel" and spat at Akhtiar, however, knew something his captors didn't: The U.S. government had the wrong guy.

"He was not an enemy of the government, he was a friend of the government," a senior Afghan intelligence officer told McClatchy. Akhtiar was imprisoned at Guantanamo on the basis of false information that local anti-government insurgents fed to U.S. troops, he said.

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men — and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.

McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials — primarily in Afghanistan — and U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal documents and other records.

This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals. At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to Afghan local officials. In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies.

The investigation also found that despite the uncertainty about whom they were holding, U.S. soldiers beat and abused many prisoners.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/...

I can only blame the person in charge of the whole senario.. and that happens to be the Pres man BushCo Chairman of the board of the USA Corp..Or did you have someone else in mind? 

 Nancy -- envision this movie --

{Buffalo Springfield "Somethings Happening Here" playing in background}

[stage left enters Dennis Hopper as Maggie playing photojournalist in Apocalypse Now]

Maggie tells Capt Willard --

Grasping and failing wannabe..but entertaining!

      "Any man who seeks to deny equality among all his brothers betrays the spirit of the free and invites the mockery of the tyrant."

President Dwight David Eisenhower

   "Equal and exact justice to all persons of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political...freedom of person under the protection of the law; and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps.... They should be the creed of our political faith -- the text of civil instruction – the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust."

President Thomas Jefferson    

"The Fourteenth Amendment, in declaring that no State 'shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' undoubtedly intended . . . that equal protection and security should be given to all [and] they should have like access to the courts of the country for the protection of their persons and property, the prevention and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts...."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Steven Field 

 Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 35 (1885)  

 And finally, for those that look to a higher authority....

   "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country."

Leviticus 24:22

Great pulls anti~ !!