Change

edge540 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:42 pm **Posts:** 7910

mrbsmom wrote:

Quote:

On the question of the transfers â€” sometimes referred to as extraordinary renditions â€” one official at the Washington briefing said that the State Department would be given a greater role in verifying assurances from other countries that they would not torture any transferred detainees. Such assurances, often provided by other countries to the Bush administration, did not always prove credible.

Key words here:
the Bush administration

edge540 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:42 pm **Posts:** 7910

I see the Dick is having a hissy fit

happy jack · **Joined:** Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:32 am **Posts:** 3789

edge540 wrote:

Quote:

There is one reason, and one reason only, to send prisoners to other countries for questioning...

LOL
really? & YOU know this how?

You have absolutely not one shred of evidence that this will happen.

Just because George & Dick authorized torture you make the absurd leap that the Obama adinistration is going to do the same thing.

What load of crap.
Like I said, you don't know WTF you're talking about.

Then please, enlighten me as to the reason prisoners would need to be held or interrogated somewhere other than U.S. soil.
Isn't that basically the premise of the Left's hissy fit over housing prisoners at Gitmo - that they are not protected by U.S. laws since they are not technically on U.S. soil?
What makes this any different?
Please explain.

edge540 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:42 pm **Posts:** 7910

Pay attention.

I already splained' that to you:

Quote:

Why send them 8,000 miles when we can send then one or two thousand miles. What's the BFD?
Where does it say that we or anybody else will torture them?

translation:
It's more convenient.

If that does not meet your needs you'll have to email Barry & ask for more info.

You can also ask the senile warmonger about gitmo:

Quote:

McCain wants to close Guantanamo, he says, because its existence is damaging U.S. credibility abroad.

USMarine · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:55 am **Posts:** 10483

Everyone reading this thread knows that the little hedge is trying so hard to sell this but he doesn't even believe it himself.

Way too funny....!!!!!!!

:smt005

happy jack · **Joined:** Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:32 am **Posts:** 3789

edge540 wrote:

Pay attention.

I already splained' that to you:

Quote:

Why send them 8,000 miles when we can send then one or two thousand miles. What's the BFD?
Where does it say that we or anybody else will torture them?

translation:
It's more convenient.

If that does not meet your needs you'll have to email Barry & ask for more info.

Why go through the trouble and expense of relocating all of those prisoners from Gitmo to the U.S.?
Why would there be more of a chance of prisoners being tortured at Gitmo than in the U.S.?
What's the BFD?
Leaving them at Gitmo would be far less expensive, and far more 'convenient', wouldn't you say?
After all, they're already there - why move them?

happy jack · **Joined:** Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:32 am **Posts:** 3789

USMarine wrote:

:laughing3:

Everyone reading this thread knows that the little hedge is trying so hard to sell this but he doesn't even believe it himself.

Way too funny....!!!!!!!

:smt005

The sad part is, he probably does believe it. But even if he doesn't, he is obligated to throw himself on his sword, for it is imperative that the subjects of Lord Barry cover for Him at all costs.

USMarine · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:55 am **Posts:** 10483

happy jack wrote:

USMarine wrote:

:laughing3:

Everyone reading this thread knows that the little hedge is trying so hard to sell this but he doesn't even believe it himself.

Way too funny....!!!!!!!

:smt005

The sad part is, he probably does believe it. But even if he doesn't, he is obligated to throw himself on his sword, for it is imperative that the subjects of Lord Barry cover for Him at all costs.

Nobody could possibly be that stupid.

edge540 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:42 pm **Posts:** 7910

jack you don't agree with the guy you voted for?

Quote:

McCain wants to close Guantanamo, he says, because its existence is damaging U.S. credibility abroad.

censorthis · **Joined:** Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:09 pm **Posts:** 643

happy jack wrote:

USMarine wrote:

:laughing3:

Everyone reading this thread knows that the little hedge is trying so hard to sell this but he doesn't even believe it himself.

Way too funny....!!!!!!!

:smt005

The sad part is, he probably does believe it. But even if he doesn't, he is obligated to throw himself on his sword, for it is imperative that the subjects of Lord Barry cover for Him at all costs.

No he doesn't jack. You give the t*** way too much credit for actually having "Gee, I just love everyone" liberal convictions. The t*** hates everyone. As much as he covers for the Messiah, the t*** doesn't give a fuk what Osama Bin Obama does to these ragheads.....only what Bush did.

censorthis · **Joined:** Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:09 pm **Posts:** 643

OLDLYINGTURD540 wrote:

Quote:

McCain wants to close Guantanamo, he says, because its existence is damaging U.S. credibility abroad.

"US credibility abroad" is for weak, spineless, liberal pussies. They ought to build 10 more just like Guantanamo.
FU t***.

happy jack · **Joined:** Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:32 am **Posts:** 3789

edge540 wrote:

jack you don't agree with the guy you voted for?

Quote:

McCain wants to close Guantanamo, he says, because its existence is damaging U.S. credibility abroad.

No, I don't agree with him.
Next question.
Or preferably, next answer, since you are clearly avoiding answering what I asked you earlier:
Why go through the trouble and expense of relocating all of those prisoners from Gitmo to the U.S.?
Why would there be more of a chance of prisoners being tortured at Gitmo than in the U.S.?
What's the BFD?
Leaving them at Gitmo would be far less expensive, and far more 'convenient', wouldn't you say?
After all, they're already there - why move them?

edge540 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:42 pm **Posts:** 7910

jack, I suggest you & all the other conservative chest beating macho men who think of our military as "weak, spineless, liberal pussies" here email all your questions to Gen. Petraeus & the guy you voted for. I'm sure they will answer your questions. If our top military commanders think that it's a good idea to close gitmo & is good for our country, then I agree with them.
Too bad you & the other scum bags don't.
Meanwhile you can read this:

Quote:

Gen. Petraeus: Closing GITMO 'Helps Us... Sends An Important Message To The World'
May 26, 2009 Chris Harris
General David Petraeus spoke in favor of ending torture and closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay. If Republicans truly believe their oft-repeated desire to "listen to commanders on the ground," they should do just that.

Petraeus Backs Obama On Closing GITMO & Ending Torture
In an interview likely to be overshadowed by President Obama's Supreme Court announcement, Gen. David Petraeus told Radio Free Europe that closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay "helps us," and "sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."

The remarks, first noted by the Huffington Post's Sam Stein, likely complicate the GOP/Cheney position that those who oppose GITMO and torture are somehow weak on national defense. Now, that will be nearly impossible. For years Republicans have championed Gen. Petraeus as a brilliant military mind and the savior of the war in Iraq - abandoning him now would reek of hypocrisy and political opportunism.

If Republicans truly believe their oft-repeated desire to "listen to commanders on the ground," they should do just that. If they earnestly believe in Gen. Petraeus, Republicans should stop obstructing progress and help the President move this country forward by contributing to a responsible plan to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay.

censorthis · **Joined:** Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:09 pm **Posts:** 643

OLDLYINGTURD540 wrote:

jack, I suggest you & all the other conservative chest beating macko men here email all your questions to Gen. Petraeus & the guy you voted for. Meanwhile you can read this:

Gosh...that's a nice answer to an honest question. Hey fukface....what's a "macko" man?

Not tellin anyone what to do here...but....why are you all wasting your time trying to engage in debate with this prick? He's not giving anyone the respect of a two-way debate that is being given to him. He's asking and folks are answering honestly and with thought, and he ridicules it....folks ask him and he's giving a smartass, insulting comment which totally avoids the question, but tells the questioner to go fuk himself. He's here for one reason and answering anyones honest questions...ain't it. He's a flame thrower without an original thought in that empty skull of his.
Don't waste your time people.

happy jack · **Joined:** Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:32 am **Posts:** 3789

edge540 wrote:

jack, I suggest you & all the other conservative chest beating macho men here email all your questions to Gen. Petraeus & the guy you voted for. Meanwhile you can read this:

Quote:

Gen. Petraeus: Closing GITMO 'Helps Us... Sends An Important Message To The World'
May 26, 2009 Chris Harris
General David Petraeus spoke in favor of ending torture and closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay. If Republicans truly believe their oft-repeated desire to "listen to commanders on the ground," they should do just that.

Petraeus Backs Obama On Closing GITMO & Ending Torture
In an interview likely to be overshadowed by President Obama's Supreme Court announcement, Gen. David Petraeus told Radio Free Europe that closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay "helps us," and "sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."

The remarks, first noted by the Huffington Post's Sam Stein, likely complicate the GOP/Cheney position that those who oppose GITMO and torture are somehow weak on national defense. Now, that will be nearly impossible. For years Republicans have championed Gen. Petraeus as a brilliant military mind and the savior of the war in Iraq - abandoning him now would reek of hypocrisy and political opportunism.

If Republicans truly believe their oft-repeated desire to "listen to commanders on the ground," they should do just that. If they earnestly believe in Gen. Petraeus, Republicans should stop obstructing progress and help the President move this country forward by contributing to a responsible plan to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay.

I'm not arguing from a partisan perspective; I am arguing from a logical perspective, so I really don't care what either McCain or Petraeus thinks about it.
The prisoners at Guantanamo prison are currently under the jurisdiction of the Obama administration and whomever he wishes to put in charge of the prison. If they are moved to the U.S., they will still be under the jurisdiction of the Obama administration and whomever he wishes to put in charge of them. Their treatment shouldn't change, since the same philosophy should remain intact. The prison at Guantanamo is an inanimate object and is not intrinsically evil in and of itself, no matter what the Lefties would have people believe. There is no justification whatsoever for the expense, trouble, and possible danger of having the prisoners transferred from one perfectly good facility to another. No justification whatsoever.

Northwest Indiana Discussion

Change

Who is online