Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Seeking to allay acquittal concerns, Holder insisted the suspects will be convicted, but even if one isn't, "that doesn't mean that person would be released into our country."
So let me get this straight...we are willing to move about 200 of these detained terrorists to a prison in Illinois permanently or at least while they await trial, but if one of the most disgusting ones (Kahled Sheikh Mohammad) is found innocent, he'll be kicked out of our country after we gave him a red carpet in the American civil court system?
This makes no sense. I thought if people were innocent, they should go free? Why would we hesitate to treat him with anything but graciousness if he were found innnocent? Afterall, that is why we have been told the military tribunals would not be used for trying the Guantanamo terrorist detainees -- because it was unfair. If someone is found innocent, isn't that person "free" to live wherever his peaceful heart desires? ...apparently not, Mr. Holder, if it means you would have to sacrifice your political aims in favor of honesty and logic. Shameful...
Habeas corpus is a tenet of the Constitution that protects people from unlawful imprisonment.
Wait...is anyone else confused? Giving them rights they are not entitled to per the international (and most appropriate set of) laws is somehow consistent with Mr. Obama's comments below?
Obama said. "Al-Qaida terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture – like other prisoners of war – must be prevented from attacking us again."
...so they are prisoners of war, but they are being tried in civil courts -- not military ones? Oh, and giving them habeas corpus will prevent them from attacking us again. I'm not sure I agree.
Recall Mr. Obama's committment to providing habeas corpus to the detainees. Yet in an interview with NBC News in November 2009 , Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to Mohammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."
This sounds like a mixed message to me. We're closing GTMO to ensure that people aren't unlawfully imprisoned, but we're going to give the death penalty to them? ...and all of this was stated prior to any trial being carried out? Does Mr. Obama support terrorists by stack the odds in their favor with civil trials when it will help him get elected into office and then support condemning them to death before their trial when it helps him deflect political criticism that may jeopardize his re-election?
This doesn't sound like the kind of behavior that reflects the "moral high ground" that CNN quoted Obama to have been seeking in January 2009 when he signed the order to close GTMO.
Another ridiculously transparent and unconvincing contradiction:
When signing his executive order to close GTMO Obama stated:
Guantanamo... (is) "a mess, a misguided experiment"
"There is also no question that Guantánamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world," he said.
Then he later stated about Veteran's Benefits:
"When our young men and women have served this country, I don't care if you were for the war or against the war, but they have served our country. They have done every single thing that we have asked of them, with bravery and valor, they should not have to beg when they come home to get the services they need," Obama said.
So Mr. Obama, do you support the troops or not? You've painted them out to be a disgrace in how they ran the operations at GTMO, but then defended them in terms of their benefits.
Does Mr. Obama know we are actually paying attention to his politically motivated, disingenuous rhetoric? Does he realize that those service members who "set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency" are also the same ones who served AT GUANTANAMO with "bravery and valor"?
Attorney General Eric Holder's statements today: "We need not cower in the face of this enemy," he said. "Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm and our people are ready."
Holder's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today directly addressed critics of his decision, some of whom suggest that the move signals a return to a pre-9/11 mind-set that considered terror suspects more like criminals than enemy combatants.
The contradictions are dizzying. I thought the reason they wanted to try them in the US was because it was much more fair than the military tribunals. -?- So how is that reasoning consistent with Mr. Holder's statement above?
I hate to hold you to your own words, Mr. Holder, but if they are terrorists being tried for war-related crimes, then why are civil laws and processes (i.e., a trial in the jurisdiction of a NY Court) being used to try detainees such as Kahled Sheikh Mohammad?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
In fact, they will be receiving the swine flu shot that many Americans will not receive if they are not in the "high risk" category as categorized by the US Center for Disease Control.
I hope my fellow Americans are able to obtain swine influenza (H1N1) vaccinations since the terrorists are being provided this medical treatment on behalf of American taxpayers.
It is undisputable that those being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are being treated well. There is absolutely no reason - other than for public relations, to close the detention center.
See this link for more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/01/AR2009110102171.html