Free Markets, Free People

The New Gitmo Plan – Release Terrorists In US

Al Qaeda having difficulty establishing sleeper cells in the US? Not a problem – let the Attorney General help:

European justice ministers met with Mr. Holder earlier this week and pressed for details on how many Guantanamo prisoners the U.S. planned to release domestically, as part of any agreement for allies to accept detainees. Mr. Holder said U.S. officials would work to respond to the questions European officials have over U.S. Guantanamo plans.

For “people who can be released there are a variety of options that we have and among them is the possibility is that we would release them into this country,” Mr. Holder said. “That process is ongoing and we’ve not made any determinations or made any requests of anybody at this point.”

Seriously, anyone – sound like a better option than keeping Gitmo open and these prisoners there until and unless another country can be found to take them?


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

55 Responses to The New Gitmo Plan – Release Terrorists In US

  • So, should we just give them the schematics to High Value Targets now or save them the trouble and blow them up ourselves?

  • Come on over Erb and explain the logic of this.

    • Well, among other things, it’s “everybody’s fault equally”.  So we should all share the risk!

  • Every day I say to myself, “Self, there is no way that this maladministration can make things any worse than they already have.” And then they go do something like this.

    I hate to say this, but two months into this nightmare, I am truly frightened for my country. It is being run by a Clown™ and a Gang of Complete Imbeciles. Imbeciles who have no a clue about what they are doing, yet are making some of the dumbest decisions I have ever seen. And I have seen a lot.

    Someone, please, convince me that I am wrong. Convince me that my country is not in mortal danger with this crowd in command. Please.

  • The mind boggles.  We’re going to be releasing people into our society who, after having been kidnapped and then continuously and mercilessly tortured* by Americans for years, may bear a teensy little grudge against the United States.  I realize that they are only innocent goatherders** and may not pose a tremendous threat, but is it wise to bring such men into the country?  Even if they will do jobs that Americans won’t do and become just as patriotic*** as many all of the illegal aliens undocumented workers currently living in the shadows in our country?  I do hope that the Bagman in Chief AG has a plan**** to provide these poor men with health care, job training, college educations, and copies of the Koran to help them make the difficult readjustment from helpless prisoner of the evil Bush regime to productive American citizen.

    / sarc

    Honestly, how does somebody other than a terrorist think that this is anything remotely like a good idea????

    Lesson for the day: keeping campaign promises is a helluva lot harder than MAKING campaign promises, especially when you don’t put one second of thought into HOW you’re going to keep them, or what the consequences of it might be.


    (*)  According to democrats (spit)

    (**)  Also according to democrats (spit)

    (***) According to Nancy Pelosi (vomit)

    (****) Which would put him miles ahead of the Tax Cheat in Chief, Geithner

  • Seriously, anyone – sound like a better option than keeping Gitmo open and these prisoners there until and unless another country can be found to take them?

    There’s a LOT of sunk money in keeping them at Guantanamo. It’s probably much less costly to turn them loose and let them fend for themselves on the economy. I hear ACORN is expecting to be hiring a lot of community organizers over the next 12-18 months.

  • I believe the University of Maine would make an excellent halfway house to allow an easy transition to the US and Western Lifestyles. I belive I know a man who’d be glad to put some of them up.

  • I see you guys have dropped the principle of innocent until proven guilty, or any other of the constitutional rights that we’ve been violating.   We’ve tortured, held prisoners indefinitely, and now act like scared little babies that some of them *gasp* might get loose in the US and no doubt build a nuclear reactor and destroy our cities.

    You are giving up liberty for fear.  Don’t dare call yourselves libertarian if you are going to do that.

    • Who’s constitutional rights again?

      • I’m talking human rights, the ones all of us should respect.   Apparently, you believe rights should only come from legal documents.

        • Nice back track.  No, let me tell you, YOU’RE not.  How do I know this?

          Let’s see….
          Because you said, and I quote –
          “I see you guys have dropped the principle of innocent until proven guilty, or any other of the Consititutional rights that we’ve been violating”.

          You want to mumble about Human Rights NOW, fine, but don’t say that was how you started out this discussion. 

          • I believe we should follow our constitution and respect the rights of foreigners we take into custody as well as our own citizens, except when they are explicitly covered by the Geneva convention as POWs.  I realize that there are legal opinions that claim these rights do not cover non-citizens.  I understand the legal argument, I disagree on principle.

        • Sorry pally. YOU got all sanctimonius and mentioned “Constitutional Rights”

          Now you got called on it, you change your tune.


          • PS Scotty…….I believe that only CONSTITUTIONAL rights can come from “a piece of paper” (a constitution) yes.

            For an alleged egghead, you sure do miss these easy distinctions.

    • Now Erb is saying we shouldn’t worry about releasing enemy combatants into American cities. Please, please, please release them on his campus. Or in his neighborhood.

      • “Enemy combatants”- that phrase is now verboten according to our Teleprompter-In-Chief

      • What a poor, scared guy you are JWG.  You really think the plan is to release “dangerous terrorists” into our neighborhoods?!  Wow.  Fear, irrationality, and disregard of our founding principles all put together.  That smells vaguely of fascism.

        • You really think the plan is to release “dangerous terrorists” into our neighborhoods?

          You’re right. We’ve never let “dangerous terrorists” roam free and legal in America. What am I thinking?

          • We did let Timothy McVeigh roam free, and there are a bunch of bat-crazy militias out there.  But the idea that somehow Obama’s going to take violent terrorists from G. Bay and let them loose in the US is silly.  Just plain silly.

          • Yeah, but Tim and the so-called bat-shit militias are American citizens, who have a right to roam free in America unless and until you can convict them of something. None of these are. Given that they didn’t actually meet any of the standards for lawful combatants under Geneva, we would be perfectly justified in shooting them like any other pirates.

          • “We did let Timothy McVeigh roam free”.
            I am in awe. Even for Erb, that is incredibly stupid. Uh, yeah, we let him ‘roam free’ just like we let you roam free. If you commit an actual crime we will arrest you just like we did him.

            Truly amazing.

          • Obviously Scott thinks that these guys in Gitmo did nothing at all.

    • Innocent until proven guilty…I gather, that you’re not referring to the ones we took on the battle field who didn’t want to die for Allah that day.

      Funny thing about the military, they seldom hold trials for people who are shooting at them and generally they don’t take the dead ones as prisoners. 

      And don’t let the fact that we’ve tried to get other countries to take some of  these “innocent” men off our hands, but, meh, they don’t seem to want to get involved and so, precisely, that’s why we have to keep them HERE.

      Hey, but you go ahead and invent your facts and ignore the real ones, you’re good at it.
      Just do us a favor and stop calling yourself an educator.  Generally guys who invent facts are considered story tellers, not teachers.

      • Erb’s not just defending the proposition (releasing Gitmo-held enemy combatants inside the U.S.), he’s attempting to defend it with a grotesquely ignorant interpretation of the rights of the accused.

        These are not accused citizens under any aspect of civil law, who are entitled to ordinary due process, like your average murderer. These are unlawful enemy combatants, not men arrested in the context of civil criminal statutes, but taken prisoner on various battlefields under various conditions of warfare. The means and methods of handling them are distinct from those accused under civil law.

        But Erb is a college professor, so naturally his response will be a schoolgirl chant.

      • Yes, looker, in military conflict we have certain rules, and there is a status called POW, Prisoner of War.   There are protections and rights afforded.   Now you’re saying the rights of these people don’t matter.  Tell me, try the shoe on the other foot.  What if American soldiers were taken by the Taliban to secret caves.  They told us they were holding them, but we didn’t know where.  They said they would hold them indefinitely because they might attack them again.   The Red Cross reports they’d been tortured.  Of course in this case it’s not clear they were all really combattants, and some were children.  No, this is a national shame, and I’m happy to say that conventional wisdom is growing, it’s hard to find people that don’t talk about this in the same way they talk about past internment camps and other times we’ve let fear push us against principle.  

        You may have given up principle for fear.  This whole Guantanamo Bay episode will be remembered with shame — in fact, it’s already being portrayed that way most of the time.

        • Erb you are a Frick’n MORON…and they let you teach classes? If the Taliban were holding US prisoners, THEY’D HAVE EVREY RIGHT TO HOLD THEM UNTIL HOSTILITIES WERE ENDED! Mango head! That’s the point of PoW’s…It’s not ILLEGAL to try to kill the Taliban…or US Soldiers. When you are captured, we don’t hold them because they’ve committed a CRIME< we hold them to prevent them from continuing to wage war! Are you that idiotic? Kurt Vonnegut was behind barbed wire not because the Germans thought he’d committed a CRIME< but because he was an US soldier they had captured! So too, the 250,000 German PoW’s in the US 1943-on…they weren’t “innocent, until proven guilty” because NO CRIME WAS INVOLVED…they had been captured and we weren’t going to take their word for it that they wouldn’t rejoin the fight!

          And another thing…anyone who’s in favour of nationalized health care can’t really call themselves “Libertarian” either, so stop using the word in reference to yourself…you are a LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE.

          • Well, Joe, you continue to prove the law of blog commentary: the insults get more intense when the argument is weakest.  So if the Taliban was still holding Americans in secret, being accused by the Red Cross of torturing them, and not following international law in their treatment, you’d be defending their right to hold our citizens, long after Afghanistan was declared a sovereign state no longer in Taliban rule?  Since they are a terrorist insurgency, they have that right?

            Uh, OK.  You can hold that view.  I suggest you take a course on international law, however.

          • I have YOU IDIOT…they aren’t being tortured, the Red Cross has access to them, etc, etc, etc…They aren’t “guilty” or “Innocent”…they are prisoners of war…we aren’t holding most them becaue they committed a crime or can’t you grasp that? We are holding them becaue they were fighting us….and we think if we let them go, they’ll go back to fighting us.

        • Erb, your (no doubt willfully) ignorant effort to conflate three or four serious issues, then wrap them in some girlish “conventional wisdom” and “shame” is an essential act of anti-thought. You’ve always been one of the laziest people around, but defending the release of an enemy combatant into the general public takes your laziness where the lazy often wind up: into recklessness. And it’s there side by side with its friends stupidity and shamelessness.

        • Prisoner of War is only meaningful with Geneva Convention signees.  Are they?

          Otherwise they have no expected rights whatsoever

          • Actually, that’s not true.  The convention specifies that non-signatories also benefit from it’s protections as long as they abide by it, and that if there is some question it is to be decided by a competent tribunal.  The wording is a little vague, so it’s arguable that if it is certain that they aren’t abiding by it, you can legally kill them on the spot.  But we’re covered in any case with the military tribunals.  For that matter, the text of the document contains no speedy trial provision.

            There may be further issues with the UCMJ, but I don’t know enough.  I believe our general policy is to accept surrender in almost all cases and treat surrendering individuals relatively humanely, as a way of encouraging further surrender.

            As far as rights beyond those enshrined in a document, I think Scott has a point.  Non-citizens do have rights.  I am happy to concede that some or even most of the prisoners are bad peopleTM.  But government incompetance would indicate that some of them shouldn’t be there. We really should be working on their cases more carefully, and we shouldn’t be allowing show trials. Firing a defender for doing his job is a bad sign, which I vaguely recall happening with at least one detainee.

            This is NOT a defense of the concept of just releasing them willy nilly into the public.

        • No Scott, you so smart guy!  The very reason for the Geneva convention was to outline the rules, and one of the rules that was intended to protect civilians from being killed is that soldiers wear uniforms or some other obvious means of identifying their side.  If you aren’t wearing a uniform or some other symbol that identifies you as belonging to one side or the other, you’re NOT a legal combatant in the ‘war’.  When you aren’t a legal combatant and you run afoul of ‘the other side’, you get whatever treatment the other side determines is okay by them. 

          But you’re a what?  a WHAT?  A WHAT?  oh, right!  you should KNOW this.

    • Let’s see, scott, is it? I do not see how these how these animals, and yes they are animals, should be allowed to have the freedoms and rights that we enjoy. for one thing, they have no rights under our constitution, they are from “persons” from OUTSIDE of MY COUNTRY. They do not have any rights, human rights yes, but as far as I see it they have ABSOLUTELY NO PROTECTION under OUR constitution. And Now   Mr. Barack Obama bin Ladin wants to let KNOWN TERRORISTS into my BELOVED country, and pay them and give them another opportunity to sucker punch us again, but possibly worse than before?  And you liberal democrat bastards call Bush evil, why don;t you take a good look at your so called “golden boy” Obama bin Ladin, and try to see that he is telling every terrorist in the world to come and attack us again. Bush did not do what was thought to be popular, but he did what needed to be done, ad what WAS RIGHT!!!!!!!!! If Obama bin Ladin lets them terrorists free in MY country, I will truly be afraid, for all of our children to come.

  • I find it odd, after reading one of the reports on the detainees, that, given the reports’ thrust that many of the detainee’s were rounded up just for the reward, that there weren’t MORE of them.  I mean, it was lottery day in Afghanistan and Pakistan (the bulk of them taken by ‘allies’ rather than us, the U.S.)

      And yet…hmmmm…so many seem to have come from..well…all over….rather than all just from Pakistan and Afghanistan.    Puzzling that there weren’t more.

    77 from Afghanistan….out of a total population of?  hmmmmmmm
    65 from Pakistan…..out of a total population of? hmmmmmmmmmmm

    Course they’re all innocent, just cooks, and truck drivers, and bottle washers, just ask them!
    (an interesting and fun fact, did you know Santa Anna, famous Mexican general and head of the Mexican government, I think, was it 5 times?  was taken captive in a private’s uniform after the battle of San Jacinto.  He was probably not head of the government that day, just ask him….)

  • Erb misses the point of illegal combatants entirely, which is what the Gitmo prisoners are.
    No sense arguing with him, he’ll never get it.
    Illegal combatants do not have the same rights as uniformed soldiers when they are captured.
    If one cannot understand that, one cannot discuss this issue.

    • Don seems to think if we categorize people we can simply deny them all human rights, hold them indefinitely, torture them, and evade any responsibility to show legal cause.

      Well, I guess for a fascist or a authoritarian government that makes sense.  But when our government does it, it violates all that we stand for.  And anyone who supports that is far more fascist than libertarian.

      • Kind of like categorizing a baby capable of surviving outside his mother’s womb as being just a lump of cells and not worthy of protections against murder and abandonment or any other human rights the rest of us have …

      • No, Don thinks that Erb has no idea of what an illegal combatant is, who that term in defined and where that term originated.  However, I propose a solution:  have your students do a research project on it.  Then you can read the papers of the brightest and perhaps learn something. 

  • And I thought catch-and-release only applied to fishing.   Ah, well, I guess we can send them to California, San Francisco in particular, I hear they are a very compassionate bunch always willing to help out an undocumented alien.

  • I don’t know why this is such a surprise. Holder was involved in the FALN pardons. BTW instead of arguing the Geneva Conventions on War say this or say that, why not just read the documents? It’s online and written quite clearly. The point about wearing uniforms that clearly identify who is on what side is written in simple English.

  • Perhaps once the PFCs on the ground catch wind of the President’s new Jihadist immigration policy there will be fewer prisoners taken and more casualties dealt.

    • A newr perfect solution to the problem – You come across a non-uniformed member of the insurgency and you don’t even bother taking him into custody – you just kill him.  The Geneva convention allows for this very solution because the convention states these individuals have no status.  Then you wouldn’t have to worry about Constitution rights to non-US citizens, military tribunals, releasing potential terrorists into the general US population, flushing Korans, mock indignation from professors in Maine, etc.

      Would that be a better solution there ERB?  You know, just another one of those SMALL STEPS.

      (Note: I realized that with this solution you have that pesky “Thou shalt not litter” clause to deal with.)

      • False dichotomy SShiell.   How about this, set up POW camps, call them POWs if you catch them, and follow the letter of international law.  Of course, it’s clear a lot of people were sent there who weren’t really dangerous or even involved in the fighting.  And many justifiably believed they were fighting for their homeland against foreign invaders.   Some were children.   But hey, keep your hate and fear if you wish.  In the real world this argument is over, and the US has been shamed.

        • No, I am afraid you are wrong once again, Erb.  Try reading the Geneva documents once in a while – and although it may upset your world view it might just enlighten you.  POW camps are for POWs.  POW stands for Prisoner of War, as defined by the Geneva Accords as a uniformed military member of an opposing force or army.  So much for calling GitMo a POW camp.  (Yawn – you are getting sloppy there Erb)

          You are also wrong in that this argument is not over and will not be over until the last of the Gitmo crowd has been relocated – wherever that may be.  Until then, feel whatever shame you want, there Erb – and while you are at it maybe you can feel better about yourself by writing to the Attorney General and volunteer your home as a halfway house for these poor mistreated souls.  Maybe then you can finally look at yourself in the mirror – good American that you are.


          PS – Small Steps, there Erb.  Small Steps!

        • “….follow the letter of international law…”

          Which one?  The Geneva Convention one about illegal combatants?

    • What, and be hauled up before a court martial?  Be pilloried in the press and by certain members of Congress (al-Murtha comes to mind) as “murderers”?

      Remember: to certain people among us, terrorists are innocent souls, driven to commit violent acts due to poverty and American / Israeli oppression.  They are to be treated, not as unlawful combatants (if I may use an obsolete term), but as suspects who are to be considered innocent until proven guilty.  Don’t you remember the hoopla a couple of years ago when a Marine was caught on video POSSIBLY shooting a wounded terrorist in Iraq?

  • Joe, read the Red Cross reporting on US treatment of its prisoners.   Moreover, they aren’t being called POWs by our government, and the Supreme Court has ruled that they have rights.  The only way you can rationalize inhumane treatment of other humans you think deserve to be held is to create the idea of an Orwellian permanent war, and then hold them forever, despite almost universal condemnation both here and abroad.  You’ve already lost that argument!  This country stands for something, and Gitmo is the symbol of the worst of what we are as a nation, and that’s why it’s has to be cleaned up.  But call names if you want — but that won’t change the reality, or the fact you’ve already lost this argument in the real world.

    • Would that be the ICRC report that was selectively leaked by Danner and was itself based on “testimony” from a few captured terrorists?  Why would THEY lie, right?  And didn’t the ICRC report rely on a definition of “torture” that is rather open to dispute?

      And didn’t the Bagman in Chief, Holder, recently visit Gitmo and admit how impressed he was at how well the facility is run and how humanely the detainees are treated?

      Perhaps you can cite some press releases by bin Laden, Code Pink, or an inmate of the local mental asylum next time to support your (ahem) arguments.

  • Wow AG Holder did it.  I told everybody that Holder could not piss me off any worse than when he said “Americans are cowards” about race.  But Holder did it!  I AM more upset about this. 

    Not in my backyard, o enlightened one.  Resettle these jihadists in some downtown DC loft apartments if you want to I’m OK with that.  Or set them up next door to Joe Biden’s parents wherever they live.  But keep these bastards out of the southeast USA por favor.

  • For all of those who ar defending Holder in his comments regarding releasing GitMo prisoners on US soil – I predict the following:  If Holder and the Obama Administration do in fact release one or more GitMo prisoners on US soil sometime in the next 18 months, then Obama will not be re-elected to a second term.

    Erb – You wanna try that one on for size?

  • Erb, would you be willing to put up some of these obviously not dangerous, poor victimized dears in your home, or at least pay for them to reside in your community? Just asking…

    Also, you have a funny habit of conflating your arguments. You ping-ponged from constitutional rights, to human rights, to “POW-status rights” back to human rights, to what the Supreme court ruled….

    Find a line, stick with it ok? Such muddled thinking wouldn’t pass muster in a high-school level essay, though maybe that passes for nuance over at clown college nowadays

  • Just because it’s a fun page – Say Erbie, can you tell us WHY these guys are being held at a military base on the island of Cuba instead of a military base in the Continental United States or in a “POW” camp? 

    See if you can figure out the legal reasons why that is….

  • I love how Erb complains about name calling, but if someone disagrees w/him, they’re a facist. Typical flag burning American hating liberal

  • If they are POWs, what country were they fighting for?  We need to return them there when the war is over.  If they have no country, then they are not POWs.  At best, non-uniformed personal commiting hostile action are spys and can be executed at any time.  The GC is very specific in not granting such individuals any rights, as their actions lead to greater civilian deaths, for GC rules to apply they need aleast a  country and a uniform.