See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Obama hedging on Gitmo? | Generic Rant - NOT always Politcally Correct!
2. BAM Stimulus: Liberal Overreach? « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
3. Obama lowers expectations, raises taxes; Surprise Surprise! « Riggword Weblog
4. ScoopThis.Org » Obama: Gitmo will not close in first 100 days.
5. Obama: Bush Was Right About Guantanamo « American Elephants
6. Pictures of Westwood Gaza Rally - Intifada! | Political Vindication
7. B. Hussein Obama will not close gitmo for at least the first 100 days of his dictatorship, err presidency. | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
8. EckerNet.Com » Blog Archive » Deep Thoughts With Kevin
9. This ain’t Hell, but you can see it from here » Blog Archive » Another promise broken [Jonn]
10. Steynian 307 « Free Canuckistan!
11. Wizbang
12. Michelle Malkin » “…they worried that the administration might yield to pressure to display its toughness in dealing with terrorism in its detention policies.
13. There's My Two Cents

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #101
   On January 12th, 2009 at 10:42 am, chapoutier said:

   You are the one impugning the integrity of service members.

   No I am not. But way to be predictably and consistently asinine. This is the “argument” your side has fallen back on every time it does not want to address uncomfortable truths and discuss complicated issue. Save your disingenuous handwringing and answer me two questions: Do you really believe that no innocent people have ever been sent to Guantanamo? If yes, that flies in the face of fact. Second, do you believe there are currently no innocent people in Gitmo? If yes, that flies in the face of common sense.

   You know that some have been released.

   Only after, like the cases cited above, there has been a public uproar or a court order. But I am the naive one, thinking there might possibly maybe kinda sora be a few others in there that are innocent? Please.

   And by the way, much like this has nothing to do with my passport, this also is not about your simple, misinformed, predictable opinion of attorneys.

2. #102
   On January 12th, 2009 at 11:29 am, frontierguy said:

   I have heard of some people being detained on the basis of accusations made by people that may or may not have ulterior motives for wanting someone out of the picture.

   So, the military goes half cocked without any real investigation….yes, that is impugning and yes, your passport is not stamped therefore you are not qualified to make generalizations such as this. But, if you insist that you are qualified to make generalizations about service members, then I can make generalizations about attorneys.

3. #103
   On January 12th, 2009 at 11:42 am, chapoutier said:

   So, the military goes half cocked without any real investigation….

   I never said they went in half cocked and I never said they did not investigate. Do not lie. I actually realize that they have limited time and resources and gathering evidence for trial is not at the top of their priorities. “Detain first, ask questions later” is not a bad policy so long as there are effective mechanisms for dealing with innocent people. I totally get that. I am sure they do the best they can under the circumstances. But don’t be so stupid as to think that means they always get it right. And any system of adjudicating these people should take that into account. I don’t hear of any arguments that we insult police by actually making the state go through that pesky process of convicting the accused.

   your passport is not stamped therefore you are not qualified to make generalizations such as this.

   Actually, it is in several places, (unlike Palin’s). So I guess now that makes me right? Oh wait….it is irrelevant? That’s what I thought in the first place.

   And these are not “generalizations.” There are specific verifiable instances of innocent people being detained. Why don’t you try repeating that, hm…? Come on. Its not too hard and it doesn’t mean you hate America. Come on…

4. #104
   On January 12th, 2009 at 12:02 pm, frontierguy said:

   On one mission, we had a 13 yo boy come and accuse one of his fellow villagers of being Taliban. We went to his home and searched his house. Our interpreters talked to the man (somewhere around early 30’s) and the boy. After a lot of talking it turned out that the boy made it up because the older guy had raped him. (very common over there). The boy wanted him out of the picture, but he was let go. He had no idea the boy accused him, we did not tell him. The commander was disgusted that the boy had been raped by this man and probably could have easily had him shipped off to GITMO. I am not sure, though.

   Had the boy made it up? I don’t know, but we did have a 6 yo boy come into our medical clinic once. He had been brutally raped by some man in his village. He was messed up too. So, anything was possible.

   You know, it is just as easy to have faith in your country. The military has oversight, tribunals are taking place. Military personnel ultimately answer to civilians, there are checks and balances. To trust in it does not mean that you are not still a socialist, capitalist hating elite. C’mon…try it. It won’t kill you.

5. #105
   On January 12th, 2009 at 12:06 pm, chapoutier said:

   You know, it is just as easy to have faith in your country. The military has oversight, tribunals are taking place.

   That faith was lost when stories about people being declared innocent, but coninuing to be held for years come to light. That faith was lost when the administration declared that the only evidence it needed to show was to state that it had evidence. And the administration was dragged into those tribunals, such as they are now, kicking and screaming.

6. #106
   On January 12th, 2009 at 12:17 pm, frontierguy said:

   My faith was lost when a journalist came out on one of our missions and everything he printed was pretty much a lie. So if you are getting these stories from the MSM, and i’m pretty sure you are, i have no faith in that. I also don’t have much faith in judges today, especially after a few of these GITMO “innocents” were found on the battlefield after being released. I lost my faith after the 9/11 hearings and we found out how biased they were.

7. #107
   On January 12th, 2009 at 1:01 pm, John Deaux said:

   Gitmo, terrorists, who cares. What I really want to know is who he thinks will win American Idol.

8. #109
   On January 12th, 2009 at 1:51 pm, SpeakEasy said:

   Chap,
   Yes, actually you are asking for evidence gathering in the middle of a war; How the hell else could you provide such evidence? Nice that you have family serving the military (if true)- a lot of people do or have as it has lasted for some time now. They have my respect and gratitude as a brother in arms. How does that in any way exempt you from speaking about that which you have no experience? I firmly believe that most of those detained were detained for good reason. You think because some were released that proves they are innocent? Even you should be competent enough to find stories where former guests at Gitmo were found- SURPRISE- engaged in fighting our troops. Be sure to write the parents and see if you can convince them you are right- better yet, go see them. If you were honest you would admit that you are the kind of person that would rather have 100 US soldiers killed by released jihadists than see one innocent detainee held in Gitmo. No denial is necessary or would be believed. Those who read this blog regularly would not believe you.

   Bottom line is war is messy and you can not prosecute one while playing CSI. If the military removes combatants from the battlefield, the people they fight for owe them the benefit of the doubt. Had they simply killed them you would be screaming about murder (are you related to John Murtha by any chance?)The cost of war, in death and unfortunate detainment, is the lesson that teaches people to choose their actions wisely lest they incur wrathful opposition. Robert E. Lee said it best:
   “It is well that war is so terrible- otherwise we would grow too fond of it.”

   You may not be aware of it but you contradicted yourself when you first point to the release of “innocent detainees” and in a later paragraph lament that the government is not following up on those detained.

   I am also pretty certain (based upon the track record of past Gitmo detainees being released) there are innnocent people there that were swept up in unfortunate circumstances.

   What I DO expect is some follow up from our government and an established set of procedures that forces menaingful review and consideration to every detainment, including the ability for those detained to challenge that detainment.

   Obama? what the hell does he have to do with anything I wrote? Seriously, are you that enthralled by the man that he has to come up in any discussion?

   You are happy to discuss how we should deal with these people? Delusions of grandeur much? Nice personal attacks too. Shows how “intelligent and civil” you debate issues.

   Back under the bridge Chap. Back under the bridge.

9. #110
   On January 12th, 2009 at 2:18 pm, chapoutier said:

   Yes, actually you are asking for evidence gathering in the middle of a war; How the hell else could you provide such evidence?

   If the military removes combatants from the battlefield,

   I don’t know why you keep relying on these false assumptions. There are many many detainees that were not captured on an active battlefield. Actually I do know why you rely on lies. Because its the only way you can justify your position.

   How does that in any way exempt you from speaking about that which you have no experience?

   First, I think you better look up “exempt.” Second, I can speak about whatever the hell I want. It is my military too. Or wait…Have you ever been president? Then STFU about Obama. Have you ever been a lawyer? then STFU about them too.

   I firmly believe that most of those detained were detained for good reason.

   So do I. The difference is I don’t stop there. I guess I actually care about the ones that were not. I guess your feeling is that if they had the bad luck to be born brown skinned and in a Middle Eastern country well, they can just go F*** themselves.

   You think because some were released that proves they are innocent? Even you should be competent enough to find stories where former guests at Gitmo were found- SURPRISE- engaged in fighting our troops.

   I’ve read some reports and articles on it. There are some incidents, yes. I imagine many do not feel too warm and fuzzy toward the US after having been detained. But if you look at the studies, you will see they are also laughably biased. For example, one person was included in “engaging in hostilites” with the US for writing an article criticizing the fact he was wrongfully detained.

   If the military removes combatants from the battlefield, the people they fight for owe them the benefit of the doubt

   I agree, and yet you continue to ignore the fact that these are not the type of situations I am talking about. Curious, that.

   If you were honest you would admit that you are the kind of person that would rather have 100 US soldiers killed by released jihadists than see one innocent detainee held in Gitmo. No denial is necessary or would be believed.

   You can choose to believe me or not. no skin off my tail, but that last statement you made is about the stupidest thing you have said. Which is saying a lot. But by all means, if you can show me the 100/1 ratio statistics you propose, I would be happy to respond. Otherwise it is an idiotic hypothetical and another example of the hyperbole upon which you are forced to rely.

   You may not be aware of it but you contradicted yourself when you first point to the release of “innocent detainees” and in a later paragraph lament that the government is not following up on those detained.

   No contradiction at all. At every step, the government has essentially been forced, either through publicity or the courts, to actually provide a meaningful tribunal and/or to free those already shown to be innocent. And yet I am supposed to believe that all the problems are gone now?

   Obama? what the hell does he have to do with anything I wrote? Seriously, are you that enthralled by the man that he has to come up in any discussion?

   I just can’t believe you are this stupid. You are criticizing me for bringing up Obama in a thread that is, get this…entitled “Obama: Gee this Gitmo thing…” Wow.

   You are happy to discuss how we should deal with these people? Delusions of grandeur much?

   No delusions. Its called a “debate”. You might want to look that up after “exempt”.

   Nice personal attacks too. Shows how “intelligent and civil” you debate issues.

   You started this crap and I am not going to be some patsy who just reads your idiotic blather and accusations about me or my patriotism or anything else.

10. #111
    On January 12th, 2009 at 3:30 pm, Prime Director said:

    chapoutier said:

    I am also pretty certain (based upon the track record of past Gitmo detainees being released) there are innnocent people there that were swept up in unfortunate circumstances.

    The pages you link to don’t exactly support your conclusion.

    Dhimmis at ABC said:

    Q: What were you doing when you were apprehended in Afghanistan? There are U.S. officials who have said you had associations with the Taliban or al Qaeda or received weapons training… Did you ever receive anything like weapons training?

    A: I reject the motion that I ever received military training… Afghanistan is a country … where you can see guns everywhere. Out of my curiosity, I learned how to use them. It doesn’t mean that I was seeking weapons training. I told the U.S. government that just learning how to use that machine gun does not make me a dangerous person or a person who would attack someone or gets me the title that I received military training.

    The uighur detainees you seem to be intent on portraying as innocent bystanders who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time were actually islamic militants receiving paramilitary training at a camp funded by Al Q’aeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    The reason their status as enemy combatants was denied by the court is because the uighurs claimed they planned to use their training to kill chicoms, not Americans (even though uighurs have waged jihad as part of the Al Q’aeda terrorist network in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Uzbekistan, where not a single chicom is to be found.)

11. #112
    On January 12th, 2009 at 4:08 pm, chapoutier said:

    No actually the above is a perfect example of what I am talking about. I have absolutely no issue with these people being initially detained. The soldiers that did so certainly had more than sufficient reason to. My issue is with the fact that after it was determined that these five were innocent of any threat to US interests, they were still detained. But that does not mean in anyway I second guess the decision of the soldiers.

12. #113
    On January 12th, 2009 at 4:44 pm, Erbo said:

    Good for Obama. Maybe he’s starting to realize what he’s gotten himself into, and is trying to Do The Right Thing for once.

    But there’s a bunch of moonbats out there that are going to be VERY disappointed.

    How long before we start hearing screeching about “failed Bush-Obama policies”? (You just know Bush is gonna get blamed in there somewhere…)

13. #114
    On January 12th, 2009 at 8:13 pm, Prime Director said:

    No actually the above is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

    I beg to differ. Perhaps “the above” is a perfect example of what you meant to talk about, but prior to the post to which I am responding, the innocence of the accused enemy combatants was the basis for your objections to their continued detainment (they were involved in any terrorist activities at all, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, they weren’t captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan so they weren’t terrorists at all, as though no terrorists fled the battlefield after the U.S. toppled the taliban.)

    Now, the relationship between the acknowledged terrorist activities of the detainees (the detained uighurs are all affiliated with Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement and all trained in al q’aeda and taliban funded teror camps in Afghanistan) and the immediacy of the threat these activities pose to the strategic interests of the U.S. is suddenly what matters most:

    I have absolutely no issue with these people being initially detained. The soldiers that did so certainly had more than sufficient reason to. My issue is with the fact that after it was determined that these five were innocent of any threat to US interests, they were still detained. But that does not mean in anyway I second guess the decision of the soldiers.

    The part I emphasized represents a new wrinkle added to your argument. I looked back over your previous posts on this thread and found no previous annunciation of this standard, just an assertion of the presumed innocence of the detainees (as though enemy combatants are entitled to habeas corpus.) So your links were off the mark.

    Regardless, the court’s decision in boumediene is not a cut-and-dry case of simply applying an established precedent to a highly analogous case. The decision as to what constitutes a threat to U.S. interests is a political one, not a legal one. That’s why the handling of enemy combatants properly falls under the jurisdiction of the executive and not the judiciary.