No thanks, Eric Holder
Andy McCarthy declines the Attorney General’s invitation.
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.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Latest Addition to the Super Bowl Counterterrorism Squad: Hot Dog Vendors
February 3, 2012 07:53 PM by Doug Powers
45 Comments
The trial of the last Haditha Marine: SSgt Wuterich takes plea deal
January 23, 2012 03:25 PM by Michelle Malkin
59 Comments
The last Haditha Marine: Trial update, prosecution collapse, plea deal in the works?
January 19, 2012 05:49 PM by Michelle Malkin
56 Comments
Obama heads to Disney World to push looser visa policies
January 17, 2012 01:14 PM by Michelle Malkin
95 Comments
The last Haditha Marine: Wuterich trial update
January 5, 2012 06:19 PM by Michelle Malkin
26 Comments
Remember SSgt Frank D. Wuterich: The last Haditha Marine goes on trial
January 2, 2012 12:24 AM by Michelle Malkin
57 Comments
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”
December 25, 2011 03:26 AM by Michelle Malkin
75 CommentsJoe Biden: The Taliban Per Se is Not Our Enemy
December 19, 2011 04:06 PM by Doug Powers
105 Comments
Remembering Pearl Harbor: 70 years
December 7, 2011 10:10 AM by Michelle Malkin
123 Comments
Categories: Homeland Security,War
Weekly Standard
» White House Economic Adviser: 'We Need a Global Minimum Tax'Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"JustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False ChoicesWeekly Standard
» Obamacare Could Require Private Insurers to Fund Abortion on Demand
Berkeley. Send them all to Berkeley. Then wall off the city and let them sing Kumbayah with Dumpster Muffin and her tree-sitting friends.
Andy McCarthy just blew Obama Adminsitration right out of the water.
He needs to make the rounds of the news shows.
There it is. This administration has not only elevated itself above the law, but blockaded itself from advise.
Sounds like prudent reasoning to me!
I truly admire a patriot.
Hoo-ah!
From the linked letter to AG Holder from Andy McCarthy -
” . . . that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists . . . ”
” . . . I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. . . ”
” . . . I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. . . ”
Where was this guy and his opinion when the Bush Admnistration released 60 odd detainees from Gitmo?
Coming soon to a neighborhood near you!
At least the sex offenders have to register.
Who released them…????
And, on the larger story…
Way to go, DUDE…!!!!
And catapult plague-ridden goat carcasses into their midst.
Ni.
an excerpt.
This is astonishing. Obama is hell-bent on releasing dangerous people into our society. And we get to foot the bill for their existence.
This is beyond belief. Apparently Obama could care less if US citizens are killed as a result. So long as he gets his liberal way and releases terrorists. What a gutless, immoral piece of S#@% Obama is. The man sickens me.
What is up with the NRI site??
You have a problem with “enemy troops in the open?”
After the first dozen are shot on sight, Holder will have to consider Plan B.
“The right of self-defense is never denied.”
Woah, Andy, great shot!
So nobody is confused by the z troll…here are some facts.
Nearly 800 detainees have passed through the Caribbean camp [Gitmo] since 9/11, but about 550 have been transferred or released, with about another 60 cleared for transfer or release.
That would be AFTER having been extended due process…
which they have had all along.
Before we get all excited about what the Dems are doing, look at what the “other Democratic Party” is doing.
The very same corrupt weasels who got blown out in two straight elections have now made their new “vision” for the GOP official.
This is the last straw. If you nose-holders still don’t get it, you might as well have your noses permanently glued shut and free your hands for something else. If GOP House conservatives are going to get re-elected, they need to storm the offices of Boehner and Cantor and demand they step down. The GOP needs new leaders NOW!!!
The only show that would have him is Fox News. We can in short order expect the President to publicly belittle him and dismiss his concerns as “non-serious antics” like he did the tea parties.
We are living in what surely must be our “worst of times”. God help us.
LOL.
Due process, or not, were the Jihadists released, or not, under the Bush Administration? Were they released before hostilities ended? Did a number of those Jihadists return to the battlefield? How many Jihadists has Pres Obama released? Why isn’t McCarthy consistent in speaking to what was actually done in Pres Bush’s Administration?
Based on previous exchanges with you, you don’t have the stones to answers any of these questions.
Ragspierre, I truly do understand your fear, and it is OK. Being an ostrich becomes you.
The National Day of Prayer is on Thursday, 5/7/09. Find a gathering and pray for our country.
There’s a John McCarthy that referee’s MMA fights for the UFC and WEC. He starts each fight by saying “let’s get it on” I wonder if they’re related…
vickisoup,
Just the kind of exposure we need. I hope Obama is that dumb.
Can’t wait to see him hauled off to prison.
That was a great letter. Too bad he will be derided by Obama for not playing along.
I have a question for you. Based on this enlightened approach to handling terrorists, how many enemy combatants are choosing to “fight to the death” these days, before making it to the battalion POW collection point?
So that nobody is confused by the lies of the z troll…
The military authorities ON THE GROUND, after due process, released detainees from GITMO.
Some of those people went on to be found under arms as terrorists. That does not mean that, at the time of their release, there were sound grounds to continue to hold them at GITMO.
THE ONE, at the highest levels of POLITICAL authority, AND FOR SOLELY POLITICAL REASONS…and against the counsel of PEOPLE ON THE GROUND, has determined to release ALL REMAINING GITMO detainees, virtually ALLL of whom are KNOWN to present clear and present danger to US, and to our troops in the field.
See?
Ilovemycountry said:
Reading your tripe is tantamount to taking a belt sander to ones head. Individuals like you are the kind that derides the Police until something happens to you. Then you are the first to scream “where are the police”. Individuals like you wimper and wail about the “Rule of law” when it suits your purpose but when laws are actually broken or comtemplated to be broken for your cause, it is quite alright. Your cause is anything but constructive.
I see your point, Flyoverman. Still, the media is too enamored with BHO to pursue something that he suggests is not worth their time. Perhaps it’s not “enamored” so much as maybe even “afraid”. With his high-profile thug thizzle, it won’t be long before all free speech is quashed.
I’ve reposted the letter in its entirety because (at least in my browser) the NRI page is hosed.
– MuscleDaddy
(uh, stillontheroad: I think ilovemycountry was being ironic.)
Getting to the point here, you may have noticed that many on this board, and conservatives in general, are not happy with quite a few actions of former President Bush. This release of jihadi’s that returned to fight would be one of them.
That said, not everyone who passed through Gitmo warranted detention. The Bush administration seemed to be attempting to determine which needed to stay and which did not. A reasonable, if not lofty goal.
The Obama’s administration’s goal?
Release them ALL!!!!
Big difference my friend. Big difference.
And as for Andy McCarthy, well, you’ll have to ask him. In this case he was invited to take part in a meeting to discuss the unilateral release of all of them. What his role was after 2003 and what contact he had with the Bush Administration I can’t tell you. I’d bet he wrote opinion pieces criticizing the Bush Administration if he felt they did anything that would jeopardize the safety of US citizens.
And isn’t it interesting that the liberal defense of reckless action, like this action of Obama’s, ….your defense in this case, is this.
“Well you guys did it too!”
Typical.
Do you favor trying in abstenia those members of the Supreme Court, who in the Dred Scott vs. Sanford case in 1857, that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants whether or not they were slaves—were not legal persons and could never be citizens of the United States.
The decision also held that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. It also ruled that because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court. Lastly, the Court ruled that slaves—as chattel or private property—could not be taken away from their owners without due process.
That ruling caused how many incidents of torture and execution, not to mention a full scale civil war that destroyed most of the South and left 660,000 people dead?
Just trying to understand the statute of limitations in punishing bad legal decisions.
It would certainly be 8 years.
Otherwise, Clinton could be brought up for rendition, and LOADS of other bad stuff…
All of them, I hope.
The letter is extremely well written – thank you Andy. But I fear the adolescents in the Administration are in no mood to listen to an adult.
You were being too kind, Vickisoup.
Nice shot. I hope he doesn’t get hit by the ricochet.
Exactly. When a soldier captures an enemy combatant in the field, there is an expectation that this combatant will never be allowed to potentially kill Americans again, until hostilties end and the fighting stops.
If they no longer have that assurance, the troops will find a way to make sure that combatant is neutralized, one way or the other.
The Reality of Unintended Consequence rears its ugly head again.
Like Clinton’s Marc Rich Pardon?
I didn’t know who Marc Rich was until I read this yesterday at Deep Capture:
Great Democrat, that Marc Rich. Totally deserving of a Presidential Pardon.
/snark off
Very bizarro when the pieces of data start coming together….
McCarthy just b_tch slapped Holder and the entire Obama administration with that letter.
Nice job!
I realize that now…it’s a curse.
put those ankle bracelets on them. they don’t work on sex offenders, but they will surely work on terrorists. what a country. jon stewart said harry truman was a war criminal because he dropped the a bomb. gee, you develope a new weapon and are a war criminal for using it. so the inventor of torpedoes, gunpowder, and the bow and arrow must be war criminals too.
Jon Stewart is an idiot…but there are MANY, MANY of those. Most are voluntary idiots.
Did he mention the fire-bombing of German and Japaneses cities? No, course not. They did not involve the nuclear boogy-weapon, just good old incendiaries and HE.
It is all about feelings…
All that “torture” stuff…American inmates in our prisons are treated to a LOT worse. Characters on TV shows are treated worse by the hero police in the series, and we all think that’s swell.
Amazing….
The PRESSSSident will deep six reporting on this letter.
Meanwhile, the White House will spin this whole Gitmo thing as Bush’s and GOP’s fault. While a flat out lie, they’ll spout something like “If not for Bush and the GOP invading Iraq, there would be no Gitmo problem”.
Bottomline politics — Look for any detainees released in the US to be placed in Red States as punishment for supporting the Iraq War.
Jon Stewart must think Nanking is some dish served up in his favorite Chinese hangout. Personally, people like this should be strapped to a chair and made to watch the whole WW2 playout from beginning to end using real combat footage.
No, it’s a virtue. Shows a good heart.
I saw a History Channel mini-series that war gamed what would have happened if we had not dropped the nukes and invaded Japan. It was long, complete and rather detailed.
However, at the very end of the special the narrator said, “There are many unknowns about the decision to drop the bombs. However, thre is one relevant fact. As part of the invasion peparations, the War Department ordered Purple Heart Medals for the expected number of dead and wounded from the invasion. Even though the invasion was cancelled the medals were delivered.”
The narrator continued, “Even though we have had the Korean War, Vietnam War, Desert Storm and other smaller actions since WW II that supply of medals was sufficient to provide all of the Purple Hearts needed for those conflicts. We have never needed to order Purple Hearts since that order was received.”
I can think of no greater explanation of why the use of those weapons was considered a necessity.
Refer to my post #13. Bad idea.
Well, he blew it! I’m sure he made enemies in the administration with his comments. I hope HIS taxes are in order.
How long before the left starts with the labeling? Racist! Anti-Obama! Partisan hack!
Obama welcomes input from all side of the issues, but let’s not forget…he won! It is obvious to me by now, that by the time he solicits advice from the opposing side, he has already made up his mind on a course of action (or one of the puppet masters has.) His so-called outreach is nothing more than lip service.
The pool of competent advisers is shrinking rapidly, and is channeling this administration into waters where they are more comfortable ideologically, and socially…the radical anti-American left.
I agree, but would only add that Truman’s calculus also took into account the Japanese casualties that would result from a conventional invasion and submission of their homeland.
We had vivid models of Japanese women and children following their culture of murder/suicide in our experiences on the Japanese Home Islands.
Part of the reason the Japanese were able to avoid that cataclysm was that their Emperor led them in capitulating. Had we invaded, their resistance would, if anything, been stiffened.
Their recovery could well still be in progress.
The US weighed the options carefully and humanely, and did the right thing.
We need guys like this to run for office. Time to draft him!
I hope you are right. Based on conversations with my mother, at that time, the general population did not care in the least about how much the Japanese suffered or how many died.
It was rather cold-blooded.
And it was totally understandable. Then, and for years afterward, there was a lot of well-earned hatred for Germany and Japan in our culture.
Some of that was appropriate. I can say without reservation that I find that much more healthy than our current moral confusion regarding our enemies and their tactics, and how to defeat them.
I think many Americans never consider that last issue.
z troll: take yer tendentious crap elsewhere. Leftards have this irritating rhetorical trick of asking a question that assumes what it has not proved.
In this case, unless you have evidence that McCarthy approved of releasing still-dangerous terrorists held at Gitmo, you are blowing smoke.
YOU made the assertion-posed-as-a-question. YOU offer evidence for it.
You also avoid the larger question, which should be: do YOU approve of threatening lawyers issuing legal memoranda with prosecution when you disagree with their opinions?
The z troll uses an interesting tactic;
first, the questions posed are leading questions that are the conclusion of a series of false predicates. In order to deal with them, you would have to deconstruct the predicates, which takes more time than anyone has, and refute each false predicate;
then, if you decline to adopt his false question on his terms by answering that false question in the manner he insists upon,
he says you are afraid.
It is an interesting form of lying. But it is still a lie.
*Andy has been one that understands what we are up against from way back in the early nineties; P-BO and the Clown Cluster will have blood on their hands before 2012 just by their actions in the first 100 days; Has anyone else noticed the uptick in Iraq violence?
*Andy would not put it quite the way I do, but since I am not a member of the NAAPC, I will repeat, “we are dealing with a 7th century invented religion of death cult savages”; There is no middle ground.
Rags, I’m not so sure he’s lying as much as assuming he’s smarter than we are, and offering his bogus questions thinking he’s got a clever “gotcha”.
We should pounce every time he tries to pull such a fast one. Make HIM support his assertion. I suspect he’ll just wilt, as leftards generally do.
Z’s technique is akin to Solzhenitsyn’s account of his aggressive bargaining techniques in a Siberian market:
“How much you want for that tubercular chicken, lady”?
(the ONLY laugh I ever got reading Solzhenitsyn, btw)
I consider an intentional effort to deceive a lie.
I know…I’m hard that way…
I make a living taking that kind of crap apart.
I would do it for free, if I had to…
Kind of like here.
I don’t know. How many?
What an outstanding and devastating critique of the naive and reckless policies of the idiots in the current administration.
In the vernacular…
Word.
It has upset me, too. Though how many of them were gathered up is also disturbing.
Yep, agreed, though unfortunately in the fog of war things can get confusing. Yet, it would have served our purposes better had there been a more cogent plan in effect before the detainees had arrived at Gitmo, and a more expedient plan to deal with them once there.
Not true and certainly a mischaracterization of his policy. Pres Obama said that he wanted a review of their cases, and closing Gitmo does not mean releasing them all. (BTW, which was a silly idea. The better position would have been to say things will be done differently.)
Yes, there are a bunch of would have, could haves, and maybes, on the part of Andy McCarthy. I would have accepted a small notation in his letter that he argued the same points to the Bush Administration and/or said so publicly at the time. You know, just to demonstrate his consistency.
Certainly, you are not referencing me, but are speaking to the the ‘global’ you. I offered no defense of Pres Obama’s, or Pres Bush’s, actions.
I merely asked about Andy McCarthy’s consistentcy. Something that I often do here, on MM’s Blog. I offer no defense, no apologies, I just ask everyone to be consistent in taking one person to task, but not taking the other to task, for the same behaviour.
Not about judgement, it is about consistentcy.
LOL.
From my post #7, the ‘predicate’ was established when I cut and pasted Andy McCarthy’s own words, and then asked a very simple question, ‘Where was this guy and his opinion when the Bush Admnistration released 60 odd detainees from Gitmo?’
NJ-Aviator in post #30 approached the question honestly, gave a response, and I see no reason that the two of you could not have have done so, as well.
Further, I made no assertions, I asked a question. A question that neither of you have the courage to address. And, if not answering a question is a form of wilting, I will not wilt, but address and answer every question.
Having now established a ‘predicate’ (I prefer the term, ‘premise’) the two of you have already wilted.
And Da One and his Attorney General want to disarm legally armed concealed carry licensees and prevent the real civilian national security force from being armed with effective defensive weapons.
Hope is not a plan; not all change is good. WE are the civilian national security force. I’m going to a gun show tomorrow to increase the “arsenal of democracy.” The resistance is here; the resistance is now. RESIST!!!
ECS
Z, I believe this might be based on a guess on your part that he was not consistent with his beliefs during the Bush years. I haven’t seen any evidence suggesting that he wasn’t. He seems to articulate quite clearly what he believes in the letter and there’s nothing to suggest that this is a recently formulated opinion.
Andrew is addressing the here and now of this administration and this very specific meeting. I believe he is stating that he would have felt a degree of protection in voicing his opinion during the Bush administration, even if it differed from the desired policies of that administration. He is pointing out that not only are those lawyers now being targeted by the new administration, but that Obama and Eric Holder’s comments demonstrate that they are not willing to listen to a dissenting opinion anyhow, so why should he take the risk?
Questioning his past integrity without any substantial evidence (that I have seen) might be a “fun” hypothetical question in the political game of hypocrite gotcha, but why should McCarthy have to address that point specifically in his letter? Bush is no longer in office. I assume McCarthy stands by his record and would not have been so vocal if he has flipped on this issue.
If you believe you have found evidence that he did not promote the same views during the Bush years, please present it. It would be worthy of discussion.
Impugning his letter by implying that he is inconsistent…without the least support for that false implication.
A favorite…and bankrupt…tactic.
Implying, again without the least support, that there is equivalence between military authorities ON THE GROUND, following due process, releasing GITMO detainees…
with a POLITICAL edict that FUNDAMENTALLY changes the status…and subsequent treatment…of the entire GITMO population…
regardless of the danger they pose…
and AGAINST the strong counsel of military authorities ON THE GROUND.
See how it works…?
The short answer to your question is: In all likelihood, he wasn’t asked. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it. Otherwise, you are, as usual, full of ..it.
I keep wondering: when did Z stop beating his wife?
Well, Z?
When?
Excellant response. EXCELLANT! Bravo!
Thank you Salt.
Taking risks is one way to demonstrate the courage of your convictions. Though I am not advocating that he takes part in the hearings, or not.
Please know that I am not questioning his integrity. And in the world of political hypocrite gotch’a, in my words, assuming evidence not based in fact, or more simply put, speculation (a highly reformed art practiced on this and other Blogs) and suggestion based on what a person did not say.
I did not speculate, or put words in his mouth. I did not suggest any motive on the part of Andy McCarthy. I asked a question. A question of consistentcy.
I have no evidence of anything, that is why I asked the question. Saying what he did about the Obama Administration, did he also say the same thing about the Bush Administration? Consistentcy, that is all. No challenge to his integrity. No judgement from me about the wisdom of the policy itself.
Just a question, that I truly appreciate you, and one other person, addressing directly.
Thanks again.
LOL.
Not taking you seriously here, but I will play along.
You are assuming evidence not based in fact. What makes you think I am married? What makes you think, if I were married, that I would be male and have a wife, and not be female and have a husband? What do you mean by beating?
Now, you play along, and point out where the assumptions are in my original question? Is McCarthy consistent? Provide a link. Answer the question, or have you wilted and gone dry?
LOL.
Good greif! I asked.
Does anyone have a link where Andy McCarthy said similar things about the Bush Administration releasing Jihadist from Gitmo?
You have gone round the bend and jumped off into the deep end.
All your efforts taking me to task, theorising about what and how I post, could have been spent just answering my original post. Though as I said before, I understand your fear, I truly do.
You could learn something from Salt and NJ Aviator.
Continue to distract, distort and deflect. That is so much easier with your head buried in the sand. Ostrich.
Finally, I never mentioned anything about the military. I questioned the policy set forth by elected officials to bring detainees to Gitmo, without a comprehensive plan to deal with them.
It is called reading comprehension.
Here it goes again…!!!
To what “policy set forth” does he refer?
He implies that a “comprehensive plan to deal with” GITMO detainees HAS to be in place before they are taken in combat and need to be put somewhere. Anything else, by implication, is irresponsible. WHY?
This, of course, ASSsumes that there was no “comprehensive plan”. Does he have evidence to support that ASSumption?
He NEVER mentioned anything about the military. He is sooooo innocent.
But his implication that the Bush Administration released prisoners was itself a lie. The Bush Administration allowed the expression of military justice, which was the duty of the politicans in the circumstances.
I will submit the question as to who is here to “distract, distort and deflect” to those who read these posts.
My purpose is to expose, illuminate, and reveal the z troll’s tactics. I think it’s fun…!!!
Considering that you are the one raising questions about his consistency, the question should be; Do you have any proof that he isn’t? I’m no lawyer, but I always thought the burden of proof was on the accuser. Then again, in the brave new age of President Treason, that is likely to change.
And besides, even if there is no link that shows Mr McCarthy never said similar things to or about the Bush administration, so what? Do you have any proof that the Bush administration came to him for advice?
Your argument here is little better than a third graders, “you’re a poopie head” nonsense.
Guys like z befoul many a website.
Their modus operandum is to commit every logical fallacy in the book, and then commit even more when challenged.
Intellectual honesty? They simply do not care. Logical rigor? Hah!!!
Since there are no referees they can do this forever. In the real world some adult would take them aside and beat some sense into them.
And I mean “beat”.
But here, where MM unaccountably lets trolls flourish and multiply, they can sit back and act as if they are puppetmasters.
lgm and chapoutier have been doing this for years. We are all “onto” them. Z is in the same category.
We have a “comprehensive plan” for dealing with such trolls. DON’T engage them “on the merits”, just on their fallacious reasoning.
Anyone reading this thread from top to bottom can see that Z doesn’t acknowledge his illogic, but simply moves on to another aspect of his flakiness.
After while, people tend to filter out such PeeWee Hermans.
Full:
I think engaging people with adverse opinions is a WONDERFULLY useful exercise.
Group-think is a dangerous thing, and it should NEVER be entertained. So, MM is doing god’s work in allowing contrary posters here.
That said, there is a HUGE difference between Chaps and the others you mentioned. I can’t speak to every instance, but Chaps is intellectually honest in my exchanges with him (I suppose him).
The z troll is never honest…in my experience. lgm is just a bomb-thrower, and nobody should even respond to that mess.
My only purpose is to expose the z troll’s tactics, because I’ve seen other posters get caught in its “tar baby” propositions.
Again, I do this for a living, and I LOVE doing it!!!
And the gist of multiple responses is that it is up to you to provide evidence that he didn’t, since you’re the one questioning his integrity. If you are unable to do so, the assumption is, since he is a conservative and therefore more than likely honest, that his opinion has been consistent. It would seem that he wasn’t asked by the Bush Administration to take a formal role in discussing prisoner disposition, which is what the current administration did, that being the reason for his letter, and the only reason that the letter is of particular interest and significance. If he hadn’t been offered such a position, there would be no reason for a letter of refusal, now would there? And if his opinion weren’t consistent, it is also irrelevant, since even conservatives are allowed to see the error of their ways and change their minds. And finally, most of the prisoners who have been released were evaluated to be low security risks. The ones who remained were considered the worst of the worst. The fact that so many of the ones considered low risk returned to the battlefield only underscores the necessity of holding the ones who remain. Finally, your original question, no matter how you’ve tried to twist it subsequently, was clearly meant to imply that his position was political, based on which party was in power. If anyone lacks integrity here, it would be you, for denying what is so obviously true.
For your benefit
From my post #61 – Yep, agreed, though unfortunately in the fog of war things can get confusing. Yet, it would have served our purposes better had there been a more cogent plan in effect before the detainees had arrived at Gitmo, and a more expedient plan to deal with them once there.
I implied nothing, I stated very clearly that we would have been better served had there been a more cogent plan for dealing with the detainees. Holding the enemy combatants for seven years without resolution doesn’t sound like there was a plan. Execute them. let them go, say they are in prison for life, but the purgatory they are in, is kicking the can down the road. I have more faith in our ability to resolve the detainee issue in less than seven years.
You a welcome to read deeply as you want and assign meaning to things that I did not say. You do it so well.
Seven years and how many trials of the Gitmo detainees? By the absence of action the assumption can be made that there was no plan. Just more kicking the can done the road.
How long before those 60 odd detainees were released? Why were they brought there in the first place? What was the plan? I don’t know, give them a free vacation? Now, the can is being kicked back and firth across the road.
Cut and paste where I did, along with the posts number.
More implications! LOL!
The expression of military justice, was the duty of the politicians. The politicians? The politicians, but not Pres Bush, because he is not a politician. Try again explaining how I lied. OH Yeah, because you can see deeply, deeply, into my words and find the implications and avoiding commenting on what I actually said.
If that is the case, illuminate me with an answer to the question from post #7. And, I am less concerned about your tactics, just honest direct answers that do not take tangents.
Oops, there I go again, forgetting your fear, and ostrich like behaviour.
I made no accusation, I asked a question. There is a difference.
If you do not know something, you ask a question. That is what I did, and did so wondering if there was any consistentcy.
Are you freaking kidding me? Did you visit the link provided by MM? He worked for the Bush Administration and that is why AG Holder wants to hear what he has to say.
I think a third grader would know to read the provided link. So what does that make you?
Whatever.
When you decide to answer questions, we can talk. I even addressed and answered your question from your post #69.
Intelectually dishonesty begins with not answering a direct question, and you are well accomplished in that arena.
Sorry, but you asked a loaded question, one aimed at undermining McCarthy’s position, and based on your rpresuppositions, but not grounded in any FACT.
Wikipedia: ” the fallacy of many questions — a fallacy, more commonly known as “loaded questions”, that is committed when a question presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved in its discussion.
You’re busted.
Ridiculous diversion and getting quite tiring.
Also, the repeated use of LOL! is also annoying. Makes you sound very young and immature.
Up until the last few threads with your I hadn’t placed you in the Troll category. For me, you’re there now.
Yeup.
Here’s a great lesson from human nature;
That thing that one most feels most guilty, uncomfortable, or ashamed about…
is that which they defend most aggressively.
See above posts from the z troll for an illustration. ^^^
There endth the lesson…
HUH? Exactly what did I ‘presuppose’? And, I only asked one question in my original post #7.
Not grounded in fact? Of course it is not grounded in fact. It is a question in search of an answer, in seacrh of facts.
And, ‘loaded’ now means that you can’t ask about consistentcy? And, what is to fear about ‘loaded’ questions? OH Yeah, answering the question inconsistently makes you a hypocrite.
Ask me any question, even silly ones, like you did in your post #67, and I have no fear in addressing and answering it.
Try just answering the question in post #7 instead of deconstructing it’s meaning and assigning motive and intent to just a very simple question. If you don’t know the answer (BTW, neither do I, and that is why I asked) then say so. If you know the answer, then say so. There is nothing to fear, I assure you.
Also, the z troll is BADLY misinformed…
Following hearings (what you get from military law in lieu of a “trial”, but due process according to history and the SCOTUS)…
Nearly 800 detainees have passed through the Caribbean camp since 9/11, but about 550 have been transferred or released, with about another 60 cleared for transfer or release. That leaves fewer than 200 prisoners.
Answer.
It is OK that you do not find funny what I find funny. I express myself and it is my style. I would not challenge your style anymore than I would point out someone’s typos.
Absolutely, troll or not, you are entitled to your opinion. Everyone is. Agree? I sort of put that in the style column.
Now, how about some substance? Take a crack at answering the very simple question from post #7.
Huh?
What is the question? I did not see any question marks in your above post (that I cut and pasted, and referenced by number.)
And, what am I misinformed about?
Cutting and pasteing would be helpful, even referencing an actual post number, would be good.
Z – It’s not a simple question. And if your style is setting up straw men so you can soundly defeat them… your style is a bad one.
What makes you angry is that some people don’t fall for your bait. Yes, you have a right to an opinion. In #7 no opinion was stated. Instead of asking your loaded question, you should have stated your own opinion, or better yet, looked up some facts. And in the absence of facts, not asked a loaded question.
Someone bored with your nonsense.
Retired in 2003 as chief assistant…? I am guessing the chief assistant from the Southern District of New York was not exactly somebody the previous administration would think to consult on how to conduct the war. You’re trying to turn this person into another Richard Clark or Joe Wilson. Just because he “worked in the Bush administration” doesn’t mean squat in regards to Gitmo.
Intellectual dishonesty begins when you pose a question implying dishonesty in another, then pretend to have the purest of motives yourself, as you did in your first and subsequent posts. It continues when you refuse to acknowledge that your question has been answered fully and forthrightly, several times by several different posters (whether you agree with the responses or not). Your original post:
was clearly and deliberately phrased to imply that he had personally approved of the previous releases of detainees and then changed his opinion subsequently for political reasons, although it’s clear that he was not in a position to have any influence on those decisions and that his opinion was therefore of no consequence and it is unlikely that it was solicited. You reinforce that in a later post when you claim that he was part of the Bush Administration (A clear lie – he was a career prosecutor in the [NY Southern District] US Attorney’s office). You also confirm your original intent in a later post when you accuse him of hypocrisy, based on nothing but your own conjecture – since you are barely honest enough to admit that you have no idea what his opinion about prior releases may have been.
Altogether, an impressive display of the average liberal’s ignorance, stupidity and hypocrisy. But please keep coming back. You do more good for the conservative cause than a dozen Newts.
It is a very simple question. For your benefit from my post #84 -
If you don’t know the answer (BTW, neither do I, and that is why I asked) then say so. If you know the answer, then say so. There is nothing to fear, I assure you.
Angry? What makes you think I am angry? Frustrated, maybe. But, not angry.
And, you are correct, I stated no opinion in post #7. I asked a question, in the hopes that I could get an answer.
Was fulldroolcup’s question to me in post #67 loaded? And, did I answer it in post #69? Loaded or not, simple or not, I have no fear in answering a question. Others do, and I call them ostriches.
This might be a new concept for you, but in the absence of facts, most people ask a question to get the facts. Yep, I know a silly little thing asking a question to gain some knowledge.
One last word on opinions, and as it relates to my question in post #7. Once I get an answer to the question, I can then express an opinion about Andy McCarthy’s consistentcy.
You missed Salt’s post #64 and NJ Aviator’s post #30, and my response to them in post #68 and #61, respectively. Unfortunately, other posters have avoided providing an answer, and instead have sought to look for implications, suggest distortions and take tangents.
So, yes I have acknowledge those who have answered the question, and have continued to challenge those who did not.
No. Phrased to imply? Morhphing a question into a conspiracy theory is not helpful.
I don’t know what he did, or did not do, and that is why I asked the question. My hope is that he was consistent, and therefor not a hypocrite.
The thing is, I can’t and didn’t draw any conclusions, or give an opinion on his integrity. Because, I do not have an answer to the question. Once I get a definitive answer, then and only then, will I be able to opine on his character.
[Please, cut and paste where I called McCarthy a hypocrite.]
LOL. I suppose.
Already dealt with. In short, he had no reason to proffer an (official) opinion during the Bush Administration, since he was not (as you claimed) a member of the administration, and had nothing to do with Guantanamo or prisoner affairs. The document in question here is an official response to a solicitation from the current administration.
Extremely unlikely, or you wouldn’t be doing your best to impugn his honesty.
Once again, it wasn’t phrased as a solicitation for information, but as an attempt to impugn by implication. But, if you seriously wanted to know his opinion prior to this letter, you could have done your own search. Which adds “lazy” to your resume.
I think we’re done here. On to the next thread.
Oh. One more thought that struck me as I was about other things. I don’t recall that the point has been made that the previous administration wasn’t talking about closing Gitmo and releasing terrorists inside the US. That could change almost anybody’s mind…. except a leftist.
Fear – There you go again. Typical troll behavior. Use an inflamatory word to attempt to place yourself above those who refuse to be baited.
Absolutely amazing you DEMAND answers from others to a so-called question that you admit you don’t have an answer to. How disingenuous can you get?
What are YOU afraid of Z-troll? Why won’t YOU answer your own question? Fear got your tongue?
And Andy McCarthy plays right into Obama’s hands. Obama makes a genuinely bipartisan gesture inviting a smart advocate from the other side to a policy discussion. Said advocate gives implausible excuses for refusing. Now Democrats get credit for bipartisanship without having to endure it.
Courts run by Bush have found many detainees to be innocent. Probably, many who remain and have not been tried also are innocent. Releasing a detainee is not the same as releasing a jihadist who will bomb America. It is just as likely to mean releasing an innocent man who has been held by mistake for six years.
Then you won’t mind putting a few of them up until they get on their feet. Especially the Uighurs.
Yeah, you wouldn’t want any actual team-work going on when considering anything like national security.
No danger of that, now that THE ONE has made it clear that only the homogenized lock-steppers will remain free of the treat of criminalization.
McCarthy is brilliant. With his move, Obama and the Dems lose the chance to scramble for bipartisan cover when many of the detainees the new administration releases return to their lives of committing mayhem against the innocent, just like those detainees did who were released in 2005.
It ALSO was a classy, gutsy, and eviscerating master-freaking-stroke from a guy who has serious chops and credibility.