Y'know, I wondered whether you would be stupid enough to put that one up. See, the trouble with you is, you use the bare minimum of information to arrive at a conclusion. It's like all your pathetic attempts at... debate. Take your anti-Bush stance: you read one book (Bush is guilty of war crimes or whatever), then dare to consider yourself educated enough on a matter to actually offer up an opinion.
No, its true, I wondered if you'd be stupid enough to ignore all the out there stuff, like my absence, Nick's and Pam's posts on my absence, my mention of being banned, my always having an answer - including facts, figures, stat's (unlike you, of course) - to drive you back under your stone.
Yes, you ignore all the facts (common to all your posts, in threads not about cricket), and post a suggestion that I took my time to respond to your garbage about morals.
Now, just to make a complete fool of you, Asa, all we need - in the name of honesty, and as an integral part of this debate (sub-debate, if you like) of course - is for the person who, against the rules of the site, chose to ban me, without reason or warning, ON THE SAME DAY THAT YOU POINT TO ABOVE, then not bother informing me that I'd been reinstated because I'd been incorrectly banned, to confirm that the two dates are exactly as I say! Can't reply if I'm banned, can I!!

Tada!

You are so far out of your depth, I almost feel sorry for you. Maybe you could try debating with your advertisement-subsidised radio audience of seven people. Maybe even you could win an argument!
Nah, I doubt it.
Anyway, now I've pointed out your most recent failings, maybe you'd like to pick up on the actual debate. We're at the point where Obama is forced to realise that life as an egotistical Liberal is a lot more simple than that of the president of the United States of America; that sometimes, difficult jobs require extremely difficult decisions to be made, and pretending to give a shit isn't quite the same as being forced to give one. See, we can all fake; but some of us are honest with ourselves.

P.S.
Smooooth!

"then I promise I'll answer yours"
If you want to break your promise, just say so.
If you cannot think of an answer, just say so.

Clueless. You are utterly clueless.

Just need a number - you can count can't you?

You promised to answer my question. You don't want me to think that you cannot or will not honour your promises, do you?

Is your word worth nothing?

If you don't know how to answer, just say so.

To protect your wife and children, and even you, I'd condone beating the living shit out of as many of the Guantanamo inmates as the US services thought necessary; inmates who they thought could have information leading to making the US and Britain a safer place.
I s'pose, in your eyes, the 'persons' who planned the atrocities of September 11th, 2001, and who happen to want the trial that Obama was at first denying them (he's now come to his senses) knew nothing of any importance; just as all those 'innocents' who are now at large in communities, planning new ways of butchering civilians the world over, also knew nothing.
As I said (though you try to avoid it), I hope that the information gleaned from placing that nasty wet cloth over certain faces has saved the lives of innocent people; hopefully, Glasgow's now a safer place for you and your wife and children.
And Obama agrees!

Tada!!

You wouldn't know how to answer a question if your lif... your chilren's lives depended on it.

I love how you try to weasel out of giving a proper answer.

I can understand how you would love to torture anyone that the kommandant of Guantanamo tells you has information. Even though there is a woeful lack of any evidence all the yanks can do is torture someone until they pretend to have information.
It doesn't matter that there may be information to be gleaned from someone - the point is "How many should be tortured before any information IS gleaned?"

But the question needs to be repeated in the proper context:
i.e. Here's someone who may or may not have information. I'll torture him to find out.
Oh dear, he didn't have any.
Here's someone else who may or may not have information.
I'll torture him as well.
Oh dear, still nothing.
Ah here are 100 people who may or may not have information.
Torture them all!
Damn, still nothing.
1000 people more to torture.
Whoopee! someone has told us something.
That's a relief because now I can justify all that torture.
.........................
Now tell me.
You're happy to torture one person, I know that, but how many will you torture before even you think it is wrong?

From your previous post I'm guessing that you will never think it is wrong.
1,000?
100,000?
1,000,000?

Would you'd stop before a billion. How soon before?

To protect your family, 37. no, no - 78...4.... uh, 91. Damn! 66... one or two. No, uh, 172.

What a clown.

And now, Obama's own senate has come to realise the implications of allowing these upstanding individuals on to the US homeland. 90 to 6, the vote; hardly even a close-run thing, was it?
I do wonder, though, whether Obama was genuinely naive, or just a liar. Surely, he must have known that closing Guantanamo wasn't as simple as making a 'promise', as he did before he was President.

"Sorry, Mr. President, but no way will we allow these bastards on our streets."
Which is exactly what the senate is saying. These 'people' weren't picked up while shopping for groceries!

Just in case there are still any doubts, the Democrat Majority Leader said: " “I can’t make it any more clear. . . We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.”

Becoming rather isolated, and appearing more than a little foolish, Asa, wouldn't you say!

You might like to tell me why you think that I think Obama is a cool dude. (Unless you think that anyone next to Dubya looks cool.)

You might like to tell me why you imply that I think it's a cool idea to release the detainees onto the streets of America, unless, of course, they are American citizens.

(By the way, Bush said he was going to close Guantanamo as well.)

You might like to try to uderstand. In Guantanamo, these... people are out of sight and, to an extent, out of mind, and therefore incapable of being a danger to US nationals. But give them what you call a fair trial on US soil and they may 'escape justice' and be out on the streets.
Senators can hardly be seen to be condoning inprisonment without trial, so they want these bastards kept where they are, by any method - failing to help close Guantanamo is as good a method as they can hope for.
**** 'em (prisoners), in other words. And why? 'Cause they know. You don't. You pretend to want 'justice for all', but they can't risk that.
The real world.

Just because a Guantanamo detainee is not found guilty will not give them the right to live in America. There are immigration laws you know.

You may not think it but detainees who have suffered rendition from their own countries will probably want to go back to their wives, children and parents in those countries.

Oh, how very nice for them! You are, of course, wrong - no-one said they'd be released to roam US streets, but the threat would be to the US.
And it's obviously escaped your notice that many of the ex-detainees have gone back to their old ways - murdering, and planning large firework displays in public places.
Anyway, Guantanamo stays open.

"You are, of course, wrong - no-one said they'd be released to roam US streets."

quote:

"Sorry, Mr. President, but no way will we allow these bastards on our streets."
Which is exactly what the senate is saying.

Then who said this?

No-one said it!
The Senate doesn't want them, understand? If they were found not guilty they would be deported. The Senate, and Obama - who, by the way, is suddenly all for military tribunals AND imprisoning many of the Guantanamo detainees without trials (they pose a "clear danger to the American people.") - won't ever allow what you would wish... sorry, pretend to wish would happen.
None of the prisoners will ever literally walk the streets of the US - Obama won't go the British route of 'they can't go 'home', as they may face persecution', so they'll be deported. You want to resort to pedantics, you may as well, since you've nothing better to offer the debate.

My dear afenton,
You make it extremely difficult to have a sensible and civilised conversation when you say one thing, get caught out and then pretend that you didn't say it and then say that you did but meant something else and then suggest I'm being pedantic.

A less generous soul might think you were talking bollocks.

This is, I guess, where you cast away all attempts to stick to the thread and talk like a complete moron.
*Yawn*
Wake me when you begin Guantanamo 3: The Uprising (starring an all-star cricket team).

Asa starts his approach. His little legs are almost a blur as he careers in the general direction of the Corridor Of Uncertainty. Cow Corner, covered with a mild smattering of Cow Pat, is looking good for a Cow Shot, if only Asa can Crease his tendency to bowl a Dibbly Dobbly. Asa is a bit of a Stock Bowler, often trying to divert the attention of the crowd by playing with his Stumps and laying a Sticky Wicket. He's known for his Yips and his inability to stop playing with his Googlies.

Fenton, strolling somewhere between casual and laid back middle off side silly leg with a smattering of sweeping gully, is using his Sledging skills to make the bowler appear a bit of a Military Medium.

Asa lets rip a Loosener which Fenton strikes away for a four. This young(ish) man has a Grip on his Full Length, which ensures he uses his balls to bowl Maiden Overs, in sharp contrast to this bowler's Full Tosses, delivered with
poor Pulls of his Red Cherry.

Fenton walks, bat in hand and having made runs aplenty, toward the boundary. Asa is left to play the Drinks Waiter.

"Hey, Drinks Waiter, bring me a Scotch and soda, there's a good chap."

No need to get shirty and mis-define almost every cricketing term.

Look, just because I sought clarification of a point that quite obviously implied that I would be happy to have rabid terrorists walking up Fifth Avenue, you go all ballistic.

Read those posts back and tell me honestly that there was NOT the implication that the detainees would be released onto the streets of America.

quote:
"Sorry, Mr. President, but no way will we allow these bastards on our streets."
Which is exactly what the senate is saying.
unquote.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Asa,

quote:

Just because a Guantanamo detainee is not found guilty will not give them the right to live in America. There are immigration laws you know.

Asa, this is where the dilemma lies though. There are 3 main difficulties concerning released detainees. One being that their countries of origin refuse point blank to take them back. Secondly, some countries of origin are prepared to take them back to be killed or tortured under local policy.... the Chinese Uighurs for example. And most importantly, some countries are prepared to take back their own nationals but have no intention of keeping track of their activities thereafter. Obama of course is still playing schoolboy politics and shafting blame holis bolis onto Bush. For heavens sake, the blame lies with the idiot, lunatic terrorists. Guantanamo came into being after much deliberation, research and agonising by the best legal, strategical and military minds in the Western world. It was the only workable strategy available at a time when the world was faced with the inhuman mental mind of radical Islamic terrorists murdering on mass and at random. My opinion is that history will find in favour of that decision at the time it was made because Obama is now faced with the same dilemma faced before Guantanamo successfully took many of these worst sub human creatures out of play. What to do with creatures of this nature for whom concepts like the Geneva convention and United Nations are laughable and inconsequential? Obama is having to grow into his President pants quick smart and start playing grown up politics.

From my naive point of view:
If a detainee is tried and found guilty he gets locked up. That he is locked up in an American jail or sent back to be locked up, killed or tortured is unlikely to worry the right. (It would worry me though)

Or, if he's tried and found innocent then he either goes home where he is welcomed, or he seeks asylum from another country if he believes his own country's regime will kill or torture him.

Here's a point. If he is found innocent America worries because the land of the free has a moral obligation to care for him. How that obligation is fulfilled may be a matter for the courts. But having incarcerated an innocent man without trial or representation for so many years will require recompense. Let there be no doubt about that.

America worries because they do not know how many innocent people are in Guantanamo. And yes, just because a man is in Guantanamo doesn't mean he is a terrorist. (Back to a previous point where we know that Afghans were paid to inform on anyone they could safely get rid of.)
So, how many innocents? One or a hundred, two hundred or none?

I don't know how else to get this across. Just because Cheney says Guantanamo is full of terrorists does not mean it is so. 'My government says they're guilty so let 'em rot; we don't need a trial'.

Try them, convict them or free them.

"(It would worry me though)"

Yeah, 'course it would, Asa.
I do wonder if there's a single person who actually believes that crap you spout.


Anyway, I'll stick with those who know, rather than those who couldn't actually care less but pretend to.
You think Obama's suddenly being given all the inside information hasn't made his position just a smidge more difficult? You think that when he says he intends to keep a three-figure number of Guantanamo inmates locked up with no trial - in complete contrast to his pre-election stance on the matter - it has nothing to do with information he now has access to (or had access to but didn't want to admit that he'd have to renege on his pre-election promises)? You think that, as President of The United States of America, he should take any ****ing chances with the lives of his citizens, when he knows damn well that these 'people' are without doubt who they are accused of being, just because you and your kind have the audacity to suggest you are somehow morally better than the rest of us ( us being, I would suggest, the overwhelming majority of the entire world population), in demanding a frigging 'fair trial'?
And why should we give a fair trial to persons who, by their own admission, say they are at war with the West, and some of whom have readily admitted - and are proud of the fact - that they planned the attacks on the US? Krieg ist krieg, and as such, leave 'em where they are.
And those scores of 'people' who are now at large, planning potential 9/11s, but who had once been in Guantanamo, but you did your damndest to have freed... they don't, for a single minute, make you doubt your fake better-than-thou moral position and insistence on a Fair Trial For All?
And when the planners, by their own admission, of 9/11 actually want the trials that you want dismissed, where does that leave you?
Your children have a slightly better chance of dying natural deaths because of the tough decisions others make in your name; but don't for a minute dare suggest that you wouldn't do almost anything, if put in a position where you could literally save their lives, do so. You play this game as though it's all so bloody hypothetical, as though the attempted destruction of Glasgow airport, and all the lives in it at the time, were some abstract computer game, and we are not actually at war with Islamic extremism.
Bloody apologist.

Cheney:
"Finding some less judgemental or more pleasant-sounding name doesn't change what they are or what they would do."