Trade dead line

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:04 pm

A senior official confirms to Fox News that the conduct of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl -- both in his final stretch of active duty in Afghanistan and then, too, during his time when he lived among the Taliban -- has been thoroughly investigated by the U.S. intelligence community and is the subject of "a major classified file."

In conveying as much, the Defense Department source confirmed to Fox News that many within the intelligence community harbor serious outstanding concerns not only that Bergdahl may have been a deserter but that he may have been an active collaborator with the enemy.

so we release 5 of the most dangerous Taliban back into the system, with NO congressional approval or even Congressional knowledge for a man that it seems is probably at best a deserter or even worse a collaborator.

YA. I thought the standing rule was we don't negotiate with Terrorists??

and to top it all off it seems that the Whitehouse admittedly violated the law in doing so

The White House agreed that actions were taken in spite of legal requirements and cited “unique and exigent circumstances” as justification

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:16 pm

Laws don't really apply to the elite ruling class, at least not the ones who are under protection of the media.
So forget that one developing...

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:50 pm

First off, since when does Congress get involved in POW swaps, especially given that the total was 6 people?
Second, what kind of sick freaking society do we have when one side of the ideological aisle has a hissy fit over a POW returning to the US? I don't care if he goes directly to the stockade, he is a US citizen and is home. Thank goodness.
Third, how, exactly are these guys, after significant captivity, some sort of threat? I mean, compared to what is out there already?
We are supposed to be leaving the region this year, are we not?

The ideological reek of this whole matter is disgusting.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:19 pm

callmeslick wrote:First off, since when does Congress get involved in POW swaps, especially given that the total was 6 people?

because the LAW requires that Congress is given a 30 day notice before ANY P.O.W. swap, and then any prisoner swap must be justified to congress before allowed. IT"S THE LAW

Second, what kind of sick freaking society do we have when one side of the ideological aisle has a hissy fit over a POW returning to the US? I don't care if he goes directly to the stockade, he is a US citizen and is home. Thank goodness.

why would you prisoner swap for a deserter or a collaborator. I guess just the sick freaking lefties would think that it was OK to swap 5 men that are know to have been involved with murdering civilians and Americans, for a man that "might" have been assisting other terrorists to do exactly the same thing and deserted to boot. ya that one makes a TON of sense

Third, how, exactly are these guys, after significant captivity, some sort of threat? I mean, compared to what is out there already?

and you know they aren't a threat HOW???

oh and FYI. this administration just 2 years ago addressed these 5 men in particular. James clapper specifically addressed how dangerous these men still were.

The ideological reek of this whole matter is disgusting.

Agreed maybe you should take note on the matter and ask the Whitehouse why they did it and why you are ignoring it??

tell me how DO YOU justify the administration breaking the law on this matter??

FACT the 5 released were known terrorist that have direct connections to dead Americans
FACT the white house violated the law by not getting congressional approval before the release
FACT in TYPICAL slick fashion you don't address the issue

Saul Alinski wrote: the fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon

and you do it so well.

Saul Alinski wrote:The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it

wow you really are an expert

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:29 pm

FACT: Cuda is playing armchair general again.

YA. I thought the standing rule was we don't negotiate with Terrorists??

Carter. Iran.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:27 pm

Ferno wrote:FACT: Cuda is playing armchair general again.

YA. I thought the standing rule was we don't negotiate with Terrorists??
Carter. Iran.

Do you think that example helps your position?!?

vision · Post by **vision** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:04 pm

Headline: Obama refuses to negotiate for release of last POW in Afghanistan. GOP orders impeachment and special investigation committe.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:45 pm

vision wrote:Headline: Obama refuses to negotiate for release of last POW in Afghanistan. GOP orders impeachment and special investigation committe.

ya, I think I'll refer to Will's response to ferno for this one.

And WAS he a P.O.W. ?
Seems the Department of Defense has their doubts, interesting how you don't.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:56 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
Ferno wrote:FACT: Cuda is playing armchair general again.

YA. I thought the standing rule was we don't negotiate with Terrorists??
Carter. Iran.
Do you think that example helps your position?!?

ya , dont you know when you're trying to defend an administrations weak foreign policy, its always best to compare it to the worst administration in recent history on foreign policy.

and ya gotta give ferno a break, his twitter posts only allow 140 characters, so he's not able to post anything of substance

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:25 pm

cute. real cute boys.

will, the whole premise of america doesn't negotiate with terrorism went out the window when carter negotiated the release of the ambassadors during the iran hostage crisis.

If the 'beat the president up' game gets you guys off, more power to ya . Guess you gotta get your rocks off somehow seeing as your wives cut you off. I'll even toss ya a rag.

And WAS he a P.O.W. ?

Yeah, actually he was. Clearly you don't do any research.

so he's not able to post anything of substance

See kiddo, there's a difference between choosing not to post substance, and not being able to post substance. And you're not anyone to talk about quality, given the biblical amount of kneejerks you post.

Until you three learn what exigent circumstances actually mean, everything you, woody or will say from this point on will be completely hollow.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:37 am

I feel like every single person bitching about "negotiating with terrorists" would be singing a VASTLY different tune if it was one of their own family members being held as a POW.

CUDA wrote:And WAS he a P.O.W. ?
Seems the Department of Defense has their doubts, interesting how you don't.

So you've read this classified file that investigated the situation? Awesome! Share the results with us!

And for what it's worth every single person in Gitmo should have been either tried or released more than a decade ago, so it's about goddamn time we started emptying it out.

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:07 am

For fun: http://www.theonion.com/articles/white- ... ier,36180/

Also,

CUDA wrote:A senior official confirms to Fox News...

And the Fox proaganda machine rolls on...

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:38 am

Yeah, actually he was. Clearly you don't do any research.

and clearly your grasp of english is poor.

possible collaborator. Look up the definition.
there is evidence that he freely walked away from his post. WHY? That would not make him a POW. Clearly YOU dont do your research.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:39 am

So you've read this classified file that investigated the situation? Awesome! Share the results with us!

Never said I read it smart ass. Anything else stupid you'd like to share with us today?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:53 am

Until you three learn what exigent circumstances actually mean.

yea I'm sure that this was such an emergency that they only had time to get on the phone to Gitmo and load the 5 onto a plane for the swap. He never had a second to notify congress about what was happening. It's not like there was any planning or coordination that needed to go into this swap.
ya exigent circumstances, the whole premise of that alone is insulting.

what you are really saying is that the president gets to pick and choose when the law applies to him.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 6:49 am

So, CUDA(parrotting the right wing propaganda machine, as I note since returning from my trip) insists this is wrong, illegal, maybe impeachable. Let's review: we brought home the lone remaining POW(no matter what questions might abound). Congress did NOT have to be notified because it was not a mere release, it was a negotiated swap, and further, even the release rules were relaxed. For the first time in my adult life, some in politics are actually complaining about a swap of prisoners that frees a fellow citizen.
Do you right-wing types have any idea how bad you are looking to the vast remainder of the citizenry? There is a reason that Frank Lunz(sp?), the long time GOP pollster(and damned good, I might add, with focus groups and high-tech analysis) sent out warnings to several campaigns yesterday to stop this, immediately. His words were that complaining about this negotiated release was a "ticket to defeat in 2014"

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:46 am

callmeslick wrote:So, CUDA(parrotting the right wing propaganda machine, as I note since returning from my trip) insists this is wrong, illegal, maybe impeachable. Let's review: we brought home the lone remaining POW(no matter what questions might abound). Congress did NOT have to be notified because it was not a mere release, it was a negotiated swap, and further, even the release rules were relaxed. For the first time in my adult life, some in politics are actually complaining about a swap of prisoners that frees a fellow citizen.
Do you right-wing types have any idea how bad you are looking to the vast remainder of the citizenry? There is a reason that Frank Lunz(sp?), the long time GOP pollster(and damned good, I might add, with focus groups and high-tech analysis) sent out warnings to several campaigns yesterday to stop this, immediately. His words were that complaining about this negotiated release was a "ticket to defeat in 2014"

he violated federal law, you know it. I know it. he knows it. man up for once and admit it

The law governing transfers of Guantanamo Bay detainees however, is not mysterious. A 2013 defense bill makes it clear that the administration “shall notify the appropriate committees of Congress” not later “than 30 days before the transfer or release” of a detainee. The administration has acknowledged that they did not inform Congress of the decision within the time period, and the decision to move on the exchange may have been motivated by concerns about Bergdahl’s health.

Georgetown law professor Marty Lederman writes that “It’s difficult to imagine that Congress would have intended to insist upon such a 30-day delay if the legislators had actually contemplated a time-sensitive prisoner-exchange negotiation of this sort; but the statute does not on its face address such a rare (and likely unanticipated) case.”

The fact that the law doesn’t address “a time-sensitive prisoner-exchange negotiation of this sort,” Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith argues, doesn’t mean Obama was within the law when he approved the transfer. “I don’t think it accurate or useful to say that the statute doesn’t address the Bergdahl situation, since it imposes a requirement without exception,” Goldsmith writes.

Maybe passing that requirement without an exception was dumb, but it’s what Congress passed, and it’s the law Obama signed.

and so you cant say it's FOX propaganda

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/was-pow-swap ... dahl-legal

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:17 am

Seems like regardless of whether Obama broke the law doing the deal, it certainly isn't looking like it was a 'good' deal.

If it was initiated by the terrorists then we gave them a heck of a bargain and a little more incentive to use prisoners as currency.
If it was initiated by the US it seems like a very strange move with questionable motive.

A distraction from the VA debacle story momentum? A lame attempt to placate vets?
Inept at best seems to be the case based on what we are learning about the 'prisoner' and outright treacherous if it was a purely political diversion.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:33 am

Will Robinson wrote:
A distraction from the VA debacle story momentum? A lame attempt to placate vets?
Inept at best seems to be the case based on what we are learning about the 'prisoner' and outright treacherous if it was a purely political diversion.

this is where I'm placing my bets.

I believe he knee jerked because he's been looking so bad in the press that he made this swap.

and how about him standing with the Parents and the Dad saying at the end of his speech "allahu Akbar" in perfect Arabic, that sure didn't help the perception among the radicals that Obama is a Muslim.

Who vetted those 2????

and how about Susan Rice coming out on the Sunday talk shows(guess she didn't learn the first time) saying that Bergdahl served with distinction in Afghanistan.

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:01 pm

CUDA wrote:He never had a second to notify congress about what was happening. It's not like there was any planning or coordination that needed to go into this swap.
ya exigent circumstances, the whole premise of that alone is insulting.

Oh right, so instead of getting the guy home we ask congress beacuse, you know, congress gets all sorts of stuff done without partisan bickering (approval rating significantly lower then the president). And it doesn't matter whether he was a corroborator or not. If he did something wrong he needs to be back home to stand trial.

Headline: Everything Obama does is Wrong.

LoL this ★■◆● is ridiculous. So much outrage! hahaha.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:05 pm

vision wrote:
CUDA wrote:He never had a second to notify congress about what was happening. It's not like there was any planning or coordination that needed to go into this swap.
ya exigent circumstances, the whole premise of that alone is insulting.
Oh right, so instead of getting the guy home we ask congress beacuse, you know, congress gets all sorts of stuff done without partisan bickering (approval rating significantly lower then the president). And it doesn't matter whether he was a corroborator or not. If he did something wrong he needs to be back home to stand trial.

Headline: Everything Obama does is Wrong.

LoL this ★■◆● is ridiculous. So much outrage! hahaha.

I see what your doing. your pulling a Reid. when you cant defend an act you try and shift the blame to someone else. Nice try though

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:15 pm

Let's imagine all the other outrage the GOP would muster up if Obama did anything else...

Headline: Obama too slow in releasing POW, impotently defers to Congress

Headline: Obama, failing to keep Gitmo Bay promise, refuses to exchange prisoners for lone POW in Afghanistan.

Headline: Obama fails to secure extradition of Army defector in Afghanistan.

Headline: blah, blah, blah...

You guys are tools.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:30 pm

vision wrote:

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:49 pm

vision wrote:Let's imagine all the other outrage the GOP would muster up if Obama did anything else...

Headline: Vision is a worthless troll

You guys are tools.

Fixed it for ya.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:27 pm

vision wrote:Let's imagine all the other outrage the GOP would muster up if Obama did anything else...

Headline: Obama too slow in releasing POW, impotently defers to Congress

Headline: Obama, failing to keep Gitmo Bay promise, refuses to exchange prisoners for lone POW in Afghanistan.

Headline: Obama fails to secure extradition of Army defector in Afghanistan.

Headline: blah, blah, blah...

You guys are tools.

Yea, because all those things were happening right up until the day he made this deal....

The only thing worse than excuses is really lame excuses like what you offered there.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:27 pm

Vision wrote:You guys are tools.

ThunderBunny wrote:
Vision is a worthless troll

---------

If you boys can't keep it professional, I'll "fix it for ya" by locking this thread.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:44 pm

If this were a republican administration the media would be reporting with serious questions on who initiated the exchange and what the motives of timing might be behind it and they would be screaming about excluding Congress from the decision.
Apparently Obama has had lots of time to include Qatar in the process, so if he was supposed to get Congress to sign off he clearly didn't do so on purpose.

The story the Obama team tells: ... 'that they did not have time to inform Congress of the prisoner swap because Bergdahl’s life was in danger and they did not know how long the Taliban would be willing to wait to finalize the deal.'
doesn't seem to ring true in light of the Qatar contingent brokering the deal. But of course these are D's in the Whitehouse, not R's, so that part of the story won't get much priority from the mainstream media...

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 3:52 pm

Which is worse, giving a known anti-Israel terrorist nation, Iran, 1500 missiles for 3 hostages like Reagan did, or trading 5 Taliban fighters for one U.S. soldier like Obama did?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/3 ... ds-Explode

As for illegality, Obama used a common presidential loophole, known as a signing statement that was put into a bill about Guantanamo detainees awhile back. It's crooked and rife for abuse, but it's been commonly used by many presidents to get what they want. As for the record holder of using signing statements to go around congressional law, Bush W. is the winner. He also used a signing statement to do something illegal internationally, torture enemy combatants.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder ... it-illegal

Where the most outrage should be shown concerns the deaths of the 6 soldiers that were killed while on a mission looking for this probable deserter's butt.

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:51 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Yea, because all those things were happening right up until the day he made this deal....

You can be sure that is what you would read on Fox had this exchange gone before Congress instead of just getting it done.

More selective outrage, fed to all of you from your favorite news channels. Also, see TC's dailykos post above.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:05 pm

Yea, like the Democrats didn’t raise hell back then.

Expecting the president’s supporters to raise hell, when one of these things happen, is like expecting slick to vote Republican.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:05 pm

vision wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Yea, because all those things were happening right up until the day he made this deal....
You can be sure that is what you would read on Fox had this exchange gone before Congress instead of just getting it done.

More selective outrage, fed to all of you from your favorite news channels. Also, see TC's dailykos post above.

So where was Fox/Repub's with that scenario the day before this deal...or the day before that...or the day before that...or the day before that...or the day before that...or the month before that...or the month before that...or the month before that...or the year before that....or the year before that....etc frikken cetra...??

Are you trying to say they were going to lodge all those complaints about Obama not trading for the guy because they knew eventually Obama was going to do the deal this week? So they just waited all this time so they could complain now about him doing it?!?
What is so special about this week versus all the previous weeks that they could have lodged your complaint?

Oh, yea, that's right, they had been opposed to the trade back when they were asked to support it! What was that about facts and truth? I guess that stuff doesn't matter to you so much now does it?

And what the hell does TC's smokescreen have to do with the ethics of the deal? If it was wrong for Reagan to do something wrong it makes it right for Obama to do something wrong?!?

You have no credibility with silly arguments like that. Just none at all. Pure partisan apologist.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:49 pm

Top Gun wrote:I feel like every single person bitching about "negotiating with terrorists" would be singing a VASTLY different tune if it was one of their own family members being held as a POW.

Absolutely. It's so much easier to point the finger and find fault, but the tables sure turn when one is personally involved.

But this is the DBB, where teenagers pose as adults. Top gun excluded of course.

----------

CUDA wrote:yea I'm sure that this was such an emergency that they only had time to get on the phone to Gitmo and load the 5 onto a plane for the swap. He never had a second to notify congress about what was happening. It's not like there was any planning or coordination that needed to go into this swap.
ya exigent circumstances, the whole premise of that alone is insulting.

what you are really saying is that the president gets to pick and choose when the law applies to him.

And you would want to see an american dead before anyone was released from Guantanamo. Typical of a child's lack of understanding.

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:28 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Pure partisan apologist.

I love this ★■◆●. Truly. You are a moron. Partisan? Ok here, let me show you something...

Today was the Gubernatorial Primary Election in California. I have not yet thrown out the sample ballot I used for voting. Here, take a look at my partisanship, lol:

Code: Select all

Position      Name, Party
-------------------------
Governor      Aguirre, Rep (Gasp! vision voted Republican?)
Lt. Gov       Korevaar, Dem
Sec. State    Curtis, Grn
Controller    Wells, Grn
Treasurer     Brown, Grn
At. Gen       Taitz, Ind
Ins. Comm     Hrizi, PF
HoR 53        Campbell, Ind

Partisan, Hmph. Go soak your head.

This is just more "if you're not screaming mad at Obama then you must be a supporter" garbage." And as usual you are imagining I said a bunch of stuff and completely missing my point, which is, it doesn't matter what Obama does because every action gets spun into hate. If he rescued a kitten from a tree he would be accused of chasing it up there or losing it in the first place and the cat would become a ludicrous metaphor for socialism or the economy.

How about this? How about just be happy a US citizen is back home, whether he committed a crime or not, and five people we detained without charges went free? Because that's the right thing to do.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:39 pm

It doesn't matter how many Repubs you voted for, your excuse making for Obama is based on knee jerk partisan reaction that has you making illogical arguments to prop it up. I guess it might not be 'partisan' it could just be you are genuinely inherently illogical but I was giving you more credit than you might deserve.

Generally I could be glad an American is home but since he probably is in need of imprisonment and since to get him here we had to set free five murderous assholes that should have been shot in a firing squad I'm having doubts.
Now, thanks to your kind of silly logic, those five can pick up arms again so it sort of ruins any celebration you want me to enjoy for having another American safe at home to throw in the stockade!
I'd rather leave the deserter to his own devices in Afghanistan and dig the five assholes a large hole in the ground to dump them in....it would be safer all around and cost less too.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:36 am

Yes executing people without ever charging them of a crime totally lives up to the American ideal.

vision · Post by **vision** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:40 am

Will Robinson wrote:It doesn't matter how many Repubs you voted for, your excuse making for Obama is based on knee jerk partisan reaction that has you making illogical arguments to prop it up.

If you wouldn't mind, can you show me the partisan argument I made in this thread defending Obama's actions? Because I don't remember making any. Probably because I'm withholding judgment until I know more information. But I definitely have enough information from this board to call out the ridiculously misplaced outrage. Everything the president does, right or wrong, gets a negative spin and all you suckers bite it. Every time.

Will Robinson wrote:...we had to set free five murderous assholes that should have been shot in a firing squad I'm having doubts.

Ever think by letting them go we can drone them (and their buddies) later? We won't have that inconvenient US court system to deal with either, which seems to be a real drag for GITMO detainees. You really think we don't have tabs on every move these guys make? My guess is they were "let go" the way a fox is released to be hunt by our robotic sky-hounds.

Also, here is a decent article by Newsweek on the subject.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:36 am

Ferno wrote:
Top Gun wrote:I feel like every single person bitching about "negotiating with terrorists" would be singing a VASTLY different tune if it was one of their own family members being held as a POW.
Absolutely. It's so much easier to point the finger and find fault, but the tables sure turn when one is personally involved.

But this is the DBB, where teenagers pose as adults. Top gun excluded of course.

So what happens when a spate of kidnapped Americans occur just to be used as bargaining chips to release more prisoners? How would you feel if one of the newly kidnapped victims were a member of your family. How would you feel knowing the only reason they were kidnapped was due to the exchange just done? Teenagers don't look to see the consequences of their actions, adults do.

----------

Ferno wrote:
CUDA wrote:yea I'm sure that this was such an emergency that they only had time to get on the phone to Gitmo and load the 5 onto a plane for the swap. He never had a second to notify congress about what was happening. It's not like there was any planning or coordination that needed to go into this swap.
ya exigent circumstances, the whole premise of that alone is insulting.

what you are really saying is that the president gets to pick and choose when the law applies to him.
And you would want to see an american dead before anyone was released from Guantanamo. Typical of a child's lack of understanding.

Typical Ferno deflection. There is no information than the Sgt was going to be killed. There is information that he was working with his captures and was in no danger. What you seem to be for Ferno, is more Americans being taken captive with the likely hood some of them will be killed to prove a point. So in the same roundabout logic you are all for more Americans to be killed just so Obama can deflect away from the VA debacle.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:43 am

Ferno wrote:
Top Gun wrote:I feel like every single person bitching about "negotiating with terrorists" would be singing a VASTLY different tune if it was one of their own family members being held as a POW.
Absolutely. It's so much easier to point the finger and find fault, but the tables sure turn when one is personally involved.

But this is the DBB, where teenagers pose as adults. Top gun excluded of course.

----------

CUDA wrote:yea I'm sure that this was such an emergency that they only had time to get on the phone to Gitmo and load the 5 onto a plane for the swap. He never had a second to notify congress about what was happening. It's not like there was any planning or coordination that needed to go into this swap.
ya exigent circumstances, the whole premise of that alone is insulting.

what you are really saying is that the president gets to pick and choose when the law applies to him.
And you would want to see an american dead before anyone was released from Guantanamo. Typical of a child's lack of understanding.

Right back to alynski's rule #4 TYPICAL

You really are incapable making posts without personal attacks arent you.

Back on subject. As Will rightly pointed out. Seems the administration had enought time to contact Qatar about it didnt they. Guess they werent that eorried about his health now were they. Keep making excuses you guys. You're doing so well at defending your position. NOT

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:52 am

Top Gun wrote:Yes executing people without ever charging them of a crime totally lives up to the American ideal.

ya kind of like the President did with his drone policy huh.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:23 am

apparently, the Qatar aspect wasn't finalized until last week, when the Prince was over here for his son's West Point graduation. And, whine though you all will, the point made was valid: keeping these people in illegal, limitless confinement at a camp in violation of most civilized international law at Gitmo is more important than getting every American home, in the minds of some.