Re: Indefinate detentions under Obama???
 

So they are guilty of fighting foreign invaders trying to hunt down terrorists that their government was associated with. After drilling these guys for information, there is no point in detaining them.

If you've really got a hard on for punishing these guys, why not send them back to Afghanistan. We're going to be there for the next 20 years killing the Taliban anyway.

Re: Indefinate detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=Monksdown;557417]So they are guilty of fighting foreign invaders trying to hunt down terrorists that their government was associated with. After drilling these guys for information, there is no point in detaining them.

If you've really got a hard on for punishing these guys, why not send them back to Afghanistan. We're going to be there for the next 20 years killing the Taliban anyway.[/quote]
The CIA has allready confirmed that a good number of the ones that we have let go we have gone back with the terrorist. If I'm correct most of these guy's are not citzens of Afghanistan.[url=http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2009/01/13/some-freed-terrorism-detainees-return-to-the-fight.html]Some Freed Terrorism Detainees Return to the Fight - US News and World Report[/url]

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=firstdown;557414]Well I have to tell you sorry in advance as my spelling sucks and I don't know how to add spell check to a site like this. Then I have grammer and other many issues. The good news is I have a secretary to do any letters but [B]she can't do my posting[/B].[/quote]
why not? give her a small raise, and she's all set :)

Re: Indefinate detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=Monksdown;557417][B]So they are guilty of fighting foreign invaders trying to hunt down terrorists that their government was associated with.[/B] After drilling these guys for information, there is no point in detaining them.

If you've really got a hard on for punishing these guys, why not send them back to Afghanistan. We're going to be there for the next 20 years killing the Taliban anyway.[/quote]These guys [B]were [/B]the terrorists. They were part of the Taliban and Al Qeada. They were not local tribal folks just firing on "invaders" or part of the Afghan army defending their country.

There is a huge point to keeping these guys detained. Once they are released they will rejoin with either their original terrorist ties or form new ones with cells in whatever country they're released to. From there they will kill innocents.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

Just to clarify.

Being a member of the Taliban militia doesn't make you a member of Al Queda.

Yes they support them. I'm relatively sure that decision isn't made at the 15 year old fresh recruit level.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

This why the US stopped winning wars.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=firstdown;557414]Well I have to tell you sorry in advance as my spelling sucks and I don't know how to add spell check to a site like this. Then I have grammer and other many issues. The good news is I have a secretary to do any letters but she can't do my posting.[/quote]

Actually, my browser gives me a redline for spelling and blue for grammar mistakes. I mostly ignore the grammar, but really do try to correct the spelling ones.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=Daseal;557370]Just like people complain and act like it's a terrible act when American's get tortured, but are fine with it when we do it to our enemies. You're either for something or against it -- you can't have a one way argument.[/quote]You're looking at this as if it's a country vs. country conflict. In which case you would be 100% correct. This is not the same situation. We're not dealing with soldiers from another country. We're dealing with animals who murder innocents purposely, behead innocents on video, and kill civilians to make it look like we did it. The sole purpose of these morons is to impose their ideology on the world through terror. If waterboarding 3 of the high-level operatives to save innocent lives (American or otherwise) needs to be done, then let's save lives. Last I checked American civilians weren't running around in foreign countries trying to kill Iraqis, or Afghans, or any other country's civilian population.

Keep in mind the "torture" (I'm assuming waterboarding) you're referring to was no worse than what our own special operations forces undergo during training. Although we try to hold ourselves to a higher standard, we know that other countries or terrorist organizations won't hesitate to torture our folks if they're captured.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=Monksdown;557455]Just to clarify.

Being a member of the Taliban militia doesn't make you a member of Al Queda.

Yes they support them. I'm relatively sure that decision isn't made at the 15 year old fresh recruit level.[/quote]
Completely understood. However members of both groups were captured and are at GITMO. I'm also not sure how many 15 yr. olds are at GITMO. If there are juveniles detained at GITMO (which I doubt, but I don't know for sure) I would support fast-tracking a determination on them.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

If the glove don't fit you must acquit. No one ever said being president is easy but being a bad president is easier. I am confidant that Obama will put them on trial and I'm willing to put money on it. It may take some time to build a case against certain detainees but it will happen.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

I'm pretty much split down the middle on this issue. On one hand being former military, I can agree with what the Bush administration did. And although I don't beleive in physical torture, I do beleive in mental torture to influence the enemy to release valuable information that may not only save the lives of american citizens but of the soldiers who are on the ground doing the job. That information is vital to operational success and if anyone thinks that a prisoner of war is just going to walk up and start giving up information freely, then you are sadley mistaken. If anyone thinks that if any other country captured a prisoner of war and does not physically torture them, then they need to wake up and join us in the real world. The problem that I have is these guys have sit in this prison for so long that the ones who are were not terriost are now probably just as dangerous as the ones that are not. So what do you do with them and where would you send them?

I love Obama but I would not announce to the world that we are not going to torture prisoners anymore, because by saying that you have just put the U.S. at a operational disadvantage when they do capture prisoners of war. I would have just said that we intend to handle prisoners and detainees differently than the previous administration and left it as that. Just my opinion.....

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

Anyone that is captured on the battlefield should be held until the war is over. Obama seems to be acknowledging that his election did not end the war - which is to say that the war against terror now has added legitimacy. Until the Jihadists are defeated or we are defeated, we have every right to detain these people outside of the domestic legal system.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

Interesting note on the torture angle. I'm reading a book called Legacy of Ashes which is a history of the CIA. In the 1950s, the Agency gave prisoners at a penitentiary in Kentucky (regular prisoners mind you, not Russians or Cubans or captured commies) LSD for 77 straight days. Apparently they were just seeing what would happen. Now, for anyone who hasn't taken acid, trust me. After about the third day on government LSD in a prison setting, which was probably a very strongish dose, waterboarding would seem fairly tame. The point is that, this country has a long history of pushing the envelope in all sorts of areas. To pretend that Bush did something new or extraordinary is laughable.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=Daseal;557370]I hate this regardless of who holds prisoners without being able to charge them with a crime. If this same stuff was happening to American's over seas people would be screaming bloody murder. Just like people complain and act like it's a terrible act when American's get tortured, but are fine with it when we do it to our enemies. You're either for something or against it -- you can't have a one way argument.[/quote]
Who have we tortured ? Waterboarding is NOT torture . Waterboarding causes ,,,, ZERO injuries ,,, no muscle or ligament damage , no respitory illness , no lung desease , no eye , ear or throat damage . We are not waterboaring service men / women ,,, these people are terrorists targeting civilians . Show me how what we are doing today is equal to what the Germans/ Japanese or VC did to our SOLDIERS ? I understand your point , but comparing WB'ing with Breaking Bones and starving people to death is like apples and oranges , IMO . And they are not criminals they are terrorists .

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=SmootSmack;557416]I suspect that history will not judge him in merely 4 years, I think it will take longer than that.[/quote]

That's the issue with people today; and we say that Skins fans are impatient!

We're already hearing how Obama is the worst president ever. I was definitely not a fan of Baby Bush but it will still take awhile to see his true effect on our nation, just like it took awhile to see Reagan's. I'm not insinuating that they'll be equally viewed, just an example.