FuzzNJ wrote:Continuing to ignore your insults, for now, I will respond.
As to your a) Yes they were, were being the operative word. If they were not in military custody and found in the battlefield, in a town or anywhere else and were a high value target and resisted or otherwise put our personel in danger, boom goes the terrorist.
Much of the trouble lies in the fact that there are people at gitmo who are not high value terrorists and because of the legal limbo they are in are not able to prove their innocence. This is anti-American.
Once they are under our control, we must abide by the law. The supreme court itself has decided that habeous corpus extends to the prisoners at gitmo and torture is against US law.
Not "high-value terrorists?"
As if there is such a thing as a "low-value terrorist?"
Puh-lease. And you wonder why I call you an idiot?
Secondly, value of a detainee is subjective. Secondly - and it'd be nice if you'd actually crack a history book once in a while - Lincoln did the exact same thing to the Confederates during the Civil War. They were considered, at the very least, POWs. At the worst, "detainees" were spies, and typically hung without a trial.
What you claim is anti-American has been wholly "pro-American" for over 100 years.
We abide by "the law" you frickin' doorknob. We give those detainees more rights then they have historically gotten under past presidents.
Of course, your statement assumes that we keep people at Gitmo for no good reason. As if we just randomly pick up people to fill up cells in a detention center because the military has nothing better to do. Oh, and we keep them around because they have no information that is valuable to our cause. Yep, Fuzz, you're a genius!
So, once more: you're a fraud. You are reveling in the death of a man, they means by which you claim to oppose, and then get all bent out of shape when someone calls you on your startling hypocrisy.
Save it for the kiddies. The rest of us know better.
I will say this, Fuzz, you distinguish yourself from the likes of Michael Moore. He at least is consistent in his stance, no matter how uninformed and loony it may be. You, on the other hand, only stand up for the thing you claim to believe only when it makes you appear to be popular.
So, if you're wondering why many people here get the impression that you're spineless, mealy-mouthed weasel...