tvashtarkatena Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) Many of you have expressed your distaste for the military prison at Guantanamo and the human rights violations that go on there. This is an open letter to Prez Elect Obama to follow through on his campaign promise to close that facility and either release the detainees there or charge them and bring them to justice. You can join this effort by signing it and, if you wish, sending to someone else who cares about this issue. linky I expect the predictable comments from our two resident Gitmo cheerleaders, but I hope some of the rest of you who've commented on this subject will join the effort to do something about it. NOTE: This is just a part of a much larger concerted effort involving litigation, legislation, public education, and legal representation to close Gitmo and make many other changes to restore the Bill of Rights. Edited January 9, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 can we turn it into a theme-park afterwards? there's some potential for cool rides/attractions, no? don't forget to bring your towel! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 You'd have half the guys in the Tenderloin district jamming the ticket gate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Agreed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serenity Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 The Guantanamo prison now has about 385 inmates. Records on 517 current and former detainees show that 95 percent have been members of or associated with al Qaeda or the Taliban and that 73 percent participated in hostilities against U.S. or coalition forces, defense officials said. The analysis is a response to a series of highly critical reports by Seton Hall University law professor Mark Denbeaux, which found only a small number of Guantanamo detainees who had fought against U.S. forces. Among the six detainees identified on Monday was Mohamed Yusif Yaqub, who the Pentagon said assumed control of Taliban operations in Southern Afghanistan after his release from Guantanamo, died fighting U.S. forces on May 7, 2004. Abdullah Mahsud was released only to become a militant leader within the Mahsud tribe in southern Waziristan with ties to the Taliban and al Qaeda. He directed the October 2004 kidnapping of two Chinese engineers in Pakistan, the Pentagon said. Maulavi Abdul Ghaffar became the Taliban's regional commander in Uruzgan and Helmand provinces after his release and was killed in a raid by Afghan security forces on Sept. 25, 2004, the Pentagon said. Abdul Rahman Noor was released in July 2003 and was later identified as the man described in an Oct. 7, 2001, interview with Al Jazeera television network as the "deputy defense minister of the Taliban," the Pentagon said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Identify them, charge them, prosecute them, then convict them or clear them, jail them or release them. Do that or STFU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serenity Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Despite public perceptions the Gitmo detainees have been treated better than 99.9% of foreign war detainess in history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) I would be stunned to disbelief if more than a dozen or so of the gitmo detainees were worth the effort or cost that has gone into them and they could have been dealt with in ways that did not sully the Constitution and our international standing in the world - ignorance heaped upon ignorance on the part of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Yoo. And the 17 Uighurs? Just when did Walmart reduce the U.S. military to the status of a minion of the Chinese? Edit: Don't get me started again on the net-negative effects when ignorant, self-serving chickenhawks (with a fringe/fantasy agenda) start attempting to micro-manage the military and intelligence communities. Treason, on several fronts, has been the principle result if their 'policies' as far as I'm concerned. Edited January 10, 2009 by JosephH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Identify them, charge them, prosecute them, then convict them or clear them, jail them or release them. Do that or STFU. No shit. 7 years. Despite public perceptions the Gitmo detainees have been treated better than 99.9% of foreign war detainess in history.' I know some of these asswipes have shown up later and fought and killed Americans. However, it's damn un-American to just lock up people who are non-combatants without a trial. Often for heresay evidence. It's just Fucking wrong. So, I have to go with Prole. We need to shit or get off the pot. If it means some of them are transferred back to their home countries, like Qatar, or Dubai, so be it. We've had plenty of time to work em over, there no more info inside of them. Have them swear on the Koran to Allah they will NOT fight us and let em go. Sorry Mike, but that's the way we should be rolling. These pricks have been in prison for up to 7 years, time to "let my people free" as they say. I they were caught in an illegal act then prosecute them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 10, 2009 Author Share Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) I didn't post this to argue about who's unsubstantiated, unpublished report says what about the detainees at Gitmo, or argue how the Russians or Japanese or whoever else treated their prisoners worse than we have. I posted it to get people to sign this open letter asking the government to close the facility, and either try or free the detainees there, and clean up this stain on our national honor. If, um, 'reports' show there are bad guys in Gitmo, fine, try them. If not, let them go. Any jaggoff can blow whatever shit out their ass they want over the internet about who did or didn't do what, (and God, I've heard it all) but until it's presented in a court of law as evidence one way or the other, its all just so much bullshit. Anyone got a problem with that? Edited January 10, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkporwit Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Just in case people thought that unlimited detention is confined to Gitmo, here's a little eyeopener (at least it was for me) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serenity Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Don't get me wrong, I'm all for letting them go. That's how they wake up one morning and find themselves dead. I'm just pointing out a few factoids in the process. Last I read Pat this board offered freedom of speech. You've certainly abused yours. If you have a fucking problem with me shit dick them man up. I'm stateside and pissed off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 10, 2009 Author Share Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) You're pissed off? That's your problem, brah, not ours. Deal with it like an adult. And nobody's glueing your eyeballs to the computer screen. You're free to post whatever you like here, as always, except threats, as you are well aware. Is that what's happening right now? Just to be clear about it, because that certainly sounded like a threat to me. Edited January 10, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serenity Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 You got a rock in your pocket? I'm talking to YOU, and YOU only. Last I checked you have zero moderator pull, so don't go trying to pretend like you're one because you got called out net tough guy. You love talking people down, talking shit, then when someone gives you the chance to stand up behind your keyboard words you start calling foul. I think I've made my point again. You're nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 10, 2009 Author Share Posted January 10, 2009 You're not talking to me. You're on a public forum. I'd suggest taking your personal emotional problems elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serenity Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 No, I am talking to you directly, on this forum. Don't try and sidestep and tapdance. Look at how you speak to the other posters on this website. Look at your post above when YOUR personal crusade started going sideways. Look at how many people you insult on here with 'moron this' & 'asswipe that'. If you can't handle being put on the hot seat then maybe you better tone down your attitude here a little bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 10, 2009 Author Share Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) Mike, I'm going to continue doing exactly what I've been doing. All the posters here are big people who can take care of themselves without your help. You seem to be expecting a result here that you're just not going to get. Now, you can either have a sense of humor about it, like everyone else here seems to, or, if it bugs you too much, there are millions of other forums you can participate in. The choice is yours. And BTW, this is not a personal crusade, its an invitation to join a national campaign. If you're not interested in participating, feel free to walk on by. That's pretty much all I'm going to say on this subject. You may rant on about it, but I've said all I need to pretty clearly. Edited January 10, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serenity Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Pat, Fair enough. Hope that e-thug thing works out for you. See ya round twinkle toes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pc313 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Are you guys done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 I've pretty much stopped posting at this website cuz, well, it became a silly waste of time to see the same egos jockeying for position (mine included!). it seemed rather pathological after a while, a mental illness of sorts, akin to an addiction to jerry springer or somesuch (and i loathe jerry springer, having watched it perhaps twice in my life for 15 minutes). but i still take a gander once in a while, and i must say this thread humored me a bit, enough to actually post. to take sides, really! to take sides with a poster with whom i've had heated political exchanges far too many times in the past, but still have an affinity for. hell, i'm a card-carrying aclu member, donate to democrats (spineless bastards!) and, with some misgivings now, have disparaged any and all members of the military branches of the US. but i still like the guy, whereas the fellow he argues with above is (is? or acts like? i tend to go with "acts like", since i only know his online persona) one of the biggest dicks (i go back to high-school for that one!) that has ever posted here. a loud opinionated bore that cannot go past a thread without opining in the most degenerative way, incessantly, incessantly incessantly! (ok, so have some compassion for him already! evidently there might be a pathology at work, yes? and when one confronts a pathology, does one react with anger? well, one certainly might, but is that in any way the reaction that one would want? of course not! not in the bigger scheme of things. ok whew that clears that up.) perhaps my reaction is partially elicited by the said party's use above of the word "ours", as in "You're pissed off? That's your problem, brah, not ours." "Ours"? what's this collectivization at work here? it seemed to me that the post in question was a direct communication to "pat", not to "us". so why would this "pat" character speak for others? is this a symptom of the possible pathology? another point that humors me is the quick "are you threatening me?" turn of events when "serenity" spoke of being angry. this one especially humors me! reminds me of the young child who has learned to push people's buttons, but when the consequences of such behavior come to haunt this little child, he or she runs and hides behind the coat-tails of mother (in this case, the moderators? the police?). now i don't favor physical violence, but would one really feel sorry for "pat" if one found him quivering as "serenity" sang him a lullaby? (ah the comforts of domesticated urban life). i suppose i would, yes i would, even intervening if i could, but oh what an understandable situation, given his ("pat"'s) behaviour. (btw, i saw no threat, only "pat" feeling threatened.) so having said all that, now i say hi to serenity, hi to "pat", and bid adieu once again. may all beings be happy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denalidave Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 I've pretty much stopped posting at this website cuz, well, it became a silly waste of time to see the same egos jockeying for position (mine included!). Hey SC, welcome back! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pc313 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. You are a jerk. No you are. No your an ass wipe. No you are. It's all fun and games til someone gets their feelings hurt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 I've pretty much stopped posting at this website cuz, well, it became a silly waste of time to see the same egos jockeying for position (mine included!). it seemed rather pathological after a while, a mental illness of sorts, akin to an addiction to jerry springer or somesuch (and i loathe jerry springer, having watched it perhaps twice in my life for 15 minutes). but i still take a gander once in a while, and i must say this thread humored me a bit, enough to actually post. to take sides, really! to take sides with a poster with whom i've had heated political exchanges far too many times in the past, but still have an affinity for. hell, i'm a card-carrying aclu member, donate to democrats (spineless bastards!) and, with some misgivings now, have disparaged any and all members of the military branches of the US. but i still like the guy, whereas the fellow he argues with above is (is? or acts like? i tend to go with "acts like", since i only know his online persona) one of the biggest dicks (i go back to high-school for that one!) that has ever posted here. a loud opinionated bore that cannot go past a thread without opining in the most degenerative way, incessantly, incessantly incessantly! (ok, so have some compassion for him already! evidently there might be a pathology at work, yes? and when one confronts a pathology, does one react with anger? well, one certainly might, but is that in any way the reaction that one would want? of course not! not in the bigger scheme of things. ok whew that clears that up.) perhaps my reaction is partially elicited by the said party's use above of the word "ours", as in "You're pissed off? That's your problem, brah, not ours. "Ours"? what's this collectivization at work here? it seemed to me that the post in question was a direct communication to "pat", not to "us". so why would this "pat" character speak for others? is this a symptom of the possible pathology? another point that humors me is the quick "are you threatening me?" turn of events when "serenity" spoke of being angry. this one especially humors me! reminds me of the young child who has learned to push people's buttons, but when the consequences of such behavior come to haunt this little child, he or she runs and hides behind the coat-tails of mother (in this case, the moderators? the police?). now i don't favor physical violence, but would one really feel sorry for "pat" if one found him quivering as "serenity" sang him a lullaby? (ah the comforts of domesticated urban life). i suppose i would, yes i would, even intervening if i could, but oh what an understandable situation, given his ("pat"'s) behaviour. (btw, i saw no threat, only "pat" feeling threatened.) so having said all that, now i say "hi" to serenity, hi to "pat", and bid adieu once again. may all beings be happy! Damn. Good post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Keeep Gitmo open. Keep only Dick Cheney as the sole prisoner there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.