The case of the Chinese Uighurs continues to move through the Obamaland system. From Fox News:
"President Obama's Guantanamo task force, which will recommend where the 240 detainees will go once the prison closes next year, are likely to advise that some of the prisoners from China be settled in the U.S., a person familiar with the review process told FOX News.
Members of the task force met with 17 Uyghurs held at the prison last week and quizzed them for at least an hour on where they would like to go, their feelings about the U.S. and their training in Afghanistan, multiple sources confirmed to FOX News."
Did I fall through the looking-glass and wake up in a land of Cheshire cats and giant mushrooms? Where is the smoking caterpillar? When did we start asking terrorists "where they would like to go" and about "their feelings about the U.S."? And at the same time we are also asking them about their "training in Afghanistan" in al Qaeda terrorist camps? Have we also asked them how large they'd like their settlement check to be?
Does it not alarm anyone that these men will be settled here, especially given that "tension exists over the Uyghurs and how 'safe' they are. One source says at least six have a violent history at Guantanamo, including attacks on guards -- attempting to break arms -- and 'bodily fluid cocktails.'"
We are reverting back to a 9/10 mentality. And make no mistake, the world is watching. When Castro is your new best friend and Dmitry Medvedev is your new comrade, the world is seriously askew. Pass me the pipe, caterpillar.
4 comments:
These people have been held for years without a trial of any kind. convicted of nothing. If any of them could be proven guilty in a court of law, they would be in prison. Since there seems to be very little evidence in many of these cases, they have to be set free. As to their violent history - how nice would you be if you were being held without trial for several years??
Oh, and Castro is far from being our new best friend. However, the ridiculous policy of shutting down all relations with Cuba for the last several decades has resulted in absolutly nothing. I would say that after that long, it just might be time to pursue another avenue of engagement.
"the ridiculous policy of shutting down all relations with Cuba for the last several decades has resulted in absolutly nothing. I would say that after that long, it just might be time to pursue another avenue of engagement"
Here's a story I would like to tell.
One day a little girl was walking down a path and saw a rattlesnake. The weather changed quickly and turned cold. The snake was caught unaware and was freezing.
The snake looked at the little girl and said, "Help me, I'm freezing. Pick me up, put me in your pocket. Your bodyheat will warm me up and save me."
The little girl said, "You're a rattlesnake. If I pick you up, you'll bite me, and I will die."
The rattlesnake said, "No I won't. I promise. I'm so cold."
The little girl relented and did as the snake asked. The snake was in the girl's pocket and was warming up nicely.
Then the little girl felt the unmistakable pain of the snake's fangs going into her thigh. The girl screamed, "Why did you bite me? You promised you wouldn't"
As the snake slithered away he hissed, "You knew what I was when you picked me up."
That Anonymoose is why we don't go around making friends with Castro or other people like him who hate the United States.
Besides, Cuba is in a lot worse shape (regardless of what Micheal Moore says) than the U.S. I haven't seen Americans put over 80 people in a rowboat to get to Cuba. That should tell you something.
And as far as the residents of Club Gitmo: They were enemy combatants caught on the field of battle against American and allied forces, and are not protected under U.S. Constitutional law. Just the mere fact that they took up arms against the U.S. in an act of war is enough to hold them.
In reality, bringing trade and income to the island of Cuba is far more likely to result in substantial governmental policy change than ignoring them for decades has.
As to Gitmo, the latest statistics I found say there have been 775 enemy combatants brought there, and a grand total of 80 will be put on trial. 10%? Wow - pretty low rate of prosecution for such a large group of enemies. Could it be that the military just grabbed everyone in site in the heat of battle and let them rot for years until they sorted it out? No way, couldn't be.
Anonymoose!: "In reality, bringing trade and income to the island of Cuba is far more likely to result in substantial governmental policy change than ignoring them for decades has."
Interesting theory. Give them money, prop up the Stalinist regime, and that brings about change... What about declaring undying friendship and legitmacy to the dictatorship? I bet that would be even more effective in bringing about political change.
By the way, "the Soviets sent the equivalent in economic subsidies of eight Marshall Plans to Cuba, which was not a war-ravaged continent of 300 million people but an island of 6 million people who shortly before had enjoyed a higher-per-capita income than half of Europe." The result? "Castroite Cuba emerged from this Soviet largesse with among the lowest per-capita incomes in the Hemisphere, a lower credit rating than Somalia, fewer phones per capita than Papua New Guinea, fewer internet connections than Uganda, and 20 per cent of her population gone - all at total cost of their property and many at extreme cost to life and limb."
Castro's Cuba has jailed more than 300,000 political prisoners and executed even more under Che's declaration that "judicial evidence is an archaic bourgeois detail. We prosecute and execute from revolutionary conviction!" Throwing money at them (a bailout?), and suggesting this will bring about governmental and policy change is beyond naive.
Should the US have brought trade and income to Apartheid South Africa or Pinochet?
Post a Comment