Today Eric Holder said this to the House Judiciary Committee on what to do with the 241 prisoners in Gitmo:"We are not going to do anything that will endanger the American people," Holder said. "If there were a sufficient basis to conclude they pose a danger to the United States, we would not release them."
Wonder what the BHO administration considers "sufficient basis"? Apparently training in a Tora Bora al Qaeda terrorist camp doesn't qualify. What does it take to be considered dangerous by Team Obama?
Oh wait. I remember, now.
22 comments:
So far, I haven't found one person in the new administration that isn't a world class MORON!
Terrorist aren't dangerous, but conservatives and returning veterans maybe?
Every time I think of the current leadership, which includes the Senate and the House, the song "The Curley Shuffle" comes to mind, "Nyuck, Nyuck, Nyuck."
Agree with Sandy above here. Will someone in the admin please stand up that is not an outright Moron? Great blog!
If they weren't dangerous, this wouldn't be a problem, but the Islamist insurgency in China is connected to the Afghan and Pakistani insurgencies. This is the same crap political logic that knocked Iraq out of the War on Terror in the eyes of the people.
@G.R.
You don't know if they are terrorists or not. Many of them were turned over for a bounty.
And as I said before, you can keep on feeling sorry for yourself (although it's not very attractive), but if you aren't shooting people at the border or a member of Stormfront, you are being targeted either.
Sandy, did you tollerate name-calling in your classroom? Why do that? Step back from the sting of the election loss and look at the situation. There is a community of Uighurs in Virginia who are willing to take these men in. If they were to be sent back to the Chinese, they would be dead. Are you know siding with the Chinese?
@Jordan:
On what authority do you know they are dangerous? The Weekly Standard? Newt Gingrich? On what authority?
s/b aren't being targeted either
michilines,
"You don't know if they are terrorists or not. Many of them were turned over for a bounty."
Where in did you get that piece of fiction? You were railing about Pat for citing someone who may have not have had correct sources, yet you spout off something like this? Without citing sources yourself? Talk about the Heigth of Hypocrisy.
I sure would love to see the sources on this one.
Was it Wanda Sykes during her "comedy" routine the other night? It has to be, By Golly, 'cause that's a good un there.
As far as me feeling sorry for myself. No I feel sorry for Americans who are having their freedoms stripped away because those on the left don't like what we say or do. (I'm not talking about mean hateful things, because I can't tolerate them either). I'm talking things like where Miss California Miss USA pageant expressing her First Amendment protected view, and what she went through by those on the "Tolerant" left, because they didn't like what she said. Tolerant Left: HA! talk about a misnomer.
I'm tired of Christians being maligned by the "Tolerant" Left for being Neaderthals, because we disagress with the rot pop culture is portraying as the "Norms of Society."
Where's the tolerance to allow Christian's to worsip and have their beliefs without verbal attacks from the Tolerant Left.
Am I personally being targeted? Probably not, but the way I want to live my life (free from excessive, and even abusive, government controls)is.
"On what authority do you know they are dangerous? The Weekly Standard? Newt Gingrich? On what authority?"
Once again, where are your sources that these guys were given up for bounty?
@ michilines
michilines: "Step back from the sting of the election loss and look at the situation. There is a community of Uighurs in Virginia who are willing to take these men in. If they were to be sent back to the Chinese, they would be dead. Are you know siding with the Chinese?"
You should differentiate between Uighurs and Uighur terrorists who were training in Afghanistan in collusion with Al Queda (sp? I never get that right).
Simply being an Uighur does not give carte blanche to commit violent, terrorist acts against a country that is puportedly an ally. Why should we not give them to China? The simple fact is China doesn't want these guys, because it would increase their (Chinese govt.) already dicey domestic problems. So we're stuck with them.
Oh and by the way, are you suggesting that stepping back "from the sting of the election loss" means not expressing an opinion on a political blog?
And you keep mentioning nameless, faceless, but apparently definitely Right-leaning people shooting people at the border? Why do you do this? Exactly what people (aside from the Mexican mafia and drug-runners) are shooting people at the border? Is this some sort of crisis that you think the MSM is covering up?
And stop mentioning Stormfront. What do these idiotic, fringe-dwelling, white-sepratists have to do with anything?
And why do I keep asking you questions? You never answer them.
If either of you care to read, I will give you links. It's at least more than Romano or our hostess has done.
"SEC. ENGLAND: Well, I know that -- I'm not sure there's a restraining order, but, of course, I think it has been reported we have Uighurs from China that we have not returned to China, even though, you know, some of those have been deemed, even before these hearings, to be non-enemy combatants because of concerns and issues about returning them to their country. And I understand the State Department has been working with other countries to see if we can have them go to another country, and my understanding is that's still -- they're still in Guantanamo, so that issue is unresolved. So I – at a minimum I know the Uighurs are there and have not been returned to China."
link Notice that it's a dot mil link.
Here's a link to a blogger who has been following the csse of the uighurs for years.
You can follow the links in her post.
You can rant all you want, but it just looks like you ae late to the party and again, suckered by lies, just like with the Normandy thing.
There is a lot of government info about the Uighurs. Search skills help, especially when you are gullable.
Spelling skills help, too.
Sorry Pat, I am typing with one hand and sometimes I don't catch all of my typos in preview.
I hope as a teacher, you don't make judgments about my intellect based on my typing skills.
If you do, especially in an informal mediua like blog comments, perhaps you are kinder to your pupils.
Also, whining about your job when you are a teacher and a conservative just goes to the reason education is so bad.
They have teachers like you.
You are going against the grain, as is Sandy.
@ michilines
You are STILL being quite rude. Personal snipes at people is unbecoming and does nothing but suggest your POV is based on baseless animosity. It also paints you as a having a chip on your shoulder and an ideological mission. Oh, but prove to us how ignorant we all are... please.
I am unimpressed with your sources. Your blogger source has two docs under foia, one a legal brief from the Uighur's legal defense team (in your wildest dreams do you think their lawyers will claim their clients are terrorists?) where they claim the terrorist training camp of the ETIM-- East Turkestan Islamic Movement (a recognized terrorist group with clear and evident connections to al Qaeda) was a small refugee camp.
This is useless. Defense lawyers' claims do not constitute evidence by any stretch of the imagination.
The second is a short quote from a 244 page doc not about the Uighurs from an FBI interviewer. All it proves is that this FBI interviewer (not an intelligence officer, nor a specialist in international relations, etc.) holds the opinon that the Uighurs are refugees. It does not mean he is right. He cites no evidence in his claim other than what the Uigahrs said.
Your second source, the press conference transcript, is meaningless as Sec. England does not reference anything except a tribunal decision in the Uighur case that denied them the legal label of "enemy combatant." It does not deny that they were members of the ETIM, nor that they were terrorists-in-training at the ETIM camp in Tora Bora. Basically the denial of the label "enemy combatant" says that the Uighars did not fight against US forces (they fled after the camp was bombed) and that they were not planning to attack American soil (their interests are in China).
Huzaifa Parhat (one of the Uighars and the apparent poster boy of the free-Uighar movement) has admitted in his tribunal session that Hasan Mahsum (leader of the terrorist orginization ETIM) was the leader of his group. During Parhat's tribunal, evidence was likewise introduced that the Tora Bora camp in which he leved and trained was funded by Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.
Now, you could ask where my sources are from. Well actually, they're Pat's sources linked from some of her earlier posts, and these sources freely offer citations to their information. Your own citations are both cherry-picked and misleading. They offer no evidence for the reasons I have mentioned above.
While you accuse people on this site of being "gullible," your own sources demonstrate your personal ignorance and gullibility when you agree with a subeject.
STILL no answers to my earlier questions, by the way.
Oh yeah, and:
michilines: "Also, whining about your job when you are a teacher and a conservative just goes to the reason education is so bad.
"They have teachers like you.
"You are going against the grain, as is Sandy."
These beaseless personal attacks are cheap, unfair, and rude. They have nothing to do with the topic and merely demonstarate tacky insults from a tactless person. If you wish to present yourself as such then I suggest you keep it up.
But you're so clearly right. The American education system (which I assume you're referencing) "is so bad" absolutely and completely because of a woman with conservtaive political views teaching 10th grade English in Louisiana. You should publish that theory. Is it your doctoral thesis?
michilines,
I did take the time to read the "dot.mil" you linked. The first thing I noticed was how current the information is: March, 2005. Yes, there is nothing like four year old documentation to convince us "wingnuts", who are gullible to the wiles of radical conservatism, to convert into becoming full fledged open-minded moon bats.
As I was reading this "timely" piece, I noticed that you conveniently didn't cite this tidbit in your comment on this blog. I thought I would help you out and share it. "It should be emphasized that a CSRT determination that a detainee no longer meets the criteria for classification as an enemy combatant does not necessarily mean that the prior classification as EC was wrong. For example, information obtained subsequent to the detainee's original capture can shed light not only on the circumstances of capture but also the detainee's activities before capture."
Now to help educate you, and I'm not one of those lousy teachers who is screwing up the U.S. education system, but I was an Army instructor. The Army is basically made up of three tiers: Combat Arms (CA), Combat Support (CS), and Combat Support Services (CSS). The last two groups support the combat soldiers assigned to Combat Arms (Infantry, Artillery, Cavalry, Armor and so on. The ones who actually come face to face with the enemy), and although those in CS or CSS may never be in direct combat, if captured, their actions will be considered as hostile by enemy forces.
For example, PFC Timmy Tentpeg (a clerk in a supply company) is filling out orders for bandages for a field hospital battalion, he is still in support of hostile actions against the enemy, and the enemy will view it as such. Why? PFC Tentpeg is their enemy, period.
(And if captured by Al Qaeda or the Taliban, I'm certain PFC Tentpeg wouldn't be placed in a Gitmo like environment. If he were to be found after his capture, his head would be in one place, and his body in another.)
So, evidently the Uighurs was possibly up to something, and I don't mean hanging around to be turned over for bounty money.
They may not have been directly engaged in hostilities towards U.S. or Allied Forces, but their actions may have been.
And to think I did all of this without personal attacks upon the person I was addressing.
michilines said, "Also, whining about your job when you are a teacher and a conservative just goes to the reason education is so bad.
They have teachers like you."
I believe most of the teachers in this country have ties to liberalism and to the left. Therefore, it's people who follow your line of thinking which is the reason education is so bad.
@G.R.
With NCLB and the expirement in NOLA wrt to Katrina and the DC problems, insulting your hostest might not be wise, amirite?
@michilines
Nothing for your vaunted "evidence" being all for naught?
I haven't seen a comment by Sandy that doesn't name-call. That she was in public education makes me think that she probably name-called during her carrer as well.
Pat's only response was to jab at me about my typing. No links, just jabs.
Neither you, Yukio, nor G.R. have been able to counter my links with credible links of your own, just more criticism about Bush era documents.
Admit that you knew nothing of the Uighurs until now.
And G.R., bringing up Miss California? Really? In a thread about people whom we have held captive for years -- people who don't know their own children because our government paid a bounty for them and then can't send them back to their own country because they would be executed? They would be executed because of their religious beliefs.
So Miss California is 'persecuted' by a gossip blogger and it is the terribles. Some men who were just trying to make a living get sent back to their country to be executed for believing in a religion you disagree with and that's ok?
@ michilines
michilines: "Neither you, Yukio, nor G.R. have been able to counter my links with credible links of your own, just more criticism about Bush era documents."
LOL.
I rejected your "evidence" without the need for links, because the "evidence" itself does not say what you claim it says-- as I have previously stated and, in fact, explained at length. It's a pity you do not understand this, but not terribly surprising since you do not demonstrate analytical skills-- only the apparent parroting of talking points coupled with personal swipes at people you seem to nurse a grudge against.
The evidence of the ETIM as a terrorist orginization, of Huzaifa Parhat admitting that the leader of the ETIM is his leader, and the evidence of Taliban's and bin Laden's financial support of the Tora Bora camp are in previous posts on this blog-- as I said. Why you insist that others should bother to restate evidence that has already been presented is beyond me and a waste of time.
michilines: "Admit that you knew nothing of the Uighurs until now."
I've studied Asian history for the past twenty-three years, and focused on China for the past five. Don't presume to tell me what I do and do not know. Oh, but you have "links"-- which you either haven't read or do not understand. You declared: "Search skills help, especially when you are gullable." Indeed they do (gullible or not), but it also helps a lot to understand what you find.
michilines: "I haven't seen a comment by Sandy that doesn't name-call."
Has she called you names? I do not recall this. She has called the Obama admin. "morons" in this thread. Does that personally offend you (surely you never called the Bush admin. anything...)? Apparently it does. But your response has NOT been to criticize such actions. Instead your logic seems to be: "Sandy called the admin. names, so that means I can repeatedly take personal jabs at her and Pat without reservation-- both here and on other threads." You justify personal attacks with the idea that Sandy called people in the Obama admin. names? That's real classy. Mature too.
michilines: "That she was in public education makes me think that she probably name-called during her carrer as well."
That's a stretch. Do you act like you post here at work? Can you not put aside your political opinions? Do you never exhibit professionalism? Why do you believe that no one else can?
michilines: "Pat's only response was to jab at me about my typing. No links, just jabs."
Your typing skills? You spelled gullible: g-u-l-l-a-b-l-e. You mistyped an "a" for an "i" while using one hand? They're not that close on my keyboard. You misspelled during a comment (no big deal) but you won't even admit that.
And again with the links... Pat has provided links in her previous posts. And the links she provided have links of their own. You can't click on these? You demand that she provide them again for you? If you don't like the source, then discredit the source and give reasons why. But I guess it's easier for you to just demand constant recitation of these sources to waste others' time.
michilines: "They [Uighars] would be executed because of their religious beliefs."
Nonsense. There are many millions of Muslims in China. Muslims have a long history of residing in China-- China proper not just Turkestan-- including the eastern coast. The Hui people of NW China are mostly Muslim. Zheng He, the famous explorer, was a Muslim.
These particular people would be executed bacause the Chinese govt. regards them as terrorists. Their religion would have nothing to do with their executions. Or about as much as those killed by Obama's frequently ordered missle attacks inside Pakistan.
"Pat's only response was to jab at me about my typing. No links, just jabs."
I don't respond to you because you are a troll - you are only here to argue and insult. I've provided links and sources for the majority of my posts and they aren't good enough for you unless they are .gov or .mil. I suspect that no link I ever provide will be good enough for you unless it is one that substantiates your own liberal opinions.
I don't have time to waste arguing with someone who doesn't really care what anybody else's opinion is but only wants to insult, unless of course, that opinion is in agreement with your own.
I'm always up for an intellectual debate, as evidenced on many posts on this blog, especially during the election, but I don't bother with trolls.
It is possible to have civil discussions on blogs without insulting the people that write and post there.
You can post here all you want, but don't get your feelings hurt if I don't respond to your hate and your mean-spirited vitriol. It's not worth it to me. Life is too short.
If you need a definition of troll, I'll try to provide a link.
Pat, I am not a troll. I have not insulted anyone. You have insulted me. You have responded to me with insults.
Opinion pieces are not sources. You should know that. If your source was correct on the Normandy thing, why did he have to backtrack? And why was the backtrack unsourced?
You are the one who used a poor source. You are the one attacking me for pointing it out.
I don't care if you respond to me or not. I was actually responding to yukio. Your comment in this thread is doesn't matter much.
When one uses as a source some post that is unsourced, it brings a cloud over everything you do.
And it looks like you have continued to use unsourced opinion pieces to make you point.
It feeds the already rabid, like Sandy and yukio, but it doesn't make your assessment correct.
@ Michilines,
All I know that whenever I was sent to a school, military or civilian, I was sent to learn what the people who sent me wanted me to learn to do my job.
I imagine the Uighurs weren't at an Al Qaeda/Taliban training camp to learn how to bake fortune cookies and return to China and ply that trade.
So what if they weren't planning on taking up arms against the U.S. First of all that's hogwash. They were caught in the training camp or our enemy. As far as I'm concerned the friend of our enemies are our enemies. I don't need to look at any moonbat propaganda link to tell me differently.
There are risks involved in risky behavior and their luck ran out. Too Bad, So sad. Better them than some American G.I.
As far as my comment about Miss California, you asked what I was concerned about, and I answered. So if you don't want to know, don't ask.
Post a Comment