Simply closing Guantanamo and detaining terror suspects elsewhere does not change the situation, which is rather nuanced as you can see. Its my guess that Obama will realize this soon enough.

Interesting attempt to change the subject. Ever heard of a false of syllogism? I’m sure you have. Still doesn’t change the fact that Bush released the guy.

I have no problem criticizing Obama. I will do so the very first time I feel the need. Perhaps next time he goes back on his word about telecom immunity, or the next time I see him holding hands with Prince Abdullah.

I wonder why Bush had him released? Doesn’t seem like the guy to send to the Saudi’s, even if they’re your best friends.

Jeremy, now Obama is the President. He is the Saudi’s best friend now, not Bush. You can’t criticize Americas relationship with Saudi Arabia going forward without criticizing Obama. Do you honestly think anything is going to change there? Did you hear Obama’s address concerning Israel/Palestine? It was exactly what Bush had said. No differences at all. Not one. No Change.

Its gonna be tough, isnt it?…to criticize American policy now that Obama is the Man. Therefore, the Saudis must be your best friends now. See, I can play that silly game too. Jeremy and Abd’ullah sitting in a tree…

Oh, and the number of innocent-until-proven-guilty suspects executed by President Obama without trial in Pakistan is up to 21, with 2 children amongst the dead. Thank God we didn’t have those same incompetent war criminals actually detaining them. Obama must have had clear evidence those children were terrorists.

That’s a question no one has ever defined because apparently no one knows exactly what crimes were committed by many of these people. The term “real criminals” could just as easily apply to personnel in the US government involved in GITMO as well as “foreigners”. This whole process needs to undergo a thorough investigation just to determine what the facts are. The previous administration was so dishonest, so deceitful, and so incompetent that I don’t believe anyone has a clear picture of all that occurred. Regardless of what the facts may eventually detail this whole GITMO situation is a real stain on our great country – anyone who supports it should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

“Al-Shihri was released by the U.S. in 2007 to the Saudi government for rehabilitation.”

I wonder why Bush had him released? Doesn’t seem like the guy to send to the Saudi’s, even if they’re your best friends.

After all, you don’t want to kidnap and detain someone who might be innocent if your intelligence was wrong. It might cause a human rights controversy. If you kill him outright, he just becomes a number on a headline for one day.

In other news: Emancipated Kidnap Victim Turns to Terror. All the more reason to avoid these kidnappings completely and just “take a shot” at them instead.

Yep. When we have good intelligence and a clear shot, we’ll take it.

As long as that shot includes killing people rather than “kidnapping” them, apparently.

You’re right. I should have delineated between suspects who were kidnapped and suspects who were caught on the battle field. But we did kidnap numerous people and hold them indefinitely and those people in particular have been the subject of scrutiny on this blog and elsewhere.

Also, I consider the people at the top to be responsible for the tactics, not the military personnel themselves. Because the vast majority of the time they’re just following orders, and this is a widely accepted notion. So to take the leap that I was calling soldiers kidnappers is specious at best. But nice try.

Jimmy,

Yep. When we have good intelligence and a clear shot, we’ll take it. Obama said this on the campaign trail and he’s following through. So I don’t see the equivocation between this and Guantanamo as apt.

Please go to http://www.garybaumgarten.com and click on the Enter Chat Room button to join in the conversation.

Thanks.

Gary

“kidnap first, ask questions later”

Justin, I only bring this up, because I am fully on-board your effort to establish a zone of mutual civility and respect, regardless of view point. Surely, you can see how the above-comment would be highly offensive to our men and women in the military, particularly ones that were engaged in direct fighting with the enemy and detaining these individuals. Do you consider these soldiers “kidnappers”? I am not suggesting that you do, but only that you consider using less inflamatory language that will not insinuate that US soldiers behave criminally or with malicious intent.

All hail the chief!