Its irony, folks

[loborugger]

I scanned this photo from an issue of the Economist. Is this not the most ironic motto for a prison?

I can see some Pentagon focus group coming up with this motto...

"Ok, folks, we need a motto for the Gitmo pen. As the press will see this, we need something good, something that captures the war on terror, and something that everyone can get behind. What are some good words?"

"Ummm, honor is a good word, esp for military stuff."

"Great, we have honor."

"Lets see... umm, how about freedom. Everyone loves freedom, right?"

"Ok, very good, we have honor and freedom. Lets have a third word."

Hey, doesnt the military defend stuff. Maybe we should go with 'defend.'"

"Excellent. We have honor, freedom, and defend. Those are three tried and true, red white and blue words that every red-blooded American can like. Now how do we tie them together?"

About the only word that really fits in the motto is bound.

[cutthemdown]

what's your point that they shouldn't put catchy mottos on anything to do with military prisons? Or is it just you are a bleeding heart liberal and want terrorists to roam the world? They should just shoot every prisoner in that place and then fill it up again.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Or is it just you are a bleeding heart liberal and want terrorists to roam the world?

Or are you just another right-wing disinfo artist who ignores the fact that most of those "detainess" haven't been tried (much less convicted) and are locked up because someone wanted that easy reward money?

They should just shoot every prisoner in that place and then fill it up again.

People like you are the reason why they hate us - not because of our "freedom" or our way of life.

[baja]

what's your point that they shouldn't put catchy mottos on anything to do with military prisons? Or is it just you are a bleeding heart liberal and want terrorists to roam the world? They should just shoot every prisoner in that place and then fill it up again.

It's guys that think like you on "our" side and guys that think like you on "their" side that make possible this whole terrorist cluster fuuck.

[kappys]

what's your point that they shouldn't put catchy mottos on anything to do with military prisons? Or is it just you are a bleeding heart liberal and want terrorists to roam the world? They should just shoot every prisoner in that place and then fill it up again.

Ah yes we should just replace that motto with an open call for genocide. Very noble.

[cutthemdown]

Ah yes we should just replace that motto with an open call for genocide. Very noble.

genocide? I didn't say anything about going after a particular race. I said terrorists. Terrorist is not a race or a people. It's like joining a gang. Any soldier from a standing army, that wears a uniform, that has a country they answer for I would not support being held without a trial. These people don't fall under that though.

It's not because of me they hate America. I had never said a thing about killing terrorists prior to seeing planes rammed into WTC. I could have cared less about Afghanistan.

[baja]

genocide? I didn't say anything about going after a particular race. I said terrorists. Terrorist is not a race or a people. It's like joining a gang. Any soldier from a standing army, that wears a uniform, that has a country they answer for I would not support being held without a trial. These people don't fall under that though.

It's not because of me they hate America. I had never said a thing about killing terrorists prior to seeing planes rammed into WTC. I could have cared less about Afghanistan.

The sad part is that you guys on both sides that are the problem don't get that you are the problem with your hate and fear, mainly your fear.

[Rigs11]

genocide? I didn't say anything about going after a particular race. I said terrorists. Terrorist is not a race or a people. It's like joining a gang. Any soldier from a standing army, that wears a uniform, that has a country they answer for I would not support being held without a trial. These people don't fall under that though.

It's not because of me they hate America. I had never said a thing about killing terrorists prior to seeing planes rammed into WTC. I could have cared less about Afghanistan.

Bush is considered the biggest "terrorist" outside of the US. Should we throw his ass in Gitmo genius?

[baja]

Bush is considered the biggest "terrorist" outside of the US. Should we throw his ass in Gitmo genius?

I could yank Nancy Pulaski's tiits off for saying impeachment is off the table.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush is considered the biggest "terrorist" outside of the US. Should we throw his ass in Gitmo genius?

No kidding.

That piece of crap rushes America into an unnecessary war with bogus claims about WMD and mushroom clouds, says "ooops - my bad" when no WMD are found, (but refuses to change course) proceeds to kill tens of thousands of innocent people, and his supporters have the audacity to point fingers?

[spdirty]

No kidding.

That piece of crap rushes America into an unnecessary war with bogus claims about WMD and mushroom clouds, says "ooops - my bad" when no WMD are found, (but refuses to change course) proceeds to kill tens of thousands of innocent people, and his supporters have the audacity to point fingers?

Hell with that, I was mislead into believing that we were gonna get that ****in oil. Now that its painfully evident that we aren't, its pretty much a wasteful endeavor. And we need to get out.

But McCain, will not dare take any of their oil, and will stay there for 100 more years. Barack, who the **** knows, that sum bitch probably wears a turbin at night, and Hillary, yeah, that bltch is cutthroat enough I think she would take their oil and then we would leave. Which is what we should be doing now.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Hell with that, I was mislead into believing that we were gonna get that ****in oil. Now that its painfully evident that we aren't, its pretty much a wasteful endeavor. And we need to get out.

But McCain, will not dare take any of their oil, and will stay there for 100 more years. Barack, who the **** knows, that sum b**** probably wears a turbin at night, and Hillary, yeah, that bltch is cutthroat enough I think she would take their oil and then we would leave. Which is what we should be doing now.

The real goal was (and is) to drive the price of oil as high as possible.

Remember who Bush works for.

[spdirty]

People like you are the reason why they hate us - not because of our "freedom" or our way of life.

why don't you and your brethren get together and have a vigil/circlejerk for the poor innocent freedom fighters who are held unlawfully and without their full American Constitutional Rights in gitmo?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

why don't you and your brethren get together and have a vigil/circlejerk for the poor innocent freedom fighters who are held unlawfully and without their full American Constitutional Rights in gitmo?

While you're wiping your collective ass with the Constitution and the rule of law, why don't you and your fellow moral retards on the right do some research and find out how many of those "detainees" are actually "freedom fighters" and how many are there just because some unscrupulous goat herder wanted to collect some easy reward money?

(Not that knowing the facts would change your argument - after all, when it was revealed that most of the detainees in Abu Ghraib were innocent civilians, knuckle draggers like you just continued to refer to them as "terrorists" anyway.)

[cutthemdown]

Bush is considered the biggest "terrorist" outside of the US. Should we throw his ass in Gitmo genius?

Wow you are right. Your stunning logic has changed my mind. I now want to turn Bush over to the world and let them put him on trial, free all the terrorists, help Iran build nukes, give them the keys to Iraq, move to mexico, and grow my own.

[kappys]

genocide? I didn't say anything about going after a particular race. I said terrorists. Terrorist is not a race or a people. It's like joining a gang. Any soldier from a standing army, that wears a uniform, that has a country they answer for I would not support being held without a trial. These people don't fall under that though.

It's not because of me they hate America. I had never said a thing about killing terrorists prior to seeing planes rammed into WTC. I could have cared less about Afghanistan.

I agree lets roundup CIA operatives and toss them in Gitmo for excecution.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wow you are right. Your stunning logic has changed my mind. I now want to turn Bush over to the world and let them put him on trial, free all the terrorists, help Iran build nukes, give them the keys to Iraq, move to mexico, and grow my own.

Your stunning abuse of logic isn't likely to change anyone's mind about anything.

Holding Bush accountable for his frauds and felonies = freeing all the terrorists and helping Iran build nukes?

And to suggest that withdrawl from Iraq would result in "handing the keys" to Iran is just more BushCo propaganda/total disregard for the facts.

And there's no need to move to Mexico and grow your own - your boy Rush has proven that.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No, al-Qaeda will not control Iraq if we leave (and neither will Iran):

The latest figures tell the story. Of 658 suicide bombings globally in 2007 (more than double those of any year in the last quarter century), 542, according to (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041703595_pf.html) the Washington Post's Robin Wright, took place in occupied Iraq or Afghanistan, mainly Iraq. In other words, the American occupation of that land has been a motor for acts of terrorism (as occupations will be). There was no al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia before the invasion and Iraq was no Afghanistan. The occupation under whatever name will continue to create "terrorists," no matter how many times the administration claims that "al-Qaeda" is on the run. With the departure of U.S. troops, it's clear that homegrown Sunni extremists (and the small number of foreign jihadis who work with them), already a minority of a minority, will more than meet their match in facing the Sunni mainstream. The Sunni Awakening Movement came into existence, in part, to deal with such self-destructive extremism (and its fantasies of a Taliban-style society) before the Americans even noticed that it was happening. When the Americans leave, "al-Qaeda" (and whatever other groups the Bush administration subsumes under that catch-all title) will undoubtedly lose much of their raison d'être or simply be crushed (http://www.juancole.com/2008/04/mccain-and-myth-of-al-qaeda-in-iraq.html).
As for Iran, the moment the Bush administration finally agreed to a popular democratic vote in occupied Iraq, it ensured one thing -- that the Shiite majority would take control, which in practice meant religio-political parties that, throughout the Saddam Hussein years, had generally been close to, or in exile in, Iran. Everything the Bush administration has done since has only ensured the growth of Iranian influence among Shiite groups. This is surely meant by the Iranians as, in part, a threat/trump card, should the Bush administration launch an attack on that country. After all, crucial U.S. resupply lines from Kuwait run through areas near Iran and would assumedly be relatively easy to disrupt.
Without the U.S. military in Iraq, there can be no question that the Iranians would have real influence over the Shiite (and probably Kurdish) parts of the country. But that influence would have its distinct limits. If Iran overplayed its hand even in a rump Shiite Iraq, it would soon enough find itself facing some version of the situation that now confronts the Americans. As Robert Dreyfuss wrote (http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20080310&s=dreyfuss) in the Nation recently, "[D]espite Iran's enormous influence in Iraq, most Iraqis -- even most Iraqi Shiites -- are not pro-Iran. On the contrary, underneath the ruling alliance in Baghdad, there is a fierce undercurrent of Arab nationalism in Iraq that opposes both the U.S. occupation and Iran's support for religious parties in Iraq." The al-Qaedan and Iranian "threats" are, at one and the same time, bogeymen used by the Bush administration to scare Americans who might favor withdrawal and, paradoxically, realities that a continued military presence only encourages.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"When it comes to closing Guantánamo, talk is cheap," Columbia law professor Matthew Waxman tells The Los Angeles Times. Because, you see, the U.S. government has violated the victims' rights so egregiously for so long that there's no longer a legally appropriate way to process them.

"Especially vexing," says the paper, "are scores of foreign detainees: Officials lack evidence to prosecute, but warn against setting them free." It's an 800-year-old Western legal principle called habeas corpus: you can't hold a person in custody without charging them. Oh, wait - Bush got rid of that.

"Because there is little evidence against them that could be used in a U.S. court, government officials fear that a federal judge could order them freed," the Times continues. Heaven forbid that we release people, even if there's no evidence they've done anything wrong. What's next? Taxing the rich?

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/14210

[footstepsfrom#27]

They should just shoot every prisoner in that place and then fill it up again.
Tactics somwhat similar to how the Japanese, Germans and Viet Cong behaved. You're rational for this bizarre position is...what? That they're all guilty? Or is it that we've come so far down the slipery slope of moral relativism that it no longer matters what we do?

[Rigs11]

Wow you are right. Your stunning logic has changed my mind. I now want to turn Bush over to the world and let them put him on trial, free all the terrorists, help Iran build nukes, give them the keys to Iraq, move to mexico, and grow my own.

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter or patriot.Why you warmongers on the right can't understand that baffles the mind.You follow along with a crazy "christian' man that has killed thousands of our fellow americans, thousands of iraqis and i bet you consider yourself a patriot for this. All in the name of freedom and democracy, meanwhile your freedoms are being taken away right under your nose. the ones you so easily call terrorists are the same as you.They want you out of their lands, they consider you the terrorist, and themselves patriots.Simply labeling someone is the copout that you on the right always use instead of looking at the overall picture.

[alkemical]

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter or patriot.Why you warmongers on the right can't understand that baffles the mind.You follow along with a crazy "christian' man that has killed thousands of our fellow americans, thousands of iraqis and i bet you consider yourself a patriot for this. All in the name of freedom and democracy, meanwhile your freedoms are being taken away right under your nose. the ones you so easily call terrorists are the same as you.They want you out of their lands, they consider you the terrorist, and themselves patriots.Simply labeling someone is the copout that you on the right always use instead of looking at the overall picture.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg

[loborugger]

what's your point that they shouldn't put catchy mottos on anything to do with military prisons? Or is it just you are a bleeding heart liberal and want terrorists to roam the world? They should just shoot every prisoner in that place and then fill it up again.

Calling and names and suggesting we execute all the prisoners - did that take a long time to come up with?

Catchy motto? That is a catchy motto? First of all, I think mottos are pretty dumb to begin with but this one on a prison takes the cake. I guess you missed the irony of having freedom on the gate of any prison...

I bet if they let the GIs working in the prison create a slogan, they would come up with something like, "If we have to be here, so do you." That would be the kind of slogan I could work with.

As for a bleeding heart - hardly. There is no doubt in my mind that held inside the fences at Gitmo is some of largest turds on the planet, who shouldnt be set free or returned to kill not only our soldiers but anyone who gets in their way.

However, Gitmo was created as a temp facility years ago until they decided what to do with the perps there. Years have passed, and nothing has been decided. Instead, we are holding these people without any concept of what to do with them, what to charge them with, are they POWs or accused felons, etc, etc.

This is the thing. I understand that capturing non-uniformed fighters from terrorists groups in a foreign land is not a concept easily dealt with by the Geneva Convention or existing US laws. However, the eggheads in DC worked hard to be leaders. They either paid millions to get elected to the position or they spent a career climbing the ladder. Well, now that you are a leader (or supposedly a leader), then lead. And leaders have to make tough decisions. There decision was to create a temp fix and then by proxy of not making a decision, have made it semi-permanent. That to me isnt leadership.

There are a couple of paths that can be followed when dealing with these people. They can be tried in a civilian court, but I think that is poor choice. They cant really be held as POWs since POWs wear uniforms and are to be returned to the their home nation at the end of the conflict. Since there has been no declaration of war, and no nation that we are fighting, I dont see how we can hold them as POWs.

The solution I would support would be to treat them spies as defined by the Geneva Convention. They are non-uniformed combatants committing acts of espionage - ie, blowing crap up. They can be tried by a military tribunal and then sentenced. And, lucky for you, they can even be hung for their crimes.

But whatever happens, a leader has to step forward, make what will almost surely be a controversial decision, and then go forward. Because I for one believe that holding people in limbo without any idea what we even want to do with them for up to 5 years is a pockmark upon our great nation.

[cutthemdown]

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter or patriot.Why you warmongers on the right can't understand that baffles the mind.You follow along with a crazy "christian' man that has killed thousands of our fellow americans, thousands of iraqis and i bet you consider yourself a patriot for this. All in the name of freedom and democracy, meanwhile your freedoms are being taken away right under your nose. the ones you so easily call terrorists are the same as you.They want you out of their lands, they consider you the terrorist, and themselves patriots.Simply labeling someone is the copout that you on the right always use instead of looking at the overall picture.

I fully understand the victors become patriots and the losers are rebels. I could care less I want USA to win. By winning we keep them rebels and they don't gain legitimacy. If you think we don't understand how important winning is to history you are wrong. We just don't want to let you liberals make us into losers. By the way I'm not even religious I'm just pro America.

[cutthemdown]

Tactics somwhat similar to how the Japanese, Germans and Viet Cong behaved. You're rational for this bizarre position is...what? That they're all guilty? Or is it that we've come so far down the slipery slope of moral relativism that it no longer matters what we do?

Yes my position is they are all guilty. If they can prove they are not then let them go. I could care less about applying American law to these terrorists. They don't play by the rules so we can't let them use our rules against us.

Basically most of them were interrogated tortured which makes putting them in an American court sort of tricky. I mean you don't want Ali aqib amul al sistanirani talking about how he was deprived of sleep, kept naked, waterboarded, etc etc.

I wasn't serious however when I said shoot them all and fill it up again. Eventually something will have to be done. The ones that govt knows are really bad will either have some sort of trial or just rot in prison and be forgotten. Others will probably be returned to country of orgin and who knows then. Some of those probably be executed or released depending on the country. Others I suppose will quietly be released? Who knows really.

I do know though that I could care less really. I doubt any of the prisoners in Gitmo would be sad to see any of our heads chopped off. Like anything a few unlucky innocent non terrorists probably did get swept up.

The lesson to be learned is don't ram planes into american buildings. Don't harbor or stand for it in your country are it won't be good for your people. Iranians should be revolting ASAP because there leadership is setting them on a collision course with the USA/Israel/EU.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Calling and names and suggesting we execute all the prisoners - did that take a long time to come up with?

Catchy motto? That is a catchy motto? First of all, I think mottos are pretty dumb to begin with but this one on a prison takes the cake. I guess you missed the irony of having freedom on the gate of any prison...

I bet if they let the GIs working in the prison create a slogan, they would come up with something like, "If we have to be here, so do you." That would be the kind of slogan I could work with.

As for a bleeding heart - hardly. There is no doubt in my mind that held inside the fences at Gitmo is some of largest turds on the planet, who shouldnt be set free or returned to kill not only our soldiers but anyone who gets in their way.

However, Gitmo was created as a temp facility years ago until they decided what to do with the perps there. Years have passed, and nothing has been decided. Instead, we are holding these people without any concept of what to do with them, what to charge them with, are they POWs or accused felons, etc, etc.

This is the thing. I understand that capturing non-uniformed fighters from terrorists groups in a foreign land is not a concept easily dealt with by the Geneva Convention or existing US laws. However, the eggheads in DC worked hard to be leaders. They either paid millions to get elected to the position or they spent a career climbing the ladder. Well, now that you are a leader (or supposedly a leader), then lead. And leaders have to make tough decisions. There decision was to create a temp fix and then by proxy of not making a decision, have made it semi-permanent. That to me isnt leadership.

There are a couple of paths that can be followed when dealing with these people. They can be tried in a civilian court, but I think that is poor choice. They cant really be held as POWs since POWs wear uniforms and are to be returned to the their home nation at the end of the conflict. Since there has been no declaration of war, and no nation that we are fighting, I dont see how we can hold them as POWs.

The solution I would support would be to treat them spies as defined by the Geneva Convention. They are non-uniformed combatants committing acts of espionage - ie, blowing crap up. They can be tried by a military tribunal and then sentenced. And, lucky for you, they can even be hung for their crimes.

But whatever happens, a leader has to step forward, make what will almost surely be a controversial decision, and then go forward. Because I for one believe that holding people in limbo without any idea what we even want to do with them for up to 5 years is a pockmark upon our great nation.

This post does a good job of exposing what a right-wing extremist cutthemdown really is.

[gunns]

Bush is considered the biggest "terrorist" outside of the US. Should we throw his ass in Gitmo genius?


YES!

Then let's see cutthemdown (so appropriate) waiver in his zeal cause there's a white, American man in there. Don't consider that he would probably be the most guilty man there as far as terrorism. And if he's so gungho to mow all of Gitmo down (although some have been found to be wrongly imprisoned there) how about our prison's here. Afterall, isn't the majority black and I'm sure he wouldn't have a problem cutting them down, after all some of them have done a form of terrorism against members of our society, but don't forget he's not after any particular race.

An appropriate motto would be Bush's Constitutional Playground

[alkemical]

IN DEFENSE OF PAT ROBERTSON
1 Artemis 83 p.s.U.

Nothing is true. All is permitted.
Hasan i Sabbah

Just as a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day, even a Christian Fundamentalist gets a savvy notion every now and then. I think rev. Robertson had a good idea when he suggested replacing war with assassination in one case, on economic grounds. He merely didn’t carry the concept far enough.

I suggest that we should abolish war utterly and replace it entirely with selective assassination. Think about the savings this would mean, in this age when even our “little” wars cost billions of dollars a year, and rememer the cogent observation of the late Senator Dirkson: “A billion here, a billion there – pretty soon you’re talking about REAL Money.” We’ve already gotten our national debt so high that our posterity “unto the seventh generation” will never pay it off; do we really need to enslave the whole future to the international bankers?

On the moral side, killing a few dozen foreigners a year instead of a few hundred thousand should seem less messy, to say the least of it, especially when you consider the collatarel damage to our own side. How much blood and death do we need?

Reversing a sentimental error of the ‘60s, the new anti-war slogan should be MAKE ASSASSINATIONS, NOT WARS.

And, best of all, if this idea catches on internationally we can expect at least 50 contracts on George Bush the first week.