2002 Video Flashback- Eric Holder: Terrorist Detainees Don't Fall Under Geneva Conventions

2002 Video Flashback- Eric Holder: Terrorist Detainees Don't Fall Under Geneva Conventions

By Kerry Picket (Bio | Archive)
Mon, 11/24/2008 - 19:00 ET

President-Elect Obama’s choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder, had a 2002 interview with CNN’s Paula Zahn, (partial transcripts and stories have appeared on several sites recently including: National Review, Salon, Israpundit, and Democrats.com) where he cited a stance on terrorist detainees and their rights which was very different from not only Vice President-elect Joe Biden but also Obama himself (my emphasis throughout:)

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Obama voted against the tribunal system and has vowed to scrap it. "As president, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists," Obama said in 2007. An Obama aide says he wants to try the suspects publicly in existing courts.

Holder’s view on terrorist detainees could very well cause some tension in the new Obama White House. Talking with CNN’s Paula Zahn in 2002, Holder had a different take on who fell under the Geneva Conventions:

ZAHN: When you have Secretary of State Powell saying, "Let's abide by the Geneva Convention," and then folks on the other side, we are told, saying "Wait a minute. If we hold them to that kind of status, then all they'll be required to give us is their name, rank and file number."
HOLDER: Yes, it seems to me this is an argument that is really consequential. One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.
It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohammed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not.
And yet, I understand what Secretary Powell is concerned about, and that is we're going to be fighting this war with people who are special forces, not people who are generally in uniform. And if unfortunately they somehow become detained, we would want them to be treated in an appropriate way consistent with the Geneva Convention.
ZAHN: So is the secretary of state walking a fine line here legally? He is not asking that the United States declare these men as prisoners of war right now. He's just saying let's abide by the Geneva Convention in the meantime.
HOLDER: Yes, and I think in a lot of ways that makes sense. I think they clearly do not fit within the prescriptions of the Geneva Convention. You have to remember that after World War II, as these protocols were being developed, there seemed to be widespread agreement that members of the French Resistance would not be considered prisoners of war if they had been captured. That being the case, it's hard for me to see how members of al Qaeda could be considered prisoners of war.
And yet, I understand Secretary Powell's concerns. We want to make sure that our forces, if captured in this or some other conflict, are treated in a humane way. And I think ultimately that's really the decisive factor here. How are people, who are in our custody, going to be treated? And those in Europe and other places who are concerned about the treatment of al Qaeda members should come to Camp X-ray and see how the people are, in fact, being treated.

The video is now uploaded at Eyeblast.tv

Cross Posted at Video Done Right

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Terrorist pardons vs Club Gitmo

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 19:17 ET by DanSchwartz

OK folks, we have a problem here:

Given the condition that we will be in on January 20th, we have to weigh this character's fitness for office:

As Deputy AG, he helped push for pardons of two Weather Underground terrorists (along with Marc Rich & Pincus Green, Puerto Rican terrorists, etc...).

...And now he is on the record that terrorist detaineees don't fall under the Geneva Conventions.

Will Holder's opinion "evolve" again to conform to 0bama's will on this critical issue?

Does this man eat waffles for breakfast?

Please visit my Home Page at http://users.snip.net/~joe/default.htm

That was then this is now.

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 19:19 ET by supercon

The Obama administration has already shown that we can't examine the past.Today on this site will be the last you hear of it.

My thought

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 22:42 ET by motherbelt

My thought exactly.

They're covered by the Geneva Convention if a Republican is President. Under a Democrat President, anything goes.

We want to make sure that our forces, if captured in this or some other conflict, are treated in a humane way. -Holder

Oh, that's right, if we feed them well, give them lawyers etc, and don't interrogate them, their leaders won't behead our guys and videotape the execution.

\sarc

Hence the concept of

Tue, 11/25/2008 - 08:52 ET by BD

Hence the concept of justrifiable repriasal which is allowed for under the Conventions.
Since our captives have been massacred, we have the right (possibly "Duty") to execute a similar number of the enemy to persuade the enemy to adhere to the conventions.

So far president Bush has not ordered duch repriasal and he is the only person allowed to do so by US policy.

I wonder what AG Nominee Holder thinks of Justifiable REpriasal? I know the press will never ask him.

Thanksgiving

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 19:30 ET by bigtimer

Thanksgiving Dessert.

Seems we have 'R's who aren't going to do a dang thing about it.

No surprise...

Disgusting.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

The Geneva Convention is..

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 19:40 ET by Deskpilot

an agreement between the signator countries and serves , essentially as a rule book for how each signator country deals with prisoners.

A VITAL component of the agreement framework is that personnel engaged in war must be in the UNIFORM of the country for which they fight. Another strong component that must also be observed is that the combatant must carry their weapon in clear view, not concealed under a tunic or coat. When President Bush proposed treating the detainees "LIKE" Prisoners of War under the Geneva Convention, he meant to ensure that there were certain rights that he would glean from the GC, meals in accordance with the customs of the detainee, permit the practice of religion, association among fellow detainees, etc., etc.

I no way did that convey that he deemed them prisoners subject to all of the protections of the GC. They were not captured in the uniform of the country for which they were fighting, because Al-Queda is NOT a country and doesn't have a clearly discernable uniform.

99.8% of US forces operate while proudly wearing the unform of OUR country, and always have their arms, holstered or carried out in the open in the combat theater and while on partol or watch at home. Although we would much rather take a prisoner to remove them from the battlefield, we use deadly force only in answer to or in defense of a valid threat. Our side doesn't set IED's to take out the other side. No such consideration from the enemy.

A key reason that the administration chose Guantanamo Bay Naval Station is that it is NOT on US soil. As such, they are intentionally restricted from access to Constitutional protections. A shrewd, but effective political maneuver, President Bush, in concert with other world leaders have made the decision to detain captives and not afford them all of the protections of the GC or their own local Constitutions.

Another good thing about the Camp Delta concept, the filthy rich, TAXPAYER funded American Criminal Lawyers Union, (yes, the same ALCU tham has been ignorantly quiet about "Joe the Plumber") can't go there to undermine the Presidents authority.

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can still read it in English, You're welcome

Deskpilot, AM(H)1 (AW), USN (Ret)

thanks for nothing

Tue, 11/25/2008 - 04:17 ET by dr_devil_dog

well, maybe the aclu cant go there to undermine the presidents authority, but guess what...bush is gone daddy-o, muahahhahahahahha...thank god, that traitorous villain has finally been ousted. longtime coming, no thanks to the likes of you.

Sarcasm?

Tue, 11/25/2008 - 08:55 ET by BD

Sarcasm?

Bush - Traitorous Villian?

Tue, 11/25/2008 - 11:41 ET by PopularTech

The pot induced comic book creation that liberals have made of Bush is laughable.

Censored Global Warming Videos

Eric Holder could end up

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 19:51 ET by Clear thinker

Eric Holder could end up being the most dangerous AG in the history of the USA.

Obama The Next Great Communist Leader? Or his recent pick of an Attorney General that thinks the Second Ammendment does NOT give citizens the right to own firearms. The list goes on…

Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/

Compromise

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 20:03 ET by acumen

Replace the Geneva convention with the Ayers Act. Close Gitmo and provide the terrorists with teaching positions at major US universities.

As far as I can tell...

Tue, 11/25/2008 - 03:39 ET by Michael30

I may be wrong here, and if there are any military veterans that can correct me where I am mistaken I'll welcome that...

The Geneva Convention was meant to protect innocent civillians from the horrors of war. Hence why nations used Napoleonic tactics and fought on battlefields in well definied uniforms. Officers lead men onto a field of battle and fought it out (I know how foolish it seems to us now, but smoothe-bore muskets weren't exactly renowned for their accuracy, volley's seemed to work better.)

The main thing was that soldiers representing a nation were to be treated with dignity and respect. They therefore used uniforms to represent the nation they fight for. The Germans even wore uniforms except in the covert factions during the Battle of the Bulge. They had markings on their tanks and armored vehicles as well. Therefore, one could identify the enemy.

In Vietnam, the problem was the NVA used uniforms although the VC did not, so we had two distinct forces to deal with.

Now, we have people in Afghanistan and Iraq against us that use civillian clothes, use civillians to shield themselves and assault non-military installations to inflict civillian casualties.

My question is simply this: How can the Geneva Convention apply to people that, not only violate it while beheading and maiming their captives, but violate it by using it as a weapon against what can be called "Civilized Warfare?"

By Civilized Warfare, I mean the restraint of arms and targets. After all, we didn't exactly carpet bomb the entire Middle East after 9/11, nor did we nuke it. Can we say that they wouldn't have done the same things if the situation were reversed?

Again, this is just a thought, if I am wrong I would welcome criticism.

Mike

...

Tue, 11/25/2008 - 04:11 ET by dr_devil_dog

I am no scholar, but you are misguided on some things in my opinion.

1. We as Americans should hold ourselves to the highest standards. We should not lower ourselves to the level of our enemy, that is as good as a loss. The Geneva convention applies to us, we signed it, we live by it.

2. We, more than any other nation, have been willing to unleash massive force. for right or wrong, that is for you to judge. you say that, after all, we didnt carpet bomb the entire middle east after 9/11 and i guess my response is; not All, just what we could. what other country has the ability and the will to invade a sovereign nation that has not attacked it, overthrow its government and install military rule. hmm...i can think of a few but i would not want my beloved US of A included in that group. Thanks to Dubs we are though. sigh. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

3. funny you mention nukes because you might want to take a quick gander back at the history books and count the countries who have actually unleashed nuclear weapons on their enemies. I can save you some time. the answer is one. us.

anyway, you can cut it up anyway you want, but this 'war on terror' is a product and it is being packaged and sold just like a snickers bar. people on both sides benefit and everyone in the way gets laid to waste.

Fair enough.

Tue, 11/25/2008 - 04:39 ET by Michael30

Dr,

I indeed may be misguided, that is why I look for people that differ from my opinion in the hopes that I may learn something new from an outside source.

However, please understand I must answer to the accusations you have levelled against me.

1. We signed the Geneva Convention in a time where warfare is much different that we engage in at the moment. Remember, Japan's soldiers said that since they never really were involved in the process, they could get away with things like the Bataan Death Marh and the like. Talk to any Pacific Theater of Operations veteran and they'll tell you about beheadings and the like. We didn't act accordingly and do the same. I agree with you that we should not do the "Lowest Common Denominator" with regards to warfare though. I'm just saying that we have acted better than our enemies.

2. As for your statement that we are the only nation capable of invading a soverign nation and establishing a militar rule, well, the people of Somalia and Georgia may disagree with that. In Africa we constantly hear about "Machete Rebellions" where tribal difficulties are solved by hacking the opposition to pieces.

3. Actually, were it not for atomic weapons to convince the Japanese that the war was futile, would you have preferred we invaded them? I realize your point, we indeed have that rather sad notation as the only people that have ever dropped such a weapon on people, but the body count could have been much higher if we proceeded with conventional bombing (Dresden.)

I don't quite understand your position that the War on Terror is a packaged deal that has been thrust down the throat of the American people though. We weren't exactly begging for the U.S.S. Cole, numerous sky-jackings/bombings, two embassies being destroyed and of course both WTC attacks. In fact, we have been attacked no matter who was in the White House (Beirut.)

The enemy doesn't really care if you are liberal or conservative. They hate you just fine the way you are.

Mike

1. We as Americans should

Tue, 11/25/2008 - 09:15 ET by BD

1. We as Americans should hold ourselves to the highest standards.

And so far we have met those standards, and more.

We should not lower ourselves to the level of our enemy, that is as good as a loss.

So what tactics and techniques would you outlaw:

Snipers? Machine guns? Rifles? Arial bombing? Each of these has been found in previous generations to be "Beastly" and has been raield against. Should we hold ourselves to the highest standard and do away with these like some in our past has admonished us to do so?

The Geneva convention applies to us, we signed it, we live by it.

And indeed we do. Please find for me a case in which we have not. After all, un-uniformed and thus illegal combatants seized on the battlefield are executed in accordance with the conventions.

I invite you to tell me of a single village in Iraq or Afghanistan which has been "Carpet Bombed." As a trained targeteers I take affront to your notion that we do such a thing.

what other country has the ability and the will to invade a sovereign nation that has not attacked it, overthrow its government and install military rule.

You are obviously referring to FDR's initial invasions of North Africa, followed by several invasions in the Pacific theater during WWII. I am also certain you will now immediately procede to the Roosevelt Memoral and begin a ceaseless protestr against him.

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

Silly. I guess you are outraged the Charles Manson was forced to do time for his crimes? After all, prosecuting him was nothing more than you describe.

Your point being? WOuld you have prefferred 1 Million US soldiers, Marines, and Navy Personnel KIA in the invasions of Kyushu and Honshu to bring WWII to an end? How about the estimated 3 Million WIA? Not to even MENTION Japanese casualties?

Thank GOD for nuclear weapons in that case.

anyway, you can cut it up anyway you want, but this 'war on terror' is a product and it is being packaged and sold just like a snickers bar.

Really? Please point to a vending machine in which I can purchase it? How about a 7/11 store?

Silly argument.

I would say the same thing about Obamas campaign, the Civil rights movement, and Gay right cause.

people on both sides benefit and everyone in the way gets laid to waste.

Please explain this rationale.

answers

Tue, 11/25/2008 - 14:39 ET by dr_devil_dog

first, thank you for the point by point response. you said some interesting stuff and perhaps i should refine some of what i said.

i guess we have to disagree about the standards that america holds itself to. i think we are all aware of the...shall we say 'lapses' in judgement.

we have not held ourselves to the geneva convention which is why we have lost any sort of moral high ground. i dont think i need to explain that any further. you can research the facts yourself.

perhaps carpet bombing was a strong word. missile striking villages? is that better. blowing the shit out of someone elses country? i dont know what euphamism for destruction you prefer, but as a targeteer i think you of all people should be aware of the power of our weapons. anyway, massive force is what we do, sweet.

actually i was referring to fdr, jfk, reagan, bush etc etc etc...probably obama too from the looks of it. america is not a police force for the world. sorry if you think we are, but i have to disagree. it's one way to try to create strength, but i think there are better ways. particularly in this current global environment where we are being left behind because of our obsession with war. it's sad really.

your charles manson argument is a little strange. i dont believe in the death penalty if thats what you are implying. i think life in prison is worse than the death penalty personally. of course, im not very religious and certainly dont believe in the concept of Hell so you can understand my position. i guess if you did believe in hell you could argue that manson got eternity in prison, but then so would all those who in turn murdered him. thats for someone else to figure out, but it seems like a slippery slope to me. life in prison is about as close to hell as i can imagine.

yes, i would have preferred to end the war without nuking two cities. soldiers go to wars to fight. civilians dont. we nuked two cities dude. not two battlefields, two cities. thats is some messed up shit and i really cant believe you are trying to argue that it was some clever trap door out of the war. i can forward you some pictures of what women and children look like after they have been nuked, its not very pretty but you may get a kick out of it.

nope, you cant buy this war in a vending machine, you are right on this one. old uncle bush has dipped directly into your pocket for this one, no need to leave home or anything. i guess the difference between War (in general, this one in particular) and Obamas campaign, equal rights movements, etc is that we have a choice to pay for those or not. for example, i didnt contribute to obama, i have contributed to the war. also, the amounts being spent are seperated by a chasm so wide evel knievel wouldnt try to jump it.

people on both sides benefit...very easy to understand. people have a stake in war. for example, this war has made Al-queda stronger and richer. it has created empathy for their cause. war is what they wanted and we gave it to them. its like a sacrifice in chess to lure your opponent into a bad position. i dont think we will lose the game (particularly now that bush is gone...or nearly gone), but lost position for a long time and have had to recover. of course, we all know who benefited from this war on our side and in case you dont i will give you a hint, it wasnt you.

anywho, just some thoughts. everyone on this site walks in lockstep and frankly you should think sometimes about seeing things from a different perspective. but hey, im just a kid with a dream.

i guess we have to disagree

Tue, 11/25/2008 - 15:21 ET by BD

i guess we have to disagree about the standards that america holds itself to. i think we are all aware of the...shall we say 'lapses' in judgement.

Please outline what you feel are "Lapses." THe lapses I see are likely not the ones you refer to. Mine are lapses from a fear of a PC culture.

we have not held ourselves to the geneva convention which is why we have lost any sort of moral high ground.

You might be correct, if we were to interpret the conventions strictly, then most of the detainees in Gitmo would have been summarily executed on the field of battle for not adhering to its requiremnts for uniformed combatants. As it is, we have been "Soft" and thus have gone beyond that which is required of us as a nation.

Other than the requirement to summarily deal with illegal combatants, I see no failings with our holding to the conventions.

perhaps carpet bombing was a strong word. missile striking villages?

Strong and utterly wrong in context. Missile striking villages? Modern US guided missiles are leaps forward in preventing damage to the innocent and univolved who occupy the modern battlefield. it always angers me to hear them equated to IED and unguided rockets as fired by the Hezzies and Palis.

When the Islamo fascists operate, great care is taken to kill and maim as many non-combatants as possible, while hours are spent by US analysts like myself to minimize our end.

Any equation to us for them, is innaccurate, and usually done in a spirit of propaganda.

blowing the shit out of someone elses country?

Once again as a targeteer I must tell you that no one has ever attempted to minimize damage as much as we do. Any strike that is thought to possibly damage something uninvolved is passed by.

Please, walk a day in OUR shoes before you make such a comment.

but as a targeteer i think you of all people should be aware of the power of our weapons. anyway, massive force is what we do, sweet.

Incorrect. If massive damage was the goal, then the weapon of choice by my former colleagues would be a 2000LB unguided bomb, or actually several of them.

In reality, the weapon of choice is usually something like a small Hellfire missile that has a much smaller explosive yeild and can be directed with pinpoint accuracy.

It is obvious that you have been listening to propagandists who love to depict us as drops hundreds of tons of ordnance in singe missiions, removing entire villages. I see them from time to time online...

Like all other nations, we defend our interests. Perhaps you feel we should not, or that we should nothave interests, but we do.

particularly in this current global environment where we are being left behind because of our obsession with war. it's sad really.

What obsession is that exactly? We have the lowest percentage of our populace in uniform in modern times, spending the lowest percentage of our GDP in modern times, and have fewer troops in contact than nearly all previous wars?

So, exactly WHAT obsessing is that again?

Then you obviously have not been a witness to those in custody in US prisons who are babied. THey do not FEAR prison anymore because they have been in it. A nice junior college of crime for those who are awaiting the weakwilled to release them.

yes, i would have preferred to end the war without nuking two cities. soldiers go to wars to fight. civilians dont. we nuked two cities dude. not two battlefields, two cities.

Which was MORE destroyed? Berlin? Heroshima? Aachen?

Which would have been more destroyed by a US i nvasion of Honshu, Tokyo? Or the German City of Aachen in early 1945?

You must do research before spouting off platitudes such as you speak.

thats is some messed up shit and i really cant believe you are trying to argue that it was some clever trap door out of the war.

History begs to differ with you. Please do research.

i can forward you some pictures of what women and children look like after they have been nuked, its not very pretty but you may get a kick out of it.

I have seen the ugliness of war first hand. Someone killed by a nuclear flash at 1NM from Airburst center is just as dead as those who were in a discoteque in Bali killed by Islamic Sucide bombers.

The photos are avaialable in indonesian websights, perhaps YOU would get the kick out of it/

Of those killed by the bayonet in China during WWII for practice by Japanese guards? Or the behaedings of Captives by the ASG in the Philippines?

Please, grow up.

nope, you cant buy this war in a vending machine, you are right on this one. old uncle bush has dipped directly into your pocket for this one, no need to leave home or anything.

Gee, it has been twenty five years since we had a suicide bomber here in Cochise County. And that one was a nutjob african american extremist from Chicago who tried to blow up our sherrifs department.

What exactly did Bush bring home to me again?

i guess the difference between War (in general, this one in particular) and Obamas campaign, equal rights movements, etc is that we have a choice to pay for those or not. for example, i didnt contribute to obama, i have contributed to the war.

Nonsense. You have contributed to his security detail, and the other requirements of modern politic.

also, the amounts being spent are seperated by a chasm so wide evel knievel wouldnt try to jump it.

I again direct you attention to the fact that we are spending less on defense per GDP than we did in the pre-WWII period when we spent little at all and were isolationist in nature.

Please do the research.

people on both sides benefit...very easy to understand. people have a stake in war. for example, this war has made Al-queda stronger and richer.

hahahahahahaha! GASP* Hahahahahha!

AQ members are hardly stornger and richer than they were when we ingored them in the 90's. In fact, the old ones hide as much as possible and attemtp obscure their locations.

Richer? Hahahahahhah! THeir fuding is drying up by the day, and the young ones comment in the war in Iraq that the locals solely see them as suicide bomb matierial.

Please read the interrogations avaialable on line of captured AQ in Iraq.

My favorite line is "Fighting the Americans is like being stalked by a machine" Most quickly defect the battlefield whenever possible. Makes me glow on the insdie to know they FEAR me and my comrades.

it has created empathy for their cause.

Scratching head..... THen why have their favoable numbers dropped to below president bushes in polls? Intersting that.

war is what they wanted and we gave it to them.

No, for twenty years we ignored them. THey thought we would do so again. We did not.

its like a sacrifice in chess to lure your opponent into a bad position.

Exactly what bad position are we in? We hold the center of the arabic world and are daily working to change the ethos from a positin of strength.

i dont think we will lose the game (particularly now that bush is gone...or nearly gone), but lost position for a long time and have had to recover. of course, we all know who benefited from this war on our side and in case you dont i will give you a hint, it wasnt you.

THe nation as a whole did.

everyone on this site walks in lockstep and frankly you should think sometimes about seeing things from a different perspective. but hey, im just a kid with a dream.

Stop dreaming and think analytically. You obvoiusly think emotionally (Witness the vast majority of your comments) and have yet to learn to think like a rational analytical mind.

Thanks BD

Tue, 11/25/2008 - 15:45 ET by general company

This is an importaint public service memo, as far as I am concerned.

Thanks again, now maybe the kid can get back to dreaming.

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

Sadly, I fear he will take

Tue, 11/25/2008 - 19:01 ET by BD

Sadly, I fear he will take one look at my posting and quickly moved on as a reply would require too much analytical thinking.

BD... I only hope he

Tue, 11/25/2008 - 19:17 ET by Clear thinker

BD...

I only hope he reads what you wrote. Maybe, just maybe a lightbulb will go on, and he will start to think like an adult.

This Years Christmas Gift - Guns

Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/

Good morning BD

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 01:09 ET by cocodrie

Thank you for your post. It impresses on me the need to pray a lot more for our brave people in uniform. America owes a debt to them that is impossible to repay, we owe them too much.

I am a committed christian and i know a lot of religious people who aren't worth a nickle. Appearences don't matter, What matters is what is in your heart and belief in Jesus. You've got the right stuff.

sigh

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 00:31 ET by dr_devil_dog

think analytically? i am going to translate that: think like me. my response, no thank you.

Im not going to go all point by point becuase frankly, this is getting pretty boring. however...

you seem to fancy yourself not only an expert on history, war, politics but prisons as well...john mccain, is that you??!! hahahaha...that was a good one. im cracking myself up right now.

i dont know dude, you seem pretty convinced you know what you know so I sure dont want to be the one who bursts your bubble. keep on killing, i'm going to the beach tomorrow.

i dont know about your prison thing though. maybe you should try getting arrested and see how that works out for you. being babied and coddled? not from what ive seen, but again, your the expert mr. mccain.

as far as bombing villages, well, as 'pinpoint' as you want it to be a hellfire blows up a whole lot of shit. i guess the way i look at it is to turn the tables. if you, the targeteer, were my neighbor and the invading forces saw you as a threat and blew your house up with a hellfire, well, it would kill my family too now wouldnt it? once my family was dead, i would be pretty pissed off wouldnt i? particularly if i wasnt even involved in the war, i was just some guy trying to live his life, but you being my warrior neighbor have spread your destruction onto me. thanks for that. the cycle continues and as i said before an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. but wait! i forgot, even though my family got blown up i could comfort myself with the fact that the missile that killed them was a very high tech device. that feels better. ahhh.

anywho, your a typical warrior mind. kill kill kill, we hold the center of the arabic world! whoop de doo. youve been fed the idea that our tenuous hold on iraq, which is swiftly coming to an end with next to nothing to show for it outside of a trail of blood actually means something. i feel kind of sorry for your powerful analytical mind that can only analyze what is already in it. you dont have the ability to evolve. it's ok, like all creatures that cant evolve you will be left behind.

so you dont think Aq wanted war? wow, you really are deluded. your theory is that they thought we would ignore them after they attacked our soil? well, in a way your right, we did ignore them, mostly, bush of course used the attack as a way to create a diversion in iraq. almost makes you wonder what bushies real intentions were. hmm. i wonder. anyway, i will keep my dreams thank you. good luck.

Grow up ddd

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 00:45 ET by general company

Im not going to go all point by point becuase frankly, this is getting pretty boring.

And then you write 7 parigraghs of compleat and total nonesense. Your grasp on reality is sliping. You pretend that if we would only mind our manors all would be good, history has prooven this and you to be foolish.

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

think analytically? i am

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 11:07 ET by BD

think analytically? i am going to translate that: think like me. my response, no thank you.

THank you for the compliment, I always attempt to think analytically and not emitionally, particularly when National Defense Issues are at stake.

I guess the only recommendation I have for you is to review each of your arguments and determine if they come from logic, or emotion. THen re-frame your arguments accordingly.

COnsider it a learning experience.

you seem to fancy yourself not only an expert on history,

Thank you for noticing. I studied history in College and have conitnued in the appropriate military schooling. I guess you caould say that I have about 27 years of military history study under my belt.

War.

See above post.

politics but prisons as well...

Thank you.

as far as bombing villages, well, as 'pinpoint' as you want it to be a hellfire blows up a whole lot of shit.

Yep, if that "Shit" as you put it is Abu Sabaya, or Isnilon Hapilon then it has done its job. AND NOT HURT ANY CIVILIANS.

By the way, what is the closest you have ever been to the DMPI when it detonates on target? I bet I have been immeasurably closer.

i guess the way i look at it is to turn the tables. if you, the targeteer, were my neighbor and the invading forces saw you as a threat and blew your house up with a hellfire, well, it would kill my family too now wouldnt it?

You know NOTHING of the way we operate. Hours are spent in mitigation to protect "The neighbors." So unless you are sittingin my living room chatting about who to blow up next you and your family are safe from my guys.

Our enemies on the other hand will park a semi truck outside Your home to maximize your casualties, my casualties and everyone on the block.

once my family was dead, i would be pretty pissed off wouldnt i? particularly if i wasnt even involved in the war, i was just some guy trying to live his life,

You still know NOTHING of how we operate, simply listen to the hyper emotional arguments of the college left and media.

the cycle continues and as i said before an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. but wait! i forgot, even though my family got blown up i could comfort myself with the fact that the missile that killed them was a very high tech device. that feels better. ahhh.

You just do not understand nor wish to. Take for example the Israelis when they take out a bad guy in Gaza who has been ordering the deaths of hundreds of civilians in downtown Tel Aviv as they eat pizza at the Sbarro and the Boardwalk.

In this particualr case, the Israelis parked a AH-64 APache and waited for the guy responsible to leave his crowded apartment building with his body guards where he had effectively been holding his neighbors hostage.as human shields.

As his dinky little vehicle progessed up the street, the gunner acquired and selected the target and got the go ahead.

He waited until the target was in an area that would not produce any civilian casualties and fired.

BOOM! Bad guys and ONLY the bad guys are dead.

But then the press covers the story saying that the Pally's are claiming the civlian casualties are killed. No research done, just accepting the Pally claims.

That is what You do not know.

anywho, your a typical warrior mind. kill kill kill,

Then you do not know me.

we hold the center of the arabic world! whoop de doo. youve been fed the idea that our tenuous hold on iraq, which is swiftly coming to an end with next to nothing to show for it outside of a trail of blood actually means something.

Please describe the center of gravity in the current GWOT in your own words. Please describe how YOU would win the GWOT and defeat islamo fascism.

i feel kind of sorry for your powerful analytical mind that can only analyze what is already in it. you dont have the ability to evolve. it's ok, like all creatures that cant evolve you will be left behind.

Actually, I believe I am evolving beyond your current position. Your failure to understandi that speaks volumes.

so you dont think Aq wanted war?

Depends on what you think of as WAR. THey expected we would pull another Bill Clinton and loft several hundred SLCM in response to 9/11. THey falsely understood that America had no stomache for a fight soldier to soldier on the ground. In fact, they PRIDED themselves on it and castigated our inability to absorb casualties.

Needless to say they were surprised when a handful of SF ODA took Afghanistan from them and then We actually committed to combat in urban areas of Iraq.

Lets just say, they were not expecting THIS war.

your theory is that they thought we would ignore them after they attacked our soil? well, in a way your right, we did ignore them, mostly, bush of course used the attack as a way to create a diversion in iraq.

Nonsense. We attacked the key terrain in the Islamic world and are now competing with the ideaology of Islamo Fascism with Democracy.

You cannot do that efectively from Afghanistan as it has no communications ability to the rest of the islamo world like Iraq does.

almost makes you wonder what bushies real intentions were. hmm. i wonder. anyway, i will keep my dreams thank you. good luck.

THe only consolation is that your analytical skills grow as you move into your twenties and thirties and you will cease thinking emotionally. Particularly when you see the rest of the world.

Thank you, BD

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 11:48 ET by Blonde

For your total destruction of this silly child's nonsense.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, and to your fellow soldiers. We appreciate what you do every single day.

Blonde: I must admit it

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 14:12 ET by BD

Blonde:

I must admit it is cathertic, sort of like punching a punching clown as a child, or shooting the 50 meter pop-up target repetitvely.

Today I am cooking for 8, mostly retired freidns and family. So, into the kitchen I go...

Thank You BD, And a happy thanksgiving..ddd is a democrat

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 14:50 ET by upcountrywater

hay ddd,

You think USA can take a vacation from history?

What did Thomas jefferson do, in regards to the Barbary Pirates?

What did America do to cause the Pirates to attack us?

ddd is a DEMOCRAT

Aclu</

funny

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 13:00 ET by dr_devil_dog

ok, i have reviewed my comments, and i still think they are correct, thanks for the advice. now i have some advice for you, review your comments and see if they are the product of brainwashing. yup, they are. your arrogance in assuming that you know anything about me is hilarious. you have no idea who or what i am and yet you dive immediately into your preprogrammed mode of assumptions. as i said, i feel sorry for you. i am not an expert in history or war nor do i pretend to be, but refuting your simplistic view on war is so simple an infant could do it. As I said before, I don't expect to change your mind, just to make you think a little. but, of course, you wont. Your brainwashing is complete. The really sad thing is that you dont even realize that you are no better than the enemy you wish to kill. your excuse is that your tactics are better, that your weapons are more refined, that your heart is in the right place, but killing is killing isnt it?

" i am not an expert in

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 13:17 ET by contrary

" i am not an expert in history or war nor do i pretend to be, but
refuting your simplistic view on war is so simple an infant could do it."

Then by all means, take that bottle out of your mouth and try to articulate something.

"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."

--The Dooper

haha

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 14:09 ET by dr_devil_dog

what a joke. unfortunately for you i DO represent where america is going. have you not been paying attention? conservative hawks have gotten the boot dumass. noone wants to engage in useless wars wasting trillions of dollars and costing thousands of lives. after 8 years of obama americans will realize how they were duped by the bushies and will hopefully never vote in a warmongering hate-bot again. people like you will be relegated to the cul de sac of history and will never be heard from again.

I invite you to come back

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 14:18 ET by BD

I invite you to come back in eight years (more likely 3 years) and voice your cocerns regarding your disappointment with Obama.

He will not be able to follow up on most pledges he made, and if he is a GOOD leader he will be forced to intervene militarily to defeat our enemies.

But that assumes he will be a GOOD Leader.

Regarding your supposed view of my cul de sac of history, How about a war in which only ONE SIDE came? THey are quite common in history and do not have happy endings....

Naughty newbie

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 14:27 ET by Blonde

Your name calling, vulgarity, BDS, and deranged talking points are not germane, newbie.

If we wanted Kosbots....we'd go over there.

Keep it up, you'll be out of here pronto.

ok, i have reviewed my

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 14:06 ET by BD

ok, i have reviewed my comments, and i still think they are correct

Only if you mistake emotionalism for analytical thought.

Throughout nearly all your post, you discuss the "Feeling of the issue" such as what you would FEEL if an enemy blew up your home.

BUt no where did you address the issue analytically such as what your belief is regarding the Center of Gravity of the current GWOT. You could also discuss what you believe the Culminating point of the current conflict is, or what you would see as the key terrain in the current conflict.

But I get it, War is bad, at least if your life is ruled by emotionalism rather than logic.

now i have some advice for you, review your comments and see if they are the product of brainwashing.

Funny, I would ascribe that condition to you more than me. You are easy to emote, which is key in the technique formerly called "Branwashing."

you have no idea who or what i am and yet you dive immediately into your preprogrammed mode of assumptions.

Since you have not listed any formal background or history in your posts, I am forced to make assumptions. Most of them I admit are based on the limited data available based on your posts.

I would assume you are young since you have not mastered analytical skills. Probably late teens early twenties.

I would assume you are either large suburban dweller, or city bound since that also plays into your ethos of emotion.

Likely you are white and male with high school education since your word choices lean that way. if you did attend advanced education you did not study any field that required logic (Sadly few do anymore, Law school being the worst).

At first I assumed you might have a past association with the USMC due to your screen name, but I see no other evidence of it.

Close enough? If not, please provide a bio to compare, and be honest.

as i said, i feel sorry for you.

Once again, emotion rears its ugly head...

You do not tell me I am wrong, or provide evidence or rationale of it, just tell me your FEELINGS which gets us NOWHERE.

but refuting your simplistic view on war is so simple an infant could do it.

Then I invite you to try, but I fear you have not the logic to go beyond the petty rationale of what you read on leftisit webpage "Fighting for peace is like having sex for virginity" etc.

As I said before, I don't expect to change your mind, just to make you think a little.

If I can drag you towards analytical thinking rather than emotionalism I will feel my efforts have not been in vain. But that requires a commitment to think which few do today, nor is it taught in most schools.

The really sad thing is that you dont even realize that you are no better than the enemy you wish to kill.

Sad, but you apparently know neither me, nor my enemies for even an emotional individual could not make that statement in good faith if they did.

For instance, I do not perform targeting to MAXIMIZE innocents lost like my enemy does. That should be enough, but more:

I do not forcibly marry captured women, nor rape them to cow the population.

I do not cause more pain and suffering than necessary, and I treat my captured enemies with kindness and respect - especially those at GITMO.

I do not prefer to target civilians in comparison to my enemies.

I expend great effort to treat civilians with kindness, and spend great lengths to provide medical care to those I come in contact with. On most of my missions my medical personnel spend much more time delivering babies and helping the sick and injured than they do treating our own wounded.

And you consider me the equal of Abu Sabaya, Isnilon Hapilon, Osama, Zarqawi etc?

What therapy have you gone through to get you to this point?

your excuse is that your tactics are better, that your weapons are more refined, that your heart is in the right place, but killing is killing isnt it?

Have you studied th elogics behind the "Just war theory" of Aquinas?

Dead is not "Just dead" and any equaivalany between me and my enemy is specious.

emotions are bad?

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 14:24 ET by dr_devil_dog

sure they are if your whole mindset is dependent on rationalizing killing logically.

perhaps if more of our soldiers thought emotionally and took the time to think about the causes and effects of what they were doing we would have more true heroes, men who refuse to fight in illegal and terroristic wars.

not that it matters, but i am in my thirties, have lived all over the world, speak three languages and have been closer than i would ever care to be again to the effects of both terroristic acts and us military destruction. neither is pretty and neither seems to be much different when the smoke clears. so, again, your analysis has proven ineffective. oh, also, ive never lived in a suburb in my life. I wasnt fortunate enough to have the resources to attend college, i had to work from the time i was 15. i owned my first business by the time i was 18 and havent looked back since.

many of my best friends are from the central asia and the middle east, they also have lived through the results of your pinpoint accuracy, not so pinpoint in their eyes. again, your ego has outweighed your analysis. again, it's time for you to begin truly thinking so you can be a force of change instead of a hate filled kill-bot. good luck.

Emotions are

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 14:38 ET by BD

Emotions are bad?

Particularly when they crowd out logical thought devoid of over emotionalism.

AN overly emotional man will starve to death on a well stocked chicken farm for the lack on the analytical thought to survive.

Do you seek the triumph of our enemies? The islamo fascists?

By the way, THINKING is an analytical process, not emoting such as you proscribe.

By the way, please tell me what is either illegal or terroristic about our handling of the GWOT? Please use rationale based on logic, facts, and figures.

Please give me an example of such a terroristic act you have witnessed, who performed the act and what the purpose was.

Nice to hear of the languages, I myself have only mastered two, though I can survive on the street in several others.

neither is pretty and neither seems to be much different when the smoke clears. so, again, your analysis has proven ineffective.

Details required for further analysis.

oh, also, ive never lived in a suburb in my life. I wasnt fortunate enough to have the resources to attend college, i had to work from the time i was 15. i owned my first business by the time i was 18 and havent looked back since.

So you are a rural dweller? I do not believe so.

many of my best friends are from the central asia and the middle east, they also have lived through the results of your pinpoint accuracy,

Examples required. Hezzies? Pallies? Central asians who have experienced MY pinpoint accuracy? Hmmmmmm..... Really do require detail.

again, your ego has outweighed your analysis.

Please provide examples.

again, it's time for you to begin truly thinking so you can be a force of change instead of a hate filled kill-bot. good luck.

You have never responded to any of my points. Not that it truly matters except that you seem to not READ them.

starving

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 15:06 ET by dr_devil_dog

starve to death on a chicken farm? what?

no, i dont wish for the victory of our enemies, but i do question who our real enemies are.

our war in iraq is illegal and terroristic. we have no business invading countries that pose us no threat, it was a distraction that has wasted lives and resources. i understand that you disagree with me on this, but unfortunately for you, i am right.

i lived a block away form the world trade center, my family was evacuated while i stayed behind to help firefighters and rescue workers search for survivors. i saw more death that day than i care to remember.

while working for a company that was providing internet for kabul i had an opportunity to tour some sites that had been been hit by american missiles. pretty devastating.

the point here isnt who is right and who is wrong, the point is your failure to understand that violence begets violence. i have sat with muslims in kazakhstan, kyrgyzstan, uzbekistan and afghanistan, shared meals with them, discussed their philosophies compared them to mine and gained a better understanding of humanity. you have studied and read and become indoctrinated into a one sided sytem of beliefs. your only answer to anything you disagree with is that you have an analytical mind, thus your ego leaves you dangling in the middle of nowhere.

ddd, So lived a block away from WTC on a farm.

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 15:28 ET by upcountrywater

while you were working, for a company around kabul..

You work with this guy, he was doing the same thing you were.

ddd you ARE a DEMOCRAT

Aclu</

starve to death on a

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 16:33 ET by BD

starve to death on a chicken farm? what?

It is an allegory for those who cannot logically think long enough to realize that many truths are unpleasant such as the slaughter of chickens. Short version....

no, i dont wish for the victory of our enemies

And how do you see us winning against these enemies without some the occasional use of some form of violence to counter them?

but i do question who our real enemies are.

I could give you a seven page listing of individuals with dossier showing what they have been up to. But perhaps you will allow me to shorten it to the catch all of Islamic Extremist fascists?

Or are the guys who attempt to behead us Roman Catholic Torte attourneys from Brooklyn?

our war in iraq is illegal

Please cite your rationale for claiming our involvment is illegal.

and terroristic.

Thats funny, I do not recall seeing US troops rounding up all the lefthanded red heads in Bagdhad and summarily executing them as a sign to other redheads.

Perhaps I was not there the right weekend. Ooopps... I have been there on two tours and have not seen ANY US terrorism.

So, once again I gotta ask WHAT terrorist acts are you referring to?

we have no business invading countries that pose us no threat,

So you have never read of the military maxim of seizing key and even decisisive terrain? That would seem to a a siginificant BUSINESS consideration in my business.

i understand that you disagree with me on this, but unfortunately for you, i am right.

Only if you can prove it analytically. Which you have not even attempted.

while working for a company that was providing internet for kabul i had an opportunity to tour some sites that had been been hit by american missiles. pretty devastating.

To say that I am surprised is an understatement. Particularly since I recall not a single occasion in which US ordnace was used in the Kabul area with the exception of the old abandoned transfer facility on the outskirts which was not occuppied before, during, nor after the Spring 2002 fighting.

I do recall the use of Carbombs in the city by our enemies that were VERY devastating. perhaps you are mistaken and were observing such.

the point here isnt who is right and who is wrong,

Now THAT is hyper-emotionalism at its finest.

I will be sure to alert Gallileo and Copernicus when i meet them in heaven some day that their being correct was not worth fighting for. THey should have just shut up and got along to get along, right?

the point is your failure to understand that violence begets violence.

False. Peace is only possible post victory. Maybe it will be the enemies victory, I hope it is our victory. But there has NEVER been peace based on simple unilateral cessation of violence.

Please observe Middle Eastern, Irish, Lebanese, and South east asian examples.

i have sat with muslims in kazakhstan, kyrgyzstan, uzbekistan and afghanistan, shared meals with them, discussed their philosophies compared them to mine and gained a better understanding of humanity.

Gee, so have I, but in differing locations.

What have I learned? THat while most people are good, there are some REALLY bad people on this planet who need to assume room temperature ASAP!

I shall help them whenever possible.

you have studied and read and become indoctrinated into a one sided sytem of beliefs.

Nonsense. I am conversant in nearly all sides arguments. I just know that the position I hold is the correct one for the eventual desired outcome.

your only answer to anything you disagree with is that you have an analytical mind,

WHen it is based on overwrought emotionalism I WILL say that, thank you for noticing.

thus your ego leaves you dangling in the middle of nowhere.

Ha! But occuppying the key terrain.

starving

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 15:06 ET by dr_devil_dog

starve to death on a chicken farm? what?

no, i dont wish for the victory of our enemies, but i do question who our real enemies are.

while working for a company that was providing internet for kabul i had an opportunity to tour some sites that had been been hit by american missiles. pretty devastating.

but i do question who our

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 16:36 ET by Jack Bauer

but i do question who our real enemies are.

Then do us all a favor and expand on your mindfart and NAME YOUR "REAL" ENEMIES.

I'm trembling with excitement.

If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same...
Yours is the earth and all that's in it...

i thought it was obvious...

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 16:52 ET by dr_devil_dog

our real enemy is ourselves.

Gee... DDD is POGO!!!! But I

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 17:25 ET by BD

Gee... DDD is POGO!!!!

But I don t seem to recall Ouselves blowing up US embassies.

Nor do I recall them taking tour groups hostage.

Hmmmm.... WTC? Nope, unless you are an idiot TRUTHER.

How about journalist beheading? NOpe.

Crowds of visitors to the Egyptian tombs getting mowed? Nope.

How about just generic crowds in Downtown Algiers? Nope.

Single mothers executed on the goal line in Kabuls soccer stadium? Nope.

Blowing up Budhist shrines? Nope.

How about taking on crowds in hotels in Mumbai? Nope.

Piracy on the high seas in the past 100 years? Nope.

Christian villagers in Sudan getting greased? Hope.

BOy, the list just keeps on going. Guess WE ARE NOT THE ENEMY DDD THINKS WE ARE.

starving

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 15:06 ET by dr_devil_dog

starve to death on a chicken farm? what?

no, i dont wish for the victory of our enemies, but i do question who our real enemies are.

while working for a company that was providing internet for kabul i had an opportunity to tour some sites that had been been hit by american missiles. pretty devastating.

Really?

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 15:24 ET by Blonde

our war in iraq is illegal and terroristic

Hmmm...what about that congressional authorization there, law student?

Furthermore, terroristic? Get a grip. We don't wantonly select targets, as BD has taken great pains to demonstrate to you.

You, however, aren't interested in debate, nor conversation. You're here to litter your liberal talking points and as is typical of your ilk, either can't or won't comprehend what has been written here....we've seen it a thousand times before and are not impressed, either by you or your talking points.

P.S. Hit the post button once.

law student?

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 16:49 ET by dr_devil_dog

i dont recall claiming to be a law student. in fact, i was clear about the fact that i dont have a college education. wasnt a possibility when i was growing up unfortunately. i did however manage to teach myself three languages, travel and work throughout europe and central asia, and am basically retired at the ripe old age of 33. guess college education cant make up for common sense.

though not a law student i am aware that congressional authorization does not a lawful war make. also, though bd has been intensely indoctrinated to believe that the weapons we unleash kill only 'bad guys' i beg to differ. again, i have seen it with my own eyes and i trust them a lot more than i trust you.

im not here to litter any liberal talking points, i dont even think i know what that means. im here because ive read the comments posted on these horrible articles that display the utmost ignorance and i thought someone needed to at least try to present a different view. i understand i am outnumbered, outgunned if you will, but ive had fun hearing bd's point of view. he is very thorough, though wrong.

p.s.- sorry about double clicking the post button, i get a little lag out here.

dont recall claiming to

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 17:35 ET by BD

dont recall claiming to be a law student. in fact, i was clear about the fact that i dont have a college education.

You made the ludicrous claim that the current war was illegal. Ms Blonde is asking you to back up that statement with a rationale proving your claim.

though not a law student i am aware that congressional authorization does not a lawful war make.

Why not? Please provide a rationale proving this claim.

also, though bd has been intensely indoctrinated to believe that the weapons we unleash kill only 'bad guys' i beg to differ.

I , of course, have said no such thing. I have expressed the lengths we go to to avoid damage to non-combatants and provide a comparing and contrasting with our enemies.

Get ready for another allegory. That being the surgeon who is afraid to operate because he might be forced to remove a healthy non-cancerous cell as well as the millions of malignant ones.

Please refer to the just war theory of Aquinas for explanation (Of warfare, not cancer surgery.)

again, i have seen it with my own eyes and i trust them a lot more than i trust you.

So, I am allowed to trust MY own eyes as well...?

im here because ive read the comments posted on these horrible articles that display the utmost ignorance and i thought someone needed to at least try to present a different view.

So, since the original post develeoped the idea that the detention of illegal combatatns is legal, what is YOUR beef with it?

i understand i am outnumbered, outgunned if you will, but ive had fun hearing bd's point of view. he is very thorough, though wrong.

Only if you view reality through a hyper emotional prism.

emotions are bad?

Thu, 11/27/2008 - 14:24 ET by dr_devil_dog

sure they are if your whole mindset is dependent on rationalizing killing logically.

open the doors to GITMO

Tue, 11/25/2008 - 09:02 ET by JIMMY1660

who cares about the GITMO detainees. Turn them all loose, onto the streets of Washington DC, give them a handgun and 100 rounds of ammo. once they are Stateside, the rest of the loons around the world will migrate to our shores to free their comrades. Folks are not buying guns because of BHO, its his GITMO policies. Once the detainees are here, keep the doors locked and be most vigilant, cause here come the bad guys.GITMO is a perfect place to keep the dregs of the earth,BHO wants them to be amongst us, I'm sure his family will be kept safe,what about yours?Once GITMO closes and the terroists attacks start on our shores, its GWB's fault,again??

allow me to Love America