Comments on: The news today will be the movies for tomorrow

By: Sean Murphy

Sean Murphy — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:53:57 +0000

Shieldsy: Thanks for commenting. I think it’s safe to suggest that what is happening here is neither of the extremes you posit; i.e., I don’t believe Obama is selling out or that he has suddenly realized that all of the prisoners are dangerous and he now has knowledge he was unaware of on the campaign trail. If anything, I would opine that the augmented intel he has received has revealed exactly how many innocent people we have incarcerated and not how many menace-to-society miscreants we have under wraps. Naturally, there are without question some (many?) men who were captured and who meant the USA ill. It is also utterly without question that there are some (many?) men who were scooped up under spurious–at best–circumstances and should never have been sent to Guantanamo. I think the bottom line is that by not trying any of these individuals in a court of law, we make a mockery of the entire process, and invalidate the ostensibly good work that might have been done apprehending the “bad guys”. That is what Bush & Co.’s hamfisted, secretive, ass-backwards kangaroo court-style M.O. has achieved. To specifically address your question, it’s unfortunately a political third rail, and the Dems are (amazingly, appallingly) still mortified at the idea of being called “soft” on terror. This is all about political expediency and power over principles. Absolute worst case scenario: putting any/all of these men in custody will ensure that they can’t/won’t “escape” and wreak havoc (a scenario our fine folks at Fox News would have its viewers trembling and GOP pols salivating at the prospect of); and one by one, each person can be tried: the ones who are obviously innocent (and there are more than a few of them; any cursory examination of the facts will reveal this) should be set free and compensated. The only reason this hasn’t happened yet is sheer embarrassment on our part. We ruined lives, and got nothing for it. The last thing any politician wants to do is publically acknowledge that.

By: Mike Shields

Mike Shields — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:51:53 +0000

One way you can look at this is that Obama is just selling out and going back on his promise. Another way you could look at this – could – if you have an open mind and can consider it – is that maybe you should give the guy you trusted as “ready” some more credit and – GASP – in doing so give the last administration some credit that this problem is a lot harder to deal with than the positions the Obama for President campaign came up with before he was given the intelliegence and legal briefings surrounding this. I’m not defending “torture” or any specific case. I think gitmo is harmful to us and I agree we need to find a way to regain our moral credibility. But it just ain’t that easy in the world we are dealing with. The left seems maniacally opposed to opening their eyes to the threat we face and the consequences that come along with that threat. Sure, if there IS no threat and if the world was an easy place, I’m sure you’re favorite president would just close it all down and try them in the U.S. tomorrow. After even the evil Darth W. Bush wanted to close gitmo. But every time one of our leaders tries to do it they stop. Is that for political reasons or perhaps because – again – maybe consider – there are some legitimate national security reasons for doing it? Last I checked, the new administration has also not scrapped the supposedly 100% politically motivated color-coded DHS threat level system either.

By: Goldman Sachs: It’s Hard Out Here for a Vampiring Pimp | Murphy's Law

Goldman Sachs: It’s Hard Out Here for a Vampiring Pimp | Murphy's Law — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:59:41 +0000

[...] of like the situation in Guantanamo, it seems that all that can be said has been said of the soul-raping of American citizens by the [...]