Skip to main content

Democrat Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds at Guantanamo

Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, all of a sudden is concerned about what happens to the detainees currently housed at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=7633754&page=3
Virginia Sen. Jim Webb -- whose state would likely host detainees if they were to be tried in the American criminal justice system instead of on Cuba -- said Sunday on "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" that he would not support bringing detainees stateside. "I think Guantanamo has become the great Rorschach test of how we feel about international terrorism. We should at the right time close Guantanamo, but I don't think that it should be closed in terms of transferring people here," he said.
So, "we need to close Guantanamo but not if we, um, have to send these people anywhere else". Way to contradict yourself in the same sentence, Jim Webb. This is the single largest display of stupidity I've seen this year.

Thus after years of united Democrat harping against George Bush for setting up Guantanamo and housing captured terrorists there, complaining that prisoners of war aren't getting their "constitutional rights", etc ad naseum, all of the sudden, Democrats are united against having terrorists in their own backyard - and, um, maybe we should just keep them there for now.

The best solution they have come up with is, "Let's get Switzerland to take them!" Seriously. Talk about your international insults. "These people are so dangerous we cannot imprison them in the US, certainly not in my district.. so how about you take them, Switzerland? Please?" That is hypocrisy and astoundingly ridiculous.

This is similar to the environmentalist ranting that "we need alternative energy including wind power!" but then fight actual wind farm installations. I.e., "not in my backyard".

Of course, Democrats also want more and more and more government - as long as someone else pays for it. So you are beginning to see the trend here: Dems want other people to solve their problems for them.

George Bush knew full well that it was foolish and dangerous to house captured terrorists inside the United States. They set up a special prison in Guantanamo for exceptional physical security - Cuba is an island, sort of a super-Alcatraz. But Bush also recognized that these captured terrorists fell neither under US criminal law nor under the Geneva Convention - Al Qaeda never signed it and do not abide by it. Bush knew that if we housed these terrorists in a prison in the US that it wouldn't be long before some ACLU busybody who can't think consequences past the end of their nose, would be hooking up with leftist federal judges and having these people released on habeus corpus* in no time.

And in fact that is now clearly the concern expressed by Democrats - after years of hypocritical harping about how "Bush is ruining our image in the world", all the sudden they are concerned about the problems that Bush saw -- and solved with Guantanamo.
"If we can safely hold these individuals, I believe we can safely hold any Guantanamo detainees who need to be held," said [Dick] Durbin on the Senate floor.
Dick, you know full and bloody well that this isn't just about prison security. This is primarily about these terrorist murderers getting released by pansy liberal judges.

Let me be clear: this hypocrisy by Democrats is moral cowardice on a grand scale. Either you believe that they should be treated as mere criminals, in which case they need to be immediately transferred to US prisons, and take the consequences; or you believe that they are dangerous POWs that while technically are not protected under the Geneva Convention are being held according to those standards anyway and ought to stay put in the very sensible special prison George Bush set up for them.


* Note to bleeding-hearts: prisoners of war have no habeus corpus rights under any international law or treaty, including the Geneva Convention. Period. We are allowed to hold them until the war is over - i.e. until they are no longer considered a threat.

Comments

R-R-R said…
Running the country is not nearly as easy as the previous 43 presidents made it look, eh Barry?

And as was obvious to the less-smitten amongst us, the pollyana gobbledygook he laid on the left to get himself elected was never going to work in reality- a fact that the calculating opportunist Obama likely knew full-well back when he was promising them the moon and the stars.

He'll use you, if you let him... that's how narcissists are.

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com

Popular posts from this blog

Murder in the US

In 2011, I calculate the overall US murder rate as 4.6 per 100,000 population.

But if you recalculate this, and assumed that black men murdered at the same rate as everyone else, the overall rate would drop to 1.9 out of 100,000 population. That would give the United States the 147th highest murder rate in the world - or, the 60th best.

The insane disproportionate murder rate among US blacks is why the overall US murder rate seems so high.

I don't understand why liberals refuse to talk about this. I don't understand why blacks refuse to talk about this. Blacks are just as often the victim as the offender - almost SIXTY PERCENT of murder victims in the US are black. Shouldn't they care about this? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to talk about this? Yet they are silent.

And it's not like this is any secret. This culture of violence, abuse of women, and plain thuggery is paraded around daily in pop music. It's glorified on TV shows like "The Wire…

The Root of Violent Extremism

We are too flippant about writing off violent extremists as "crazy", "psychopathic", etc.

Just because *we* have a hard time conceiving of doing violence to others, does not mean that those who do are insane.

Hitler was not insane. Hitler was evil. There is a distinction.

To be insane, to be "crazy", means you cannot understand the difference between right and wrong.

People like Hitler, like ISIS, these people are *evil*. They have, in what they believe to be a rational process, *chosen* to embrace a death-worshipping morality.

Such thinking is going to lead us down wrong alleys in dealing with violent political extremism.

Unless we understand the various reasons why such people embrace philosophies of death, we cannot combat the root causes and defeat violent extremism.

Obama's "they need jobs" is a juvenile approach at this. But you simply cannot ignore and dismiss the reality of life in the countries that are the flash-points of extremism…

Transparency needed in investigations of police

I have not sat on a grand jury any time in my life. I am disinclined, having not pored through records, nor listened to dozens of witnesses, to second-guess the difficult decisions these jurors have had to make.

HOWEVER. There is a clear problem of trust going on, and it stems from a couple different sources.

1) Grand Juries are usually secret. There are good reasons for this. Simply investigating whether a crime might have occurred, which is what Grand Juries do, collects a lot of evidence which could put people's lives at risk, or could be embarrassing. You want folks to feel free to talk. And you don't want the person being investigated to get unduly smeared.

However, the flip side of secrecy is that the lack of transparency can lead to a loss of trust. Clearly, in the two incidents discussed recently, many people who have no idea what went on in the GJ's or what evidence was presented, know, they just KNOW, an injustice was committed! And, because they have no opportun…