(02-02-2015 04:39 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  If you cannot trust a former terrorist upon release date, then they should not be released.

I don't like the idea of chipping anyone. I can see our government arresting the wrong guy and then chipping the poor sucker for 15-20 years.

Have you EVER heard of a "former" terrorist that you would trust?

(02-02-2015 09:33 PM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  

(02-02-2015 04:39 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  If you cannot trust a former terrorist upon release date, then they should not be released.
I don't like the idea of chipping anyone. I can see our government arresting the wrong guy and then chipping the poor sucker for 15-20 years.

Have you EVER heard of a "former" terrorist that you would trust?

Had the Bush Administration not screwed up and extended Geneva Conventions rights and privileges unilaterally, we would have been entirely within our rights under international law to kill every one of those bastards in the desert. No Gitmo, none of that BS. And we would be having far fewer problems today.

But we didn't.

Pass

(02-02-2015 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Had the Bush Administration not screwed up and extended Geneva Conventions rights and privileges unilaterally, we would have been entirely within our rights under international law to kill every one of those bastards in the desert. No Gitmo, none of that BS. And we would be having far fewer problems today.

But we didn't.

Why do you think they did that? I have never heard of a convincing rationale.

(02-04-2015 09:51 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-02-2015 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Had the Bush Administration not screwed up and extended Geneva Conventions rights and privileges unilaterally, we would have been entirely within our rights under international law to kill every one of those bastards in the desert. No Gitmo, none of that BS. And we would be having far fewer problems today.

But we didn't.

Why do you think they did that? I have never heard of a convincing rationale.

Because they wanted to look like nice guys and thought that this way they would take less heat from the international community. To be clear, that's looking like nice guys to the European/Western nations; I would hope that nobody was naive enough to believe this would make any difference with the Arab countries, although that wouldn't be the most surprisingly stupid think they did. One thing to remember is that we never had a formal declaration of war, we had congressional approval to go in but never a formal declaration of war, and under international law that could be construed as a significant difference. Could be construed otherwise, too, that's not a slam dunk. But we were in basically legal never-never land the way that whole deal was done.

I would have gotten a formal declaration of war and gone in to win. But that's a different philosophy from what was done.

I frankly don't think they had a clue what they were getting into. And from our national leadership that is inexcusable. But Obama doesn't have a clue either. It's really sad.

(02-04-2015 09:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Because they wanted to look like nice guys

Vain.

Quote:thought they would take less heat from the international community.

Naïve.