Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Keystone Terrorists?

Democrat Jack Murtha says he'd be happy to have the terrorists detained at Gitmo sent to his district here in Pennsylvania.

What a perfect place for 235 blood thirsty, America-hating Muslim supremacists.

They'll fit it nicely with all the bigots, rednecks and racists, who Murtha says live in his district.

Obama campagined on closing down Gitmo. But suddenly, he says it's not going to be as easy as he thought.

Murtha's idiotic comments don't make it any easier.


Blogger David Diano said...

The detainees don't have "magical powers" nor are they any more dangerous than any other prisoners. The biggest difference from US prisoners is that they haven't had a trial. So, they are actually suspected terrorists.

They can be held in the US in existing facilities (or don't you think our stateside military facilities can handle it?).

We've already released hundreds of detainees that turned out not to be terrorists.

The only "safety" of Guantanamo was from Bush trying to avoid the law.

January 22, 2009 at 1:35 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

We've already released hundreds of detainees that turned out not to be terrorists."

Yeah, and we have also released dozens of detainees who have returned to the "battlefield" to attempt to kill our fellow Americans.

Months ago the Pentagon estimated that at least 60 released were back and engaged in terrorist activities.


Plus, the Democrats faux outrage about rendition is nothing but flagrant partisanship.

Extraordinary Rendition occured dozens of times when Bill Clinton was president. Back in the 90s we outsource harsh interrogations of terrorist suspects. Gee, I sure don't remember a lot of Democratic hand-wringing about it back then.

(See Eli Lake's piece on the subject here.
Leon Panetta is going to have to answer some interesting questions about it. I wonder how many will be asked by Democrats.

Obama has already admitted closing Guantanamo is going to be more difficult than he said during the campaign. There are serious national security issues to consider but leftists would grandstand their supposed morality.

If anything goes wrong with the transfer or release of any those "dangerous" (Obama's word) men at Guantanamo he knows there will be hell to pay.

And there should be.

Love to hear Murtha's argument for bringing them to Pennsylvania. Maybe Dave can put them up in his basement.

January 22, 2009 at 4:40 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

Under Rumsfeld, the Pentagon could even estimate how many terrorists there were, how many we killed, or whether we were killing them faster than they could recruit. The Pentagon still can't tell us how many Iraqi's we've killed (especially woman and children).

Of the 60 released that have allegedly engaged in terrorist activities, how many were not terrorists BEFORE they were detained, but got recruited ONLY because they were wrongly detained here in the first place?
Way to go ignoring that 90% have not engaged in terrorism, despite people like you arguing against their release because you assumed that 100% of the detainees were dangerous terrorists.
Holding people for years without trial is the tactic of despots, not Americans. The fact that so many innocent people were swept up in the first place and the inability of the Bush administration to stand up to any real scrutiny should be a warning for everyone that the system was not legal or just.
As for holding them in Pennsylvania or anywhere else in the US, what's the big deal? They aren't any more dangerous than any other prisoners we lock up. They only thing for people like you to be afraid of is that people will find out we've been holding and torturing people illegally.

January 22, 2009 at 10:49 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Bring them to Pennsylvania so the state can grow a new reputation. In fact, build the new prison across the street from Diano's.

Bringing the detainee's to the united states will become the ultimate NIMBY issue of this century.

January 23, 2009 at 9:37 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

I would be proud to have our state showing its patriotism and respect for the Constitutional and the law by holding these prisoners and sorting out which ones are actually guilty of anything.
The purpose of Gitmo detention was to work outside of US law and engage in the same illegal policies of imprisonment without trial that we fight against in other countries. Gitmo has been just another stain on our international reputation and erosion of our moral authority in the world.
These detainees are no more dangerous (and probably less dangerous) than the murders and drug dealers we currently imprison.
They don't have "magical powers" that will allow them to escape or cause terrorism by being closer.

January 23, 2009 at 10:51 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

you really didn't respond to my post about building a prison across the street from your house for these animals.

January 23, 2009 at 11:36 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

Why build a new prison and tear down current homes and displace families when there are empty federal prison cells waiting for these guy? That makes no sense since there is no need to build a new prison to hold them. However, I have no fear of living across the street from where they are imprisoned as they are not dangerous to anyone outside of the prison.

BTW, I don't think all 250 should be housed at a single facility. They should be evenly distributed throughout the system. However, if the other states can't match up to Pennsylvania, then I have no problem with us picking up the slack.

If we actually needed a new prison in PA for them, there are thousands of acres of empty land going to waste that could be used.

Of course, once their cases are actually examined, there will be a lot less than 250. You call them animals, but you really don't know that they are guilty (even though you believed the other hundreds of innocent prisoners were guilty before they were released).

January 23, 2009 at 11:56 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I'd rather seee them across from your house to gage a real reaction. Of course, we all know your reaction which is why you continue to sidestep it.

January 23, 2009 at 12:37 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

How did I side step it? I thought I was quite clear that I have ZERO fear of alleged terrorists imprisoned across the street from where I live.
However, it's a stupid hypothetical because the neighborhood's doesn't have the proper infrastructure for a prison (or commercial or industrial real estate or any large buildings).

I'm not afraid of terrorists. Us being afraid of them is their objective. People like you running around like Chicken Little worrying about the sky falling give them their victories.

I had to fly back to the US the week after 9/11 and I was more afraid of being shot down by the US than the plan being taken over by terrorists. My original flight back was actually canceled/rescheduled because the pilots were told we'd be shot down if we entered US airspace.

You are FAR more likely to be killed by an American drunk driver than a terrorist.

BTW, the detainees would be held in Federal prisons rather than state or local prisons. Maybe you think they'd be held in Hazard County and steal the General Lee from the Duke boys?
You've got a better chance winning the PowerBall than one of these detainees escaping from Federal lockup.

I hope none of those terrorists overseas read this blog and are encouraged by the cowardice of Spencer, Steve and their like-minded brethren.
Please stop embarrassing America in front of the terrorists.

January 24, 2009 at 1:45 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Diano, you just don't get it. You are more likely to be killed by a drunk driver's car than by a terrorist. The fear is that many more of us could be killed by a terrorists nuclear weapon. However, I understand your stated position, I just can't agree (nor can any other rational thinking human being) with your belief that hugging and loving them will make them like us and eliminate that threat. Pay attention!

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

January 25, 2009 at 5:08 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Again side stepping. I asked a direct question - I don't care how 'silly' you call it. Eminant Domain can place that sucker across the street from your house as with mine, but the difference is that I can quickly say no -0 to both being near my house or being on my soil. Hell, eminant domain can now place a wal-mart there, too, so why not a prison for terrorists?

You really want terrorists co-mingling with other prisoners? Do you tend to really trust that they'll be kept separate? Do you tend to trust that american prisoners will no want to grind an axe with society? Do you not believe that additional networks can and will form within the confines of stone walls for transmission of information and potential recruitment?

Why is it when we're trying to prevent the biggest modern threat to our security from taking charge that the left wants to put us into harm's way?

If you consider these terrorists a disease and our nation a body, the best way to prevent spreading of said disease is to limit exposure. Use common sense. Don't injest the disease.

While we're at it, should we condone Nuclear weapons in Iran because "they're smart enough not to use them"? Should we always look for additional statistics relating to homicides from drunk driving or North Philly muggings to make ourselves feel better?

January 26, 2009 at 4:36 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...


THese liberals find omfort in wanting to be the party of feelings. Rational thought is not part of their mindset. It is shocking that they think that enemy combatants should be given US Constitutional protections. Those rights are conferred on US citizens or people that commit crimes on US soil.

Since Obama is so much like FDR, why was it ok for FDR to lock up Japanese American citizens?

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

January 26, 2009 at 5:40 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home