Take a break ID this isn't healthy. Watch South Park.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/207897

Indeed. How dare they get trials with lawyers and stuff like that. I mean, it's not like they're innocent or anything. Oh wait, some of them are, like this guy-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murat_Kurnaz

Murat Kurnaz spent 5 years in Gitmo and then was released, because he was just a normal joe who got picked up in Pakistan. His "crime" was that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, Pakistani police arrested him and gave him to the Americans who then alleged that he was a terrorist.

-However- he wasn't, the Americans got a lot of egg on their face for just taking whoever the Afghans or Pakistani authorities gave them and assumed they were all bad guy terrorists.

The reason why Murat spent 5 years in Gitmo (to later be released, with no conviction of any kind?)

Because it would be an embarrassment to admit that the Americans had prisoners there that were completely innocent that they didn't thoroughly look into before taking into custody.

If you read the book, "5 years in Guantanamo" written by this fellow, in his "fair and balanced" military tribunal he was told that the reason he got picked up was that one of his friends in Germany had committed a suicide bombing (this was a lie.. the friend they mentioned was still alive and had no connection to any terror groups)

We must have really did an injustice to those 3 million + Axis prisoners taken during World War II and brought to the US. Those poor enemy soldiers didn't get a fair trial either. I'm sure some were forced to fight. My eyes are filling up with tears over it now. I guess the "trial" those four US contractors that got, dragged thought the street then hung from a bridge in Fallujah a few years ago, didn't go so well for them. Nor did it work out well for the two US soldiers captured, killed and mutilated, then had thier bodies booby-trapped. Need more examples of the enemies "humaneness"? These WAR PRISONERS in Gitmo should be praising Allah that their brand of "justice" is not being used on them. I'm always amazed at the liberal swell of emotion over these "poor" terrorists, while most wouldn't piss on a US soldier engulfed in flames to put him out. It also amazes me how anyone can write a book and others will take it as gospel "if it is in line" with their personal beliefs. Being a vet myself, this makes me sick. I think all prisoners should be treated humanely, but there should never be an outpouring of sympathy to an enemy that is getting much better than it gives. Oh and to potential enemy prisoners, don't pick up or support someone that picks up a weapon to use against US troops unless you accept the consequences. Of course three square meals and health care might be worth the risk for some, it's not like you'll be beheaded or anything.

BTW Wikipedia -great reference source! Who entered the info Murat or just friends of Murat?

No, though mentions of the NCSF seem to have been scrubbed as well before they scrapped the whole section (was trying to find it on google cache last night to show someone else).

Gitmo should have been handled much differently than it was.  The detainees should have been considered POWs and been done with it.  There are rules in place with long precedents. 

I do not believe that it should be handled in the US Court system either.  They are not structured to handle the processes.

American criminals and terrorists caught on the battlefield are two completely different things.

I didn't ignore your post, it's just not really worth my time as you obviously think islamic terrorists should stand trial in the U.S. courts.  Your rants about torture and human rights are taken right from the play book.  You should realize that Club Gitmo detainees get better treatment than in some federal prisons.

Nitro Cruiser I am aware of the problems with China but keeping them imprisoned even if it is in a communal area (which surely is a euphemism) isn't the solution, why not granting them status as refugees then? Is it because China would protest against such a decision?

He might be!  After all she was the crafter of the plan that lead to the intel breakdown before 9-11.

That would be funny if it weren't.

ID WRITES:

STUBBYFINGER POSTS #1

Oh yes it is...since we're stuck with BHO,  the "chosen one" as commander in chief, it's most important to keep each other informed...so I appreciate it.

The "Chosen One" promised a Socialist agenda paid for by "spreading the wealth around" and paid for by dipping into the pocketbooks of the so-called rich.

...and now, according to the Washington Times, he's deleted his massive agenda on his campaign website...gone are taxes and the economy, Iraq, and immigration.

ID WRITES:

 Remembered he campaigned saying his would be a "transparent" administration?

If I remember correctly, Clinton's EO were mostly done on the "quiet" or when Congress was away out of session. Not so with the Chosen One.

After taking office in Jan. 2009, one of his first pro-death moves will be to throw out Bush's pro-life policies and enforce taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research and abortion abroad (Mexico City policy) by executive order.

John Podesta, Obama's administration chief, told the Associated Press that Obama will act quickly through executive order because he thinks Obama "feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set."

A top transition official told the Washington Post that Obama and his team are consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize the revamping of presidential policy that "they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive." 

Out of a list of about 200 Bush administration policies under scrutiny, the ban on federal funding for ESC research was the first policy mentioned in the Post article. 

In Catholic Online opinion column, Deacon Keith Fournier lamented that "with the stroke of a pen human embryos would become property, capable of being 'manufactured' like a commodity, and available to be used as spare parts in experimentation which has produced no discernible scientific results."

The Obama administration also plans to dispense with a ban on taxpayer funding for overseas aid promoting or offering abortion, known as the Mexico City Policy.  President Reagan instituted the policy in 1984, which was repealed by President Clinton in 1993 before being reinstituted in 2001 by President Bush.

Also, under President Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), health workers are trained to emphasize abstinence and marital fidelity as the most effective ways to combat the spread of AIDS - another policy the Obama administration is likely to dispense with.

firstly, embreyonic stem cells are not produced from aborted fetuses. Only cells 24-48 hours old are suitable... eggs and sperm are mixed in a petry dish, and 24 hours later disassembled under a microscope as they are too small to see with the naked eye (converstly, a woman doesn't know she is pregnant until at least a week since fetalization, and abortion isn't used until there is at least something visible to abort)...

But, regardless this process is bad, stem cells research should focus on modifying an adult cell into stem cells... why? because it is YOUR cells and not foreign cells, and as such there is no risk of them being taken out by your immune system (meaning immune supression is not required for the duration of the process).

But... if he just lets people work on those vectors of research rather then actually funnelling money to them, then it isn't that big of a deal. Aborted fetuses would never be part of it.

I'm comfortable having people, regardless of race, nationality or association, represented in courts, because that's the American way. Or, it used to be, before they lost the plot.