This is really interesting to me.
Jan 3rd, 2009 | By benwyskida | Category: Politics
So: Barack Obama said he’d close Guantanamo and stop all of the shady shit George Bush pulled. And liberals, plus lawyers, plus the rest of the world, want him to follow through. But if I’m understanding this New York Times article correctly, keeping his promises on detainees and torture might also mean setting free a suspect who — while arrested under shady Bush means — might actually be mad dangerous. So, does he follow through but let the maybe really bad person back out into the world, risking some down-the-road terror attack that could bring down the Democratic Party and open them up to charges of being soft on terrorism? Or does he change positions, take a new line and argue that, well shit people I’ve seen the intelligence and some of what Bush did we actually need to do. How fucked up would that be?
About The Author
Ben Wyskida is a writer, activist, conscientious hedonist and political communications strategist living in Brooklyn. - Visit Ben's site.
I’d rather see a million guilty men go free than one innocent man imprisoned…especially in THAT shithole.
Besides, closing Guantanamo never meant letting those guys go free. Why do people believe this? They’re going to be sent to different prisons is all.
The mistake was not sending combatants to Guatanamo but rather not setting up some means, whether by trial or other examination, of ensuring that the bad guys were locked up and the innocents released and sent home.
Yeah, this is a tough one. But, as pointed out, the Guantanamo prisoners aren’t likely to just be sent home. They’ll just find new homes. Maybe here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g1sgraHKRHZsrk-6MVaXuUT3FY6QD95FBI4G0