NY Times Spins Wheel, Finds Something New To Be Outraged At Trump: Guantanamo Bay

Perhaps the NY Times Editorial Board has become bored with all their other Outrage material. So, they sat around and brainstormed with some martinis and came up with this and a cute graphic

From the link

Even before he took office, President Trump made it clear that no one would be getting out of the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, on his watch. They were “extremely dangerous people,” he said. It didn’t matter how long they had been locked up or whether they had been charged with any crimes. They should give up any hope of release.

Mr. Trump wasn’t just walking away from the efforts of his two predecessors to shrink the population of the prison and, eventually, to close it. He wanted to make it bigger — to “load it up with some bad dudes,” as he said.

Personally, I’m failing to see the problem with stocking the detention center with hardcore jihadis, except for the fact that it would be cheaper and easier just sending the jihadis off to Allah. Which, quite frankly, seemed to be the position of President Obama.

Today, 41 men remain at Guantánamo. Thirteen either have active cases in the military commission system or have been convicted. The rest have been held as enemy combatants, but without charge, for up to 16 years. Five of those have been cleared for transfer, meaning that the Pentagon, the White House and intelligence agencies long ago agreed that they pose no security threat. Many of these men were arrested under questionable circumstances; some were tortured, either at C.I.A. black sites or at Guantánamo itself.

Perhaps the august members of the NYTEB would care to host these jihadis at their mansions, in order to help rehabilitate them?

Last Thursday, 11 of these “forever prisoners” filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court in Washington, D.C. The men, all foreign-born Muslims, say their continued detention violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process and the 2001 law that gave presidents the power to send enemy combatants to Guantánamo.

One of the plaintiffs, prisoner No. 893, a 45-year-old Yemeni named Tolfiq al Bihani, has been held at Guantánamo for nearly 15 years. He was cleared for conditional release in 2010. The Saudi government agreed to accept him in 2016, along with nine other Yemenis. Those nine were all transferred, but Mr. al Bihani remains at Guantánamo without explanation.

Interesting that they aren’t blaming Mr. Obama for that.

President George W. Bush may be guilty of creating the constitutional calamity that is Guantánamo, but at least he made an effort to empty it of men who clearly posed no threat to the United States, releasing 532 detainees by the end of his second term. President Barack Obama, who was blocked by Republicans in Congress from keeping his campaign promise to close the prison,

Obama had two years with a Democratic Congress to get it done, and the only thing he did was sign an Executive Order. He didn’t put in the work to get it done.

established regular reviews of each inmate’s case and worked intensively to negotiate the transfer of those who could not be returned safely to their home countries. In the end, he released 197 detainees.

How many returned to the battle field? Quite a few.

Anyhow, this continues on and on and on, with the NYTEB super worried about hardcore jihadis who would be happy to run riot through the NY Times’ building and slit everyone’s throat. And, somehow, they make this All About Trump. Why? Derangement Syndrome.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “NY Times Spins Wheel, Finds Something New To Be Outraged At Trump: Guantanamo Bay”

  1. Jeffery says:

    He didn’t put in the work to get it done.

    Even though the white nationalist right couldn’t hide their disdain of President Obama’s “shiftlessness”, the Senate vote was 90-6 against authorizing the funds for closing Gitmo.

    On 20 May 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90–6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

    • david7134 says:

      What is wrong with white nationalist?

      • Jeffery says:

        What is wrong with the belief that a nation should be of only caucasians?

        • david7134 says:

          I don’t understand your reply, Jeff. It is a given that people desire to associate with like minded and similar aspects to themselves. Are you saying that white people should not associate with other whites? That does not make sense. All other races feel free to group together according to their similarities. But in your mind, with your hate, whites can’t do that. Maybe you have a problem Jeff.

          • Jeffery says:

            I have all kinds of problems.

            White guys can choose to only associate with white guys if they want. Black guys can do the same. White nationalists want the nation to be white. Certainly you don’t advocate discriminating against non-whites.

            White nationalism is an ideology that advocates a racial definition of national identity. These individuals identify and are attached to the perceived white nation. It ranges from a preference for one’s ethnic group, to feelings of superiority and forms of white supremacism, including calls for national citizenship to be reserved for white people, as in Rhodesia.

            White nationalism is anathema to American ideals, agreed?

  2. Dana says:

    The answer is simple: put all of those prisoners on a boat, and have it set sail for Saudi Arabia. Once in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, sink the boat.

    • Jeffery says:

      Dana now wants to murder Muslims some of whom may be terrorists while some may not be. Unfortunately for you our Constitution doesn’t allow us to murder prisoners or prisoners of war. These acts may not erode your tarnished soul but most Americans won’t tolerate this sort of barbarism. But then you want the poor to starve to death or die from lack availability of health care.

      Dana: Do you claim to be a christian?

      • Dana says:

        After several rounds of releasing captured terrorists by the Bush and Obama administrations, all that remain are the hard-core Islamists; the world will be much better off when they go to their 72 virgins.

        However, you do — perhaps unknowingly — raise a valid issue: you should never take anyone prisoner whom you are unwilling to ever see released. These men should never have been captured, but slain on the battlefield.

        In Biblical times, captured prisoners of war had their thumbs and big toes cut off before being released. That way, they could still work to feed themselves and their families, but were unfit for battle due to the inability to wield weapons or maneuver on the battlefield. In these days, alas! a trigger can be pulled without a thumb, a bomb can be set without having a big toe.

        We released captured Japanese and Germans, after their countries were so thoroughly defeated that there was little chance that those soldiers would return to the battlefield to shoot at Americans. With the Islamists, such a condition would apply only when the Muslim nations of the Middle East are as devastated as were Germany and Japan, and we appear to be unwilling to wreak that kind of havoc.

        Jeffrey, you really don’t get it, do you? The Islamists want to kill us! There is no reasoning with them, there is no peace possible with them. It doesn’t matter how much we try to ‘understand’ their motives or be nice to them, their driving motivation is to subject the whole world to whatever sect of Islam happens to motivate them.

        • Jeffery says:

          No doubt there are Muslims who believe as you suggest, just as there are right-wingers attacking Americans these days. But certainly not all Muslims and not all right-wingers are violent.

          We didn’t advocate the release of the Gitmo prisoners and suggest only that we treat them fairly, and not murder them.

          You typed:

          These men should never have been captured, but slain on the battlefield.

          Should this apply to all our military incursions? We should murder any and all captives regardless? Are you certain all the captives came from the battlefields? Would that matter? Recall most of the hundreds of captives were released without charges. Is your bloodlust such that you think we should have murdered them as they were captured?

          • david7134 says:

            What right wingers are attacking people, without provocation? Or is this another stupid statement? You also show very little knowledge of Islam.

Pirate's Cove