Mike Luckovich for May 01, 2013

Ask yourself how they got there.

Ask yourself why constitutionally they’re still there.I betcha some how the GOP is involved.

POWs don’t get trials and they don’t get released. On the other hand, they do have protections under international law that we appear to be ignoring. US needs to decide whether these people are or are not POWs and act accordingly.

Apparently you and MIke had the same batch of bad (moreso than the normal) lefty Kool Aid…

Gee, if we had just tortured them all to death, instead of just some of them, we wouldn’t have this pesky problem. Right GOP? Right Fox ‘news’?

“Yawn…. perhaps they should have been executed on the battlefield instead of captured and held for information? I really lean toward the executing them on the battlefield. They get the 72 virgins, we don’t have to listen to libs cry and moan about military prisoners.”.Wow, you are one chilly dame. If your body temp hits 60 degrees, do you feel feverish?

@TheTruthHurtsRepublicans

Read the constitution. There is a part that reads inaliable rights, the rights apply to all of us, whether or not we are here legally, because they are HUMAN rights. How come you right wingers hate the constitution?

“I thought the US Constitution was for US citizens?”

Good question. Many scholars will agree, but there is another side, which is the idea that all men are created equal, but then again, these thoughts were written by slave-owners. So hard to know what the Founding Fathers were thinking….

“Time for a legitimate question. Should the Boston bomber go to a U.S. prison, or Guantanamo?”

One person’s opinion only: US prison. First off, the more we use Gitmo, the longer it will take to close an embarrassing chapter in US History. Second, the concept of “Enemy Combatant” is part of the same charade: we cannot take the chance that they’re found innocent, so we will ensure they have no right to trial. The ANTITHESIS of American justice.

No one should ever be sent to Gitmo from here on, and the ones there should be processed and either sent to appropriate supermax prisons or released. The longer we keep the innocent, the longer we will pay the price.

Not widely published is that the majority of Gitmo prisoners are maintaining hunger strikes.

I thought the US Constitution was for US citizens ?-——-That’s “tongue-in-cheek,” right? (The laws of the U.S. apply to all residents, regardless of nationality, in case you didn’t know.)

onguard, Obama kept over 192 of his campaign promises. No politiciian Ever does every promise. Have you thought WHY this has NOT happened?

THere is NO STATE that wants to take them. NIMBY!

Should a president FORCE a state to take these prisoners???

Thanks Dumbya, for starting it. Thanks House RWNJ’s for blocking it’s closing.

Do you have proof they’re innocent?-————Under U.S. law, everyone is innocent until proved guilty.

Sorry for the ambiguity, Should read: I thought the US Constitution was for TAX PAYING US citizens ?Didn’t realize bomb-making was an ‘inalienable right’-————I really am trying to understand your posts, but it’s difficult..In chronological order, the post that I was asking about was your response to jaxcat; he had posted this: ”Ask yourself why constitutionally they’re still there.I betcha some how the GOP is involved.”.Then came yours: ”@jaxcat I thought the US Constitution was for US citizens ?”.My response to that post asked (basically) if you are serious: ”That’s ‘tongue-in-cheek,’ right? (The laws of the U.S. apply to all residents, regardless of nationality, in case you didn’t know.)”.Now you come up with this one, which makes me wonder even more about your reliability. I’ll repeat: The laws of the U.S. apply to all residents, regardless of nationality, in case you didn’t know. .I made no mention of ”bomb-making” or of ”inalienable rights”! (Might you have become confused by the post from d_legendary1?).Question: What does “bomb-making” have to do with Gitmo? Do you have a logical explanation for making that connection? I’m beginning to suspect you’re trolling.

@Donald Williams

Did that include the eight German saboteurs in 1942?-———It would help to have some connection to your reference..Are you responding to my post that stated, “The laws of the U.S. apply to all residents, regardless of nationality, in case you didn’t know.” ?.If so, what do “eight German saboteurs in 1942” have to do with it? If they were U.S. residents, my answer is an unequivocal “YES”!.If not, please explain your post.

WORD. we have become what we most despise. (see also Israel)

Well I am not sure how you are defining “resident” …some people seem to be suggesting that being within US borders make one a resident.-———Please look to this site for the commonly-understood definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/resident.Being “within U.S. borders” might also define “tourist”; but they, too, are subject to U.S. laws and have the protections of the U.S. Constitution. (BTW, I researched those saboteurs and found that they also had those protections and were legally tried and imprisoned or executed. So I fail to get your point.)

Neither – he should be tried and executed.-———What’s the point of wasting taxpayer money on a trial if he’s to be executed anyhow?.Welcome to Pecos, Texas: Judge Roy Bean’s court. “You wouldn’t be on trial, Son, if you ain’t guilty! Take ’im out and hang ’im!”

How do you know they are innocent?-——————-Why is it so difficult for you to understand the concept of “innocent until proved guilty”?

“Official” definition? How much more specific can it be? “One who resides in a particular place permanently or for an extended period”.There is need to compare with “squatter” (who would also enjoy the protection of U.S. laws) because I didn’t use that word; I used “resident”! I also used the word “tourist” as subject to those rights and privileges..Regarding the “eight” and what court, you can use Google, can’t you? I looked it up; so can you. (You pretend that to be relevant?).You really are a troll, aren’t you?Having added you to my list, I will henceforth ignore your posts, for: