They are legally prisoners of war, whether we say so or not. Of course, denying that status has been advantageous to everyone: the right, who wants to deny them Geneva Convention protection, and the left, who don’t want to hold onto them.
Remind me again whom we declared war against that these prisoners were fighting for.
Also noted: the assumption that they’re guilty just because we locked them up (which very few of them were), the assumption that releasing them poses a significant threat to US (which only a minority do), and - most ridiculously - the assumption that there can be an “end” to a vaguely defined conflict against a loose aggregation of radical cells and individuals.
You’re effectively advocating for continuing to detain individuals imprisoned under dubious circumstance without trial for the rest of their lives. Maybe the reason “the left don’t want to hold onto them” is because the situation is fucking monstrous. Try them or release them, but enough of this extrajudicial bullshit.
Okay, here’s a couple of questions, one directly addressing this and another that’s only related:
-
If this is true, what will those same people say when Trump starts insulting world leaders, breaking up NATO, and generally putting his words into deeds? Will they generally approve? What happens if they do?
-
If Trump is elected, the discontent that led to his election will, I think, be addressed one way or another. But if Clinton wins, that discontent is still there. How will it manifest itself in 2020 and otherwise? Straight out Hitler, not just a wannabe?
For the vast majority of Democrats the only qualification for their candidate is not being a Republican.
We live in the world where recklessly mishandling highly classified information, and then lying to FBI about it, does not even come close to ending a candidate’s run. A supposedly rude remark or two is nothing compared to that.
Are you sure your outrage is correctly prioritized?
From the mouth of the director of the FBI, James Comey.
If you have information to the contrary, please share it.
From the mouth of the director of the FBI, James Comey : Hillary Clinton was “extremely careless in her handling of very sensitive, highly classified information”.
More importantly, why is Hillary Clinton so bitterly hated? I can understand why Donald Trump is hated, but I don’t understand the visceral derision she has encountered? Okay, so she’s not the most straight-forward politician we’ve had – I get that. But compared to people who lied about secret intelligence and set into motion the worst foreign policy disaster perhaps in our nation’s history, killing thousands of our own troops, horribly scarring hundreds of thousands more, killing arguably millions now in Iraq alone, and destabilizing the Middle East and Europe, I don’t quite understand why Hillary Clinton is a pariah…other than the fact that liberals are pariahs.
Maybe that’s the deeper truth that we’re coming to here. In electing a right wing president and a congress, 30-40 percent of Americans will be governed by another 30-40 percent who hate their guts and probably believe in jailing their opponents on trumped up charges.
Her offense was no different than other officials who’ve been cited for using private servers in the past. Obama and Democrats never prosecuted Karl Rove for deleting emails – maybe they should have. But that’s the difference between a party that tries to hijack truth in an attempt to prevent the federal government from governing and a party that actually tries to govern.
Was there an FBI investigation in these cases, and if so, what was the conclusion?
Furthermore, are those officials that you’re referring to, currently running for The White House?
I don’t think she’s hated; it’s just that we know she’s unqualified to be the POTUS, while it remains to be seen whether Mr. Trump is similarly unqualified.
I suppose it’s a matter of whether or not you want to get your shorts in a knot over an imprudent (but not illegal) email practice that seems to have been widely practiced since Colin Powell’s time as Secretary of State in 2001-2005.
Hillary has a 25 year history in politics including being First Lady, Senator and SoS. If you think that the email thing alone disqualifies her then I’m not sure anything anyone says will convince you to the contrary.
On the other hand, you make no compelling case why Trump should be POTUS except that he’s not had the opportunity to screw that job up, yet. By that standard, perhaps you and I are equally qualified.
Hi, Bob, and welcome. You’re welcome to wave the TP flag here all you want, but be advised that simply shouting bullshit in a louder voice gets you nowhere here.
Literally nowhere: posters who can only quote from their collection of bumperstickers get banned within a fairly short time.
Just thought you might want to step up your game a little here, since it’s not CNN’s comments section.
There is no objective evidence at all that people are becoming less intelligent because of reproductive habits. So not only is this not the “only possible explanation,” it’s not even a serious attempt at explanation.
Yes, she has. During this time, she clearly showed herself to be not qualified to occupy The White House–for example, FBI recently determined that Mrs. Clinton recklessly mishandled highly classified material, and then lied to investigators about it.
Yes, if you or I could come up with policy ideas that million upon millions of people across America support, and then secure the major’s party nomination, we both could be equally qualified.
Have you fulfilled these requirements?
If she had lied to the FBI, she would have been charged.
Fact Check
No indication of the level of classification.
The FBI did not determine that she lied to investigators about it.
Not having a sense of proportion is what is the problem here, and the FBI decided that it should be an internal matter, no crime was committed. Meaning that if Hillary becomes president she will not have the chances to make a mistake on this issue as before.
Of course what the poster was talking about was a rhetorical question, Answering things like that usually gets one very silly arguments indeed. It just shows also why Trump has a chance, you need to realize that it is better to have a person that had issues with emails as president because she can not have free reign now. She should be president, for many other reasons and we should not have a guy as president that by his own proposals will bankrupt America, make it less safe and make a mess about scientific based policies regarding efforts to vaccinate people or dealing with climate change, both issues that Trump does not believe in and has already pointed at deniers of science that he wants to have in his future cabinet.
I prefer to leave a Trump administration at the hypothetical level forever.
Her offence was vastly different and there were vastly different policies in place when Clinton set up her servers. If you do not understand the differences between what others did and what Clinton did, you ought to educate yourself.
Additionally, the fact that people in the past behaved in unethical ways does not excuse unethical Clinton’s unethical behavior. If anything, it makes it worse as she should have known there would be problems with her actions.
Of course, the only thing that matters is the letter behind the name. If Clinton had (R) then it would be the Democrats freaking out about the email server.
Slee
Like Comley that concluded that what others in similar situations did not get convicted.
As Bush and company were not hounded for their emails with countless investigations, you are correct, but not in the way and as much as you think. The Democrats still sound to be more reasonable with the power they had.