Gitmo

Stand behind what? I made my position and beliefs known when I wrote the ARTICLES, or maybe you missed that little part about it being ARTICLES and decided to fixate on only one of them. BTW,in 2006 on June 19, the U.S. Supreme Court overrules the administrations claim that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to al-Qaida or Taliban prisoners, and orders that terms of the convention apply to detainees. Am I standing far enough behind them for you yet or do you need more History and English lessons?

No, you are saying that we should take what the gov and biased right wing journalists claims at face value, while ignoring tons of evidence to the contrary. Then, when you were called out on this ridiculous premise, you couldn't even stand behind it. You're are nothing more than a disingenuos hack writer, and by the way, to say that torture did not occur at Abu Ghraib is simply absurd.

He's got more than selective dyslexia, S L, but it's a great place to start, LOL.

Great article, Youranter! Unfortunately, Paul has selective dyslexia. Anything he tries to read that makes sense gets jumbled around in his tiny little brain.

Learn to read. You seem to be the only one in the world who can't get what I'm saying. The humiliation of prisoners at Abu Gharib was certainly not torture. Giving the prisoners at Gitmo Korans, prayer mats, arrows pointed on the floor to show them which way is East, feeding them McDonald's (well, okay, you got me on that one) or taking away their pillows if they misbehave is not torture. Get real.

Well, I suggest that you learn how to write more effectively, because you certainly are denying that torture has and is occurring. Everything you have written about this is designed to give the impression that allegations of torture are completely made up, without the slightest bit of validity at all. You call Gitmo "club med", and that they go "beyond Geneva". In other articles you claim that the clear cases of torture, and even murder at Abu Ghraib were not torture, and you strain to even consider it as any kind of bad treatment at all. So, either stand behind your CLEAR position that you believe there is no torture, or learn how to write a bit more clearly.

Nobody is denying anything, you dimwit. It's just not as bad as you seem to make it. Read my other articles on the subject and then try to dispute me. Did you Dems ever take reading comprehension?

Would you like to deny that these things may have occured as well: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jail20nov20,1,518872.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

Paul (or should I call you Captain America?) I trust Mr. W as a respected journalist. If he says the Supreme Court put Gitmo under the rules of the Geneva Convention, I'll take his word for it. He's gor credentials you only dream of. As for what happened to the prisoners before they were released, I'm sure they were dipped in boiling oil. Happy now?

Jim, thanks for a sane voice in the wilderness. You're right and I never considered the point you made. What I was trying to do is show the Dems not to believe all the horror stories they read about the prisoners at Gitmo. I'm working on Gitmo II and I'll adderss that fact. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

and you say that some HAVE BEEN LET GO in your article, but how do you know what happened to them before they were let go?

Jim, you hit on the larger issue here - the "war on terror" and all its provisions as dictated by Bush and his compliant Congress is an open ended affair, with no discernable or achievable goal - and no Ranter, the Supreme Court didn't make it so that Gitmo falls under the auspices of Geneva, it simply set the record straight and smacked down the Bush administrations attempt to circumvent Geneva. You have a very demented sort of logic Ranter...

I am not that concerned about treatment of detainees at Gitmo, just have one question. Mr. Bush states that these folks will be detained until the "end of the war". But there is no formal war. No other nation-state is involved. So what is the possible release date? When ALL terrorists are dead? Won't happen. We need a realistic method of deciding when we "win" and the "war" is over.

Paul, are you all there? No Gitmo wasn't held to the terms of the Geneva Convention, until YOUR Supreme Court made it so. And even now, they go above and beyond those terms. As for the 'innocents' and 'minor players', maybe you haven't heard, but they HAVE BEEN LET GO. I beleive there is a little statement in my article that says some of those who were let go were found later fighting for the enemy. Take the flipping cape off your head, learn to read, and acknowledge some truth.

It's also pretty sad that you work under the assumption that all the detainees that have been held at Gitmo are terrorists, or even guilty of any crime at all. It is a near certainty that many innocents and minor players were caught up in the massive sweeps after 9/11, and many were victims of bounty hunters in it for the loot.