POST SCRIPTS

I wonder, would we have been any worse off if we had a summary courts marshall and then carried out the sentence in the field where they were captured?

Maybe Libby will put them up.

She is all for extending rights provided by the Constitution to all "citizens of the globe".

This would provide her an opportunity to demonstrate that she isn't purely about telling the rest of us how to live our lives, but is ready to get in there with her sleeves up, burkha on, and teach the rest of us a little something about tolerance.

I told you people way back when that Mr. Rumsfeld was makin' a mess. But would you listen? Noooooo. The doings at Gitmo have 1) re-enforced the prejudices of persons who already didn't think much of us, and 2) engendered a lot of America-hating in boys who really didn't care one way or the other until they were whisked off to our little gulag.

It solved nothing. It helped nothing. It's made things considerably worse. Don't you come crying to me about the consequences.

Libby you are blaming Mr. Rumsfeld without offering your own brilliant solution to the problem of housing captured enemy sans country. Find me the law that would have guided Mr. Rumsfeld to go in any other direction.

You people are the dumb ones if you think that this administration didn't consult with International and Constitutional scholars and legal experts when they made this decision.

We could have just shot them all I suppose (see Jacks comment) but we don't do things that way.

The only "thing" making this "problem" is the gotcha squad of partisan litigators who are armed with a single imperative...get the Bush administration...any way you can, even if you have to make something up, and even if it harms America, Americans, our legal system, our service members, other nations and others.

Had the gotcha squad left well enough alone these men would be having their day in court (and in a court more attuned to their way of thinking IMHO)without all the sensationalism...and without further delay.

You're missing the point. That "housed enemy" has actually been rendered irrelevant. There was never any legal basis for the doings at Gitmo. That's the problem. Eight years down the line, the courts have finally confronted BushCo with this unhappy reality, and BushCo's response to this is, well, we will just continue ... outside the law.

That's unAmerican, that is. And I fail to see how it will harm anything or anybody to show the world that we, eventually, stand up for the principles upon which the nation was founded.

Have you been reading accounts of the show trial currently in progress? They're hard to find, the fourth estate being disgusted by the farcical doings on both sides. The remaining enemy will be repatriated or assimilated. And posterity will rip BushCo's historical hiney: put Gitmo right up there with the internment of the Japanese.

And I told you so.

Libby, Im confused, are you going to put up the terrorists or not?

I mean I realize how you fail to see that providing US style trials for terrorists caught outside our borders while fighting against the Constitution could do any harm...but I think the troops might see the obvious problem.

As far as making people angry with us, I realize that as a liberal this is a HUGE concern to you. And yes, targeting and killing terrorists does make other terrorists mad at you, but that really isn't a good reason to stop killing terrorists.

Maybe if we could get together, I could break out a flannel graph and make this easier to understand for you.

As far as your Gitmo, internment of the Japanese comment. Im not sure if this confirms your lack of knowledge about the internment of the Japanese or Gitmo, or perhaps both.

How one could compare the two is astonishing, but only for those of us who know a little bit about both instances. I realize that a knowledge of history is generally irrelevant, even harmful, to liberal talking points, but you should do at least a little research before saying something so incredibly ignorant...if for no other reason than do you don't want to...

"re-enforce the prejudices of persons who already didn't think much of you"

You know that chief liberal concern!

There was never any legal basis for the doings at Gitmo.

This is not true. We have posted arguments to demonstrate the legality at least twice before. You have provided only your opinion, arrived at by a method you also do not reveal. It would be easier to take your comment seriously if you could show me a convincing argument.

If I have some time I'll revisit the legal arguments...I doubt it would penetrate, however, even for the sake of argument.

Yes Libby...you told us so...so what? You haven't shown us anything that proves or even demonstrates your point.

Bottom line, Libby, you and the liberals like Murtha, Kennedy, Pelosi, Ried, love to see rights extended to terrorists, whch you don't even extend to the people who are fighting on our behalf.

Like it or not Libby, bottom line, our military is keeping your butt safe.

But any allegation against them, you don't even give them the benefit of due process or "innocent until proven guilty" status, but you bend over and give it to the very people who try to get through them to YOU!

I can only assume the reason is, that to date, you have not been adversley affected by any of this: People who aren't always seem to find it easy to stay above it, they don't risk ANYTHING. I know the gas crunch doesn't seem to affect your day, you obviously live a blessed life, I wonder how you were able to attain that status?

Have any of you been reading the McClatchy series on former Gitmo detainees. The first installment of the historical hiney reaming I mentioned earlier ... and soooooo embarrassing. I mean, we are the very last word in ignorant ineptitude ... and it's gonna cost us, big time.

But that Obama guy seems to be a very classy fellow. If he can get into the White House, maybe we can do some real work on this.

Libby your attention to detail is overwhelming...have you not even one morsel to share so we have something to talk about?

Or was this merely a commercial for Obama, complete with accusations, and lacking in substance?

Tina it is your insistence on treating Libby like a intellectually honest person which leads me to conclude that you are a far kinder person than I.

"complete with accusations, and lacking in substance"

Would be the title of the blog if Libby ran it.

I see you have been reading some of it. If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't want to discuss it either.

Today's Fortune Cookie reading:

You enjoy gaming people but deep inside you are unfulfilled due to lack of meaningful communication

So far it is you who are unwilling to "discuss". But since you did take the time to post both an assumption and a dig all in the same comment...this ones for you.

Libby you still have not offered a single fact or bit of evidence from this series that we could discuss or debate. Why should I do your homework for you. Make your case boldly girl.

I’m more than happy to do a little related research on my own. This is what I discovered:

The McClatchy “series” about Guantanamo is reportedly based solely on interviews with detainees. No evidence is offered other than the testimony of the prisoners that Tom Lasseter (or his investigative team) “selected” to interview. We have no way of knowing if the questions asked in the interviews were “leading questions”; questions designed to take the prisoners to a specific desired conclusion of the “I’ll make it up and you swear to it” variety. Also, these prisoners have loads of incentive to make things up, to go along with the leftist agenda. Hurting the Bush administration with the willing assistance of the press and representatives of the American justice system would be admired in the terrorist world as a huge contribution to the cause. Conversely, they have not one reason to tell the truth. Once freed they would be targeted as traiors. Some prisoners that were cooperative were released a long time ago. Some of them went right back to waging war on the west.

Jane Sholtz, the editor of McClatchy-Tribune Information Services, was thrilled to have Michael Moore feature the series. Moore is, as you know, that infamous Bush hater who purposely filmed and cut his so-called “documentaries” to create specific biased perceptions. His validation is hardly a credible endorsement for truth in reporting. See the following article:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003818709

New York McClatchy's in-depth series on wrongful detention and abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other controversial sites has had such strong response this week from U.S. newspapers that the company is making an extra push to sell it overseas, according to Jane Scholz, editor of McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. ** At the same time, it has gained extremely heavy play here in the U.S., even from non-McClatchy papers. ** The five-day series, which launched Sunday and concluded Thursday, reported on the treatment and experiences of some 66 former detainees at the controversial Cuba-based detention center. ** Even filmmaker Michael Moore has used it on his Web site, www.michaelmoore.com, Scholz said.

If sensational headlines and reporting sell papers, and they do, Ms. Sholz has plenty of incentive to bless and run this series even though it is of the same caliber of stories printed in papers like the “Enquirer”. The McClatchy service is in trouble and has been forced to downsize:

The series has been available to all 30 McClatchy daily papers, as well as some 1,300 McClatchy-Tribune Information Services clients, Scholz said. Washington Bureau Chief John Walcott said initial reaction indicates most McClatchy newspapers are playing the series up bigger than normal, with many running it on Page One daily. ** Interestingly, the series ran the same week that McClatchy announced a 10% job cut among its newspapers -- some 1,400 positions -- but none from the Washington bureau that produced the series. "I think that says that the company's commitment to public service journalism is untouched," Walcott said. "We are a smaller bureau than we were a year ago and we will become smaller when [Washington Editor] David Westphal departs and is not replaced."

Revenues have been lost in part due to advertisers pulling ads. Perhaps the news service’s constant attack against the US military and war effort has contributed to this trend.

Hat tip - McClatchy Watch blog:

http://cancelthebee.blogspot.com/2008/06/mcclatchys-bloody-monday-update.html

Here is the McClatchy layoff tally, broken down by newspaper:

(reported in the blog June 17, 2008)

Miami Herald will cut 250 jobs
Fort Worth Star-Telegram will cut 130 jobs
Charlotte Observer will cut 123 jobs
Kansas City Star will cut 120 jobs
Sacramento Bee will cut 86 jobs (46 though layoffs)
Tacoma News Tribune will cut 84 jobs
Raleigh News & Observer will cut 70 jobs
Fresno Bee will cut 44 jobs
Anchorage Daily News will cut 35 jobs
Lexington Herald-Leader will cut 17 jobs
The Olympian will cut 17 jobs
Idaho Statesman to cut 16 jobs
Modesto Bee will cut 15 jobs
Bellingham Herald will cut 13 jobs
Wichita Eagle will cut 12 jobs
Belleville News-Democrat will cut 12 jobs
The State (South Carolina) will cut about 12 jobs
Columbus Ledger-Enquirer will cut 10 jobs
Biloxi Sun Herald will cut fewer than 10 jobs
Myrtle Beach Sun News will cut 9 jobs
Tri-City Herald (WA) will cut 9 jobs
Macon Telegraph will cut 8 positions
San Luis Obispo Tribune will cut 5 jobs
Centre Daily Times will cut 3 jobs
Merced Sun Star will cut 2 jobs
The Island Packet (Hilton Head) will cut 2 jobs
Bradenton Herald will cut 1 job
Rock Hill Herald (South Carolina) will cut 0 jobs
Seattle Times will cut 0 jobs (49.5% McClatchy owned)

Total job cuts so far: 1,114.

(links are provided on the blog for each and every job loss listing)

I thought you liked me to come stir things up ... generate readership.

But when I do, you all immediately resort to personal attacks, which are amusing enough, but don't convince anybody of the virtue of your position ... or you spend many dreary paragraphs evading the issue.

Of course, they interviewed detainees. That's what the series was about: detainee interviews. And the former detainees had some very interesting things to say, which you do not want to discuss, because they vividly point up the failure of the entire Gitmo enterprise: the failure to gather meaningful intelligence and the failure to deter radical Islamist terrorist activity. On top of the fact that the whole thing was illegal.

The administration of this nation for the last 7.5 year has been a disaster, an absolute, unmitigated disaster, domestically and otherwise. Neener.

There was never any legal basis for the doings at Gitmo.

Sorry Libby, I skimmed over this very salient point. You are absolutely correct. There never was any legal basis for the "doings" at Gitmo...BECAUSE...

There were never before, in modern history at least, an enemy that was not associated with a specific country. This war is unprecedented. That is why the Bush administration, consulting with experts and lawyers, devised a system they believed would be legal and would follow the acknowledged methods for detaining enemies captured in war. When the court disagreed they immediately worked with Congress to comply with the wishes of the court.

I do acknowledge your contribution to the blog. I confess I enjoy what you write mostly for the colorful nature of your posts...youdon't offer much that is substantive.

I'd like a vote on who evades issues...I will admit I can be long winded.

The series was about interviewing detainees but the purpose was about so called evidence to discredit the Bush administration...my rebuttals stand.

...the former detainees had some very interesting things to say, which you do not want to discuss...

I'll be happy to discuss any of it but first you need to post one thing from the interviews you wish to discuss. It's your point of view, why should I try to defend it, or do the homework required to put forth your assertions, or try to read your mind for that matter?

The administration of this nation for the last 7.5 year has been a disaster, an absolute, unmitigated disaster, domestically and otherwise.

Prove it...I'm all ears. Or are you just a mind-numbed robot...a lazy mind-numbed robot?

"Prove it...I'm all ears. Or are you just a mind-numbed robot...a lazy mind-numbed robot?"

How much does gasoline cost?

How much was your house worth last year, and how much is it worth this year?

How much was your 401k worth last year, and how much is it worth this year?

And the umteen trillion pissed away on this war has bought us exactly what? I'll tell you: bad roads, busted levees, and an astoundingly ignorant electorate.

This country's getting to be quite pitiful.

NONE of the things you mentioned are happening because of the money we have spent on the war. None are happening because of Bush policies.

Some of it is happening because of big changes in the marketplace. A lot of it is due to unscrupulous characters, some of them wanting you to think exactly what you think. They've won.

Watch what happens to the value of your 401, your property and even the price of oil after the election. Watch how the press reports on these things, especially if "hope" is elected. The sun will come out and overnight everything will reverse. Oh my, the power of hope.

If McCain wins the economy will recover but the reporting will still be all gloom and doom in anticipation of the next election.