Hmmmm…

45 thoughts on “Hmmmm…”

1. That the driver’s an ass?

   I’d wager it’s thoughtless, reactionary crap; or someone trying to push some kind of envelope. I wouldn’t think too much of it.Report

2. Thanks, I’ll have to order a couple.Report

   1. What is it you love about Gitmo, Scott?Report

      1. This country needs a secure facility to keep terrorists and unlawful combatants locked up.Report

         1. You speak as if prisons don’t exist.Report

            1. Yes, but Gitmo has a name and a reputation that most prisons don’t have.Report

               1. Attica
                  Riker’s
                  Sing Sing
                  San Quentin

                  Not to mention, Gitmo got it’s reputation in the last decade. The ones I mentioned have had reputations for decades, some dating back to Prohibition.Report

                  1. Florence ADX. Who needs reputation when you have the goods. Look up current inmates. Do you hear Coloradans shaking in their boots? Not I.Report

         2. And that makes you love it? I recognize the need for prisons. But I don’t love them. I’d rather they not existed because I’d rather we not have a need for them. But I accept them as a necessity. That is far different from loving them.

            This seems a perfect example of the reactionary right sticking their thumb in peoples eyes. “Some liberals hate Gitmo? Fuck them. I fuckin’ love it!”Report

         3. Even if they’ve been found fit for release?

            http://rt.com/usa/news/gitmo-release-president-obama-310/Report

            1. No, I don’t advocate keeping folks that are innocent or don’t pose a threat. I don’t advocate releasing folks that maybe guilty or do pose a threat just for publicity stunts, attempts to buy goodwill or other silly reasons, either.Report

               1. And, again, that makes you love a place that has also been the home of so many horrible things? So much that your response to my post is to say you’re going to go out and by a couple of your own such bumper stickers?

                  Or are you, as I suspect, just sticking your thumb in people’s eyes because GODDAMNIT you’re just not going to let those commie Dems have their day?Report

               2. I don’t advocate releasing folks that maybe guilty

                  Emphasis mine.

                  And here we have precisely what’s wrong with the way we’re conducting the “war on terror.”Report

                  1. I should add, this is what’s wrong because all we know about many of them is that they “may be” guilty. We have no way of finding out, because they will likely never go to trial… at least not any kind of trial we’ll have access to (or which respects their right to defend themselves).Report

                  2. Guilty of what?

                     Do we have the jurisdiction to pass laws on foreign soil that apply to foreigners?Report

                  3. No.Report

                  4. Jaybird, this is off thread, but I just read City of Boulder’s Pot Power Grab, and thought you might find it interesting. It reads like a smorgasbord – no, a smorgasbord extravaganza! – of the juiciest libertarian complaints about government.Report

                  5. I read that and I find myself wishing that we had the students at CU that we used to have.

                     Kids these days are all silent protests and getting pepper sprayed anymore.

                     When *I* was in college, they would have made some mayhem, I tell you what.Report

3. Surely the t-shirts should come in orange.Report

4. Scott promptly confirms Jonathan’s supposition. That’s service!Report

5. He’s not supporting torture. Just Cuban heritage!Report

   1. For the win!Report

6. Was it Obama’s car?Report

   1. Heh, exactly… my first thought would be an ironic statement from the left.Report

      1. Or the driver’s a ‘sub’.

         Not that there’s anything wrong with that.Report

   2. Wait, I’m confused. Didn’t Obama try and close Gitmo and get stymied by congress? Or am I missing the joke?Report

      1. Yeah he did try to close and both parties in congress were against it. Therefore Obama loves gitmo or something.Report

         1. Well, IF Obama did indeed love it, or portrayed himself as loving it, the GOP would shut it down in a heart beat.Report

      2. Here’s an essay on that topic by Glenn Greenwald.

         But, you know, it’s Greenwald.Report

         1. So Greenwald is saying Obama wanted to close the physical site that’s called Gitmo but that he was going to preserve the spirit of Gitmo at the new prison in IL?Report

            1. If that were the plan it would have been in TX.Report

            2. Why do we want to close Gitmo, again?

               If it’s because we don’t want to have a site where we imprison people who have broken no laws for their entire lives, I’d say that moving it to Illinois would, in fact, not give us what we want.

               If it’s just because it’s in Cuba, well… I fail to see why Gitmo is that big of a deal. Is it Castro? He had a stroke, I understand.Report

               1. I oppose detaining folks without cause. Whether it is here or Cuba or the moon matters little to me. If these folks are guilty of something, a criminal case, military tribunal, or hearing in an international forum should follow. If not, they should be released back to their home country. If we think they are guilty, the onus is on us to prove or release. That is my take, at least.

                  How would we respind if the roles were reversed? Fuck, man, how nuts did people go over Amanda Knox?Report

                  1. I’d posit that, if that’s the case, there’s an important distinction between saying “Obama wanted to close Gitmo” and saying “Obama wanted to move Gitmo”.Report

                  2. Oh. Sure. I didn’t follow the entire thread. “Close” and “move” are very different if “move” isn’t accompanied by “and then do X, Y, and Z.”Report

               2. Why do we want to close Gitmo, again?

                  Because, being outside the US, it’s not under the juridiction of civil law. That allows people to be detained indefinitely without trial or any access to the courts.Report

                  1. And moving these people to Illinois would change that?Report

                  2. Illinois is in the US, so it would, presumably, be under jurisdiction of civil law.Report

                  3. What civil infractions have they engaged in?Report

                  4. Well, isn’t that sort of exactly the point? Under what authority are we holding them?

                     Seriously, what exactly are you arguing here? Right now, the US Government is holding foreign nationals against their will and have given zero evidence as to the cause for doing so. That is wrong. If you think it’s right, please make a positive case.Report

                  5. That’d be an interesting thing to find out, right? How does the criminal justice system typically treat non-citizens? Of course, this isn’t apples to apples because thr Gitmo guys were brought here, presumably against their will (assuming they are moved stateside).Report

                  6. Yes, they’d have to have real trials or be released. This would be a good thing.Report

7. do you guys have the “terrorist hunting license” stickers out in ‘merica? because i still see one here in ny every so often and they baffle my socks right the hell off.Report

   1. I see a lot in my area of NY as well, dhex. They bother me. A lot.Report

   2. It’s basically a “you come here to stir up some shit, I’m going to shut you down, hard” comment.
      *shrugs* jingoistic, but not terribly baffling.
      Don’t see them out my way, but then again, I’m in Appalachia…Report

Comments are closed.