US law forbids sending them back? References, please. Where they will be executed? Specifics? So let's see, you are saying that under US law it is ok to detain someone indefinitely but it's not ok to release him if he might be in danger? That just does not make sense.
>On 6/14/06, Dana wrote: >> >> oh please. As to your first paragraph, see my previous post. As to your >> second... I am surprised you can say that with a straight face. Gitmo as >> some sort of tough love? >> Get real. > > >Once again you fail to understand the plain meaning of words. Gitmo has >nothing to do with tough love. We have a bunch of Scumbags locked up. We >don't know what to do with them, because mostly U.S. law prohibits them >being sent back to where they came from. What do you propose we do with >them? Oh right, you don't propose anything, you just complain. > >I'm all for leaving them in Gitmo to rot or giving them the option of facing >trial in Afghanistan, where they will almost surely be convicted and >executed. Any takers? >-- >--------------- >Robert Munn >www.funkymojo.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209228 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
