A very smart strategic move on his part, and one that promotes the interests of the US.
Essentially, you couldn’t be more incorrect. POWs enjoy definite rights under the Geneva Convention–that’s the major reason Bush declined to classify them as such.
No one has claimed they have a “right” to be transferred. What I have said is, it would be in America’s best interests to 1) close Gitmo, and 2) re-classify the detainees as either criminals or POWs, and treat them as such.
Just “for the record,” I agree with Eye Dentist about Gitmo. I feel the whole thing is Un-American.
But I realize that the majority of the U.S. thinks worrying about the rights/treatment of some terrorists is crazy.
Also, from what I see on TV, life in Super-Max-Florence, CO doesn’t seem much better. I wouldn’t treat a chicken that way, but I’m kind of a bleeding heart puss.
I’ve never understood this one. Why would you want him to use this label? What problems would it solve? (I can think of many it would create for Muslims living in the US).
Likewise, I can think of many it would cause for the US with regard to Muslims living around the world.
Yes, it is quite brilliant. We are fooling the enemy into thinking that we don’t know who they are. Then suddenly we will sneak up behind them and kill them all. Oh wait…that won’t work.
I don’t care what they are I don’t want them in the US.
Great we agree. They can stay where they are and you and I can stay where we are and Obama can leave the White House. Everyone is happy 
Okay, glad you weighed in on this important issue. At this point I am going to mark you down for bringing the Gitmo POW’s…err detainees to the US. Um…do you want them across the street from you in a little prison the US can throw up quickly? I think that would be a good idea.
You in?
I totally agree. I also disagree with the crazy thought of defining who our enemies are. Ha can you imagine those idiots in the 40’s saying they wanted to wipe out the Nazi’s? What the hell were they thinking? Boy we are lucky we won that one after making such a grievous error as defining who our enemies were then going after them and wiping them out.
This is not a comparison. A Muslim (one who follows Islam) can be our peace-loving neighbor, our doctor, our friend, or trusted colleague. A Nazi could be none of these things, and there was no downside of identifying Nazis as our enemy during WWII.
Can’t solve the problem without actively identifying it
Jihadists can also be none of these things, nor is there a downside to identifying jihadism and its adherents as enemies of Western democracy.
You are confused I am not for calling ALL Muslims our enemies. I never said that. I am for calling out “Radical Islamic terrorists” as our enemies. Just like we called out Nazis.
See? It is a good comparison. If you think about it I am sure you will post that you agree. Oh wait no one ever does that we are here to argue so we must argue.
Ok, you got me, I agree with all you say and think. I apologize for not realizing it sooner.
We should certainly identify and state the name of who we are at war with. When Bush declared a “War on terror”, the US went right out and defeated terror. It’s been great living in a terror-free world.
The US has the best prison infrastructure around!
It costs $4-6 million/year to keep a bad dude at Gitmo.
It costs $22,000/year to keep a bad dude in the Tennessee state pen.
For $450 million a year, we could have 15 guards on each of those dudes, while they pick up trash on the side of TN highways.
You are confusing naming the enemy with defeating the enemy( yes I get it you are being funny got it). One does not mean the other automatically happens. But how does it help to not name our enemy? And why did Roosevelt name our enemies? In fact, why is Obama the first President to spill such swill that naming our enemy is a baaaaaad thing?
We defeated the philosophy of Nazism by killing Nazis. But Obama has everyone…at least the left…thinking that naming our enemy will somehow harm us. It is absolute nonsense!
So, you want to house the Islamic terrorists in the US because you think it is cheaper? Is that the reason?
It doesn’t. What is being objected to is naming the enemy inaccurately and misleadingly. Importantly, the issue is more than one of semantics; by mis-identifying the enemy, you play right into his hands. That is, the Islamic death-cults want Westerners to see Islam as ‘the enemy.’ They (again, the death-cults) are using terror to foment anger against Muslims among Western populaces, and to facilitate the rise of xenophobic Western politicians who will use the institutions of government to further isolate and marginalize Western Muslims. They do this because they seek to make the Muslims among us feel as uncomfortable and unwelcome as possible, thereby rendering them more likely to either 1) emigrate to the ‘caliphate,’ or 2) radicalize and ‘defend Islam.’ And sad to say, ISIS’s plans are working out as well as they could have hoped.
In other words: You, and the people who agree with you, are doing the bidding of ISIS. They are playing you like a fiddle.
Yes. Decision making involves costs vs benefits. In my opinion, it costs a lot to keep Gitmo detainees.
A guy who knows a lot about the jihadis said each one you kill, produces 10 more. How many terrorists are inspired by each Enemy Combatant in limbo in Gitmo? I’m not sure how to count it, but I consider it a “cost.”
But like I said earlier, I understand I’m in the minority on this. Many people must see a greater benefit or “pay-off” in having an out of the way military prison.
I’m not going to have a bake-sale to benefit the detainees or anything.
Wow, I could not disagree more. But that is what we do best. In every war that the US has ever been in we named our enemy and it absolutely did not harm us. In fact, it aligned us against a common enemy.
We are not calling all Muslims terrorists. You do get that right? We are calling the enemy “Islamic terrorists.” Hence, if you are Islamic and NOT a terrorist you are NOT our enemy. You don’t think they are bright enough to figure that out? Hmm…you might be discrediting them.
The guy you voted for in 2008 and 2012 for President Barack Obama called Isis the JV team. I wonder how much that lead to them thinking “JV team huh? We will show them.” At the very least he was wrong wasn’t he? And he continued to be wrong. Obama never really had a handle on how to win this war. So far he has never called our enemy by their name and they have murdered US citizens in the streets, malls and other public places. One does not play into their hands by labeling them the enemy. In fact, it separates them from the many good Muslims throughout the world.
Time for a change–Time to win! Time to start calling our enemies by their proper name and then killing as many of them as we can.
If you disagree tell me how many wars we have won by first calling our enemy by their name and then killing as many of them as we possibly can as quickly as we can?
It worked then. It will work now. We simply need a leader who has the resolve to kill these bastards. And I think we now have one.
Glad you said that I thought you and Eye Dentist were going to set up shop here on T Nation and start selling chocolate chip cookies…I would be your best customer. I hate myself after I open a box of those cookies. I try to stay away…
No, actually no one is accusing either of you of doing such a thing.
Good point about our enemies interpretation of our actions.
A military “trial” and then a rope might cost the least, and give the benefit of sending a strong message.