| Users Online Now: 1,903 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,993,733 | |
| Pageviews Today: 2,942,099 | Threads Today: 804 | Posts Today: 16,641 |
| 11:55 PM | ||
| Users Online Now: 1,903 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,993,733 | |
| Pageviews Today: 2,942,099 | Threads Today: 804 | Posts Today: 16,641 |
| 11:55 PM | ||
Gitmo terrorists could be freed on US soil — thanks to liberal lawyers | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 71575800  United States02/29/2016 03:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 64916160 United States02/29/2016 03:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | There’s a real chance the worst terrorists on the planet could be freed on American soil. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71575800 As soon as the 30 to 60 monsters Obama hopes to relocate here hit the tarmac, an army of defense lawyers from the ACLU will be waiting for them, ready to exploit those newfound rights on their behalf. And they will file an avalanche of habeas lawsuits to free them from custody “There’s a real chance the worst terrorists on the planet could be freed on American soil.” [link to nypost.com] Don't be naive. Just because the government "calls" someone a "terrorist" does not mean they have anything at all to do with terrorism. I know. Assistant United States Attorney William R. Hogan, in arguing in Brooklyn federal court, called ME a "terrorist." It wasn't true, but he said it anyway. Besides, the government itself admits that of the 69 or so men being held in Gitmo, 46 of them "are not prosecutable" but are "too dangerous to be set free." (Their own words!) That begs the question: By what standard? How do we determine that a person is "too dangerous to be set free" when there is not evidence to even prosecute them? So don't buy-into the NY Post story because I can tell you: When it comes to the government saying someone is a "terrorist" they are generally full of shit. |
