Well, Marty Ledernman is wrong and surprisingly unaware of world public opinion. He should see the Road to Guantanamo to understand how Gitmo is staining the US’s image. It is hard to argue that the US is living up to its own standards when after three suicides, an American military officer says that the detainees did it for PR. Gitmo has become a symbol of America’s contradictions and as long as it doesn’t close it,it won’t matter what is happening there because the past (the fact that at one point the methods used were illegal and unacceptable for a democracy and for a nation with morals) will remain alive and a torn for the US. The question is any more one of methods, and of legality, it is one of image and of values: what does the US want to be for the rest of the world and can Gitmo be allowed to be an American symbol?
What to do with the detainees if Gitmo is closed? Send them home. If there were any real evidence they were dangerous terrorists they should have received one of those “trial” thingies- remember those?- long since. And who believes the assertions of those BushCo a-holes any more about who is dangerous?
When GTMO is closed, the prisoners will be transferred to prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Will they be better or more justly treated there? I’m more concerned with whether they will get fair treatment than with whether the US gets off the hook — if the US sends them to non-US prisons where they will get equally badly treated or worse the US will no longer be held responsible, but the prisoners will be equally badly or worse off.
The prisoners are not going to be sent home, freed, or, it seems, tried.
Just to be clear, I take what Harry just said for granted. I only opined about what should happen. We all know that the Bush Administration could twist motherhood or apple pie, let alone closing Gitmo, into something evil. I wish I had a solution, short of persuading some kind-hearted country to abduct and detain Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. (Pretty please?)
But that doesn’t really lead to the conclusion that GTMO should be closed, does it? After all, the problems are much *worse* at other facilities overseas — and subject to less legal oversight. GTMO isn’t only, or primarily, a symbol: It’s a real place, with real detainees who will be transferred to other facilities, and likely be treated worse, if GTMO is closed.
And Steve, “send[ing] them home” isn’t a serious option — not for many of the detainees, anyway. In every historical armed conflict, each and every military has taken prisoners, and has held some of them for the duration of hostilities, in order to incapacitate them. And the vast majority of those prisoners have *not* done anything unlawful, and thus can’t be tried for crimes: They have simply taken up arms against the detaining power, which is what justifies their detention in the first place.
This Administration has certainly made a shambles of its detention policy, and has undoubtedly detained many persons who have not done anything to warrant their seizure. I’ve been campaigning to change that, and to establish more lawful and more regular (and more transparent) procedures for identifying those who can be detained — including in my most recent post. But “send them home” is not a serious option.
Marty, you are a very naive consumer of Bush propaganda. Again, we have these little details called “evidence” and “trials” that are to be used if there is REALLY good reason to believe somebody is dangerous. They’ve had their chance to prosecute- time’s up.
Every time facts relevant to Bush propaganda on the Global War on Terra leak out, it turns out he’s been lying through his teeth. I would feel not one whit less safe if every current resident of Gitmo were shipped home tomorrow. (Even if a few are real bad guys there are lots more where they came from- drop in the bucket.)
In every historical armed conflict, each and every military has taken prisoners, and has held some of them for the duration of hostilities, in order to incapacitate them.
As you know, in this particular armed conflict, the “duration of hostilities” is being defined solely by the say-so of the US President. There is no conceivable scenario under which “terrorism” is going to sign a declaration of surrender. Which means that these prisoners (some of whom, as you seem to acknowledge in your final paragraph, are not even guilty of “taking up arms against the detaining power,” because they’re not guilty of anything at all) could theoretically be held indefinitely.
I don’t care if they’re held in a 5-star hotel with nightly entertainment. This is an atrocity.
u.k.: Despite the Administration’s silly rhetoric, it’s not a fight against “terrorism”; it’s an authorized “use of “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the [9/11] terrorist attacks” or “harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
That is to say, it’s an armed conflict *against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.* And it will end, as it should, when Al Qaeda no longer presents any realistic threat “of any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.”
You’re right, of course, that this is an indefinite period, the end of which will not be marked by a surrender or armistice. As Justice O’Connor noted in Hamdi, “the practical circumstances of [this] conflict” may become “entirely unlike those of the conflicts that informed the development of the law of war.” That’s the dilemma: We’ve never had to detain enemy combatants for such a prolonged, indeterminate period. But that is simply to identify the problem, not to solve it. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the current procedures for determining enemy status, and the vague definitions the Administration is using, are unacceptable. They should be remedied. But after we *have* properly identified those persons who may lawfully be detained, what then? And why not at GTMO?
This is a pointless argument, because it relies on certain basic issues of fact that are currently not being admitted by anyone with any power to change the situation. Everyone involved in this argument supports changing the status quo, and none of their suggestions have any chance of happening.
Meanwhile, anyone who supports the status quo (including everyone who has any power in the matter) claims at least one of the following, none of which we believe:
A) Everyone in Guantanamo is a guilty terrorist
B) The people in Guantanamo are not being tortured
C) The other secret prisons do not exist
And it will end, as it should, when Al Qaeda no longer presents any realistic threat “of any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.â€
“Realistic threat” as determined by whom? That’s not a niggling detail, it’s the crux of the matter.
And I second Cryptic Ned. If what you’re getting at here is, at it appears to me, what we’re going to do about terrorism once we have a legitimate, non-criminal presidential administration in power, I would respectfully suggest that you’re putting the cart before the horse.
“GTMO isn’t only, or primarily, a symbol” – Marty Lederman
Bullshit. It has become a symbol-among-symbols … a veritable beacon on the hill testifying to judicial short cuts, high handed militarism and cultural supremacy.
You can tinker all you want and make it a latter-day Eden, but once the above symbolism has embedded itself in the collective unconscious all such reformist endevors will simply become an exercise in futility. It has to go – period (didn’t Bush say something along those lines?).
This cant about the hazards of freeing “dangerous elements” and reforming the facility is utter crap. There are legions of angry young muslims around the globe ready and willing to step up. It isn’t about who is released and on what terms, it’s about altering our ways of doing business and living up to our principles.
Marty: The major reason to close existing facilities, even if this means brand new ones, is for the practical demonstration of change of heart. The German government does not, I believe, use the concentration camps for routine law enforcement purposes now, for instance, even though they’d be perfectly good for prisons of some sort. It’s important to really and symbolically close some doors forever.
I don’t see any particular need to close Gitmo. Better to fire the people in charge, or at least transfer them to new duties that have absolutely nothing to do with the confinement or interrogation of prisoners, and replace them with outspoken critics of our abusive tactics there. We may need to do the same with people lower down in the chain of command too.
A year ago I would have gone along with maintaining Gitmo. However the landscape has shifted rather dramatically.
What was sold as a war of defence (the homeland) morphed into something else entirely. People like Fukuyama and Hitchens watched as theory collapsed in the face of a maelstrom. Suddenly all bets were off.
Bush and co have persisted in the “taking the war to them” posture, which makes no sense at all when the enemy is ephemeral and draws from a large pool of faceless young men in an equally hard-to-define Umma. This isn’t war with a clearly defined enemy – this is a militarized version of cat and mouse, full of half-truths and outright fictions.
The way forward is to change this counter productive strategy and forge relationships in the region and beyond by demonstrating goodwill. The U.S. should offer transparency and generosity, while not altogether lowering its guard.
The crew in Gitmo matter a hell of a lot less to the successful conclusion of this “war”, than the goodwill of mainstram Muslims who would shift further to the middle with a change in US policy.
Our Canadian troops are in Afghanistan, and I tend to view that regional struggle in a different context, although doubtless it is also an aggravating factor for many Muslims. But given the legendary barbarity of Taliban rule, I would say that deep down most Muslims understand that that is a place to which they would rather not return.
Contrary to Mr Lederman’s contention, I do think that Gitmo is symbolic and that the correct handling of that institutional challenge would signal a new approach.
For those (correctly) calling for the prisoners to be handled under a visible, fair legal framework: if the US could tangibly prove any of these people are dangerous terrorists to any standard of law, why lock them up for five years without any recourse to law? It seems completely clear to me that their lack of ability to do so is exactly what is driving the anti-GITMO sentiment. The US decides you’re a terrorist and then that’s it for you. So calling for the closure of GITMO is not primarily a symbolic issue, it’s about one country’s government unilaterally giving itself the right to lock people up indefinitely and without any proper legal recourse. I remain fascinated to see anybody in the west defending this, especially with the well worn “Hey, (some of) these guys are evil terrorists” line.
I don’t know, closing Guantanamo detention facility without denouncing and changing the policies and punishing those responsible – it would seem like a meaningless PR gesture.
However, Guantanamo Bay’s leagal status, US presence there against the wish of the local sovereign government is itself an example and symbol of colonial abomination. Perpetual lease, huh.
It strikes me that leaving detention centers offshore is another of the ways Americans are allowed to live comfortably and have the sense of clean hands. If war is an ugly thing, then let us face its ugliness head on.
Of course, U.S. prisons are a nightmare and most of us close our eyes to that easily. How much more easy it is when these things aren’t on our soil, though.
I say this as someone who thinks the average American is not responsible for going to war in Iraq or Afghanistan in any meaningful sense. But now that we are at war, we have a duty to do what we can to prevent injustices and worse, atrocities. It’s harder to do this when those things happen offshore.
Marty is right. We need to get them into a regular legal framework. The guilty fuckers need to be sentenced. The innocent need to be set free.
Marty isn’t in favor of trials resulting in sentences. He regards those who actually are enemies of the US at Guantanamo as POWS who should be held forever. When Bush and Cheney talk about a 100 year “war” that’s effectively what they mean.
Shifting the detainees into invisible indefinite detention is not progress.
Russell, I said I was in favor of sending them all home. That is to say, setting them free. Those who insult others as “fuckwits” might want to brush up their own reading comprehension skills to avoid looking especially foolish.
I don’t know, but this call for judicial reform to handle these prisoners according to the rule of law is 5 years late and looks little more than an ex post facto justification for all the abuse that has passed. And it ignores that the raison d’etre of Gitmo was to stay outside of the rule of law.
Gitmo was not a choice of bad to prevent worse, but it was a choice of cruelty, torture and abuse in place of the rule of law. Those who made the choice made the wrong one.
Politics and diplomacy may be such that there must be a way out of here without anyone admitting guilt, but to do that with excuses like that “black” prison sites are worse (“as a practical matter”) is beyond me.
“what, exactly, with the detainees?” is exactly the wrong question. They should not have been there in the first place.
“Russell, I said I was in favor of sending them all home. That is to say, setting them free. Those who insult others as “fuckwits†might want to brush up their own reading comprehension skills to avoid looking especially foolish.”
You are right, I apologize.
I still cannot think straight about things like the Schiavo case or torture. They drive me nuts.
“Every time facts relevant to Bush propaganda on the Global War on Terra leak out, it turns out he’s been lying through his teeth.”
Not really, in fact not at all. Bush not only has not lied (yes WMD’s have been found in Iraq) the only lies I have seen since Sept.11 have all come from the Left. The best being the branless BBC’s propaganda doco claiming Al-Qaeda did not exist and that the threat was manufactured. Not long after this leftist tripe was shown on Brit tv the London bombimgs happened. Oops.
{ 25 comments }
kiki 06.22.06 at 2:11 pm
Well, Marty Ledernman is wrong and surprisingly unaware of world public opinion. He should see the Road to Guantanamo to understand how Gitmo is staining the US’s image. It is hard to argue that the US is living up to its own standards when after three suicides, an American military officer says that the detainees did it for PR. Gitmo has become a symbol of America’s contradictions and as long as it doesn’t close it,it won’t matter what is happening there because the past (the fact that at one point the methods used were illegal and unacceptable for a democracy and for a nation with morals) will remain alive and a torn for the US. The question is any more one of methods, and of legality, it is one of image and of values: what does the US want to be for the rest of the world and can Gitmo be allowed to be an American symbol?
Steve LaBonne 06.22.06 at 2:43 pm
What to do with the detainees if Gitmo is closed? Send them home. If there were any real evidence they were dangerous terrorists they should have received one of those “trial” thingies- remember those?- long since. And who believes the assertions of those BushCo a-holes any more about who is dangerous?
harry b 06.22.06 at 3:00 pm
When GTMO is closed, the prisoners will be transferred to prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Will they be better or more justly treated there? I’m more concerned with whether they will get fair treatment than with whether the US gets off the hook — if the US sends them to non-US prisons where they will get equally badly treated or worse the US will no longer be held responsible, but the prisoners will be equally badly or worse off.
The prisoners are not going to be sent home, freed, or, it seems, tried.
Steve LaBonne 06.22.06 at 3:07 pm
Just to be clear, I take what Harry just said for granted. I only opined about what should happen. We all know that the Bush Administration could twist motherhood or apple pie, let alone closing Gitmo, into something evil. I wish I had a solution, short of persuading some kind-hearted country to abduct and detain Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. (Pretty please?)
Marty Lederman 06.22.06 at 3:25 pm
Dear kiki: Please don’t be so presumptuous. Of course I’m aware of world public opinion, and of how the Administration’s conduct at GTMO and elsewhere has stained the U.S.’s image. I’ve written about the subject at length, in fact. See generally http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/09/anti-torture-memos-balkinization-posts.html; see specifically, e.g., http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/06/gtmo-where-was-law-whither-ucmj.html, http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/07/defining-humane-down-part-iii-schmidt.html, and http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/11/why-habeas-at-gtmo-is-so-important.html.
But that doesn’t really lead to the conclusion that GTMO should be closed, does it? After all, the problems are much *worse* at other facilities overseas — and subject to less legal oversight. GTMO isn’t only, or primarily, a symbol: It’s a real place, with real detainees who will be transferred to other facilities, and likely be treated worse, if GTMO is closed.
And Steve, “send[ing] them home” isn’t a serious option — not for many of the detainees, anyway. In every historical armed conflict, each and every military has taken prisoners, and has held some of them for the duration of hostilities, in order to incapacitate them. And the vast majority of those prisoners have *not* done anything unlawful, and thus can’t be tried for crimes: They have simply taken up arms against the detaining power, which is what justifies their detention in the first place.
This Administration has certainly made a shambles of its detention policy, and has undoubtedly detained many persons who have not done anything to warrant their seizure. I’ve been campaigning to change that, and to establish more lawful and more regular (and more transparent) procedures for identifying those who can be detained — including in my most recent post. But “send them home” is not a serious option.
Steve LaBonne 06.22.06 at 3:38 pm
Marty, you are a very naive consumer of Bush propaganda. Again, we have these little details called “evidence” and “trials” that are to be used if there is REALLY good reason to believe somebody is dangerous. They’ve had their chance to prosecute- time’s up.
Every time facts relevant to Bush propaganda on the Global War on Terra leak out, it turns out he’s been lying through his teeth. I would feel not one whit less safe if every current resident of Gitmo were shipped home tomorrow. (Even if a few are real bad guys there are lots more where they came from- drop in the bucket.)
Uncle Kvetch 06.22.06 at 3:42 pm
In every historical armed conflict, each and every military has taken prisoners, and has held some of them for the duration of hostilities, in order to incapacitate them.
As you know, in this particular armed conflict, the “duration of hostilities” is being defined solely by the say-so of the US President. There is no conceivable scenario under which “terrorism” is going to sign a declaration of surrender. Which means that these prisoners (some of whom, as you seem to acknowledge in your final paragraph, are not even guilty of “taking up arms against the detaining power,” because they’re not guilty of anything at all) could theoretically be held indefinitely.
I don’t care if they’re held in a 5-star hotel with nightly entertainment. This is an atrocity.
Marty Lederman 06.22.06 at 3:54 pm
u.k.: Despite the Administration’s silly rhetoric, it’s not a fight against “terrorism”; it’s an authorized “use of “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the [9/11] terrorist attacks” or “harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
That is to say, it’s an armed conflict *against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.* And it will end, as it should, when Al Qaeda no longer presents any realistic threat “of any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.”
You’re right, of course, that this is an indefinite period, the end of which will not be marked by a surrender or armistice. As Justice O’Connor noted in Hamdi, “the practical circumstances of [this] conflict” may become “entirely unlike those of the conflicts that informed the development of the law of war.” That’s the dilemma: We’ve never had to detain enemy combatants for such a prolonged, indeterminate period. But that is simply to identify the problem, not to solve it. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the current procedures for determining enemy status, and the vague definitions the Administration is using, are unacceptable. They should be remedied. But after we *have* properly identified those persons who may lawfully be detained, what then? And why not at GTMO?
Cryptic Ned 06.22.06 at 4:00 pm
This is a pointless argument, because it relies on certain basic issues of fact that are currently not being admitted by anyone with any power to change the situation. Everyone involved in this argument supports changing the status quo, and none of their suggestions have any chance of happening.
Meanwhile, anyone who supports the status quo (including everyone who has any power in the matter) claims at least one of the following, none of which we believe:
A) Everyone in Guantanamo is a guilty terrorist
B) The people in Guantanamo are not being tortured
C) The other secret prisons do not exist
Uncle Kvetch 06.22.06 at 4:14 pm
And it will end, as it should, when Al Qaeda no longer presents any realistic threat “of any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.â€
“Realistic threat” as determined by whom? That’s not a niggling detail, it’s the crux of the matter.
And I second Cryptic Ned. If what you’re getting at here is, at it appears to me, what we’re going to do about terrorism once we have a legitimate, non-criminal presidential administration in power, I would respectfully suggest that you’re putting the cart before the horse.
Uncle Kvetch 06.22.06 at 4:14 pm
Please pardon my tags, or lack thereof.
Aidan Maconachy 06.22.06 at 5:18 pm
“GTMO isn’t only, or primarily, a symbol” – Marty Lederman
Bullshit. It has become a symbol-among-symbols … a veritable beacon on the hill testifying to judicial short cuts, high handed militarism and cultural supremacy.
You can tinker all you want and make it a latter-day Eden, but once the above symbolism has embedded itself in the collective unconscious all such reformist endevors will simply become an exercise in futility. It has to go – period (didn’t Bush say something along those lines?).
This cant about the hazards of freeing “dangerous elements” and reforming the facility is utter crap. There are legions of angry young muslims around the globe ready and willing to step up. It isn’t about who is released and on what terms, it’s about altering our ways of doing business and living up to our principles.
Bruce Baugh 06.22.06 at 5:32 pm
Marty: The major reason to close existing facilities, even if this means brand new ones, is for the practical demonstration of change of heart. The German government does not, I believe, use the concentration camps for routine law enforcement purposes now, for instance, even though they’d be perfectly good for prisons of some sort. It’s important to really and symbolically close some doors forever.
Tony 06.22.06 at 9:44 pm
I don’t see any particular need to close Gitmo. Better to fire the people in charge, or at least transfer them to new duties that have absolutely nothing to do with the confinement or interrogation of prisoners, and replace them with outspoken critics of our abusive tactics there. We may need to do the same with people lower down in the chain of command too.
Aidan Maconachy 06.22.06 at 11:24 pm
A year ago I would have gone along with maintaining Gitmo. However the landscape has shifted rather dramatically.
What was sold as a war of defence (the homeland) morphed into something else entirely. People like Fukuyama and Hitchens watched as theory collapsed in the face of a maelstrom. Suddenly all bets were off.
Bush and co have persisted in the “taking the war to them” posture, which makes no sense at all when the enemy is ephemeral and draws from a large pool of faceless young men in an equally hard-to-define Umma. This isn’t war with a clearly defined enemy – this is a militarized version of cat and mouse, full of half-truths and outright fictions.
The way forward is to change this counter productive strategy and forge relationships in the region and beyond by demonstrating goodwill. The U.S. should offer transparency and generosity, while not altogether lowering its guard.
The crew in Gitmo matter a hell of a lot less to the successful conclusion of this “war”, than the goodwill of mainstram Muslims who would shift further to the middle with a change in US policy.
Our Canadian troops are in Afghanistan, and I tend to view that regional struggle in a different context, although doubtless it is also an aggravating factor for many Muslims. But given the legendary barbarity of Taliban rule, I would say that deep down most Muslims understand that that is a place to which they would rather not return.
Contrary to Mr Lederman’s contention, I do think that Gitmo is symbolic and that the correct handling of that institutional challenge would signal a new approach.
As it is, something has to give …
Russell L. Carter 06.23.06 at 12:32 am
“Marty, you are a very naive consumer of Bush propaganda.”
Hey, Steve Labonne, don’t disgrace yourself this way. Go over to balkinization and do a little homework, you fuckwit.
If you give a shit about the souls involved, Marty is right. We need to get them into a regular legal framework.
The guilty fuckers need to be sentenced. The innocent need to be set free.
Shifting the detainees into invisible indefinite detention is not progress.
john m. 06.23.06 at 1:30 am
For those (correctly) calling for the prisoners to be handled under a visible, fair legal framework: if the US could tangibly prove any of these people are dangerous terrorists to any standard of law, why lock them up for five years without any recourse to law? It seems completely clear to me that their lack of ability to do so is exactly what is driving the anti-GITMO sentiment. The US decides you’re a terrorist and then that’s it for you. So calling for the closure of GITMO is not primarily a symbolic issue, it’s about one country’s government unilaterally giving itself the right to lock people up indefinitely and without any proper legal recourse. I remain fascinated to see anybody in the west defending this, especially with the well worn “Hey, (some of) these guys are evil terrorists” line.
If so, one question:
“How in f**ks name do you know that?”
“Because my government said so.”
“Ah. Spotted the catch?”
abb1 06.23.06 at 2:19 am
I don’t know, closing Guantanamo detention facility without denouncing and changing the policies and punishing those responsible – it would seem like a meaningless PR gesture.
However, Guantanamo Bay’s leagal status, US presence there against the wish of the local sovereign government is itself an example and symbol of colonial abomination. Perpetual lease, huh.
minerva 06.23.06 at 3:28 am
It strikes me that leaving detention centers offshore is another of the ways Americans are allowed to live comfortably and have the sense of clean hands. If war is an ugly thing, then let us face its ugliness head on.
Of course, U.S. prisons are a nightmare and most of us close our eyes to that easily. How much more easy it is when these things aren’t on our soil, though.
I say this as someone who thinks the average American is not responsible for going to war in Iraq or Afghanistan in any meaningful sense. But now that we are at war, we have a duty to do what we can to prevent injustices and worse, atrocities. It’s harder to do this when those things happen offshore.
No Preference 06.23.06 at 4:49 am
Marty is right. We need to get them into a regular legal framework. The guilty fuckers need to be sentenced. The innocent need to be set free.
Marty isn’t in favor of trials resulting in sentences. He regards those who actually are enemies of the US at Guantanamo as POWS who should be held forever. When Bush and Cheney talk about a 100 year “war” that’s effectively what they mean.
Steve LaBonne 06.23.06 at 9:03 am
Russell, I said I was in favor of sending them all home. That is to say, setting them free. Those who insult others as “fuckwits” might want to brush up their own reading comprehension skills to avoid looking especially foolish.
luc 06.23.06 at 10:29 pm
I don’t know, but this call for judicial reform to handle these prisoners according to the rule of law is 5 years late and looks little more than an ex post facto justification for all the abuse that has passed. And it ignores that the raison d’etre of Gitmo was to stay outside of the rule of law.
Gitmo was not a choice of bad to prevent worse, but it was a choice of cruelty, torture and abuse in place of the rule of law. Those who made the choice made the wrong one.
Politics and diplomacy may be such that there must be a way out of here without anyone admitting guilt, but to do that with excuses like that “black” prison sites are worse (“as a practical matter”) is beyond me.
“what, exactly, with the detainees?” is exactly the wrong question. They should not have been there in the first place.
Russell L. Carter 06.23.06 at 10:59 pm
“Russell, I said I was in favor of sending them all home. That is to say, setting them free. Those who insult others as “fuckwits†might want to brush up their own reading comprehension skills to avoid looking especially foolish.”
You are right, I apologize.
I still cannot think straight about things like the Schiavo case or torture. They drive me nuts.
Shawn 06.25.06 at 9:03 am
“Every time facts relevant to Bush propaganda on the Global War on Terra leak out, it turns out he’s been lying through his teeth.”
Not really, in fact not at all. Bush not only has not lied (yes WMD’s have been found in Iraq) the only lies I have seen since Sept.11 have all come from the Left. The best being the branless BBC’s propaganda doco claiming Al-Qaeda did not exist and that the threat was manufactured. Not long after this leftist tripe was shown on Brit tv the London bombimgs happened. Oops.
abb1 06.25.06 at 11:33 am
Not long after this leftist tripe was shown on Brit tv the London bombimgs happened.
What, the London bombings is a proof of the existence of Al-Qaeda? How? Why is not a proof of the existence of, say, Satan?
Comments on this entry are closed.