Thursday, February 19, 2009

Gitmo Detainees Could, Too

This will start your day off on the left foot.
From the
U.K. Daily Mail,
this morning:

Preacher of hate hits the jackpot: Bin Laden's man in UK set for huge human rights damages... and guess who pays

Abu Qatada and ten other terror suspects are in line for 'crazy' compensation payments.
Qatada, often described as Osama Bin Laden's ambassador in Europe, is demanding tens of thousands for being unlawfully held in Belmarsh prison.
The others have launched similar claims against the Home Office, which is braced for defeat in the European Court of Human Rights.
Critics called it yet another example of human rights and European law madness.
Detained after the September 11 attacks on America, under a hastily passed law by Parliment, Qatada and 10 other international terrorists were offered expulsion from Great Britain at any time, yet chose to remain in prison, appealing the law. Then once successful in doing exactly that, again these Muslims were incarcerated under a new legislation. Now, the Muslims are appealing to the European Court, where sympathies are expected to be found, and could receive hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation for their detainments.
Guantanamo Bay detainees relocated to the United States by that Genius in the White House, anyone?

Have a Nice Day, they're numbered.


Jungle Mom said...

I have no words...

Most Rev. Gregori said...

Why not let the Gitmo detains sue the U.S. in the World Court, I mean after all, as long as the government has their hands in our pockets to make huge payments of OUR money to auto manufactures, banks and insurance companies, what the heck is millions more to terrorists. They can use the money to buy more plans and sharp knives to attack us again.

Isn't that the least we can do to help out our Muslim friends?

Just encase some may not realize it, this is all tongue in cheek.

Mike said...

I am so sick of this sort of thing.

If it had been up to me, they wouldn't have even been brought to Gitmo. I wouldn't have allowed them to surrender. Our troops know that surrender won't save their lives.

Why do we fight wars like this? Why do we insist upon trying to make war something less horrible than it already is?

It's like us losing so many in the fight for Fallujah. I wouldn't have bothered clearing out the city door to door, but would have dropped leaflets and set up loudspeakers outside the town telling everyone to come out with their hands over their heads...stark naked, too. Give them three days, then level the place.

That's just me, though. Either don't go to war, or do total war.

The Localmalcontent said...

A war of 'Biblical' proportions, eh Mike? That's the way war should be, I also think.

Because it'd take only one such war, to intimidate all future, possible enemies to seriously think, rethink and rethink again, crossing America.
I especially like your very valid point about our troops; their treatment as POWs has been animalistic at best, at the hands of our enemies~