McCaskill: Gitmo decision "a wise one"

            Senate candidate Claire McCaskill says the Supco decision tossing out the Bush military tribunals for Gitmo detainees is a "wise one."

   McCaskill told reporters today that "America has to set an example" by not mistreating combatants.  She says that helps protect men and women in the military.

  The Democrat also backs the New York Times decision to publish details of a financial surveillance effort against terrorists.

  "This administration is all about secrecy," she said.  "The only leaks they like are political leaks."

  She says the surveillance program is okay; she thinks the terrorists already knew about it.

Posted by Dave Helling 

Comments

[Ed Friedemann]

Well hello Senate candidate Claire McCaskill.

It certainly appears to me you're adding a fresh breath of good judgement and reason where none has existed.

The People of Missouri have needed honest representation in the United States Senate, now, it seems they will be able to have their voices heard.

Best wishes for your upcoming success, all the way from Texas.

[Dee]

Lets put these comments in an add and see how many Missourians agree with Claire on these issues. She believes the rights of terrorists are more important than the safety of the American people. Sounds like a winning campaign to me.

[Jeff]

Actually this decision is a win for the administration. Now they can simply hold the detainees indefinitley, don't have to give them ANY due process. Decision simply said the planned military commissions are unlawful, didn't go on to say what the military must now do with the detainees. Okay, so can't give em a trial before a military commission, so now what? Guess they can just lock em up forever, no charges, no trial. Just what the administration wanted to do in the first place. They'll take "losses" like this anytime...

[Ed Friedemann]

If you remove the "spin words" such as "terrorist" and "war on terror," and call them what they really are: "Afghanistans" it starts raining on your parade.

They were attacked by the Russians for 10 years and managed to fight them off, then came the United States dropping 70,000 lb of bombs from each B-52, 10 to a squadron, and cruise missiels all day and night for a month. Then our tanks and helicopter gunships and ground troops came with an overwhelming force and, one again, they fought back.

All this after we had made short work of destroying Osama Bin Laden's ragtag little group.

So where does the word "terrorist" apply? The 9/11 report says we were attacked as retaliation for years of systematically slaughtering Palestinian Arabs { 50 years in all } by financing the Israelis with an overpowering force.

Yesterday the Israelis fired over 400 artillery shells into the Gaza refugee camps after 2 Israeli soldiers were killed and one captured. An Israeli gunboat had fired into a Palestinian family of 50, on a beach in Gaza, killing or wounding everybody.

So how are these Afghans at Guantanamo "terrorists" and not enemy combatants captured in combat and prisoners of war? They Geneva Conventions spells-out their treatment, which we continue to violate.

Again: why are they called "terrorist?"

[Ed Friedemann]

Should be: "The Geneva Conventions spells-out their treatment, which we continue to violate.

Again: why are they called "terrorists?"

[JC_in_KC]

Ed - They are called terrorist because they do not fight for a country, but to incite fear through force and threats of force into legitimate goevernments. The Geneva Convention does NOT spell out their treatment. They are not uniformed and they do not represent a country. Ed maybe you should thoroughly check out the document before you cite it. I know many people like you that spit on the graves of those who died in the 9/11 attacks and embrace those who attacked us will always be around. Hopefully one day we can take the enemy within our country and send you to the country you represent.

[Ed Friedemann]

Those who lost their lives on that tragic 9/11 are better served by insuring the United States does not become what you are suggesting; a fascist state, where, as your president says: "Why do you keep throwing that Constitution in my face, it's nothing but a G-d piece of paper, I'm the Decider, we'll do as I decide"

Using secretive off-shore prisons, without being accountable as to how many are imprisoned, or the treatment they're receiving there, is not the American way of doing things.........It may well be your way.........But not ours.

The Ist Amendment also applies to you, so say whatever you like, no matter how ignorant and uninformed you make yourself appear. The Constitution offers you that protection, as it should.

The United States does not, and should not, lower its standards of conduct, especially in underhanded ways, just to suit people like you and that cabal in Washington.

[Ed Friedemann]

Oh, I forgot: Have a nice day!

[JC_in_KC]

You will have to show me where the president is cited in saying that, I honostly have not heard that one. If we had it your way it appears we would roll over and let the terrorist take the country. I am sorry you do not know how many captives are being held during this war. Here is a question for you in 1944 did you know how many prisoners we had at any time in that war. Probably not. Did you know where all the prisons were in 1944? Probably not. Get over it, whether you like it we are in a war. Congress may not say so, the president might not say so, but I know when the lives of our countrymen are attacked and taken by these savages that they are at war with us. Which in turn means we are at war. So Ed, I either challenge you to stand up and fight for your country, or sit down and shut up while the big boys fight for you.