The Release of Bowe Bergdahl (agents, Iraq, poll, soldiers)

[Hyperthetic]

Originally Posted by Hyperthetic

Look, those five guys; if we've gotten them addicted to Chicken McNuggets and pizza, they'll be eating out of our hand for a very long time.

Those kinds of addictions are much more primary than neurohormone addictions.

Plus, they use their implanted chips to place their orders.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by pknopp

//www.city-data.com/forum/polit...l#post27607911

I have far more respect for those I always disagree with if those disagreements are principled disagreements. Yours are not.

Indeed, they are principled.

Obama's own current Director of National Intelligence specifically stated Iraq's illicit weapons were moved to Syria. That means they did indeed have WMDs past the 1990s. Facts here:
//www.city-data.com/forum/34607950-post76.html

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Hyperthetic

Well, we can still swoop down and grab anyone, like we did with most of the detainees.

Hmmm... and we couldn't "swoop down and grab" Bergdahl?

Hypocrite.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Hyperthetic

Well, bring that "physical proof" into a courtroom where I can examine it more closely.

There's no legal obligation to do so, and there are extra costs involved in doing so. Guantanamo detainees can legally be detained indefinitely.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by pknopp

A generalization that means nothing. If there is proof a trial is simply just a formality but one that allows us to not be them.

Even Saddam got a trial.

If we plan on executing them, there will be a trial.

If not, they can be detained at Guantanamo indefinitely.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Indeed, they are principled.

Obama's own current Director of National Intelligence specifically stated Iraq's illicit weapons were moved to Syria. That means they did indeed have WMDs past the 1990s. Facts here:
//www.city-data.com/forum/34607950-post76.html

March 31, 2005 - The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction reports that the intelligence community was "dead wrong" in its assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities before the U.S. invasion.

Iraq Weapons Inspections Fast Facts - CNN.com

We over rode U.N. objections. You support that, right?

[Hyperthetic]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

There's no legal obligation to do so, and there are extra costs involved in doing so. Guantanamo detainees can legally be detained indefinitely.

By "extra costs", you mean the political costs?

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by pknopp

March 31, 2005 - The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction reports that the intelligence community was "dead wrong" in its assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities before the U.S. invasion.

Iraq Weapons Inspections Fast Facts - CNN.com

Evidence in your own link:

March 10, 2003 - It is revealed that Iraq possesses drone aircraft that could have been used to launch a chemical or biological attack against other countries. The plane has a wingspan of 24ft 5in, which suggests that it could fly further than 150km/93 miles, which is the limit imposed by U.N. resolutions

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Hyperthetic

By "extra costs", you mean the political costs?

No. The financial costs of holding trials, appeals, etc., etc. And after spending all that extra money and they're still found guilty... then what?

[larrysda]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Correction: We don't imprison U.S. citizens without a trial based upon allegations. The Guantanamo detainees aren't U.S. citizens.

Absolutely correct!