GITMO, simply explained

[louis c]

If we know that all the prisoners detained at the facility at Guantanamo are guilty of terrorism, then we should shoot them.

If we know that all the detainees there are innocent, then they should be released.

If we don't know which is which, then we need trials.

How complicated is this to understand?

[ulysses]

1. interesting world you live in.

Glad I don't live there.

[louis c]

3. Gee, I thought it was simple

this is how I explain the Obama position to my right wing friends. The reason being is that too many of our citizens believe that all the detainees are terrorists. I know that's not true. I also know that everyone of them is not innocent. So, for my Repuke Friends I simplify it. If they are all guilty, punish them. If they are all innocent, let them go. But, logic tells us that we really don't know who's who. That's why we need trials.

That's my world.

[ulysses]

4. my issue is with your freebasing of the summary executions idea.

Satisfying as it must be to say "shoot them" to your rw friends, I would suggest that it's a damned stupid idea.

[louis c]

5. Hyperbole for affect

give my some poetic license. I'm trying to make a point

[ThomWV]

6. I expect he knows his audience better than you

I wrote this real nasty post, then realized it was none of my business and zapped it away. They point was that in the end its the rule of law that must be the answer because the alternatives are obviously unrealistic extremes - I thought it was pretty clear. Its a shame you didn't catch it.

[mmonk]

2. Aren't they Muslims? They are all guilty. Guilt by association.

I got my DVD in the paper.