I wish they would release them to San Francisco. ww

I'm sure someone will soon be saying that it was his experience in Gitmo that made him do it. Not that he likely would have done this sooner had he not been held.

I'll bet that right now harry reid feels as comfortable as a fish in a bicycle.

I'm sure someone will soon be saying that it was his experience in Gitmo that made him do it.

Naturally! Because his behavior prior to being detained at Gitmo was so exemplary prior to it:

Quitting the Kuwaiti Army and joining the Taliban in Tora Bora....trying to escape to Pakistan...firing on the N.A. and U.S. forces...

Yup, he was in Afghanistan to study the Koran, no doubt.

"It is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer." --Ben Franklin

"It is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape." --Otto von Bismarck & Pol Pot

"Better to execute ten innocent men than to leave one guilty man alive." --Feliks Dzerzhinsky

Choose.

when yer talkin radical ay-rabs that kill in the thousands...I'll go for the last 2.

Why do you want people in San Francisco to die, Willie? That's an awfully unhinged thing to say.

That's pretty much par for the course for old willie. He's nuts.

moseby, if that's the way you feel, maybe you should move. That's a pretty anti-American sentiment.

Choose.
-----------------------
My guess for Brian 's choice: he would rather see more American troops and Iraqui women/children die to make sure that the terrorists have maximum protection of the law.

5. Brian -

"Choose."

Choose. Just one word, choose. Like some thug holding you at gun point directing you to choose who lives and who dies. Choose?

Brian darling, stop being such a complete dickhead. Learn to be civil and in exchange we'll treat you in a civil manner as well.

For everyone else: this is an attempt at long distance operant conditioning. It works for me with dogs, now we'll all see what effect it has on Brian.

Brian:

There's a scene in "Saving Private Ryan" when, after a firefight on a hill, the squad captures a German and argues about whether to execute him or not. Capt. Miller (Tom Hanks) decides to let the captured German go. And what happens at the end in the small French village? The same German Capt. Miller lets go ends up firing the shot that kills him.

It's not irony that killed him; it was an awful decision.

I would also say that Ben's quote is not applicable in the context of the battlefield, but only in the world of courtroom justice.

Clearly al-Ajmi was not an innocent. And good luck arguing that he was.

UOG,
Based on past postings, we know what Brian's choice would be. He would rather see more Iraqui women/children blown up than seeing some terrorrist or enemy combatant "suspects" "wrongly" kept at Gitzmo. Since nothing is perfect in this world, Brian would err on the side of giving maximum protection to the terrorists and rather see thousands of women/children killed if that is the price. That 's my educated guess.

If doing the right thing has potentially bad consequences, strong people will still do the right thing and mitigate the consequences. Weak people will do a cost-benefit analysis and compromise their values.

Peter, Capt. Miller didn't make the wrong decision--he made the right decision, and then he died later. Are you crazy? Summarily executing prisoners of war?!

Peter, Capt. Miller didn't make the wrong decision--he made the right decision, and then he died later. Are you crazy? Summarily executing prisoners of war?!

You're seriously going to argue that he made a decision that cost him his life was "right"--particularly in light that they had no way of securing said prisoner? Are you nucking futs.

And just for giggles, when's the last time AQ or AQI released ONE of their "POWs" while their heads were still attached. Answer that one, chuckles.

Charge his lawyers with one count of first degree murder for each person he killed. Try them in a military court or town and conviction will be fast. Better yet, turn them over to the Iraqi people for trial and execution, a 12 hour process.

Hey Old Guy, what exactly is it about choice that you find so offensive? I've been reading Brian here for a while and while he may be curt and to the point, he's always one of the calmer, more collected voices and all he ever gets is shit. I'm not complaining, shooting the messenger is the wizbang way, and I've indulged in it myself once or twice. But Brian is always civil. Maybe if you took a long look in the mirror you might find a real dickhead looking back.

And Peter F., do you really believe the U.S. should base it's conduct on what terrorists do? If so, you are insane. My America is a nation that takes the high road, whatever the cost. If you don't like it, get the hell out.

Max, the "high road" is treating detainees to the most humane prisoner camp ever constructed - Guantanamo Bay. Treating captured combatants as though they were US citizens accused of civil crimes is self-destructive obsession.

No Max, Brian was not being civil. Brian was demanding we all choose within the false premise he created in his posting. That's bullying, something I've been told by every MSM network that liberals detest. I'm surprised you missed that by the way, but I guess nobody is a dickhead when they are your kind of dickhead.

I would also say that Ben's quote is not applicable in the context of the battlefield, but only in the world of courtroom justice.

And since the guy was acquitted by a court, I'm glad to see you agree the quote is applicable.

You're seriously going to argue that he made a decision that cost him his life was "right"--particularly in light that they had no way of securing said prisoner? Are you nucking futs.

Peter, life is not a movie, where you get to see the ending and debate a character's actions. I won't bother to cite to you the myriad American patriots who are quoted as pledging their lives to upholding American values, nor the many more who actually lost their lives living up to those values. So yes, the decision that cost him his life was "right". If you don't understand that, you have some history to brush up on.

I have very little inclination to take someone seriously whose sole contribution to the thread is calling me a "dickhead" while demanding that I be civil.

Again, Brian 's choice is to see more Iraqui women/children blown up than seeing some terrorrist or enemy combatant "suspects" "wrongly" kept at Gitzmo. The liberal principle is to give the terrorists maximum protection of the law even at the cost of thousands or millions of lives lost. At the same time, they can support a candidate like Obama who voted against providing medical care for surviving aborted babies.
We didn't summarily execute prisoners of war. That 's why Gitzmo is for. We kept them there to make sure that they will cause no harm while not executing them summarily. The fact that someone has to use this strawman shows what they are defending is not a principle worth defending. Rather it is a sick ideology.

I won't bother to cite to you the myriad American patriots who are quoted as pledging their lives to upholding American values, nor the many more who actually lost their lives living up to those values. So yes, the decision that cost him his life was "right".
-------------------------------------
This is a dishonest argument. If Brian is true to his value of giving maximum protection to the terrorists, he would offere to be a human shield for our troops in Iraq. He would be willing to sacrifice their lives for their principle of giving maximum protection to the terrorists and other enemies of America. People who are true to this principle would offer their own lives as human shields.

It is funny how I said to release the detainees to San Francisco and our liberal trolls wanted to know why I wanted San Franciscons to die. Apparently the trolls know they are killers, just as we do, but have sympathy for them also. ww

It is funny how I said to release the detainees to San Francisco and our liberal trolls wanted to know why I wanted San Franciscons to die.
------------------------------------
Excellent point. The answer to the question why is to give these liberals a chance to be true to their "principle".

Peter, life is not a movie, where you get to see the ending and debate a character's actions.

Well schucks and golly gee wilikers there, Brian, I had NO idea life wasn't a movie. Thanks for informing me with condescending tone. Yet seeing as how you're so schooled in the arts, perhaps you've heard the phrase "life imitates art", and vice versa. THAT is my point: Releasing either man is not a results-oriented conclusion as you suggest because the threat either poses is clear and obvious.

Neither Miller's decision to release the Kraut nor the Kuwaiti court that released al-Ajmi were "right" to return either man to the battlefield to be re-patrioted.

In the movie, the Kraut was the sole German survivor of the fight. The squad is behind enemy lines and has no means to secure the prisoner as a POW. The 'right' thing to do, so that the Kraut is not liability to the men of the squad and its mission, is to shoot the SOB on the spot lest potentially compromise the lives of the squad. (Or, at the very least, tie him up.) But Miller, going against his previous conviction of "We're not here to do decent thing; we're here to following fucking orders!" (and secure the lives of his men), doesn't do that and instead does the 'right' thing in the name of being 'decent'. It is a mistake, and it was avoidable had he taken his decision to its logical conclusion. (Let's cut Miller a bit of slack because obviously reason and logic go out the window on the battlefield; yet had he stopped he might have seen the error in his logic.)

Now and similarly, in al-Ajmi's case, the "right" thing was being done in the name of decency and, yes, American values: he was detained and away from the battlefield. The wrong thing (the U.S. releasing him to the Kuwaiti court releasing al-Ajmi) was done in the name of being 'right'. However, if either his captors or the courts understood the true zealous and driven nature of a jihadist to complete his/her mission, and understood that that as a jihadist he would stop at nothing to achieve it, then the 'right' thing to do would be to detain him indefinitely. And again, it's not a results-oriented conclusion; it's based on the known behavior of the jihadist or, yes, even as a legitimate, uniformed solider.

Yes, war is a series of mistakes. However, some are more avoidable than others. Like releasing prisoners so they can go blow themselves up in a market.

In the end, LAI is only partially right: Your argument is, yes, dishonest; but worst of all, it's morally short-sighted.