not know about you, but those opposed to Guantanamo and, of course, you take away from providing any alternative proposals, always made me angry.
Especially for the argument "Geneva Convention", which is so baseless that I do not waste time even to refute it (seriously: read a book of law, take a course evening, anything, but if you get there do not piss me ...), but also that "aesthetics" of "is a human rights scandal" (as if people mattered a chip only held on Human Rights' man, if not to use them to benefit them and their criminal plans: freedom is defended even by violence, and possession is much better than these people deserve).
The topic "erosion of moral high ground" in part as the basis, but only according to the presence of the fifth column moaning West, one that knows that much is always the butt of the other to be first in line, while they are to discuss the greatest good to the shelter systems in some coffee fashion.
And to think that news like this
should retrieve all the order, including San Obama ... if even one of those defined as "not dangerous", ends the case, then the other? we are sure to want them in our prisons-sieve?
I, no.