Gitmo Guy Leads Libyan Attack That Kills US Ambassador

Looks like we shouldn't have let him go, eh?

By the way, the last US ambassador to die in the line of duty was 1979 when the US last had another weak Dem President.

Hmmm...the last time terrorists flew planes into targets on our soil and killed thousands we had a Republican president. So what's your point?

FredHayek wrote: Looks like we shouldn't have let him go, eh?

By the way, the last US ambassador to die in the line of duty was 1979 when the US last had another weak Dem President.

What you fail to mention is the terrorists who kidnapped him demanded the release of their leader and the U.S. president (the weak Dem President, as you say), refused to negotiate with them.

The U.S. has a long-standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

Had the law been applied correctly the best the strike squad that executed the raid on the US consulate in Benghazi could have hoped for would have been an action to honor a martyr.

What is inexcusable is the lack of security at the Benghazi consulate while diplomats where in bound, present, and leaving. Letting known terrorists out of Gitmo has some positive aspects; Intelligence agencies can track them and tip that information to decision makers; if the decision makers can't be bothered to go to the Intelligence briefings you get the result that happened at the US consulate in Benghazi.

otisptoadwater wrote: Had the law been applied correctly

What law?

Raees wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Looks like we shouldn't have let him go, eh?

By the way, the last US ambassador to die in the line of duty was 1979 when the US last had another weak Dem President.

What you fail to mention is the terrorists who kidnapped him demanded the release of their leader and the U.S. president (the weak Dem President, as you say), refused to negotiate with them.

The U.S. has a long-standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

And you know this for a fact or just something you wrote. Provide your facts cause I know things that you do not. All I can tell you I was assigned to a ship that was the center point of the task force in the western med dealing with. There were others on the other side of which most know the results of.

Raees wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Looks like we shouldn't have let him go, eh?

By the way, the last US ambassador to die in the line of duty was 1979 when the US last had another weak Dem President.

What you fail to mention is the terrorists who kidnapped him demanded the release of their leader and the U.S. president (the weak Dem President, as you say), refused to negotiate with them.

The U.S. has a long-standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

What the hell, you are WRONG, Carter did try to negotiate with them. He did the oil embargo, did funds freezing all the while his Sec of State was trying to deal thier release. Of course a bunch had already been released. Minorities, women and non Americans were released. I believe there was one minority that was kept. Lets keep the facts true.

The Afghan government negotiated with the terrorists. They denied holding the terrorists' leader.

Raees wrote:

otisptoadwater wrote: Had the law been applied correctly

What law?

Gee, let's start with how enemy combatants should be treated and tried under the Geneva Convention. Frankly I would rather that these turds of humanity never made/make it to Gitmo, a couple pounds of copper jacketed lead to center mass and a couple rounds in the forehead just to be sure seem fair to me. Unfortunately the rules of engagement as dictated by the DoD prevent me from getting my wish.

LOL. You think a crowd of rioting people, or terrorists follow the rules of the Geneva Convention? We don't follow the Geneva Convention, why should they? What war were they participating in, BTW?