It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is There a Single Guantanamo “Terrorist” who is not (in reality) a Security Asset?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 21 2009 @ 09:26 PM
Dick Chainme has recently said closing Guantanamo Bay would be “unwise in the extreme” for American security.
Meanwhile the FBI Director Robert Mueller added fuel for political discontent against the Obama-states business by saying he was “worried” about bringing Guantanamo prisoners into United States (they may allegedly radicalise others).
Clearly he is blissfully unaware that the United States has every ability to monitor prisoner inmates; it’s not hard because duh… their in prison!

So could it be (perhaps not for the first time!) that the propaganda from Bush’s “foreign policy brain man” is the exact inverse of reality?
As surely (when one thinks logically and clearly) it become apparent that there could be nothing more useful (for government) than someone the state knows who is likely to be a terrorist.

The American state posse’s one of the world's most powerful security services.
And nearly all Western states poses unilateral ability to follow a persons every move e.g. by non-intrusive satellite, GPS bugs, (or perhaps) just to introduce them to strangers who may become psychologically exploitive friends (even girlfriend’s) just to capture a knowledge of a subjects every thought, and social events.

Someone who you know is likely to become a terrorist is obviously someone (who almost may as well) be looking for ways to incriminate the entire terrorist movement.
They often talk to many, and have friends who also talk by phone, by internet, and especially post (if their motives are really sophisticated-sinister).
So historically they only accumulate materials for (delusionally purposeful) barbarity after much time and thought.

On the other hand if someone (the government knows to be a terrorist) is not an asset then I would like to know why Mr Dick Cheney?
Are we to believe, they believes the security services of the United States is so amazingly inefficient that it could not possibly keep and eye on say 200-400 people?

Or is the reality that Robert and Dick choose avoidable suffering if it affords the American public a state of fear, which is publicly critical of how (today’s American state) rightfully goes about it’s business of defending America’s security interests, by defending it’s reputation, by moving terrorists into it’s jails-desserts?

Surely it is counter to state objectives to criticise it’s fulfilment of declared U.S objectives?

At least it’s great to see it’s Dick and Robert who are the ones being “unpatriotic” (for once)!!!

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

new topics

log in