A PERFECT case of "Bad decision? You own the bad consequence(s)" - Part 2 - Granite Grok

A PERFECT case of “Bad decision? You own the bad consequence(s)” – Part 2

Or is it more a case of:


Of course not – Progressives are only concerned about “saving one life” when it comes to guns; face it, we law-abiding citizens will, at the drop of a Liberal’s hat, fling that fully auto mini-gun from over our shoulder and run off 40,000 rounds (er, 10 seconds of firing) at ANY of their precious identity group members simply because we’re EVIL (translation: Evil simply because we’re not Liberals too).

When it comes to abortions and killing unborn babies, they become completely uncaring (at best, or unhinged at worst).  Or, in the case of late-term or “live-abortions” that are being litigated in Philly about the born-alive abortion doctor Gosnell, the phrase “if it only saves one life!” is quickly and quietly put under the couch in the basement in the spare room that is then locked shut.  Shhhhhh.


Now that I have that off my chest, I posted about the terrorists being held Gitmo now holding a hunger strike – either protesting being held or, more likely, simply making a political statement.  The topic even got a post over at The Corner: “Should we let the Gitmo Hunger Strikers Starve?“.  I thought it rather unsettling when Amnesty International said that to save these folks might not be humane (“While Amnesty International is not in a position to know the details of these cases, the issue of force feeding protesters on hunger strike raises issues of medical ethics, informed consent, detainee autonomy, confidentiality and the treatment of detainees.”).  But the post also said reminded me of another related sub-topic:

To the extent we still have difficulty determining whether any Gitmo detainees are, in fact, affiliated with al-Qaeda, it is because our enemy continually and persistently violates the laws of war by trying to hide amongst the civilian population. Ambiguity is the fault of al-Qaeda, not the U.S. If there are innocents at Gitmo, they are there because of our enemy. Further, the enemy continues to exploit this ambiguity as it uses its Western sympathizers and gullible lawyers to press for the release of terrorists who then go out and kill again.

Got that?  “Go out and kill again” – Obama promised to close Gitmo during his first campaign – and a year after gaining the Presidency, that promise expired quietly.  Oh, once and again it comes up, but nothing substantial comes out of it.  But The Corner makes a great point – by keeping it open, by NOT allowing these terrorists back out on the battlefield, we save not just ONE life but MANY lives!  Yet, many Progressives still want to close it (even with no good place to send these killers to).  Inconsistent.

Remember, boys and girls, keep Gitmo open and prove Uncle Joe right: “If it only saves one life!”