Quote:
Originally Posted by GMScud
After reading a few articles about this, I agree that the article title is a bit misleading. It's not like Obama and Co said, "hey, let the guy go." It still doesn't sit well with me that they weren't overly opposed to "compassionate release," and it doesn't excuse The Lord's BS about being "surprised, disappointed, and angry" about his release. He knew what was coming. Otherwise he and his ilk wouldn't be trying to keep said correspondence secret.
But hey, BP now gets to drill off of Libya. This whole thing stinks to high heaven.
|
The Scotts have laws...the administration can voice its concerns to the Scottish Government but their courts and review boards make the decisions. If they're going to just transfer him it's completely worthless because they will free him. Now if you release him you can a) get oil, b) repatriation the some of Libyan gitmo detainees, c) it never hurts to look merciful, and d) it's not a battle worth fighting due to his impending death and lack of control.
You're confusing the being surprised at the decision that was made vs the knowledge of the choices they have in front of them and your own preferences. So yes, you can be surprised. It's all PR though...it really doesn't mean anything.
Would I have let him go? Hell no, especially if the evidence was overwhelming and he really is guilty. I'd put him in a see through box, put a camera outside that box and broadcast his imprisonment and slow death of cancer on the internet. Do I have to give him cancer medication?