Dude,  why are you re-visiting the long dead and done past? 

Utter nonsense. And a fundamental failure to understand the reasons, correct in my opinion and that of many others, why Gitmo was chosen to hold radical Muslims who had committed crimes against US Citizens. For Europe or Europeans to endlessly find reason to fault the US over this or that is something I find insignificant. Next time you folks need us, you'll hold our jacket while we do your heavy lifting...and that is a true consistency.

 Gitmo was chosen to hold radical Muslims who had committed crimes against US Citizens..

So it's okay to out secret agents if they are married to partisans?

That's ok- so long as you start putting US citizens and those arrested on US soil in Guantanamo there will be far fewer accusations of double standards.  Probably more of human rights issues but, hey ho at least there'll be some consistency.

Nope. Did not forget that. I did find it curious that Mr. Armitage was never charged. Do keep in mind that Joe Wilson is a partisan Democrat. Just sayin'...

Our system is just fine, thank you. The detainees were placed in Gitmo because there was no other viable place for them *and yup, viable means political*. A Military Tribunal, and they have been used before in the US, would suffice.

Though some heads need to roll too —- allowing that kind of unrestricted access to a relatively low level civilian means there's more to be fixed than one detail.  Of course the apparent fact that this tool smuggled it all out over 8 months on a CDRW also gives an IT security guy quite a bit of pause.

A message needs to be sent.  And the way to do that is take out Assange and his followers by any means necessary.  If the current US administration is too chickenshit to do that, then I'm sure there's plenty of others who have little concern about removing Assange and his enterprise from among the living.

So, Richard Armitage, the one who confessed to revealing Valarie Plame, was lying? Or is Armitage and Cheney the same person? 

If so, then you've effectively abdicated your right to criticize it. 

If you're not part of the solution ...

If so, then you've effectively abdicated your right to criticize it. 

If you're not part of the solution ...

So Obama uttered obvious lies in order to win the presidency?  Is that how you see it?

Did you vote for Barry, or Palin and the old white dude? 

move on - these people really should have a talks behind their backs forum. Then we'd all be better off.

If you need to fix your system then fix it.  Putting people in Guantanamo because you won't get the "right" answer in a court is not and never will be the solution

Where's your proof that WikiLeaks has released information that has gotten people killed? Robert Gates said a review of a previous large release of information from WikiLeaks "has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by the disclosure"

WikiLeaks does go to some lengths to remove names and sensitive information (as do the newspapers that have the documents) from the leaked documents. They would appear to have more ethics than Dick Cheney who exposed a CIA operative Valerie Plame to get back at her husband who had exposed a serious lie put forth by the Bush administration.

The US offered 'fundamental right' of legal representation to Ahmed Ghailani, the mad bomber behind the simultaneous attacks on US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Many of us, knowing how convoluted the US Justice system can be, how demanding it is of evidence and so forth, knew that removing a Gitmo detainee from Gitmo and not using a Military Tribunal, would result in Mr. Ghailani escaping the more damning charges. 291 innocent souls were lost due to his actions yet in a Federal Court, he was found guilty only of committing conspiracy to damage property. I don't think most of the world outside the US understands our system, yet they bray on as if they do and we don't.
Many of us in the US understand the mindset of Attorneys such as Lynne Stewart, defender of the blind Egyptian Sheik who orchestrated the first attacks on the Twin Towers: she passed on messages from the Sheik to his equally radical supporters and then committed perjury when denying those actions. Most of the lawyers in the US who foam on about how radicals held at Gitmo must have a day in Court, are of that same liberal mindset.
If Khalid Sheik Mohammed, self-confessed mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks *supported by data on his computers and other electronic means*, comes to a Federal Court, he will likely walk when the Court is fully instructed on interrogation methods used while being held at Gitmo. Wouldn't that be a fine day...he walks, 3,000 are dead due to his actions.
This administration, led by President Obama and the Attorney General, appear to want settings for radicals that will likely see a re-do of the nonsense findings in the case of Mr. Ghailani. Meanwhile, Team Obama promises that KSM will never be a free man. What if a Court says different? Working the system for the perpetrators of death and destruction invites such findings. Some of us, in the US, understand that. Many, outside the US, don't.