Inhofe: Terrorists in prisons not actually terrorists.

[SirNitram]

From CNN. Not found a transcript online yet, so apologies for transcription errors.

CHETRY: You don’t think that those facilities could keep some of these detainees secure, at the same time, protecting the surrounding communities?

INHOFE: No, I don’t, Kiran.(...)

CHETRY: There has been, though, here in the United States a number of people who have been convicted on terrorism-related charges in U.S. courts. … They’ve been held in our U.S. prisons. Why can’t that be replicated with the Guantanamo Bay detainees?

INHOFE: Because those individuals who are actually criminals, they actually committed crimes and were not involved in the type of — in the type of terrorist activity as we’ve been experiencing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Off the top of my head, these not-terrorists include:

The 'Blind Sheik' and three accomplices from the 1993 WTC Bombing.
Timothy McVeigh.
The 'Shoe Bomber'.
Moussaoui, conspirator involved in the 2001 WTC attack.

They are not terrorists, though. They are just criminals. Or so the GOP talking points go.

[The Spartan]

You forgot the Unabomber and McVeigh's accomplice.

[Master of Ossus]

You forgot the Unabomber and McVeigh's accomplice.

The Unabomber had an accomplice?

[The Spartan]

No... the Unabomber was on his own. McVeigh's accomplice was Terry Nichols, iirc.

Talking about two seperate people here.

[Master of Ossus]

No... the Unabomber was on his own. McVeigh's accomplice was Terry Nichols, iirc.

Talking about two seperate people here.

Oh, yes. Sorry. I misinterpreted. And, yes, Nichols was McVeigh's accomplice.

[TheMuffinKing]

That is an interesting determination, calling certain people criminals while maintaining the classification of other detainees as terrorists. I wonder if it wouldn't be more appropriate to classify the majority of Guantanamo prisoners as enemy combatants or something similar. Sorry for the short post, but I'm running a fever and having a hard time collating my thoughts.