Close Gitmo?
-
Steve, the main reason we keep them there is so we don't have to adjudicate their cases! If you bring them to America, guess what happens? You have to allow these people access to the judicial process.
That's the main reason to close the facility - to force the system to adjudicate these cases so they're not just stuck in legal limbo forever. So why would you imagine that there's "no apparent reason" to close the facility? The reason is obvious, and everyone understands this. But you.
Fact of the matter is you don't know what the reason is and you don't know perfectly well that it changes the legal circumstances. Which is why I don't want to discuss these issues with you. Because you don't even know that much, while claiming that I don't.
And we just had this conversation in another thread, like, last week. Where you spout off like you know something, and roll your eyes, and you turn out to be completely wrong. Remember that?
You should really stop doing that.
Good ni-ight...
-
no I don't remember that. Second allow me to say with all due respect, bullshit. Just because you want to move a bunch of prisoners taken on the battlefield to a US Court so we can have a circus is no reason to close a perfectly usable military prison facility. As to the reasons I gave you the president's own words. Yes they were probably somebody else's words but he read them. So if anyone is going to stop doing anything perhaps you should quit changing the subject and boasting of knowledge you don't have.
so you disagree with Obama and think it would be a good idea to have Gloria Allred or someone similar to defend these guys here in New York or somewhere? Doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
as far as my suggestion to keep them there or let them go that's the exact policy of the administration, right? We've already lett well over half of them go.
you don't need to be an American court to adjudicate any of these matters apparently. Then again that's not the reason the president gave so...
WSS
-
Putting terrorists on trial, with all American citizen rights, is stupidass.
Therefore, lib anti-status quo progessive weinies want it changed.
How you going to adjudicate mini-me bin ladens? You bring them inside
our shores, adjudicate their cases, spend all that extra trial money, get some
released on technicalities, put em in prisons, and terrorists overseas will start
bombing the crap out of every city near a prison to get them released or else.
What's the stupid point? For liberal show of change whatever it is that exists?
They are enemy combatant terrorists. To me, liberals like heck and all, want to make
terrorists at Gitmo a circus in our courts, that have too much to do already.
Here's one: Bring them into Obamao's and Holder's INjustice system. Now they have
a right to a speedy trial, eh?
Then they all have to be released because their non-exist "Constitutional rights" have been
violated.
That's a liberal "haha", because they can say "see? gosh, Bush was so bad to make this happen."
And then, innocent Americans can be blown up again and again by the released terrorists, and
the Obamao cult members can all laugh and say "BUSH DID ALL THIS BY USING GITMO".
Ridiculous? Sure. Ask yourselves if it's possible.
You betcha it is. And the marxists, Obamao and all, can claim more gov power in the emergency.
Seems to me, we should let them starve themselves with food right in front of them, if they want to. Problem solved.
-
At one time there worth 779 prisoners. George W Bush released 500. 242 Remained at the beginning of the Obama presidency. Of those 126 are eligible to be released.
72 have been repatriated, sent somewhere else, just let out to someone else's custody.
So as you see taking care of these cases down there has not posed a problem.
WSS
-
Phew. For a second there I was worried that we had a total legal clusterfuck going on.
Here's that left-wing rag The Economist today:
The spectre of prisoners denied either a fair trial or the possibility of release is Orwellian. Nothing has done more to sully America’s image in the modern world. They should be tried or set free, just as terrorist suspects are in every other civilised country.
Four years and three months ago, Barack Obama, in one of his first official acts as president, wrote an executive order to close the prison camp. This week he said Guantánamo “is contrary to who we are, it is contrary to our interests, and it needs to stop.” And yet it goes on. Some of the 166 have been there as long as 11 years, without ever even having been charged.
...Mr Obama and Congress have thus ensured that even the 86 detainees whom the administration has slated for release are stuck. The remainder, whom the Americans reckon have cases to answer, cannot be tried in civilian court because Congress has blocked that route, and the administration has given up trying to change its mind. With the Republicans now in control of the House, the chances of a reversal on that score look unlikely. Some are supposedly being tried by Donald Rumsfeld’s “military tribunals” at Guantánamo itself: but that process is so ugly and has run into so many legal difficulties that it has more or less ground to a halt. Sending them abroad for trial would not work, in most cases, either: the evidence is generally too weak or too tainted by torture (thank you, Mr Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney et al) to try them anywhere.
The lesser evil
America is in a hole. The last response of the blowhards and cowards who have put it there is always: “So what would you do: set them free?” Our answer remains, yes. There is clearly a risk that some of them would then commit some act of violence—in Yemen, elsewhere in the Middle East or even in America itself. That risk can be lessened by surveillance. But even if another outrage were to happen, the evil of “Gitmo” has recruited far more people to terrorism than a mere 166. Mr Obama should think about America’s founding principles, take out his pen and end this stain on its history.
-
And we didn't even mention this:
The Pentagon estimates it spends about $150 million each year to operate the prison and military court system at the U.S. Naval Base inCuba, which was set up 11 years ago to house foreign terrorism suspects. With 166 inmates currently in custody, that amounts to an annual cost of $903,614 per prisoner.
By comparison, super-maximum security prisons in the United States spend about $60,000 to $70,000 at most to house their inmates, analysts say. And the average cost across all federal prisons is about $30,000, they say.
-
-
hunger strike... subsequent death(s)?
Obama fails the brotherhood because he cant make good on his apology = failed narcissist.
and not politically expedient
-
Guilty of treason against the US (since we're affording them rights of us citizens now).
Send them to Sing Sing.
Or just sling welfare $$ & plane tickets at them so they can fly home for more training.
-
so while The Economist may not be a traditional left wing rag this offer is certainly coming from the left.
so let me draw your attention to the last paragraph in which those who would ask what do you want to do set them free are called blowhards and cowards? and then the author suggest we do just that.
didn't you just make a big display of be reading me for suggesting that? Tell you what, I'll answer for you:
yes you did.
I figure that's easier having you write a thousand words of spin and not answering the question.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login