The 'Gitmo' Situation

[kainedamo]

A top governemnt official describes the suicide as "a good PR move". Base commander describes it as "an act of war".

Here's a bunch of dudes that have never had access to lawyers, a chance to defend themselves in court, haven't had any contact with family or friends.

Navy Rear Admiral Harry Harris, commander of the Guantánamo detention camp, has told reporters that the suicides were a coordinated attempt to spark international outrage against the US. "They have no regard for human life. Neither ours nor their own," he said. "I believe this was not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetric warfare against us."

Others disagree.

"I think it is people who have no hope, detained indefinitely, without rights," says Harold Koh, an international law expert and dean of Yale Law School. "We're really in the last days of a dying policy," Mr. Koh says. "This is just another sad sign."

What a disgrace this prison is. How can the US possibly get away with running this insane place?

[Carter]

Because we own the planet, now be quiet.

[Kritish]

I really don't give a **** about those guys.

[kainedamo]

Some socialist you are.

[Kritish]

Some socialist you are.

They aren't Americans. They aren't even protected with the Geneva convention. US prisoners commit suicide all the time.

[kainedamo]

They aren't Americans.

....


Why exactly does that matter?? You have to share a person's nationality now to feel for their cause? Like I said, some socialist you are.

[Kritish]

....


Why exactly does that matter?? You have to share a person's nationality now to feel for their cause? Like I said, some socialist you are.

The Geneva convention only applies to POW's. They aren't POWs.

[bored]

Going the 'enemy combatants' route, Kritish?

[kainedamo]

Who cares about that? You don't care about them because they don't fit inside some technicalities??

They. Have. Not. Had. A. Trial.

If they ain't POWs, what are they?

[Kritish]

Who cares about that? You don't care about them because they don't fit inside some technicalities??

They. Have. Not. Had. A. Trial.

If they ain't POWs, what are they?

We don't have to give them a trial.

[kainedamo]

We don't have to give them a trial.

You are not a socialist. Go home and think about your life.

I really don't care about what the laws and conventions have to say, what Guantanamo Bay is is wrong. When a man can be taken and thrown in prison indefinately without ever even speaking to a lawyer, that is wrong. As a human being, it disgusts me. As a human being, I care and take notice when these poor suckers have to resort to commiting suicide.

As a human being, you should care too. What's this "wait, what are the technicalities and the laws before I decide where to stand morally" nonsense?

[Tyrinus]

They commited suicide...it was their decision, therefore...who cares.

3 people + nooses = World - 3 dumbasses

[Leto Atrides]

You are not a socialist. Go home and think about your life.

I really don't care about what the laws and conventions have to say, what Guantanamo Bay is is wrong. When a man can be taken and thrown in prison indefinately without ever even speaking to a lawyer, that is wrong. As a human being, it disgusts me. As a human being, I care and take notice when these poor suckers have to resort to commiting suicide.

As a human being, you should care too. What's this "wait, what are the technicalities and the laws before I decide where to stand morally" nonsense?

Who's to say that anyone should have to care about anyone else? Besides, they didn't necessarily "have to resort to suicide", they did it of their own volition. You don't know why they did it. There are many reasons.

Also, if, as it seems, you are saying that because he's not a socialist because he doesn't oppose that, that's not exactly true. Socialism is an economic and political philosophy first and foremost, not morality-based.

[kainedamo]

Politically and philosophically, he is not a socialist. Not necasserily because of this issue, but because of his "they're not american" and "they don't have to have a trial" comments.

[Emrys]

Who's to say that anyone should have to care about anyone else? Besides, they didn't necessarily "have to resort to suicide", .

Oh, not? What other options would have been there?

[logan_weapon_x]

****in' hippies, man!

[Leto Atrides]

Politically and philosophically, he is not a socialist. Not necasserily because of this issue, but because of his "they're not american" and "they don't have to have a trial" comments.

Alright, I thought you were saying he wasn't a socialist because he doesn't care about others, or something.


Oh, not? What other options would have been there?

I meant, desperation wasn't neccessarily their reason for doing it. There could have been other reasons. Trying to martyr themselves to further their cause, something like that. I'll admit, their only other option was to just stay in imprisonment indefinitely. I'm just saying, they could have had various lines of reasoning behind doing this.

[Emrys]

I meant, desperation wasn't neccessarily their reason for doing it. There could have been other reasons. Trying to martyr themselves to further their cause, something like that. I'll admit, their only other option was to just stay in imprisonment indefinitely. I'm just saying, they could have had various lines of reasoning behind doing this.

Possible however I, if I would have been in a similar situation would have done the same, probably even sooner.

[celldog]

That's 3 guys that won't be flying planes into our skyscrapers.

[Sarge 2.0]

What the hell does that even mean?

When's the last time there was a terrorist attack on American soil...oh yeah...five years ago. It's not like they would be doing anything like that even if they didn't commit suicide...they were incarcerated.

[Carter]

Well, frankly I'm glad they're dead
http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/8950/jacjjoker3la.jpg

[kainedamo]

That's 3 guys that won't be flying planes into our skyscrapers.

What Sarge said. Plus, the 3 guys never had a trial. Actually, what you said is dumb on soooooooooooooo many levels. There is not one logical thougt that went into your statement.

[Emrys]

That's 3 guys that won't be flying planes into our skyscrapers.

proof me that they would have.

[kainedamo]

What Celldog said is as stupid as me going out and killing 3 random Catholics, and saying "there's 3 guys that won't be boming Omagh!".

[Abaddon]

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/4407/tryandstopus6ei.jpg

[Armand Z Trip]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003294468_lawyer08.html


NEWARK, N.J. — The Navy lawyer who took the Guantánamo case of Osama bin Laden's driver to the U.S. Supreme Court — and won — has been passed over for promotion by the Pentagon and must soon leave the military.

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, 44, said last week he received word he had been denied a promotion to full-blown commander this summer, "about two weeks after" the Supreme Court sided against the White House and with his client, a Yemeni captive at the U.S. Navy base in southeast Cuba.
Under the military's "up-or-out" promotion system, Swift will retire in March or April, closing a 20-year career of military service.
A Pentagon appointee, Swift embraced the alleged al-Qaida's sympathizer's defense with a classic defense lawyer's zeal, casting his captive client as an innocent victim in the dungeon of King George, a startling analogy for the attorney whose commander-in-chief is President (George) Bush.

"It was a pleasure to serve," said Swift, who added that he would defend Salim Hamdan again, even if he knew he would have to leave the Navy earlier than he wanted.

"All I ever wanted was to make a difference — and in that sense, I think my career and personal satisfaction has been beyond my dreams," he said.
Swift, a Seattle University Law School graduate, also said he will continue to defend Hamdan as a civilian. The Seattle law firm of Perkins Coie, which provided pro-bono legal work in Hamdan's habeas corpus petition, has agreed to support Swift's defense of Hamdan in civilian life, he said.
Hamdan, 36, who has only a fourth-grade education, was captured along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan while fleeing the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, launched in reprisal for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He admits working as bin Laden's $200-a-month driver on a Kandahar farm but said he never joined al-Qaida and never fought anyone.
Still at Guantánamo as an enemy combatant, Hamdan halted his war-crimes trial by challenging the format's constitutionality through civilian courts.

The justices ruled in June that Bush overstepped his constitutional authority by creating ad hoc military tribunals for prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, sending the Pentagon back to the drawing board for the trials.
In the end, it developed a system very similar to those struck down, setting the stage for a likely new challenge this session.
In the opinion of Washington, D.C., attorney Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, Swift was "a no-brainer for promotion," given his devotion to the Navy, the law and his client.
But, he said, Swift is part of a long line of Navy defense lawyers "of tremendous distinction" who were not made full commander and "had their careers terminated prematurely."

"He brought real credit to the Navy," said Fidell. "It's too bad that it's unrequited love."

Swift's supervisor, the Pentagon's chief defense counsel for Military Commissions, said the career Navy officer had served with distinction.
"Charlie has obviously done an exceptional job, a really extraordinary job," said Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, a former American Civil Liberties Union attorney, calling it "quite a coincidence" that the Navy promotion board passed on promoting Swift "within two weeks of the Supreme Court opinion."

In June, the prestigious National Law Journal listed Swift among the nation's top 100 lawyers, with such legal luminaries as former Bush administration Solicitor General Theodore Olson, 66; Stanford Law constitutional-law expert Kathleen Sullivan, 50; and former Bush campaign recount attorney Fred Bartlit, 73.

Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, Pentagon spokesman on Guantánamo topics, did not respond to a query about the up-or-out system by which Navy lieutenant commanders are retired if they aren't promoted.

by Carol Rosenberg, Seattle Times 10/9

[maxwell's demon]

Anyone has anything bad to say about this guy, then they're really talking about every soldier who's ever done his job to the best of his ability.
good man.

[ord0g]

No prisoner in Guantanamo Bay will every get a fair trial so long as Bush is still president.

[hippie_hunter]

WASHINGTON (June 21) - The Bush administration is nearing a decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detainee facility and move its terror (javascript:;) suspects to military prisons elsewhere, The Associated Press has learned.

Senior administration officials said Thursday a consensus is building for a proposal to shut the center and transfer detainees to one or more Defense Department facilities, including the maximum-security military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., where they could face trial.

President Bush (javascript:;) 's national security and legal advisers had been scheduled to discuss the move at a meeting Friday, the officials said, but after news of it broke, the White House said the meeting would not take place that day and no decision on Guantanamo Bay's status is imminent.

"It's no longer on the schedule for tomorrow," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council. "Senior officials have met on the issue in the past, and I expect they will meet on the issue in the future."

Three senior administration officials spoke about the discussions on condition of anonymity because they were internal deliberations.

Expected to consult soon, according to the officials, were Vice President Dick Cheney (javascript:;) , Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (javascript:;) , Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace.

Previous plans to close Guantanamo ran into resistance from Cheney, Gonzales and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld (javascript:;) . But officials said the new suggestion is gaining momentum with at least tacit support from the State and Homeland Security departments, the Pentagon and the Intelligence directorate.

Cheney's office and the Justice Department have been against the step, arguing that moving "unlawful" enemy combatant suspects to the U.S. would give them undeserved legal rights.

They could block the proposal, but pressure to close Guantanamo has been building since a Supreme Court (javascript:;) decision last year that found illegal a previous system for prosecuting enemy combatants. Recent rulings by military judges threw out charges against two terrorism (javascript:;) suspects under a new tribunal scheme.

Those decisions have dealt a blow to the administration's efforts to begin prosecuting dozens of Guantanamo detainees regarded as the nation's most dangerous terror suspects.

In Congress (javascript:;) , recently introduced legislation would require Guantanamo's closure. One measure would designate Fort Leavenworth, located about 30 miles northwest of Kansas City in northeast Kansas, as the new detention facility.

Another bill would grant new rights to those held at Guantanamo Bay, including access to lawyers regardless of whether the prisoners are put on trial. Still another would allow detainees to protest their detentions in federal court, something they are now denied.

Gates, who took over the Pentagon after Rumsfeld was forced out last year, has said Congress and the administration should work together to allow the U.S. to imprison permanently some of the more dangerous Guantanamo Bay detainees elsewhere so the facility can be closed.

Military officials told Congress this month that the prison at Fort Leavenworth has 70 open beds and that the brig at a naval base in Charleston, S.C., has space for an additional 100 prisoners.

The Guantanamo Bay prison, where some 380 alleged terrorists are now detained, has been a flash point for criticism of the Bush administration at home and abroad. It was set up in 2002 to house terror suspects captured in military operations, mostly in Afghanistan (javascript:;) .

Because the facility is in Cuba, the administration has argued that detainees there are not covered by rights and protections afforded to those in U.S. prisons.

Human rights advocates and foreign leaders have repeatedly called for its closure, and the prison is regarded by many as proof of U.S. double standards on fundamental freedoms in the war on terrorism.

Some of the detainees come from countries that are U.S. allies, including Britain, Saudi Arabia and Australia. Each of those governments raised complaints about the conditions or duration of detentions, or about the possibility that detainees might face death sentences.

Rice has said she would like to see Guantanamo closed if a safe alternative could be found. She said during a trip to Spain this month that the United States "doesn't have any desire to be the world's jailer."

"I don't think anyone wants to see Guantanamo open one day longer than it is needed. But I also suspect nobody wants to see a number of dangerous people simply released out onto the streets," she said.

On Thursday, two Democratic lawmakers, Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida and Sen. Benjamin Cardin of Maryland, told a human rights commission that Guantanamo must be closed if the United States is to regain credibility and authority on human rights.

"The damage done to the United States goes beyond undermining our status as a global leader on human rights," Cardin said. "Our policies and practices regarding Guantanamo and other aspects of our detainee policies have undermined our authority to engage in the effective counterterrorism measures that are necessary for the very security of this country."

Officials say that Bush, who also has said he wants to close the facility as soon as possible, is keenly aware of its shortcomings.

His wife, Laura, and mother, Barbara, along with Rice and longtime adviser Karen Hughes, head of the public diplomacy office at the State Department, have told him that Guantanamo is a blot on the U.S. record abroad, particularly in the Muslim world and among European allies.

Bush has said the United States first has to determine what to do with the detainees there. The administration says some countries have refused to accept terror suspects from their territory.

Earlier this month, former Secretary of State Colin Powell called for the immediate closure of the prison, saying it posed an untenable foreign policy risk and was irreparably harming the U.S. image abroad.

Sen. John Kerry (javascript:;) , D-Mass., said in statement that "removing the stain Guantanamo has left on our foreign policy" is long overdue.

"It also goes a long way toward returning America's moral authority in the world and addressing the mistakes which have set us back in the fight against terrorism," said Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate.

AP Diplomatic Writer Anne Gearan and AP writer Deb Riechmann contributed to this report.

[Kritish]

I could care less, just give the land back to the Cubans when we leave.

[jaguarr]

This means that they can no longer rationalize the disaster that is Guantanamo in any way, shape or form and know they're going to have to get rid of it.

jag

[Spider-Bite]

White House shoots down Guantanamo report

No meeting Friday to discuss closing detention center, spokesman says

WASHINGTON - The White House (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19358932/#) on Thursday denied a report that top administration officials were expected to meet Friday to discuss closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and move the terror suspects there to military prisons elsewhere.
"No decisions on the future of Guantanamo Bay are imminent, and there will not be a White House meeting tomorrow," White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said in response to a report by the Associated Press.
The Associated Press quoted Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council, as saying the meeting was "no longer on the schedule for tomorrow."

Stanzel added that "the president has long expressed a desire to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and to do so in a responsible way. A number of steps need to take place before that can happen such as setting up military commissions and the repatriation to their home countries of detainees who have been cleared for released.
"These and other steps havenot been completed," Stanzel said.
The Associated Press, citing senior administration officials, had earlier reported that President Bush's national security and legal advisers were expected to discuss the move at the White House on Friday and that, for the first time, it appeared a consensus was developing.
The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal deliberations, said the advisers would consider a new proposal to shut the center and transfer detainees to one or more Defense Department facilities, including the maximum security military prison at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, where they could face trial.
Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19358932/#), Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Peter Pace were expected to attend, sources told the AP.
Cheney reluctant
Previous plans to close Guantanamo have run into resistance from Cheney, Gonzales and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19358932/#). But officials said the new suggestion is gaining momentum with at least tacit support from the State and Homeland Security departments, the Pentagon, and the intelligence directorate.
Cheney's office and the Justice Department have been dead-set against the step, arguing that moving "unlawful" enemy combatant suspects to the U.S. would give them undeserved legal rights.
They could still block the proposal, but pressure to close Guantanamo has been building since a Supreme Court decision last year that found a previous system for prosecuting enemy combatants illegal. Recent rulings by military judges threw out charges against two terrorism suspects under a new tribunal scheme.
Those decisions have dealt a blow to the administration's efforts to begin prosecuting dozens of Guantanamo detainees regarded as the nation's most dangerous terror suspects.
Moves on the Hill
In Congress, recently introduced legislation would require Guantanamo's closure. One measure would designate Fort Leavenworth as the new detention facility.
Another bill would grant new rights to those held at Guantanamo Bay, including access to lawyers regardless of whether the prisoners are put on trial. Still another would allow detainees to protest their detentions in federal court, something they are now denied.
Gates, who took over the Pentagon after Rumsfeld was forced out last year, has said Congress and the administration should work together to allow the U.S. to permanently imprison some of the more dangerous Guantanamo Bay detainees elsewhere so the facility can be closed.
Military officials told Congress this month that the prison at Fort Leavenworth has 70 open beds and that the brig at a naval base in Charleston, S.C., has space for an additional 100 prisoners.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19358932/

[SLVRSR4]

BUt i just applied there! If we give that back to Cuba then the Communists and TErrorists win!

[Asteroid-Man]

FREE CUBA! *ahem* where was I?

[Darth Elektra]

It should be closed.

[Kritish]

It should be closed.

They’re terrorists, I could give a damn about them.

[Darth Elektra]

They’re terrorists, I could give a damn about them.

Have they been proven guilty?

[StorminNorman]

The biggest problem with the Guantanamo is the over exaggerated nature of it. It has become a symbol of American corruption when in reality it is not half as bad as most associate it with.

[Kritish]

Have they been proven guilty?

The CIA seems to think so.

[Addendum]

The CIA isn't a court of law

[Kritish]

The CIA isn't a court of law

But half the crap they have on those people is probably classified.

[Addendum]

There's still a little thing called Habeas Corpus

[Kritish]

There's still a little thing called Habeas Corpus

I’m not completely sure but I think that only applies to civilians.

[Addendum]

And that's what the detainees in Guantanamo are

[Kritish]

And that's what the detainees in Guantanamo are

Meh, I’ve got bigger political things that piss me off. I’ll let someone fuss over this so that they can be sentenced, found guilty and put back in prison.

[Addendum]

And it's not a big deal to me either.

It has no effect on my bills

[Darth Elektra]

The CIA isn't a court of law

Exactly.

[Spider-Bite]

The problem with this is that we are giving the government the power to silence anybody they don't want heard. Imagine if me and 10 other people uncover a government conspiracy, like say for a hypothetical example, Bush was in on 9/11. Bush could have us all locked away with no trial or chance to take the stand and tell people what we know, and nobody would ever find out or hear from us again.

It's the complete opposite of democracy. That's why secret prisons like these aren't supposed to exist.

[SLVRSR4]

US isn't about democracy it's what started Vietnam. THey wanted free elections that would go communism so we forced them not to have them. When was the U.S ever about Democracy?

[Addendum]

The problem with this is that we are giving the government the power to silence anybody they don't want heard. Imagine if me and 10 other people uncover a government conspiracy, like say for a hypothetical example, Bush was in on 9/11. Bush could have us all locked away with no trial or chance to take the stand and tell people what we know, and nobody would ever find out or hear from us again.

It's the complete opposite of democracy. That's why secret prisons like these aren't supposed to exist.

I'm too old and cynical to buy into fear-mongering. Try again

[Spider-Bite]

I'm too old and cynical to buy into fear-mongering. Try again

Then you lack the ability to see your world you live in. You really trust the government that much, that you think they wont lock somebody up for their own self interest? You think nobody will ever take advantage of unchecked power?

Think again. If they are never given a trial, and they are never heard from, than what's to stop a person from taking advantage of it?

This is the whole reason our constitution forbid this. Leaders and governments have been doing this for thousands of years, and that's reality. The whole intention behind the constitution forbidding this, was to protect democracy. It's called checks and balances.

[Spider-Bite]

US isn't about democracy it's what started Vietnam. THey wanted free elections that would go communism so we forced them not to have them. When was the U.S ever about Democracy?

I will always behave as though it is a democracy, and if it's not? I will take up arms to make it one. I will not vote for a pro-dictatorship politician. I wont. I will only vote for somebody who believes in Democracy.

[Addendum]

Then you lack the ability to see your world you live in. You really trust the government that much, that you think they wont lock somebody up for their own self interest? You think nobody will ever take advantage of unchecked power?

Think again. If they are never given a trial, and they are never heard from, than what's to stop a person from taking advantage of it?

This is the whole reason our constitution forbid this. Leaders and governments have been doing this for thousands of years, and that's reality. The whole intention behind the constitution forbidding this, was to protect democracy. It's called checks and balances.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cynical&x=0&y=0

As for those in Guantanamo Bay...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay_detainees

Only one person was once a US citizen.

So I don't have anything to worry about.

[rdh007]

KdmLmIArqWM

[PhotoJones]

So what I got from this article is that Bush wants to close Guantanamo so they can open other facilities in undisclosed locations so they can continue ignoring the Geneva Conventions without the "interference" of the media.

[Golgo-13]

Obama Preparing Order to Close Gitmo

By LARA JAKES, AP
posted: 13 HOURS 8 MINUTES AGOcomments: 1369filed under: POLITICAL NEWS, THE OBAMA PRESIDENCYPrintShareText SizeAAA
WASHINGTON (Jan. 12) - President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to issue an executive order his first week in office — and perhaps his first day — to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, according to two presidential transition team advisers. It's unlikely the detention facility at the Navy base in Cuba will be closed anytime soon. In an interview last weekend, Obama said it would be "a challenge" to close it even within the first 100 days of his administration.
But the order, which one adviser said could be issued as early as Jan. 20, would start the process of deciding what to do with the estimated 250 al-Qaida and Taliban suspects and potential witnesses who are being held there. Most have not been charged with a crime.

The Guantanamo directive would be one of a series of executive orders Obama is planning to issue shortly after he takes office next Tuesday, according to the two advisers. Also expected is an executive order about certain interrogation methods, but details were not immediately available Monday.
The advisers spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the orders that have not yet been finalized.
Obama transition team spokeswoman Brooke Anderson declined comment Monday.
The American Civil Liberties Union called the order an important first step, but demanded details on how Guantanamo will be shuttered.

"What we need are specifics about the timeline for the shuttering of the military commissions and the release or charging of detainees who have been indefinitely held for years," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said in a statement. "An executive order lacking such detail, especially after the transition team has had months to develop a comprehensive plan on an issue this important, would be insufficient."
The two advisers said the executive order will direct the new administration to look at each of the cases of the Guantanamo detainees to see whether they can be released or if they should still be held — and if so, where.

Many of the Guantanamo detainees are cleared for release, and others could be sent back to their native countries and held there. But many nations have resisted Bush administration efforts to repatriate the prisoners back home. Both Obama advisers said it's hoped that nations that had initially resisted taking detainees will be more willing to do so after dealing with the new administration.
What remains the thorniest issue for Obama, the advisers said, is what to do with the rest of the prisoners — including at least 15 so-called "high value detainees" considered among the most dangerous there.
Detainees held on U.S. soil would have certain legal rights that they were not entitled to while imprisoned in Cuba. It's also not clear if they would face trial through the current military tribunal system, or in federal civilian courts, or though a to-be-developed legal system that would mark a hybrid of the two.
Where to imprison the detainees also is a problem.
Obama promised during the presidential campaign to shut Guantanamo, endearing him to constitutional law experts, civil libertarians and other critics who called the Bush administration detentions a violation of international law.
But he acknowledged in an interview Sunday that the process of closing the prison would be harder and longer than initially thought.

"That's a challenge," Obama said on ABC's "This Week." "I think it's going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do.
"But I don't want to be ambiguous about this," he said. "We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our constitution."
President George W. Bush established military tribunals to prosecute detainees at Guantanamo. He also supports closing the prison, but strongly opposes bringing prisoners to the United States.
Lawmakers have moved to block transfer of the detainees to at least two potential and frequently discussed military facilities: an Army prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. A Marine Corps prison at Camp Pendleton in Southern California also is under consideration, a Pentagon official said.
Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., said Monday that "it's hard to show why terror suspects should be housed in Kansas."
"If the holding facility at Guantanamo Bay is closed, a new facility should be built, designed specifically to handle detainees," Brownback said in a statement.
A Pentagon team also has been looking at how to shut Guantanamo and move its detainees, but spokesman Bryan Whitman did not immediately know Monday whether it was completed.

Source:http://news.aol.com/article/obama-preparing-order-to-close-gitmo/303102

[Matt]

Just out of curiousity, what is going to become of the 250 terrorists? While I'm sure some are wrongfully accused, I'm guessing a good poriton of them are not. So what becomes of them?

[SuBe]

Just out of curiousity, what is going to become of the 250 terrorists? While I'm sure some are wrongfully accused, I'm guessing a good poriton of them are not. So what becomes of them?
They move them into the United States, where the ACLU represents them. They get off in a technocality, but no other Nation wants to accept them. They move to Ohio, set up shop, band together, and carry out the Sequel to 9-11. Except this time, they have immunity. :yay:

[Nivek]

Just out of curiousity, what is going to become of the 250 terrorists? While I'm sure some are wrongfully accused, I'm guessing a good poriton of them are not. So what becomes of them?

They get sent to the magical, liberating world of Unicorns, Leprechauns, and Lollypop Trees....

a.k.a A refurbished Oil rig turned into prison barge in the North Sea.

[moraldeficiency]

I thought we'd just open the doors and they'd run over flower cover fields into cuba while "born free" was playing in the background. At least that's how I'd do it.

[chamber-music]

Let them lose in the down town of a US city with a large crime rate. I'm sure a drive by in St Louis will take them out.

[RAMORE]

They move them into the United States, where the ACLU represents them. They get off in a technocality, but no other Nation wants to accept them. They move to Ohio, set up shop, band together, and carry out the Sequel to 9-11. Except this time, they have immunity. :yay:

This is what i'm worried about:csad: I mean those not of high interest or wrongfully detained need to be compensated and sent home the others....:huh: I dunno

[moraldeficiency]

liberty city, they'd be begging for the comforts and safety of gitmo after 20 minutes.

[Nivek]

They move them into the United States, where the ACLU represents them. They get off in a technocality, but no other Nation wants to accept them. They move to Ohio, set up shop, band together, and carry out the Sequel to 9-11. Except this time, they have immunity. :yay:


Hey, does jack Bauer save the day in your fictional little tale as well?

C'mon, Ohio? That's as bad as the slums of St. Louis that someone else recommended. They will want to kill themselves from boredom and shame from living there before they band together like IED Superfriends.

[SuBe]

Ohio, from what I hear, tends to be a Haven for "Terrorists" to hide. When I lived there, I remember the FBI foiling a plot to bomb a Mall in Columbus. It's easy to get off the Radar there. Too many Corn Fields. :ninja:

And, I don't know anything about Jack Bauer. I don't watch 24.

[moraldeficiency]

And, I don't know anything about Jack Bauer. I don't watch 24.

that makes you a terrorist.

[SuBe]

that makes you a terrorist.
Probably. Are you listening to my Phone Calls?

[moraldeficiency]

Probably. Are you listening to my Phone Calls?

I guess now I have to as part of my patriotic duty.

[StorminNorman]

Closing Gitmo would be a mistake, IMO.

A report just came out that 11% of those RELEASED from Gitmo return a rejoin terrorist organizations.

We have to have some place to put these terrorists off of American soil.

[Nivek]

That's how it was always done, till these chumps took office and back handed acknowledged that we torture to get information out of these guys.

I'm not 100% against torture, but when you publicly mention that you torture, your a moron. Especially when you leave it in the hands of some kids that may not be smart enough to NOT TAKE PICTURES. Morons...

[Nivek]

A report just came out that 11% of those RELEASED from Gitmo return a rejoin terrorist organizations.


Yeah, because after we put these guys through hell and made them hate us even more, they have a defined reason to unify against us and our allies around the world. Torture creates Terrorists, thats why most CIA Analysts don't approve of it, especially with these "Terrorists"/ Foreign Fighters/ Insurgents. It has been stated it was counter productive and failed to give us any real results.

[StorminNorman]

Yeah, because after we put these guys through hell and made them hate us even more, they have a defined reason to unify against us and our allies around the world. Torture creates Terrorists, thats why most CIA Analysts don't approve of it, especially with these "Terrorists"/ Foreign Fighters/ Insurgents. It has been stated it was counter productive and failed to give us any real results.

This is a false statement.

[DACrowe]

Send them to other prisons around the world that we have set up and have them tried by military tribunals to to gauge their innocence and guilt.

Pretty simple. Quit using torture (at least blatantly in the public) redeem some of the shame Gitmo has brought the American brand and carry forward.

[The Overlord]

Closing Gitmo would be a mistake, IMO.

A report just came out that 11% of those RELEASED from Gitmo return a rejoin terrorist organizations.

We have to have some place to put these terrorists off of American soil.

But how do we know they are all guitly?

[Golgo-13]

I believe that this is a no win situation. I'm guess that the percentage of ppl that are guilty of terrorist activity vs those that are innocen; the inmates that are innocent outnumber the guilty ones.

Those that are innocent, no doubt have some level of ill feelings toward the US for being held without trial, rights violated,etc; therefore they may seriously consider now joining a terrorist group.

I heard an adage once: 'torture one person suspected of being a terrorist and by doing so you create seven more'...or something like that.

[StorminNorman]

But how do we know they are all guitly?


I care more about the ones what happens to the guilty - the ones that want to kill us, the ones that make up the overwhelming majority of people in Gitmo - than the ones that are innocent, personally.

[The Overlord]

I care more about the ones what happens to the guilty - the ones that want to kill us, the ones that make up the overwhelming majority of people in Gitmo - than the ones that are innocent, personally.

But isn't that undemocratic, isn't the cocnept of American justice "innocent until proven guilty" wouldn't it be fundamentally unjust if an innocent person was being kept at Gitmo indefinitely.

For all we know, there could be victims of Taliban press gangs in Gitmo.

[StorminNorman]

But isn't that undemocratic, isn't the cocnept of American justice "innocent until proven guilty" wouldn't it be fundamentally unjust if an innocent person was being kept at Gitmo indefinitely.

For all we know, there could be victims of Taliban press gangs in Gitmo.

Its not undemocratic. The American Justice system should be reserved for American citizens, its not meant for terrorists. The Geneva conventions aren't meant for terrorists.



It is unjust for an innocent person to be kept in Gitmo - I am not saying it isn't. I am saying I would prefer an innocent person be kept in Gitmo forever than see a terrorist get out of Gitmo and kill 3,000 people.

[hippie_hunter]

Its not undemocratic. The American Justice system should be reserved for American citizens, its not meant for terrorists. The Geneva conventions aren't meant for terrorists.



It is unjust for an innocent person to be kept in Gitmo - I am not saying it isn't. I am saying I would prefer an innocent person be kept in Gitmo forever than see a terrorist get out of Gitmo and kill 3,000 people.

The American justice system is meant for everyone tried under American law and prosecutors. And granted that the Geneva Conventions are not meant for terrorists, it still doesn't give us the right to be torturing people regardless of their origins. We're the United States of America, the defenders of freedom, justice, democracy, and human rights. We should be above doing such actions.

We should close down the prison in Guantanamo Bay. I understand the need for such a detention center for terrorists, but it has tainted our image around the world. We should move them to ADX Florence, charge them with a crime, hold trials for them, keep and punish the ones that are guilty, and compensate the ones found innocent.

[StorminNorman]

The American justice system is meant for everyone tried under American law and prosecutors. And granted that the Geneva Conventions are not meant for terrorists, it still doesn't give us the right to be torturing people regardless of their origins. We're the United States of America. We should be above doing such actions.

And those in Gitmo shouldn't be tried under American law with American prosecutors.

We should close down the prison in Guantanamo Bay. I understand the need for such a detention center for terrorists, but it has tainted our image around the world. We should move them to ADX Florence, charge them with a crime, hold trials for them, keep and punish the ones that are guilty, and compensate the ones found innocent.

Al Queda is trained to use the American legal system against us. Any plan that involves bringing those in Gitmo to America is unacceptable, dangerous and devastatingly naive. We can not expect our soldiers in battle to act as both police and soldier - they should not be concerned with collecting evidence on the battlefield.

Gitmo has become a symbol for anti-American feelings, I get that. Its stupid, but I get that. Close down Gitmo and then move those in Gitmo to another, similar building off American soil.

[Paradoxium]

Give them welfare checks, assault rifles and explosives and ship them to California. Preferably near the Hollywood area :woot:

[Addendum]

No is saying that the soldier should gather evidence. Just that the government should actually charge them with a crime, and that the defendant should have access to the evidence just like in any criminal proceeding.

The rule of law shouldn't be thrown out the window

[hippie_hunter]

And those in Gitmo shouldn't be tried under American law with American prosecutors.
Why not? They were captured by Americans and would you rather have them be tried under some other system that might be more sympathetic and let them go?

The Supreme Court also ruled that they're entitled to all the legal protections of the United States Constitution.

Al Queda is trained to use the American legal system against us. Any plan that involves bringing those in Gitmo to America is unacceptable, dangerous and devastatingly naive. We can not expect our soldiers in battle to act as both police and soldier - they should not be concerned with collecting evidence on the battlefield.
Transferring terrorists to Colorado is not naive. And the military already has the Criminal Investigation Task Force to do things like this, we don't need regular soldiers to act as both police and soldier.

Gitmo has become a symbol for anti-American feelings, I get that. Its stupid, but I get that. Close down Gitmo and then move those in Gitmo to another, similar building off American soil.
Don't you know how secure ADX Florence is? That's where we keep our most dangerous criminals. That place already has several al-Qaeda terrorists who were convicted and tried who were involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, 9/11, the embassy bombings and whatnot.

[StorminNorman]

Why not? They were captured by Americans and would you rather have them be tried under some other system that might be more sympathetic and let them go?

No, I think they should either be tried by a Military Law or not tried at all.

The Supreme Court also ruled that they're entitled to all the legal protections of the United States Constitution.

And they are wrong and foolish.

Transferring terrorists to Colorado is not naive. And the military already has the Criminal Investigation Task Force to do things like this, we don't need regular soldiers to act as both police and soldier.

You put them on American soil and they go through American courts that will require soldiers to testify and prosecutors to present evidence putting pressure on our soldiers.

We would never put POW's in American Court Rooms, we shouldn't treat Terrorist better than true soldiers.

Don't you know how secure ADX Florence is? That's where we keep our most dangerous criminals. That place already has several al-Qaeda terrorists who were convicted and tried who were involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, 9/11, the embassy bombings and whatnot.

I don't doubt the security of ADX, I am not worried about a jailbreak - I am worried about treating them as you would a murder or a rapist.

[StorminNorman]

No is saying that the soldier should gather evidence. Just that the government should actually charge them with a crime, and that the defendant should have access to the evidence just like in any criminal proceeding.

The rule of law shouldn't be thrown out the window

But we shouldn't treat terrorists in Gitmo as a defendant. Its exactly the sort of stupidity that will cost us as a country.

[Addendum]

I don't think following the rule of law is stupidity

[StorminNorman]

I don't think following the rule of law is stupidity

Then thats fine, we disagree. I just don't think terrorists should be treated the same as a guy that robbed a 7/11 or even a guy that killed his wife that cheated on him.

[Matt]

But what of those who are truly innocent, Norm? I agree the American legal system is not right for them, but military tribunals are more often than not dog and pony shows with the object of finding guilt, not justice. I think Obama needs to find a middle ground.

[Addendum]

When the Allies had the Nuremberg War Trials, they didn't create a new set of rules to deal with the Nazis. They used the same rule of law the Nazis corrupted, trampled on, or otherwise flagrantly ignored. Why should the US take the opposite approach with regard to terrorists?

[StorminNorman]

But what of those who are truly innocent, Norm? I agree the American legal system is not right for them, but military tribunals are more often than not dog and pony shows with the object of finding guilt, not justice. I think Obama needs to find a middle ground.

Again, I think the question is more "what about those who are guilty".

If there is a middle ground, then lets hear it. But I would rather have the occasional innocent person rotting in prison than have 3000 innocent people dead because a terrorist escaped custody via the legal system.

The American Government and American Legal system's first responsibility should be to that of their citizens, not an arab farmer who got caught in the middle of a fire fight.

[Matt]

When the Allies had the Nuremberg War Trials, they didn't create a new set of rules to deal with the Nazis. They used the same rule of law the Nazis corrupted, trampled on, or otherwise flagrantly ignored. Why should the US take the opposite approach with regard to terrorists?

:huh:

No they didn't. There were no juries or appeals process. The Nuremberg Trials were held by a panel of judges from the enemy countries of the Axis defendants, who determined guilt or innocence.

[StorminNorman]

When the Allies had the Nuremberg War Trials, they didn't create a new set of rules to deal with the Nazis. They used the same rule of law the Nazis corrupted, trampled on, or otherwise flagrantly ignored. Why should the US take the opposite approach with regard to terrorists?

Because the two are incomparable.

[Matt]

Again, I think the question is more "what about those who are guilty".

If there is a middle ground, then lets hear it. But I would rather have the occasional innocent person rotting in prison than have 3000 innocent people dead because a terrorist escaped custody via the legal system.

The American Government and American Legal system's first responsibility should be to that of their citizens, not an arab farmer who got caught in the middle of a fire fight.

I dunno, Norm. That is gray...even for me.

[The Overlord]

But we shouldn't treat terrorists in Gitmo as a defendant. Its exactly the sort of stupidity that will cost us as a country.

We do know they are all terrorists though? For all we know, some of them could victims of Taliban press gangs or something.

Should we assume they are all guilty because they aren't American citizens? I mean if a Canadian tourist was accused of a crime in the US, I don't think people would just assume he is guilty and forgo a trial.

[StorminNorman]

I dunno, Norm. That is gray...even for me.

Of course its gray. But I have yet to hear anything that isn't gray. If we are going to be dealing with fire (on one hand is the life of an innocent man, on the other is making it easier for terrorists to go free) my first priority is the safety of America, not the individual.

I don't like it. It leaves a bitter and disgusting taste in my mouth, but sometimes that is required. I would love to find a middle ground, but I have not yet see one.

[StorminNorman]

We do know they are all terrorists though? For all we know, some of them could victims of Taliban press gangs or something.

Should we assume they are all guilty because they aren't American citizens? I mean if a Canadian tourist was accused of a crime in the US, I don't think people would just assume he is guilty and forgo a trial.

I don't know that all of them are terrorists, as I have stated.

[The Overlord]

Of course its gray. But I have yet to hear anything that isn't gray. If we are going to be dealing with fire (on one hand is the life of an innocent man, on the other is making it easier for terrorists to go free) my first priority is the safety of America, not the individual.

I don't like it. It leaves a bitter and disgusting taste in my mouth, but sometimes that is required. I would love to find a middle ground, but I have not yet see one.

I thought you were a libertarian? In this case aren't you putting the rights of the state above the rights of an individual, isn't that anti libertarian?

[StorminNorman]

I thought you were a libertarian? In this case aren't you putting the rights of the state above the rights of an individual, isn't that anti libertarian?

Libertarian regarding American citizens relationship with their government.

[The Overlord]

Libertarian regarding American citizens relationship with their government.

So you are certain values should depend on something like nationality? That's slippery slope right there, look where this leads, George W. Bush was able to claim Jose Pedia, An American citizen, an illegal combatant, saying he shouldn't get a trail. This is the logical conclusion of the the precedences set by Gitmo.

[StorminNorman]

So you are certain values should depend on something like nationality? That's slippery slope right there, look where this leads, George W. Bush was able to claim Jose Pedia, An American citizen, an illegal combatant, saying he shouldn't get a trail. This is the logical conclusion of the the precedences set by Gitmo.

It has nothing to do with their nationality. If a kid from California joined Al Queda, I would want him treated like his comrades. If some guy from Italy is in America and commits a crime, he should be treated like any other.

[The Overlord]

It has nothing to do with their nationality. If a kid from California joined Al Queda, I would want him treated like his comrades. If some guy from Italy is in America and commits a crime, he should be treated like any other.

So now you are saying American citizens accused of being terrorists can be striped of their rights? That seems very Orwellian to me.

[StorminNorman]

So now you are saying American citizens accused of being terrorists can be striped of their rights? That seems very Orwellian to me.

I am saying that those found on the battlefield aiding the other side should be treated as terrorists.

Now those found in America, thats different to me. Those should be tried in Federal Proceedings. I have no problem with that. My objections is in BRINGING terrorist to America to bring to trial.

[The Overlord]

I am saying that those found on the battlefield aiding the other side should be treated as terrorists.

Now those found in America, thats different to me. Those should be tried in Federal Proceedings. I have no problem with that. My objections is in BRINGING terrorist to America to bring to trial.

So you are saying the fact that its possible that some of the prisoners in Gitmo could be victims of Taliban press gangs and not terrorists, is irrelevant?

[Superman]

Closing Gitmo would be a mistake, IMO.

A report just came out that 11% of those RELEASED from Gitmo return a rejoin terrorist organizations.

We have to have some place to put these terrorists off of American soil.Why "Off of American soil"? If they are all guilty like you seem to think wouldn't a fair trial find that out and putting them in an American prison be just as good as holding them indefinitely without any rights?

Or are you afraid to find out that the "Great Country of America" might have been wrong in holding possibly innocent people for so long for no good reason?

[Matt]

Why "Off of American soil"? If they are all guilty like you seem to think wouldn't a fair trial find that out and putting them in an American prison be just as good as holding them indefinitely without any rights?

Or are you afraid to find out that the "Great Country of America" might have been wrong in holding possibly innocent people for so long for no good reason?

But I see what Norm is saying. Soldiers aren't detectives. They don't gather evidence on their captured enemies in order to build a case. I mean, the testimony of a few soldiers isn't much in a court of law. Plus, being arrested on the battle field probably will result in some kind of technicallity that gets them off. Soldiers shouldn't have to worry about abiding by police regulation and procedures on the battle field.

[Addendum]

Like I said earlier, no one is saying that the soldiers should also be policemen.

[StorminNorman]

Like I said earlier, no one is saying that the soldiers should also be policemen.

You can't have it both ways. You can't have a fair trial and not have soldiers performing the work of police.

[Matt]

Exactly. You cited Nuremberg, Addendum but as I pointed out, those were not fair trials as defined by our constitution. A panel of judges oversaw a witch hunt. But in the end, the witch hunt was right, because without it, mass murderers would've walked. There is no way to get a conviction against war criminals in a normal court.

[Alex The Great]

Just out of curiousity, what is going to become of the 250 terrorists? While I'm sure some are wrongfully accused, I'm guessing a good poriton of them are not. So what becomes of them?
They Duke it out in the Next Survivor Season for the Job to Replace Bluhgoyavich

[The Overlord]

Exactly. You cited Nuremberg, Addendum but as I pointed out, those were not fair trials as defined by our constitution. A panel of judges oversaw a witch hunt. But in the end, the witch hunt was right, because without it, mass murderers would've walked. There is no way to get a conviction against war criminals in a normal court.

Weren't they at least open to the public?

[Addendum]

You can't have it both ways. You can't have a fair trial and not have soldiers performing the work of police.
So there aren't federal agencies that can used to gather evidence? Or does the federal government solely rely on the military for administering law and order

[Matt]

Weren't they at least open to the public?

I believe so, but it was not in the sense that you think. They took place in Germany. This was before the days of mass communication. Its not like the media could actively report on them as they could today, so while they were open, its not as if people were aware of what was going on.

[Matt]

So there aren't federal agencies that can used to gather evidence? Or does the federal government solely rely on the military for administering law and order

Not really. Most of these people are captured in war zones. Its not within the jurisdiction of most law enforcement agencies and those who do have access to those types of places (such as the CIA) would be taking a huge security risk by going into an active war zone to gather evidence that really doesn't exisit. These people are born in third world countries, they don't have social security numbers or anything like that. They can entirely fal off the radar by the age of 13 to join a terrorist cell. You can't investigate them by traditional means. These countries aren't like a modern country with birth records, SS numbers, etc. We don't even necessarily know who these people are.

[Addendum]

I believe so, but it was not in the sense that you think. They took place in Germany. This was before the days of mass communication. Its not like the media could actively report on them as they could today, so while they were open, its not as if people were aware of what was going on.

Yeah, it's not like anyone in the US was aware of what was going on in the war. Because it took place in Europe and in the Pacific, and there just wasn't enough time for news reports on the radio

[Matt]

Yeah, it's not like anyone in the US was aware of what was going on in the war. Because it took place in Europe and in the Pacific, and there just wasn't enough time for news reports on the radio

Radio or none, it still wasn't the same. The trials could be over before news of even the start of the defendant's trial got state-side. It was a different time. There wasn't minute-by-minute updates like today. Plus, its still not the same. Nuremberg was not as you claimed, comprable to our justice system. There was no appeal process, no jury. The United States justice system is not equipped to handle war criminals and they realized it in the midst of Nuremberg, they should realize it now.

[The Overlord]

I believe so, but it was not in the sense that you think. They took place in Germany. This was before the days of mass communication. Its not like the media could actively report on them as they could today, so while they were open, its not as if people were aware of what was going on.

Its still something better then what we have with Gitmo, I'm pretty sure I have seen some early footage from the Nuremberg trials, at least a public was made. Isn't that better then just assuming everyone is guilty in Gitmo?

Not really. Most of these people are captured in war zones. Its not within the jurisdiction of most law enforcement agencies and those who do have access to those types of places (such as the CIA) would be taking a huge security risk by going into an active war zone to gather evidence that really doesn't exisit. These people are born in third world countries, they don't have social security numbers or anything like that. They can entirely fal off the radar by the age of 13 to join a terrorist cell. You can't investigate them by traditional means. These countries aren't like a modern country with birth records, SS numbers, etc. We don't even necessarily know who these people are.

What about Omar Khadr, we know who he. First he was a cihld solider and I'm pretty sure there are rules on whether you can treat a child solider like a POW and second he is charged with killing soldier and the evidence is he was the only fighter left alive in alive in the building when he was killed, however another solider has put that into doubt, saying that some other fighter may still have been alive at the time.

Are you saying Khadr's status as a child soldier at the time of his arrest and the conflicting stories of the soldiers shouldn't be considered here?

[Matt]

Its still something better then what we have with Gitmo, I'm pretty sure I have seen some early footage from the Nuremberg trials, at least a public was made. Isn't that better then just assuming everyone is guilty in Gitmo?

No, I don't they should just rot in Gitmo. I tend to think they should be prosecuted in a military tribunal which does not require the same burden of proof and is better adapted to try criminals of war. However, I think it should be tried by fair minded military judges, it should not be a witch hunt like past tribunals. But to try to adjudicate them based on the US justice system is incredibly naive and foolish.

[Addendum]

Radio or none, it still wasn't the same. The trials could be over before news of even the start of the defendant's trial got state-side. It was a different time. There wasn't minute-by-minute updates like today.
I guess no one is above ********ting.

[Matt]

I guess no one is above ********ting.

You're saying I'm wrong? Radio transmitions in those days were for the most part short term. It wasn't a mass media system like today.

[The Overlord]

No, I don't they should just rot in Gitmo. I tend to think they should be prosecuted in a military tribunal which does not require the same burden of proof and is better adapted to try criminals of war. However, I think it should be tried by fair minded military judges, it should not be a witch hunt like past tribunals. But to try to adjudicate them based on the US justice system is incredibly naive and foolish.

Okay but will their lawyers have access to all the evidence and will there be oversight to ensure everything is fair?

[Matt]

What about Omar Khadr, we know who he. First he was a cihld solider and I'm pretty sure there are rules on whether you can treat a child solider like a POW and second he is charged with killing soldier and the evidence is he was the only fighter left alive in alive in the building when he was killed, however another solider has put that into doubt, saying that some other fighter may still have been alive at the time.

Are you saying Khadr's status as a child soldier at the time of his arrest and the conflicting stories of the soldiers shouldn't be considered here?

He deserves a hearing. No, he does not deserve an American trial. The American justice system is not equipped to adjudicate war criminals. Which is why I support a tribunal with a specific emphasis on fairness. It shouldn't be a witch hunt, but it also shouldn't be the same as a criminal trial in the US.

[Matt]

Okay but will their lawyers have access to all the evidence and will there be oversight to ensure everything is fair?

Absolutely, but due to the unique nature of their status (they were captured on a battle field, not arrested)...they should not have the same loopholes and technicalities that are granted in an American criminal trial.

[The Overlord]

He deserves a hearing. No, he does not deserve an American trial. The American justice system is not equipped to adjudicate war criminals. Which is why I support a tribunal with a specific emphasis on fairness. It shouldn't be a witch hunt, but it also shouldn't be the same as a criminal trial in the US.

Well considering he is Canadian, he should get a Canadian trial, the fact is he shouldn't have been in gitmo for the past 6 years and now he is claiming he was tortured.

Absolutely, but due to the unique nature of their status (they were captured on a battle field, not arrested)...they should not have the same loopholes and technicalities that are granted in an American criminal trial.

That's the problem with the Gitmo trials, those things don't happen there. Maybe they shouldn't tried in the US, but Gitmo is a legal abomination and the fact no one has done anything to change its status as such is disgraceful.

[Matt]

Well considering he is Canadian, he should get a Canadian trial, the fact is he shouldn't have been in gitmo for the past 6 years and now he is claiming he was tortured.

No he shouldn't. Was he not captured by American soldiers for crimes against Americans? If a Canadian comes into America and robs a bank, they are not tried in Canada.

[Addendum]

You're saying I'm wrong? Radio transmitions in those days were for the most part short term. It wasn't a mass media system like today.

So what? That doesn't diminish the fact that people were still able to keep up with what happened in Europe and the Pacific during the war. Even if new events would happen, they would still be reported. You can't fault the coverage for the technological limitations that existed then.

[Matt]

So what? That doesn't diminish the fact that people were still able to keep up with what happened in Europe and the Pacific during the war. Even if new events would happen, they would still be reported. You can't fault the coverage for the technological limitations that existed then.

No, but you also cannot compare it to today as you are trying to do.

[Addendum]

There was press coverage. No matter what the technological limitations were, it was still press coverage. People were able to keep up with what happened. Just because it was impossible to have 24/7 up to the minute coverage in the 40's doesn't mean that no one covered the war trials

[The Overlord]

No he shouldn't. Was he not captured by American soldiers for crimes against Americans? If a Canadian comes into America and robs a bank, they are not tried in Canada.

He was captured Afghanistan, that's not American soil, plus as noted I'm pretty sure its illegal under international law to treat child soldiers as POWs.

[StorminNorman]

He was captured Afghanistan, that's not American soil, plus as noted I'm pretty sure its illegal under international law to treat child soldiers as POWs.


He wasn't treated as a POW. No one in Gitmo is a POW.

[Marx]

He wasn't treated as a POW. No one in Gitmo is a POW.

They're 'unlawful enemy combatants'. (Hence the illegality.)

[Addendum]

But even then, they are still "to be treated with humanity, and in the case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial" under the fourth Geneva Convention.

[The Overlord]

He wasn't treated as a POW. No one in Gitmo is a POW.

Totally irrelevant, that has nothing to do with my point.

You treat him as whatever the prisoners at Gitmo are supposed to be, because he was a child solider and the rules governing child soldiers means you don't treat them same as you would an adult combatant, him even being at Gitmo is an extreme violation of international law.

[Hush]

It will be a HUGE mistake to close Gitmo, nothing but bad can come from it.

[Addendum]

And nothing but bad has come from it

Detainee Tortured, Says U.S. Official
Trial Overseer Cites 'Abusive' Methods Against 9/11 Suspect
The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372.html?hpid=topnews

[Marx]

It will be a HUGE mistake to close Gitmo, nothing but bad can come from it.

Policies like Gitmo have only furthered the causes of extremists. I look forward to its closing.

[Matt]

Policies like Gitmo have only furthered the causes of extremists. I look forward to its closing.

It depends on what they do with the detainees. Gitmo needs to be closed simply because of what it represents. However, they should not be moved to prisons on American soil and adjudicated in the American justice system. A military tribunal seems far more fitting

[Marx]

It depends on what they do with the detainees. Gitmo needs to be closed simply because of what it represents. However, they should not be moved to prisons on American soil and adjudicated in the American justice system. A military tribunal seems far more fitting

I completely agree man.

[Matt]

I completely agree man.

The only down side is, tribunals tend to be witch hunts. Any kind of tribunal that is formed to respond to this must place a specific emphasis on fairness and truth. Not just locking people away.

[moraldeficiency]

we can't just open the doors and tell them to enjoy cuba their new home?

[Matt]

we can't just open the doors and tell them to enjoy cuba their new home?

No way! Why should they get better health care than me!?!

Ba Da Tss!

[Marx]

No way! Why should they get better health care than me!?!

Ba Da Tss!

:funny:

[Marx]

we can't just open the doors and tell them to enjoy cuba their new home?

Has anyone heard anything further on other countries taking the 'unlawful enemy combatants' in?

[SuBe]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/168022

Interesting Article about why Obama won't be closing Gitmo anytime soon.

[hippie_hunter]

It depends on what they do with the detainees. Gitmo needs to be closed simply because of what it represents. However, they should not be moved to prisons on American soil and adjudicated in the American justice system. A military tribunal seems far more fitting

They should be put in ADX Florence. It already holds numerous terrorists, domestic and al-Qaeda.

That place is freaking secure as hell.

[SuBe]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483764,00.html

We should let them all out.

[Paradoxium]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483764,00.html

We should let them all out....on to Californian soil :o - that place is going to hell anyways heheh

[SuBe]

Just put them on an uninhabited island in Hawaii, let them fend for themselves.

[Anita18]

Just put them on an uninhabited island in Hawaii, let them fend for themselves.
Survivor: Ex-Gitmo? :funny:

I agree it has to be closed down, for what it represents. We have to send a message - the US does not torture. That only fans the flames of hatred against us.

[Addendum]

We already have terrorists in federal prison in the states: ADX Florence in Colorado has those involved in the '93 World Trade Center bombing, the Unabomber, Terry Nichols who was the accomplice of Timothy McVeigh (who was also held there until his execution), one of the conspirators of the '98 US Embassy bombings, the Olympic Park bomber, the Shoe Bomber, and some gang leaders.

So it's not like the federal prison system is unable to hold terrorists in prison.

[chaseter]

I don't care if they close GITMO...I do care with what they do with the detainees. Torturing is bad...no one should argue that. But, I hope to God they don't let these people loose.

[Fly Guy]

I don't care if they close GITMO...I do care with what they do with the detainees. Torturing is bad...no one should argue that. But, I hope to God they don't let these people loose.


Then what do they do with them?

[Addendum]

If they are convicted, they go to super max prisions

[chaseter]

Then what do they do with them?
Let them loose so that they can go re-join Al Qaeda:whatever:

[Fly Guy]

If they are convicted, they go to super max prisions


Then they would have to be in solitary. They would probably be killed in regular population.

And nothing is fool proof. What if they escape? They could hurt or kill someone.

In GITMO, you have no threat to American citizens. They have Cuba on one side and the Sea on the other.

[Arc-Light]

Then what do they do with them?
Send them to Detroit............

[Addendum]

Like I said in an earlier post, we already have terrorists in federal prisons in the US. The prison system can handle more, if they are convicted and sentenced.

Prison breaks happen, but the authorities are properly trained to deal with them, so it's not like they aren't prepared

[Motown Marvel]

Send them to Detroit............
HEY! :cmad:

we're doing a good enough job destroying our city on our own! we dont need to outsource the job to stinky foreigners!

[Fly Guy]

Like I said in an earlier post, we already have terrorists in federal prisons in the US. The prison system can handle more, if they are convicted and sentenced.

Prison breaks happen, but the authorities are properly trained to deal with them, so it's not like they aren't prepared


So...we need more of them on the mainland? We are safer having them away from us.

[Bathead]

So what makes everybody think that terrorists are more likely to successfully break out of prison than your average American murderer/serial killer? They're not, period. This argument is pure nonsense. There's no reason to believe that if Gitmo is closed, all of a sudden we're gonna be inundated with terrorists on American soil. It won't happen.

[chaseter]

So what makes everybody think that terrorists are more likely to successfully break out of prison than your average American murderer/serial killer? They're not, period. This argument is pure nonsense. There's no reason to believe that if Gitmo is closed, all of a sudden we're gonna be inundated with terrorists on American soil. It won't happen.
I think many people are also worried about those cities in which the prisons are located being targeted as a place to send a message like a bombing or even an elaborate bust them out attempt with fellow terrorists making home in those cities. I certainly would not want high level international terrorists locked up in my city with current ties to Al Qaeda:o

[DorkyFresh]

So what makes everybody think that terrorists are more likely to successfully break out of prison than your average American murderer/serial killer?
many Americans have been living in fear for the last 8 years and a lot of them don't know how to snap out of it.

[StorminNorman]

So what makes everybody think that terrorists are more likely to successfully break out of prison than your average American murderer/serial killer? They're not, period. This argument is pure nonsense. There's no reason to believe that if Gitmo is closed, all of a sudden we're gonna be inundated with terrorists on American soil. It won't happen.

My rejecting them coming to American soil has nothing to do with breakouts - nor is that a major fear of anyone of any intelligence.

[Fly Guy]

I think many people are also worried about those cities in which the prisons are located being targeted as a place to send a message like a bombing or even an elaborate bust them out attempt with fellow terrorists making home in those cities. I certainly would not want high level international terrorists locked up in my city with current ties to Al Qaeda:o


That is correct. These towns can be targeted for revenge. Quid pro Quo motivated terrorists on the outside. Being on the mainland makes them more accessible than being out on GITMO. Let our brothers go or more bombs will go off in near by town....etc,.... you get the picture? Sound too much like a movie? Well, most movies come from something that really happened.

Am I saying that there will be jail breaks all over the place? No. But "one" is too many. One family's home taken seige.... children killed ....wife or sisters raped. Why take that chance at all?

GITMO is the perfect scenario.

[Addendum]

In the jailbreaks that have happened, how many of the escapees stayed in the town where the jail is? Hardly any.

With what you're going about, one could say "why bother have any jails since any of the prisoners could escape, or their comrades could target the jail"

[BlackestNight]

If that’s the problem, why don't we just send them to a low population hell hole in Arizona.

[chaseter]

In the jailbreaks that have happened, how many of the escapees stayed in the town where the jail is? Hardly any.

With what you're going about, one could say "why bother have any jails since any of the prisoners could escape, or their comrades could target the jail"
Once again...people aren't afraid of them breaking out...they are afraid of what other things might be brought to their town:o

[Kelly]

As I said before.....there is no need for worry. They will not be closing Gitmo in a year....this was a symbolic gesture on Obama's part to appease the lefties....

There will be humanitary changes AT GITMO.....and they will postpone for another year.

Just a prediction......nothing more.

[Addendum]

Once again...people aren't afraid of them breaking out...they are afraid of what other things might be brought to their town:o

Then if they so skeered, perhaps they should :wow: move to a town that DOESN'T have a prison!! :wow:

It's not like the town or county government has kept it a secret that there's a prison in city limits or in the vicinity

[Marx]

As I said before.....there is no need for worry. They will not be closing Gitmo in a year....this was a symbolic gesture on Obama's part to appease the lefties....

There will be humanitary changes AT GITMO.....and they will postpone for another year.

Just a prediction......nothing more.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. If it isn't closed within a year, it could start to spell bad news for Obama.

[Kelly]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. If it isn't closed within a year, it could start to spell bad news for Obama.


He should have thought of that before he put the cart before the horse...


How much you want to bet that if they are put in a prison on US soil, it will be in a state with very few electoral votes.....:yay:

[Marx]

He should have thought of that before he put the cart before the horse...


How much you want to bet that if they are put in a prison on US soil, it will be in a state with very few electoral votes.....:yay:

M a y b e . . . :oldrazz:

[Kelly]

Alaska? *big smile*......of course my choice would be San Francsico, California.......*bigger smile*

[Marx]

Alaska? *big smile*......of course my choice would be San Francsico, California.......*bigger smile*

They could always reinstate Alcatraz! :cwink:

[Kelly]

That has actually been talked about....

[Marx]

That has actually been talked about....

I've heard rumblings of it before...but nothing ever came of it.

[Kelly]

I just heard it brought up again, this very week.

[Addendum]

Alaska?

Or Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Nevada, Vermont, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Utah, or New Mexico, with Arkansas and Mississippi thrown in.

With Alaska, they could take after the original inhabitants of Alaska: drop them off on an uninhabited island with only the clothes they're wearing.

[hippie_hunter]

HEY! :cmad:

we're doing a good enough job destroying our city on our own! we dont need to outsource the job to stinky foreigners!

Meh, it's not like it can get any worse :o

[Marx]

I just heard it brought up again, this very week.

Interesting... http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[kytrigger]

That is correct. These towns can be targeted for revenge. Quid pro Quo motivated terrorists on the outside. Being on the mainland makes them more accessible than being out on GITMO. Let our brothers go or more bombs will go off in near by town....etc,.... you get the picture? Sound too much like a movie? Well, most movies come from something that really happened.

Am I saying that there will be jail breaks all over the place? No. But "one" is too many. One family's home taken seige.... children killed ....wife or sisters raped. Why take that chance at all?

GITMO is the perfect scenario.
You realize that this in no way has to happen in the mainland US. If a terorist cell had the ability to do this, they could easily do it now to a town and just say "release them from Gitmo". having thee prisoners here on the mainland changes nothing of that scenario, except that the towns near the prisons will probably have added security making this even more difficult to pull off.

Hell, I'm against closing Gitmo, but the "it'll leave us open for more attacks" argument doesn't make snese to me.

[chaseter]

Then if they so skeered, perhaps they should :wow: move to a town that DOESN'T have a prison!! :wow:

It's not like the town or county government has kept it a secret that there's a prison in city limits or in the vicinity
I was merely telling you that there are other reasons that individuals fear other than a prisoner escaping which you for some reason kept harping on. The town or county government voted to allow those prisons to be built there and they will choose whether they allow those prisoners to be housed there or not.

Yes...I am sure they are 'skeered' that they know a prison is near but it is so top secret and covered by an government invisibility cloak to keep it hidden that they don't know what to do:whatever: And yes...packing up and leaving is such a viable and easy option for families.:o

[Addendum]

They knew what the risks were by moving to a town with a federal prison in the the area

[souvlaki]

They could always reinstate Alcatraz! :cwink:

I was actually wondering why they couldn't just reopen Alcatraz. As a Californian I personally wouldn't have a problem with that.

[chaseter]

They knew what the risks were by moving to a town with a federal prison in the the area
The federal prisons haven't been there since the dawn of man. They were built in a town where the local government approved it's bid to build there. I don't think those action committees had any ideas that former global terrorists could possibly call that facility home:o It will be interesting to see which facilities choose not to take them in and which ones choose to take them to get a little extra government funding.

I think it would be too expensive to re-open Alcatraz and update it:o In a time when we are in a recession and the government is trillions of dollars in debt because of spending...it doesn't make sense to do that.

I don't care what they do with the prisoners as long as they remain locked up. I would rather they be in my backyard so to speak than running loose in the middle east:o

[Addendum]

I never said that the prisons have always been there. But the towns knew that by getting a federal or state prison, you're going to have felons of all kinds, with the possibility of their escaping. Those that stayed in the town accepted the risks. Same with those who move to the town after the prison was opened.

Bringing a facility that was last operational 46 years ago would be pricey. It'd make more sense to build a new facility somewhere else.

As for who is already in Guantanamo, it's up in the air since there's hardly any files for a majority those being held, and not all of them have been charged with anything yet

[Fly Guy]

Or Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Nevada, Vermont, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Utah, or New Mexico, with Arkansas and Mississippi thrown in.

With Alaska, they could take after the original inhabitants of Alaska: drop them off on an uninhabited island with only the clothes they're wearing.


Or Millington, TN

[chaseter]

I never said that the prisons have always been there. But the towns knew that by getting a federal or state prison, you're going to have felons of all kinds, with the possibility of their escaping. Those that stayed in the town accepted the risks. Same with those who move to the town after the prison was opened.

Bringing a facility that was last operational 46 years ago would be pricey. It'd make more sense to build a new facility somewhere else.

As for who is already in Guantanamo, it's up in the air since there's hardly any files for a majority those being held, and not all of them have been charged with anything yet
So comes the ethical question of do we release them since we have no evidence against them and risk what they might do or do we keep them locked up out of fear?

[moraldeficiency]

So comes the ethical question of do we release them since we have no evidence against them and risk what they might do or do we keep them locked up out of fear?

Put them in the reality TV circuit, no one gets out of that alive and everyone in it becomes completely neutered of any effect in the world other than self promotion. Problem solved.

[Nitehawk013]

Why don't we just send them to Iceland. Their Government collapsed. Why not just make it a giant prison country? LOL.

[Kelly]

Hey, Australia was ok with that at one point.

Why not send them to our state of Georgia....that is where it had its beginnings....

[Nitehawk013]

Yeah and the Aussies managed to get a great accent out of it!

[StorminNorman]

I was actually wondering why they couldn't just reopen Alcatraz. As a Californian I personally wouldn't have a problem with that.

Because the problem has nothing to do with the security - once you bring them onto American soil you have to put them in Federal Courts and that is the absolute worst thing that can happen.

Why don't we just send them to Iceland. Their Government collapsed. Why not just make it a giant prison country? LOL.

Iceland? I'm all for that.

Hey, Australia was ok with that at one point.

Why not send them to our state of Georgia....that is where it had its beginnings....

Australia is honestly the best place.

[moraldeficiency]

Because the problem has nothing to do with the security - once you bring them onto American soil you have to put them in Federal Courts and that is the absolute worst thing that can happen.


I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Soldiers don't have that option on US soil for example.

[StorminNorman]

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Soldiers don't have that option on US soil for example.

Different scenario entirely. American Soldiers are American Soldiers and go through the American Military Justice System - Federal Prisoners would go through Federal Trial.

[moraldeficiency]

Different scenario entirely. American Soldiers are American Soldiers and go through the American Military Justice System - Federal Prisoners would go through Federal Trial.

even if they're not US citizens? I don't know personally, so if anyone has any expertise on this chime in, I'm curious.

[SuBe]

even if they're not US citizens? I don't know personally, so if anyone has any expertise on this chime in, I'm curious.
What's the Question?

[Addendum]

Or Millington, TN

The 2 facilities northeast of Memphis are not super-max facilities. One (FCI Memphis) is a medium security facility, and the other (Federal Prison Camp Millington) is a minimum security camp for those convicted of white collar crime or nonviolent drug offenses.

[moraldeficiency]

Would a nonUS citizen detained and brought to the US have to be put through the federal courts or the military courts or is their some other option?

[Fly Guy]

The 2 facilities northeast of Memphis are not super-max facilities. One (FCI Memphis) is a medium security facility, and the other (Federal Prison Camp Millington) is a minimum security camp for those convicted of white collar crime or nonviolent drug offenses.


Hey they can build one.

[Addendum]

It wouldn't bother me if they built one in Shelby County or in one of the other nearby counties.

So what's your point?

[SuBe]

Would a nonUS citizen detained and brought to the US have to be put through the federal courts or the military courts or is their some other option?
I'm not a Legal Expert by any means, but I believe that they would go through Federal Trial. The Problem with that is, Federal Courts have to recognize certain Rights, like Miranda. Since these Non US Citizens are afforded Constitutional Rights, and not read the Miranda, they would get off on that Technocality.

[moraldeficiency]

I'm not a Legal Expert by any means, but I believe that they would go through Federal Trial. The Problem with that is, Federal Courts have to recognize certain Rights, like Miranda. Since these Non US Citizens are afforded Constitutional Rights, and not read the Miranda, they would get off on that Technocality.

That's why I'm not sure they would go through federal trial. Miranda doesn't apply to military actions even if the people in question are brought back to the US (for soldiers).

Anyone have an answer to this? I know someone here is a scumbag lawyer type.

[Fly Guy]

It wouldn't bother me if they built one in Shelby County or in one of the other nearby counties.

So what's your point?


Easy to say since you know it'll never happen. My point is , why put civilians at risk at all, when they are 90 miles away from us. Do we care more about these guys than our own people? Are we that concerned about these rats that we could put them closer to our innocent civilians?

[Fly Guy]

I like this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf0xK516hnc

Gives us an idea of what we got down there.

[Addendum]

Easy to say since you know it'll never happen. My point is , why put civilians at risk at all, when they are 90 miles away from us. Do we care more about these guys than our own people? Are we that concerned about these rats that we could put them closer to our innocent civilians?

When I lived with my parents, their home was about a couple miles from Shelby Farms. Literally down the road from the park on the farms, is the Shelby County Penal Farm. Further on down is another prison. And then in downtown Memphis, there's the main jail.

Neither my parents, or those of my classmates who lived in the same neighborhood were worried about jailbreaks. Same for the people who live and work downtown in the area around the jail.

[Motown Marvel]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=216571&title=Guantanamo-Baywatch---The-Final-Season

[Fly Guy]

When I lived with my parents, their home was about a couple miles from Shelby Farms. Literally down the road from the park on the farms, is the Shelby County Penal Farm. Further on down is another prison. And then in downtown Memphis, there's the main jail.

Neither my parents, or those of my classmates who lived in the same neighborhood were worried about jailbreaks. Same for the people who live and work downtown in the area around the jail.


These are not the same type of criminal. Those inmates don't have a brotherhood and a unifying ideology for killing Americans.

And even if I give you the point you just made. Aren't we already talking about how over crowded our prison system is right now? Judging from your point of view, you were probably one of those people. If not, forgive my presumption.

Why would we want to add even more volatile elements into that system. Trained assasins....not crips and bloods. This is a whole 'nother level of bad and dangerous. And this is a war that will last forever. There is no end game.

We need to keep them off shore.

[Fly Guy]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=216571&title=Guantanamo-Baywatch---The-Final-Season


It's a shame that so many young people actually go to that guy for news. Notice that he offered no suggestions. And he called these trained killers piddly punks?

Funny guy.

There are soldiers who worked in GITMO who are afraid to tell people they served down there because of all the bad press they get. They get harassed by American citizens. We hate our own boys more than we hate these killers??

[Addendum]

They're already here. One of the conspirators in the '98 US Embassy bombings is in ADX Florence. 3 people involved in the '93 Trade Center bombing are in the same facility. The founder of the Gangster Disciples is in the same facility, as is a prominent leader of the Aryan Nation.

So it's not like we don't inmates who are "part of a brotherhood" and "have a unifying ideology for killing Americans"

[Fly Guy]

They're already here. One of the conspirators in the '98 US Embassy bombings is in ADX Florence. 3 people involved in the '93 Trade Center bombing are in the same facility. The founder of the Gangster Disciples is in the same facility, as is a prominent leader of the Aryan Nation.

So it's not like we don't inmates who are "part of a brotherhood" and "have a unifying ideology for killing Americans"



I know what's in there already. The question is ...."Do we need more?" NO.

Keep them off shore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8pmOkSMJNI

[danoyse]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=216571&title=Guantanamo-Baywatch---The-Final-Season

That was a great segment. I especially loved the part about the people already in prison and how terrible they are.

I used to sort customer mail for a magazine and we would occasionally deal with mail from prison inmates. Sometimes the prison would send magazines back because the inmate wasn't permitted to read certain content.

Twice I got magazines sent back with a form from the prison saying the magazine wasn't permitted because it contained photos of children. That children had been this particular inmate's "victim base" and was now not permitted to even look at a photo of a child. Just to read that at all was sickening. It's even more chilling that there's a form for it.

We've got some pretty evil sick bastards in our prisons already.

[p4poetic]

Ohio, from what I hear, tends to be a Haven for "Terrorists" to hide. When I lived there, I remember the FBI foiling a plot to bomb a Mall in Columbus. It's easy to get off the Radar there. Too many Corn Fields. :ninja:

And, I don't know anything about Jack Bauer. I don't watch 24.

They can go to Smallville and get beat up by Lana.

[Bathead]

I think people are giving terrorists too much credit, they're not any more dangerous than any other convict. And I seriously doubt their comrades could or would mount any kind of raids or attacks to rescue them. These people aren't any kind of evil super geniuses like you see in movies or TV.
Y'all watch too much 24.

[Kelly]

I think people are giving terrorists too much credit, they're not any more dangerous than any other convict. And I seriously doubt their comrades could or would mount any kind of raids or attacks to rescue them. These people aren't any kind of evil super geniuses like you see in movies or TV.
Y'all watch too much 24.

When are you guys gonna GET IT....its not about the terrorists THEMSELVES....its about the problems THEY WILL BRIIIING TO THESE AREAS.....

Jesus, we get it, they will be in prison....BUT THE PROBLEMS THEY BRING are not in prison.....you have to think about those things.

[Bathead]

OK ,exactly what problems will they bring? I keep seeing people make this claim, but they never say exactly what they're scared of. Please clear this up for me.

[Kelly]

OK ,exactly what problems will they bring? I keep seeing people make this claim, but they never say exactly what they're scared of. Please clear this up for me.

Media for one.....

Hate groups.....


Sleeper cells in the US is always a possibility....

[Addendum]

The media has already been to prisons as have hate groups. Whenever a high profile convict is executed, the media circus is outside the prison along with death penalty supporters and protesters.

[Kelly]

lol.....the media circus will be unprecedented for this, and totally not comparable to ANYTHING else regarding prisons.....





Look, I really don't give a **** where they put them........but for people to think that it will just quietly happen and they will be like, and treated like, other prisoners......and nothing will change....blah, blah,blah, is just laughable. AND, they won't get near the perks in one of these prisons that they have right now. JUST WAIT, until they are watching TV and they see a woman bariely dressed and go nuts, (which has happened, totally destroyed the cell)....and we will be hearing about it for weeks.....*sighs*

[Addendum]

We already have terrorists in prisons and nothing has happened. What's the difference?

[Bathead]

Media for one.....

Hate groups.....


Sleeper cells in the US is always a possibility....

OK, the media will be annoying, but that will die down somewhat after a while, when it's no longer "news".
Hate groups - Not sure what problems you mean that they might cause.

Sleeper cells - That one I have a hard time buying.

[Kelly]

OK, the media will be annoying, but that will die down somewhat after a while, when it's no longer "news".
Hate groups - Not sure what problems you mean that they might cause.

Sleeper cells - That one I have a hard time buying.


Once the trials begin, and they will begin......this will be news for a loooong time. These guys are going to make a circus out of our trial system.......and the media will be right there to film it all....

Individuals from these groups are stupid enough to cause problems if it is their town.

Sleeper cells is the one thing on the minds of our FBI and CIA, not only here but in Canada as well....having these men, some of which are larger than life martyrs, can very well, WAKE THEM UP....so to speak.


As I said, I don't care if they are on our soil or not.......bring them to Huntsville, Texas for all I care.....let Texans take care of them.......they will be begging to go back to Gitmo.

[Midnyte_Sun]

Where did enemy combatants go during wartime in the past? If I'm not mistaken, Bagram in Afghanistan makes Guantanamo look like an amusement park.

[StorminNorman]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE51O3TB20090225?sp=true



LONDON (Reuters) - Abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has worsened sharply since President Barack Obama took office as prison guards "get their kicks in" before the camp is closed, according to a lawyer who represents detainees.

Abuses began to pick up in December after Obama was elected, human rights lawyer Ahmed Ghappour told Reuters. He cited beatings, the dislocation of limbs, spraying of pepper spray into closed cells, applying pepper spray to toilet paper and over-forcefeeding detainees who are on hunger strike.

The Pentagon said on Monday that it had received renewed reports of prisoner abuse during a recent review of conditions at Guantanamo, but had concluded that all prisoners were being kept in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

"According to my clients, there has been a ramping up in abuse since President Obama was inaugurated," said Ghappour, a British-American lawyer with Reprieve, a legal charity that represents 31 detainees at Guantanamo.

"If one was to use one's imagination, (one) could say that these traumatized, and for lack of a better word barbaric, guards were just basically trying to get their kicks in right now for fear that they won't be able to later," he said.

"Certainly in my experience there have been many, many more reported incidents of abuse since the inauguration," added Ghappour, who has visited Guantanamo six times since late September and based his comments on his own observations and conversations with both prisoners and guards.

He stressed the mistreatment did not appear to be directed from above, but was an initiative undertaken by frustrated U.S. army and navy jailers on the ground. It did not seem to be a reaction against the election of Obama, a Democrat who has pledged to close the prison camp within a year, but rather a realization that there was little time remaining before the last 241 detainees, all Muslim, are released.

"It's 'hey, let's have our fun while we can,'" said Ghappour, who helped secure the release this week of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident freed from Guantanamo Bay after more than four years in detention without trial or charge.

"I can't really imagine why you would get your kicks from abusing prisoners, but certainly, having spoken to certain guards who have been injured in Iraq, who indirectly or directly blame my clients for their injuries and the trauma they have suffered, it's not too difficult to put two and two together."

FORCE-FEEDING

Following a January 22 order from Obama, the U.S. Defense Department conducted a two-week review of conditions at Guantanamo ahead of the planned closure of the prison on Cuba.

Admiral Patrick Walsh, the review's author, acknowledged on Monday that reports of abuse had emerged but concluded all inmates were being treated in line with the Geneva Conventions.

"We heard allegations of abuse," he said, asked if detainees had reported torture. "And what we did at that point was to go back and investigate the allegation... What we found is that there were in some cases substantiated evidence where guards had misconduct, I think that would be the best way to put it."

Walsh said his review looked at 20 allegations of abuse, 14 of which were substantiated, but he did not go into details. Generally he said the abuse ranged from "gestures, comments, disrespect" to "preemptive use of pepper spray."

Ghappour said he had spoken to army guards who, unsolicited, had described the pleasure they took in abusing prisoners, whether interrupting prayer or physical mistreatment. He said they appeared unconcerned about potential repercussions.

He also saw evidence of guards pulling identity numbers off their uniforms or switching them once they were on duty in order to make it more difficult for them to be identified.

Ghappour said he had filed two complaints of serious detainee abuse since December 22 but received no response from U.S. authorities. In one case his client had his knee, shoulder and thumb dislocated by a group of guards, Ghappour said.

In one of the six main camps at Guantanamo, the lawyer said all the detainees he knew were on hunger strike and subject to force-feeding, including with laxatives that induced chronic diarrhea while they were strapped in their feeding chairs.

"Several of my clients have had toilet paper pepper-sprayed while they have had hemorrhoids," Ghappour said.

Another area of concern was evidence that detainees were being abused on the way to meetings with their lawyers -- sometimes so badly that they no longer wanted to meet with counsel for fear of the beatings they would receive, he said.

"Some detainees are convinced they are going to be locked up there forever, despite the promises to close the camp," he said.

(Additional reporting by Randall Mikkelsen and Andrew Gray in Washington, editing by Mark Trevelyan)

[SuBe]

Amazing!!!!! I didn't see that coming.

Now, all the Democrats will justify this.

[Bathead]

Now, all the Republicans will try to blame Obama for this.

[SuBe]

He is in Charge now.

[The Senator]

The inmates are probably lying about the conditions at Gitmo. They're just mad that Obama hasn't declared Jihad on the U.S. yet.

[Paradyme]

The inmates are probably lying about the conditions at Gitmo. They're just mad that Obama hasn't declared Jihad on the U.S. yet.

I agree. Remember most of the people held there have some form of ties to terrorism so why wouldn't they lie? They know that Obama and the dems and a few repubs have been wanting to shut down the prison for awhile and they've obviously caught wind of it so they are trying to make sure it happens. I don't trust any of them.

[SuBe]

The inmates are probably lying about the conditions at Gitmo. They're just mad that Obama hasn't declared Jihad on the U.S. yet.
They are lieing about Conditions NOW, but when Bush was in office they weren't? :whatever:

[The Senator]

They are lieing about Conditions NOW, but when Bush was in office they weren't? :whatever:

Because when I write a post about the President delaying Jihad against the United States, I'm being serious. :huh:

This is your second ill and accusatory response today...

[Motown Marvel]

clearly, obama is the a$$hole here :rolleyes:

[BlackLantern]

The inmates are probably lying about the conditions at Gitmo. They're just mad that Obama hasn't declared Jihad on the U.S. yet.

has Obama projected a date when he will be declaring Jihad on the country that elected him to office?? I'd like to plan accordingly

[The Senator]

has Obama projected a date when he will be declaring Jihad on the country that elected him to office?? I'd like to plan accordingly

Not yet, but the consensus reached by the right-wing conspiracy theorists was pretty much as soon as he took office.

[BlackLantern]

if you watched 'Right America' on HBO you would know that Barack Obama is actually Osama Bin Laden in disguise....anyday now he'll pull off the mask 'Mission Impossible' style

[The Overlord]

Why do you even care Norm, you more or less have said the past that should assume everyone in Gitmo is guility and treat them anyway way we feel like. Why would you care if things are somewhat worse there now?

[StorminNorman]

Why do you even care Norm, you more or less have said the past that should assume everyone in Gitmo is guility and treat them anyway way we feel like. Why would you care if things are somewhat worse there now?

I don't care about the abuse of Gitmo prisoners nearly as much as I care about the hypocrisy of Obama.

[The Overlord]

I don't care about the abuse of Gitmo prisoners nearly as much as I care about the hypocrisy of Obama.

If you don't disagree with this descision, aren't you just criticizing him just so you can nitpick at him? Just like there are people who praise Obama for everything, there are people who find fault with everything he does (I heard pastor saying Obama is the Anti Christ.)

He's been charge for a month and has a million things to do. What do think he micro manages every everything that is done at Gitmo? No, of course, not, its more likely that people in cahrge of Gitmo are doing their own thing while Obama is busy dealing with more pressing issues, how is that his fault? Obama isn't all seeing, he can't do everything at once.

This is pretty unfair, Obama is not Jesus, it takes time to turn things like this around. It be fair judge after the first 100 days. Bush got a chance to prove himself after 9-11, why shouldn't Obama get the same chance?

[The Incredible Hulk]

How is it hyprocritic of Obama if these knuckleheads are trying to get their "last free shots" in because they're closing the place? If anything, them acting like idiots further justifies our reasons for closing the place.

[metr0man]

LONDON (Reuters) - Abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has worsened sharply since President Barack Obama took office as prison guards "get their kicks in" before the camp is closed, according to a lawyer who represents detainees.

If true, I am mystified as to how that is Obama's fault in the least? If anything, it shows what kind of place Gitmo is and what kind of people work there, all the better making the case for it's shutdown.

[BMM]

How is it hyprocritic of Obama if these knuckleheads are trying to get their "last free shots" in because they're closing the place? If anything, them acting like idiots further justifies our reasons for closing the place.

I agree.

Given the state of the economy and the risky undertakings of the current administration, there may very well be plenty of legitimate things to criticize Obama for without having to resort to this kind of petty spin.

[rdh007]

There goes the biased media again. Attacking a decent man of good values while he's in power.

[StorminNorman]

If you don't disagree with this descision, aren't you just criticizing him just so you can nitpick at him? Just like there are people who praise Obama for everything, there are people who find fault with everything he does (I heard pastor saying Obama is the Anti Christ.)

He's been charge for a month and has a million things to do. What do think he micro manages every everything that is done at Gitmo? No, of course, not, its more likely that people in cahrge of Gitmo are doing their own thing while Obama is busy dealing with more pressing issues, how is that his fault? Obama isn't all seeing, he can't do everything at once.

This is pretty unfair, Obama is not Jesus, it takes time to turn things like this around. It be fair judge after the first 100 days. Bush got a chance to prove himself after 9-11, why shouldn't Obama get the same chance?

For one I think Obama's handling of terrorist suspects is one of the biggest failures of his young Presidency because the guy has cowardly been on both sides of the issue.

The reason I put this at the feat of Obama is because everyone put everything at the feet of Bush - Abu Ghraib the best example of this. I don't think Obama is any more responsible for this than Bush was of the actions of those in charge at that camp.

[The Senator]

If Obama isn't responsible for how prison guards are treating prisoners in Guantanamo, then how can this be his fault?

The irrational scapegoating continues.

[chaseter]

Welcome to the past 8 years...only the roles have reversed.

[SuBe]

We had better TV 8 years ago.

[The Senator]

Welcome to the past 8 years...only the roles have reversed.

Oh, no, I agree... Democrats who irrationally blamed Bush for the acts of individual guardsmen deserve to be called out... much like Republicans who threw their hands in the air whenever those same Democrats blamed Bush deserve to be called out for blaming Obama for the same problems...

[BlackLantern]

well PFC Lyndie (the female guard in the Abu Gharib photos) is now living in a trailer and can't find a job.....

[StorminNorman]

well PFC Lyndie (the female guard in the Abu Gharib photos) is now living in a trailer and can't find a job.....

I thought she married Will Arnett.

[BlackLantern]

nope PFC Lynndie England (my mistake on the name) has been living in somewhere in Mineral County, West Virginia...nearby her family since her release

[chaseter]

Oh, no, I agree... Democrats who irrationally blamed Bush for the acts of individual guardsmen deserve to be called out... much like Republicans who threw their hands in the air whenever those same Democrats blamed Bush deserve to be called out for blaming Obama for the same problems...
And they both did and are doing it for the same reason. Waiting for something to go bad and then they can say "See...what did we tell you now vote us in."