Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On his second day in office, President Obama ordered the Pentagon to mothball Guantanamo within one year, purportedly to reclaim the "moral high ground." That earned applause from the anti-antiterror squadrons, yet it is now causing all kinds of practical and political problems in what used to be known as the war on terror.
This mess grew even more chaotic this week, when Democrats refused the Administration's $50 million budget request to transfer some of the remaining 241 Gitmo detainees to a prison likely to be somewhere in the U.S. and perhaps to a new one built with taxpayer dollars. "What do we do with the 50 to 100 -- probably in that ballpark -- who we cannot release and cannot try?" Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently asked Congress.
The best answer is Gitmo. But the antiwar left wants terrorists treated like garden-variety criminals in the civilian courts or maybe military courts martial. The not-so-minor problem is that even states that send leftists to Congress don't want to host Gitmo-II. Think California, where Alcatraz could be an option. The abandoned San Francisco Bay prison has Gitmo's virtue of relative isolation -- but Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, claims it is a national treasure. The terrorist-next-door problem is also rising to a high boil in Kansas politics, given that Fort Leavenworth is being eyed too.
Reminds me of the theme song of Cops: Whatchagonnado, whatchagonnado, whatchagonnado when they move in next to you? Start a fire, better have firefighters on hand, doncha think?
Yep, the neocons sure left this man one huge mess. Illegal wars, government is broke, trillions in debt, a trail of wreckage everywhere, and our secret blacksite in Cuba full of tortured men, many of them innocent.
The thing is, if you close the prison, and simply move them to another one, have you really changed anything real? Sure, makes good press to those who just see that you closed the prison, but really.. has anything changed?
The thing is, if you close the prison, and simply move them to another one, have you really changed anything real? Sure, makes good press to those who just see that you closed the prison, but really.. has anything changed?
Oh, do keep up. Secretary Gates points out that there are 50 to 100 remaining detainees who cannot won't be tried and are under court order to be released. Unfortunately, many of their home countries refused to accept them back and with no country to take them they have to be released somewhere. I suggest that such issues, like so many others, should have been considered before imprisoning people for no objective reason.
Oh, do keep up. Secretary Gates points out that there are 50 to 100 remaining detainees who cannot won't be tried and are under court order to be released. Unfortunately, many of their home countries refused to accept them back and with no country to take them they have to be released somewhere.
Have to love liberals who just cant follow threads they are responding to.. Looks like your the one who needs to keep up...
This mess grew even more chaotic this week, when Democrats refused the Administration's $50 million budget request to transfer some of the remaining 241 Gitmo detainees to a prison likely to be somewhere in the U.S. and perhaps to a new one built with taxpayer dollars. "What do we do with the 50 to 100 -- probably in that ballpark -- who we cannot release and cannot try?" Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently asked Congress.
Many of them are being TRANSFERRED to another prison.. Which brings me back to my original question
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The thing is, if you close the prison, and simply move them to another one, have you really changed anything real? Sure, makes good press to those who just see that you closed the prison, but really.. has anything changed?
The question hasnt changed, your answer is a non answer..
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
I suggest that such issues, like so many others, should have been considered before imprisoning people for no objective reason.
If they were imprisoned for NO reason, whats the problem with releasing them again? I mean if they shouldnt have been imprisoned, then surely you wouldnt mind housing them in your basement until they find a place to go..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
