Obama defends decision to close Gitmo...

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
So who is right? ProfJohn with his healines that read --
Democrats balk on closing Gitmo. Refuse to provide money to do so.

Yet the consensus here on these forums and on Capitol Hill has been that Gitmo has to close!!

Yet what we have now is where do we put these people? Surely not in my state.....we don`t want these people in our jails.....lol.....surely not in my state...lol

Then the accusations have flown nobody has a plan as to where to put the detainees.
Who by the way the majority of these peoplehad nothing to do with terrorism and will most likely eventually be released.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama

WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama forcefully defended his decision to close the Guantanamo detention camp Thursday and said some of the terror suspects held there would be brought to top-security prisons in the United States despite fierce opposition in Congress.

He insisted the transfer would not endanger Americans and promised to work with lawmakers to develop a system for holding detainees who can't be tried and can't be turned loose from the Navy-run prison in Cuba. He spoke one day after the Senate voted resoundingly to deny him money to close the prison.

"There are no neat or easy answers here," Obama said in a speech in which he pledged anew to clean up what he said was "quite simply a mess" at Guantanamo that he had inherited from the Bush administration.

Moments after Obama concluded, former Vice President Dick Cheney delivered his own address across town defending the decisions of the Bush administration in dealing with terrorism. Expressing no remorse for the actions the Bush White House had ordered, Cheney said under the same circumstances he would make the same decisions "without hesitation."

Obama noted that roughly 500 detainees already had been released by the Bush administration. There are 240 at Guantanamo now. The president said that 50 of those had been cleared to be sent to other countries ? although he did not identify which countries might be willing to take them.

Obama conceded that some Guantanamo detainees would end up in U.S. prisons and said those facilities were tough enough to house even the most dangerous inmates.

Obama decried arguments used against his plans.

"We will be ill-served by the fear-mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue," he declared.


There is more to the article...the above was the first few paragraphs...
 

Slick5150

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2001
8,760
3
81
The quandary here is if they're tried in civilian courts, as you say, many of these people have a very real possibility of being released either because they're found not guilty or had their cases dismissed because of lack of evidence. So, then Obama would be attacked by certain groups for "letting terrorists loose in this country".

I agree the prison needs to be closed, but because the situation was so out of control there, there's almost no good solution to it at this point.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: Slick5150
The quandary here is if they're tried in civilian courts, as you say, many of these people have a very real possibility of being released either because they're found not guilty or had their cases dismissed because of lack of evidence. So, then Obama would be attacked by certain groups for "letting terrorists loose in this country".

I agree the prison needs to be closed, but because the situation was so out of control there, there's almost no good solution to it at this point.

No argument there.

(edit: [I have] no argument there)
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
They should be tried using the military court-martial system. It's the same court we use when we try our own soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines when they break military law. This system has been in existence since before the U.S. even existed. It's proven to work, and it's respected around the globe.

They should be kept in a Supermax prison that is supported by an Army base. We've housed people who do equally horrible things, and we already house hundreds of domestic terrorists.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
What is closing Gitmo solving really? So, we're going to move these terrorist suspects from one prison to another. What is the specific problem this solves?
 

SAWYER

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,745
42
91
WHY IS THE TRAITOR IN CHIEF AND HIS CRIMINAL CABAL GETTING AWAY WITH THIS???:|:(
rose.gif







;)


 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,720
878
126
I assume you can't move people into civilian prison without a trial. Kind of pointless if they are just moving them and not trying them for crimes. If found innocent they should be released back to the country they were found, not released in the US.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
642
126
Originally posted by: Specop 007
What is closing Gitmo solving really? So, we're going to move these terrorist suspects from one prison to another. What is the specific problem this solves?
There you go. We've got a facility already in place, paid for and totally suited to the task. How many millions (billions?) are we going to spend to satisfy a campaign promise? It's another political clusterfuck that has no true need. Who in Congress is going to wise up and start talking sense?
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
642
126
Originally posted by: JTsyo
I assume you can't move people into civilian prison without a trial. Kind of pointless if they are just moving them and not trying them for crimes. If found innocent they should be released back to the country they were found, not released in the US.
If the tables had been turned Americans would have head their heads cut off in short order. No need for a Guantanamo like facility in the M.E.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
So the bottom line is....we are damned if we do and damned if we don`t......

Pretty much. That's why campaign promises shouldn't be dealt out like candy.

Originally posted by: boomerang
Originally posted by: Specop 007
What is closing Gitmo solving really? So, we're going to move these terrorist suspects from one prison to another. What is the specific problem this solves?
There you go. We've got a facility already in place, paid for and totally suited to the task. How many millions (billions?) are we going to spend to satisfy a campaign promise? It's another political clusterfuck that has no true need. Who in Congress is going to wise up and start talking sense?

:thumbsup:
 

Arcex

Senior member
Mar 23, 2005
722
0
0
Closing GITMO is more politics than anything else, it's not like the base itself is closing, we will never give up our stranglehold on Cuba, and anything we are doing/have done at the prison complex at GITMO can be done elsewhere, with varying degrees of more or less privacy.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,531
2
81
so in one thread, the desperate GOP fanbois attack him for not closing the place, and now they are going to cry that closing it is just politics....make up your damn little minds
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Slick5150
The quandary here is if they're tried in civilian courts, as you say, many of these people have a very real possibility of being released either because they're found not guilty or had their cases dismissed because of lack of evidence. So, then Obama would be attacked by certain groups for "letting terrorists loose in this country".

I agree the prison needs to be closed, but because the situation was so out of control there, there's almost no good solution to it at this point.

No argument there.

(edit: [I have] no argument there)

Rig it so they are all found guilty life in prison no parole.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: NeoV
so in one thread, the desperate GOP fanbois attack him for not closing the place, and now they are going to cry that closing it is just politics....make up your damn little minds

We're not all GOP fanboys... but allow me to help you with the simple problem being illustrated here, since it appears lost on you: Obama made lofty campaign promises; promises that his inexperience (should have) precluded him from making. Some of us called him on it at the time and were ridiculed for it (I seem to recall being called a GOP fanboy then, too ;) ). Now the reality of those promises - some of them just plain impossible to uphold - are chafing the thighs of folks like you.

While we may not agree between ourselves what should be done, that's not the issue here. We do agree that Obama painted himself into an impossible corner, and it's somewhat enjoyable watching his "fanbois" apologetically squirm about.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,797
1,449
126
Originally posted by: NeoV
so in one thread, the desperate GOP fanbois attack him for not closing the place, and now they are going to cry that closing it is just politics....make up your damn little minds

try and keep up...the GOP fanboys are not crying because his party blocked the funds needed to deliver on one of his campaign promises...

we are laughing at those who believed in change that doesn't seem to be occurring...the same people that bitched and moaned when GW was doing it but now seem to have no problems with it...
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,999
109
106
I don't see why extra funds should be needed when we already have the facilities in current supermax prisons in the US. Just put 'em on a military transport plane under gaurd. It shouldn't take millions to do that. It isn't like they would be in the general population anyway. You'd think by some of the FUD surrounding this that they'd be moving into your local neighborhoods and voting in your HOA or something.