should we put Gitmo detainees inside the U.S.?

• derek bomar

  

  http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/11/governor-pat-quinn-senator-richard-durbin-guantanamo-bay-thomson-correctional-center.html
  
  there seems to be a push to move them into Illinois...personally, I say bring them in. Creates some jobs here and I don't realistically see them as being any less dangerous than those we already lock up in terms of a threat to escape.
• pmoney25

  

  I say put them in with the worst of the worst and see how long they last.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  No. I also don't believe that they deserved to be given the same rights as civilians enjoy.
  If you're going to try them, let the military handle it completely.
• derek bomar

  

  CenterBHSFan wrote: No. I also don't believe that they deserved to be given the same rights as civilians enjoy.
  If you're going to try them, let the military handle it completely.

  Do you feel they're a threat if they come here?
• derek bomar

  

  ccrunner609 wrote: Bomar are you serious. Your initial post may be the dumbest thing I have ever read. Do you realize these people want you dead?

  so you're saying you don't feel our prison systems can hold them? you think they'd escape from a super-max?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Derek, I don't know. I don't really care, either - to be honest.
• derek bomar

  

  ccrunner609 wrote: ^^^They dont deserve the puplic trial they are going to get. If you want to be all liberal and care about scum like this then you wouldnt want them in the system. They will all be killed within weeks/months.

  ...so why wouldn't that be a good thing? I don't really care what happens to them inside a prison, I just don't see the big fuss about whether that prison is in the U.S. or on some island...they ain't breakin out either way
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Well, I DO think that if they would RIGHTFULLY have a military trial, it would be best suited not to have it in the states.
  It really should have never ever ever been considered to be dealt with as a civilian-type case.
• derek bomar

  

  CenterBHSFan wrote: Well, I DO think that if they would RIGHTFULLY have a military trial, it would be best suited not to have it in the states.
  It really should have never ever ever been considered to be dealt with as a civilian-type case.

  why? what's the harm?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  derek bomar wrote:

  CenterBHSFan wrote: Well, I DO think that if they would RIGHTFULLY have a military trial, it would be best suited not to have it in the states.
  It really should have never ever ever been considered to be dealt with as a civilian-type case.

  why? what's the harm?

  I'm assuming that you're just stirring the pot here a little and maybe get an argument or two. Because I KNOW, I KNOW that you already know the answer to that. Even though your political leanings differ than mine, I can tell from your postings that you're smart, intelligent and have an education.
• derek bomar

  

  ccrunner609 wrote: So you give them a platform to spew their venomous hate and Jihad.......they get the same rights as everyone else?
  
  Its empowering them and showing our weakness. Its not good for our country. If you cant see that then you need to continue your schooling.

  well I am currently getting my MBA at Fisher, so thats about as far as I plan to go with school...but what you're saying doesn't make sense. By not giving them rights, we're causing more venomous hate and "Jihad" than we ever will by letting them speak in a court of law. People need to know the U.S. is a nation of laws, and we don't pick and choose how we follow them and who they apply to. It doesn't show our weakness, it shows we're strong, and that we have these people on evidence, not on suspicions...
• derek bomar

  

  CenterBHSFan wrote:

  derek bomar wrote:

  CenterBHSFan wrote: Well, I DO think that if they would RIGHTFULLY have a military trial, it would be best suited not to have it in the states.
  It really should have never ever ever been considered to be dealt with as a civilian-type case.

  why? what's the harm?

  I'm assuming that you're just stirring the pot here a little and maybe get an argument or two. Because I KNOW, I KNOW that you already know the answer to that. Even though your political leanings differ than mine, I can tell from your postings that you're smart, intelligent and have an education.

  Thanks for the compliment, I think...but seriously, I don't think there is harm in trying them in a civilian court as long as they have sufficient evidence. If they don't, then you shouldn't be holding them anyway.
• derek bomar

  

  ccrunner609 wrote: Dude their jihad and hate for us isnt going to get worse if we treat them the way prisoners/terrorists should be treated. They want us dead. Its in their fundamental beliefs. Us not showing that we are fair and lawful means nothing to them.
  
  Either way they would slit your throat if they could.

  It means nothing to terrorists, but it should and does mean something to those who are in a position to become potential terrorists. You can't do anything most likely about those who already believe that we are the great satan, but you can try and limit the next generation of them by actually acting like a country with some dignity and not hiding these people. Bring them out, show what they've done, and punish them. Our jails can hold them.
• majorspark

  

  derek bomar wrote:

  CenterBHSFan wrote: Well, I DO think that if they would RIGHTFULLY have a military trial, it would be best suited not to have it in the states.
  It really should have never ever ever been considered to be dealt with as a civilian-type case.

  why? what's the harm?

  Some of the problems with trying them in civilian courts will be the presenting of evidence that is currently classified. Also how many of these fellows were read their rights, had lawyers present during questioning. I would hate to see one of these clowns get off on some kind of technicality.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  DB,
  
  Can't the military offer them a fair trial?
• derek bomar

  

  CenterBHSFan wrote: DB,
  
  Can't the military offer them a fair trial?

  I'm not trying to argue the military can't...I Just want any kind of trial, civil or military, and I want them moved off of Gitmo and into a super-max here in the states. IIRC there was a town in either Montana or North Dakota that was begging for them because they had an empty prison.
• derek bomar

  

  ccrunner609 wrote: Gitmo is a vacation compared to what they are going to get. You are so into Obama politics that you think Gitmo is such a bad place.

  No, I think the rest of the world thinks Gitmo is a bad place, and I am right...they do. So put them in an empty U.S. prison, bring some jobs to a small town in need of it, and help our reputation. This isn't a hard call...seems to me you would just rather say anything Obama says is wrong even if it is right...
• Writerbuckeye

  

  derek bomar wrote:

  CenterBHSFan wrote: DB,
  
  Can't the military offer them a fair trial?

  I'm not trying to argue the military can't...I Just want any kind of trial, civil or military, and I want them moved off of Gitmo and into a super-max here in the states. IIRC there was a town in either Montana or North Dakota that was begging for them because they had an empty prison.

  I do not believe a civilian prison has the security to keep these folks where they belong. Putting them in such a setting automatically makes that area a target for terrorism (to either free their comrades, ill the infidels who put them there, or both).
• derek bomar

  

  Writerbuckeye wrote:

  derek bomar wrote:

  CenterBHSFan wrote: DB,
  
  Can't the military offer them a fair trial?

  I'm not trying to argue the military can't...I Just want any kind of trial, civil or military, and I want them moved off of Gitmo and into a super-max here in the states. IIRC there was a town in either Montana or North Dakota that was begging for them because they had an empty prison.

  I do not believe a civilian prison has the security to keep these folks where they belong. Putting them in such a setting automatically makes that area a target for terrorism (to either free their comrades, ill the infidels who put them there, or both).

  Is it the threat of our armed forces in Cuba that has prevented it from happening at Gitmo?
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Yes. A supermax is good enough to hold these people. Besides, for international legitimacy and power in the international chessboard, closing the prison at Gimto is a better move.
  
  I'm on the fence about KSM and others getting tried in NY. But, as to holding them in the U.S., I have no problem with it.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  derek bomar wrote:

  Writerbuckeye wrote:

  derek bomar wrote:

  CenterBHSFan wrote: DB,
  
  Can't the military offer them a fair trial?

  I'm not trying to argue the military can't...I Just want any kind of trial, civil or military, and I want them moved off of Gitmo and into a super-max here in the states. IIRC there was a town in either Montana or North Dakota that was begging for them because they had an empty prison.

  I do not believe a civilian prison has the security to keep these folks where they belong. Putting them in such a setting automatically makes that area a target for terrorism (to either free their comrades, ill the infidels who put them there, or both).

  Is it the threat of our armed forces in Cuba that has prevented it from happening at Gitmo?

  Of course it is! You really don't think terrorists fear trying to attack the military at Gitmo more than they would taking out a (basically) civilian target like a prison in N. Dakota (or wherever)?
• eersandbeers

  ccrunner609 wrote: moving our trash to a public/federal prison is showing the world we are weak.
  
  That is not good.

  
  Been listening to Hannity lately?
  
  Please expand on that comment because it really makes no sense whatsoever.
• eersandbeers

  ccrunner609 wrote: Nope dont really listen to Hannity.
  
  As for how we are viewed in this world. Its starts with out weak president who parades around the world willing to talk to any terrorist states leaders.
  
  Remember how the international community acted when Obama won? Thats because they didnt want McCain to win because they knew McCain was a military guy and a tough one at that. THey knew Obama was a pushover.
  
  This proves it.

  
  What terrorist leaders has Obama talked to? Reagan? Because from what I can remember, he was quite the supporter of terrorism around the world.
  
  I'd say you are probably quite far off on why the international community was happy when Obama won. They were happy because we no longer had a war monger in office and they could resume normal diplomatic relations.
  
  
  With that aside, your claim that moving detainees to the US shows our weakness isn't all that true.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Let's deconstruct this CC:
  
  1. The President isn't weak, or at least hasn't shown it to me yet. The defense budget is increasing, funds are going to the areas where commanders see fit. He has stayed in Afghanistan, with debates on how much force he will send. If he was weak, wouldn't he pull them out? I see nothing really, actual policy wise that shows weakness.
  
  2. Have we really talked to terrorist state leaders yet......no. Are we, not in the near future. So, that point makes no sense today and is false.
  
  3. A military guy? Ok, what does that mean really? Bomb a country, sometimes that is not the best option. In the 21st century and with wide ranging threats, sometimes force has the opposite effect. As for showing weakness, the U.S. still has all the hard power, and closing this facility increases soft power, which is crucial in COIN operations worldwide.
  
  The world celebrated as it is a turn away from unilateral action and a move toward more multilateral action-which is everyone's best interest, U.S. included. Countries did not sense that the U.S. power was dropping, actually in some areas, they saw U.S. power as rising.
  
  4. So, let's play this out even more. What do you speculate would be going on if McCain was President? How would he tackle what is going right now?
• RoyalNut

  

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Let's deconstruct this CC:
  
  1. The President isn't weak, or at least hasn't shown it to me yet. The defense budget is increasing, funds are going to the areas where commanders see fit. He has stayed in Afghanistan, with debates on how much force he will send. If he was weak, wouldn't he pull them out? I see nothing really, actual policy wise that shows weakness.
  
  Oh no he just sits on his hands for months on end while our troops are in harms way. Bows to every world leader he runs into. I'm surprised he didn't ask Hugo Chavez if he could shine his shoes. Not to mention his world apology tour.
  
  2. Have we really talked to terrorist state leaders yet......no. Are we, not in the near future. So, that point makes no sense today and is false.
  
  No he just imported 200,00- misplaced members of hamas to the states on the tax payers dime. Don't believe me? Look it up!
  
  3. A military guy? Ok, what does that mean really? Bomb a country, sometimes that is not the best option. In the 21st century and with wide ranging threats, sometimes force has the opposite effect. As for showing weakness, the U.S. still has all the hard power, and closing this facility increases soft power, which is crucial in COIN operations worldwide.
  
  You make me want to puke! soft power! Tell that to the Chinese soldier that is loading your stupid but on a fema bus , so his cousin can move into your home.
  
  The world celebrated as it is a turn away from unilateral action and a move toward more multilateral action-which is everyone's best interest, U.S. included. Countries did not sense that the U.S. power was dropping, actually in some areas, they saw U.S. power as rising.
  
  I cannot even comment on this statement comrade
  
  4. So, let's play this out even more. What do you speculate would be going on if McCain was President? How would he tackle what is going right now?

  It would be the same as we are getting now. They are both progressives, McCain would have just done it a little more under the radar. But the results would have been the same.
  
  You answer me one simple question. How are we going to pay for all these programs?