Obama says US prisons tough enough for detainees

i agree with conclusion too, if they come here, i have no doubt they will be confined 23 hours a day to a solitary cell and then 1 hour of solitary recreation in an enclosed 20X10 yard with a fence for a sky....they will long for the gitmo days

They're not going anywhere if they're in any of the mega security prisons. but gitmo gets closed, along with all of the problems its existence created. After all, you don't exactly hear much about Omar Abdel-Rahman and his peeps making a getaway move.

:eusa_eh:

never said they were going anywhere....great close gitmo, put them in supermax, they will miss their gitmo days and when AQ finds out their in a supermax, you somehow think that is going to appease them and make them happy and simply forget we are holding their people? seriously....

why do you assume it has anything to do with making them happy?

it has to do with what WE are supposed to be as a country. If we're low-lives then what's the difference between them and us?

If what we do is being used in recruitment posters all over the world it doesn't help us.
 
I hope someone in the administration is going to take this offer seriously. It's a state-of-the-art prison sitting empty in Montana, located in a town where unemployment is the highest in the country, so using it to house half of the Gitmo detainees would be a win-win situation.

Montana Wants Gitmo Detainees » The Republican Temple

It'd even create jobs in this terrible economy!

It is not a maximum security prison, but since building a whole new prison somewhere just for terrorists is one option being bandied about, seems like upgrading the Hardin prison would be cheaper.

I bet the majority of the people who reside in Montana don't want them there. Where do you live Maggie, maybe there?
 
It'd even create jobs in this terrible economy!

It is not a maximum security prison, but since building a whole new prison somewhere just for terrorists is one option being bandied about, seems like upgrading the Hardin prison would be cheaper.

I bet the majority of the people who reside in Montana don't want them there. Where do you live Maggie, maybe there?




most of these terrorists will be turned loose on the streets of the usa,, nobody else wants them and the aclu will make sure they are released and the libtards will all be fine with it.. image is everything to them,, oh! and they will be given welfare checks.. no soldier on the battle fields had time to pick up the "forensics". this is all just a dog and pony show.
 
The problem is "do we consider them POW's or criminals"? If they're POW'S they should be tried by military tribunals--if we consider them criminals--they will be tried in civilian courts. Once they step foot on U.S. soil they are under the protection of the U.S. constitution.

This is why 90 DEMOCRATS turned Obama down FLAT on closing GITMO. Harry Reid-DEMOCRAT-senate majority leader--stated just the other day--no way-no how-are they stepping foot on U.S. soil--which means our U.S. federal prisons also.

Obama signed an order to close GITMO in January 2010. This is how naive he actually is. He did this prior to discussing with congress or making viable arrangements for other accomdations for these detainees.
 
The problem is "do we consider them POW's or criminals"? If they're POW'S they should be tried by military tribunals--if we consider them criminals--they will be tried in civilian courts. Once they step foot on U.S. soil they are under the protection of the U.S. constitution.

This is why 90 DEMOCRATS turned Obama down FLAT on closing GITMO. Harry Reid-DEMOCRAT-senate majority leader--stated just the other day--no way-no how-are they stepping foot on U.S. soil--which means our U.S. federal prisons also.

Obama signed an order to close GITMO in January 2010. This is how naive he actually is. He did this prior to discussing with congress or making viable arrangements for other accomdations for these detainees.


Obama found out that talk is cheap, and solutions are costly. I think being naive is going to cost him in more than one way.
 
The problem is "do we consider them POW's or criminals"? If they're POW'S they should be tried by military tribunals--if we consider them criminals--they will be tried in civilian courts. Once they step foot on U.S. soil they are under the protection of the U.S. constitution.

This is why 90 DEMOCRATS turned Obama down FLAT on closing GITMO. Harry Reid-DEMOCRAT-senate majority leader--stated just the other day--no way-no how-are they stepping foot on U.S. soil--which means our U.S. federal prisons also.

Obama signed an order to close GITMO in January 2010. This is how naive he actually is. He did this prior to discussing with congress or making viable arrangements for other accomdations for these detainees.


Obama found out that talk is cheap, and solutions are costly. I think being naive is going to cost him in more than one way.

Obama's personal popularity is still high--but when Americans are asked about his policies--he is loosing ground.

RNC chairman's--Michael Steeles comments that this is not "American Idol"--this is serious business to do with the country--is so very TRUE.
 
They're not going anywhere if they're in any of the mega security prisons. but gitmo gets closed, along with all of the problems its existence created. After all, you don't exactly hear much about Omar Abdel-Rahman and his peeps making a getaway move.

:eusa_eh:

never said they were going anywhere....great close gitmo, put them in supermax, they will miss their gitmo days and when AQ finds out their in a supermax, you somehow think that is going to appease them and make them happy and simply forget we are holding their people? seriously....

why do you assume it has anything to do with making them happy?

it has to do with what WE are supposed to be as a country. If we're low-lives then what's the difference between them and us?

If what we do is being used in recruitment posters all over the world it doesn't help us.

how is gitmo worse than supermax? what is different about gitmo than supermax? what do you really think is going to change other than the location? do you honestly believe supermax is "softer" for them?

obama has stated one of the reasons he wants to close gitmo is because it is a recruitment tool....so, taking gitmo away appeases them, takes away their unhappiness about gitmo, thus giving them some happiness if you will...what makes you think that by moving them to supermax that suddenly AQ won't still use that as a recruitment tool?

i look forward to your answer.
 
Regardless. The Dems caved in to the pressure the GOP put on them. NIMBY. Not In My Back Yard. People don't want "terrorists" in their states? Why? Our prisons can't hold them?

I bet it has to do with Haloburton owning Guantanimo, or something like that. Prison is a multi billion dollar industry.

The law says we don't have to let them go in America if they are not citizens.

How dare us ask other countries to take some of them if we won't take some too.

And what is the GOP solution? Is it to keep Guantanimo open forever? Or until they all die?

What ever happened to the rule of law? Give these people their day in court.

It isn't that the evidence is sensitive, its that we don't have any evidence.

Being anti GOP doesn't mean being pro terrorism. Actually, the GOP are the terrorists.

another incredibly insightful comment from Bobo the clown....

:eusa_eh: You understood that?

actually Kitty i got out my book called "THE DUMMIES GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING COMMENTS FROM BOBO the CLOWN".....and it claims that he was very insightful.....
 

Conservatives like KMAN are such pussies.

Oh, I'm afraid of the scary terrorist prisoners!

Please help me, Mr. Cheney!


Good we will send them to live with you...

I'd have those fuckers converted in no time.
 
For those of you who think you're smarter than Obama:


Come from out of nowhere to become the president of the United States.


Yep, that's what I thought. Total silence.



Go back to your day jobs at McDonald's.
 
You are all overlooking the best solution ...

... human guinea pigs. We need test subjects for all sorts of pretty awesome experiments, and they would fit the bill perfectly.
 
For those of you who think you're smarter than Obama:


Come from out of nowhere to become the president of the United States.


Yep, that's what I thought. Total silence.



Go back to your day jobs at McDonald's.

Out of nowhere? Hardly, the man defined Chicago politics.

you have to remember.....your talking to a "WISE OLD MAN"


yeah, I know, I know, I got sucked up talking to WOM...My bad.
Boy, he is a prize, huh?
 
I only read about half the crap on this thread and from what I saw most of you are scared shitless un american pukes. When are you going to stop being jerked around by assholes like dick cheney?

We don't know how many of these detainees really are a threat to the U S. The thought that they are too dangerous is simply stupid neo con talking points to keep the discussion away from torture which is illegal.

Saying our prisons aren't tough enough is also stupid. Yes things get smuggled into prisons but so what. If it doesn't fit in your visitors ass it doesn't make it in.

What we need to fear is the families of the people that we have wrongfully abused. Only a handfull were real terrorists to start with. If I was the son of one of these taxi drivers that was "turned in" for ten large I would find a way to come here and do my level worst to exact revenge. Ya think any of the relatives of the ones taken by mistake are a little ticked?
 
Barry's main concern with Gitmo is the EIT used and the image it projects in association w/Gitmo. Here's an idea that might work. Of course, that pesky word 'transparency' is noted. And let's not forget that Barry has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. (RAW DATA: Text of Dick Cheney's National Security Speech at AEI - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com)

Democratic Rep. Hastings Proposes Creating Gitmo 2.0

A Democratic representative is developing a unique proposal that attempts to strike a middle path in the debate as to whether the U.S. should permanently close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay next year or keep it open indefinitely.

A Guantanamo Bay Version 2.0 may be in the works.

A Democratic representative is developing a unique proposal that attempts to strike a middle path in the debate as to whether the U.S. should permanently close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay next year or keep it open indefinitely.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) said Thursday that he is open to keeping a more transparent Guantanamo facility, complete with more aggressive third party monitors, open beyond the White House January 2010 closure deadline to hold the most dangerous inmates.

"If we have transparency and accountability, than you can leave Gitmo just like it is," he said. "The physical plant of Guantanamo is built to hold people. And therefore I argue and will pursue the administration to give a look at legislation that I am developing that will give transparency and accountability and may satisfy our allies as well," Hastings said, noting that he would enable groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Red Cross to have better access to monitor the facility.

Hastings has yet to seriously discuss the proposal with the White House but asserts that it could be a viable solution given that the new Gitmo comes with a guarantee of no torture.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/21/democratic-rep-hastings-proposes-creating-gitmo/
 

Forum List

Back
Top