|
Author
|
Topic: Obama moving terrorist detainees to mainland US
|
D for Defiant
Knowflake Posts: 134
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 23, 2009 12:29 AM
 
It's been going on for a while. President Barack Obama intends to close the Guatanamo Bay Detention Center and move the terrorist detainees to the high security prisons in USA proper. He said he believed that the high security prisons in mainland US can handle them.I think it is a BIG MISTAKE. What do YOU think? D ------------------
The opposite of love is indeed hate, not indifference, for indifference is a form of detachment, and both love and hate are two forms of attachment, and detachment is naturally the opposite of both the two forms of attachment. There are many theories of the relationships between love and hate, but ultimately, hate is death force, which creates untimely or chronic destruction; whereas love is life force, which brings life.
IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 361
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 23, 2009 10:48 AM
I think there's great resistance to moving foreign born captured terrorists to US prisons and giving them the same rights in courts as US citizens. What's next? Will US military forces be required to provide an attorney for captured enemy soldiers. Will our military forces be required to issue Miranda warnings...before questioning captured enemy soldiers? Will US military forces be required to secure a search warrant before searching the cave or searching the houses of captured terrorist enemy combatants..in Iraq or Afghanistan..or Pakistan...or risk having some idiot federal judge throw criminal charges against them out of court when their attorneys challenge the evidence?O'Bomber is a nut, pure and simple but he's drooling and slobbering over the prospect of bringing captured enemy combatants here and giving them American rights in US criminal courts. No nation on earth, including the United States has ever tried captured enemy combatants in their national criminal courts...that I know of. As for housing those convicted or untried in US prisons, that should be a non-starter. Once they're here, they get American rights to attorneys and they get to challenge the evidence used to convict them...and if they weren't tried but are still being held then their attorney will challenge their detention...since they will then be within the jurisdiction of the United States Federal Courts system. OBomber is going to make this a circus. But, beyond that, have you read about the recent arrest of 4 Islamic domestic wannabe bombers? These guys converted to Islam while in prison. Radical Islamics are hard at work in US prisons attempting to convert prisoners to Islam. We can already see the results of bringing Islamic terrorists to the US and incarcerating them in US prisons. Oh, one last thing D. O'Bomber wants to RELEASE some of those captured trained terrorists here in the United States. What do you think about that?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/20/obama-tries-order-democrats-gitmo/
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gitmo-release24-2009ap r24,0,1151031,full.story
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum26/HTML/000016-7.html PATH TO RADICAL ISLAM BEGAN IN JAILS By PERRY CHIARAMONTE, LORENA MONGELLI in Newburgh, NY and DOUGLAS MONTERO and LUKAS They were like a million other petty criminals -- until they embraced radical Islam behind bars, launching a terrifying march to a planned mass murder that ended only when authorities sabotaged their sinister plot. "He was not born Muslim. He's an institutional Muslim," said Richard Williams, uncle of Onta Williams, one of the four Bronx terror suspects. "He wasn't raised that way."............... http://www.nypost.com/seven/05222009/news/regionalnews/path_to_radical_i slam_began_in_jails_170478.htm IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 626
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 24, 2009 04:02 PM
any new muslims in your neighbourhood? better keep your binocs well-lubed and your escape boat ready, man!i wonder where the hundreds of released alumni from gitmo went when the last administration set them free? home to cook up more bombs? florida for more flying lessons?? IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 361
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 25, 2009 09:31 AM
"Last year, in an article published on an Al Qaeda website, a terrorist spokesman said, "We have the right to kill four million Americans -- two million of them children -- and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons."IP: Logged |
MyVirgoMask
Knowflake Posts: 661
From:
Registered: May 2009
|
posted May 25, 2009 05:59 PM
Where else would they put them then?
Considering the US was responsible for arresting them/taking them in...where else would they keep them? lol
It's a serious question.
Maybe it's a bad idea to keep them in the US (I don't think it is. You think prisoners in this country get any special treatment?), but for god's sake, can't someone suggest something else? Come up with a better idea, then.
IP: Logged |
MyVirgoMask
Knowflake Posts: 661
From:
Registered: May 2009
|
posted May 25, 2009 06:02 PM
I mean, you have the unibomber, people who eat people's faces off, serial killers, all kinds of monsters in US prisons. Soooo....it's just kind of odd to say 'bad idea' ....because what else CAN we do instead?
Have you checked out some of the security prisons in this country ? It's not like they're made of chicken wire.
The prison system is notorious for making bad behavior worse...it's not as though that's a big mystery. Criminals go in and sometimes come out as worse criminals.
A prison specifically built FOR Gitmo transfers might be a good idea.
No chance of anyone 'converting' to another religion *insert eye roll here* IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 626
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 25, 2009 08:01 PM
i believe the plan, which some say doesn't exist, is to put them in segregated detention where they will not be even talking to anyone else, in max-security where, you're right MVM, there are some people who do far dirtier things WITH THEIR BARE HANDS than crash airplanes! and indeed, why would we expect someone else to keep them for us? and who could we trust? and as already mentioned, hundreds of these guys have already been released into the world at large with NO PLAN WHATSOEVER by the last administration. IP: Logged |
D for Defiant
Knowflake Posts: 134
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 26, 2009 05:27 AM
Thank you Jwhop for providing the links.Thank you also, MVM and Katatonic for replying to the thread. I will view the contents of the links provided and come back later on. I'm going offline in no time soon. A US mainland prison specially designed for the Guatanamo Bay terrorist detainees? Would Obama consider that? Is it realistic? Wouldn't such a facility become one of Al Qauda's excuses to attack USA again? As if 9/11 was not enough...  D ------------------
The opposite of love is indeed hate, not indifference, for indifference is a form of detachment, and both love and hate are two forms of attachment, and detachment is naturally the opposite of both the two forms of attachment. There are many theories of the relationships between love and hate, but ultimately, hate is death force, which creates untimely or chronic destruction; whereas love is life force, which brings life.
IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 626
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 26, 2009 12:29 PM
we have facilities suitable already. they will be segregated. why build a single center where they might actually be able to band together? sounds stupid to me.IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 361
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 26, 2009 02:48 PM
Why move terrorists to the United States at all. They're already segregated where they are and cut off from any means of escape or possibility of indoctrinating others in murderous poisonous terrorist doctrines.Camp Gitmo IS the perfect place for these terrorists and all other terrorists we might capture in the future. Gitmo is a 200 million dollar state of the art detention facility. We don't need another. But, O'Bomber wants these terrorists in the United States to give them American Constitutional Rights in Court.
IP: Logged |
MyVirgoMask
Knowflake Posts: 661
From:
Registered: May 2009
|
posted May 26, 2009 04:45 PM
I agree in thinking they should just go to the prisons we already have. I don't see the big deal personally. Gitmo should be closed I think. I seriously don't see the point of having a prison out of the country. It's so weird to me that the US detains people and is like Eeek, no, keep them away. Really sheltered, and just bizarre to me.
They're our responsibility...why are we keeping them out of the country? In Cuba, for god's sake?
What are we, strapped for land? Are our relations with Cuba so cozy?
Gitmo's a nice, posh detention center, but is it even ours? Someone fill me in here pls...don't we just lease it out? Why does the idea of leasing it out from Cuba give me the hives? IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 361
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 26, 2009 04:59 PM
Gitmo belongs to the United States and so does the entire Guantanamo Bay installation upon which Gitmo sits.Why do you want to bring terrorists to the United States? What possible reason could there be for doing so? Why would you want to give terrorists an opportunity to either escape into the US OR attempt to make terrorist converts from among the general prison population? Why would you want to make a target for other terrorists out of a US prison or prisons? Didn't you get it yet that the 4 morons recently captured in the act of a domestic terrorist attack in NY were converted to radical Islam in prison? IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 626
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 26, 2009 05:22 PM
jwhop you completely ignore the fact that these people will not be mingling with the other prisoners and they will be put in places no one escapes from...and keep reiterating the same what ifs that have already been sorted.why DO we want a base on cuba? i thought we had no relations with them? it seems keeping them in enemy territory is MORE of a security risk than keeping them at home. IP: Logged |
MyVirgoMask
Knowflake Posts: 661
From:
Registered: May 2009
|
posted May 26, 2009 05:23 PM
Wow, Jwhop. There are just SO many things I could say right now, but you're lucky I'm working  IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 361
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 26, 2009 06:30 PM
Feel free to say whatever is on your mind MVM. But, would you please answer my questions...only since you're in agreement with O'Bomber on bringing terrorists to the United States.Apparently katatonic, you don't know the history of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Guantanamo Bay is not enemy territory; it's sovereign US territory. It's also clear you don't know that these terrorists will be mingling with other prisoners and also have a direct pipeline to the outside world...if they are in the US...and the means to communicate with other terrorists. So katatonic, what is at the bottom of your desire to see terrorists brought to the United State? Why is Gitmo not suitable for detaining terrorists? Oh, I know, O'Bomber promised leftists he would close that facility. It's all political bullshiiit and the American public be damned. IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 426
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 26, 2009 06:49 PM
quote:
It's also clear you don't know that these terrorists will be mingling with other prisoners and also have a direct pipeline to the outside world...if they are in the US...and the means to communicate with other terrorists.
Next time you're at one of the meetings where the Administration discusses these things, why don't you take a photograph for us or something proving that you actually have the authority you claim, ok? IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 361
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 26, 2009 07:17 PM
Pull your head out acoustic...if you still can. I don't and didn't claim to have any "authority". Nevertheless, what I said is true. So acoustic, since you decided to jump in here with your usual nonsense, why don't you tell me why these terrorists shouldn't be held at the $200,000,000 detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. There is no rational reason for bringing a single foreign born terrorist to the United States...for any reason whatsoever. Or, are you just backing up your leftist brain dead icon O'Bomber, as usual. The idea captured terrorists should be held in the US is nonsense. It's also opposed by the majority of US citizens who don't want them anywhere within the borders of the continental United States.
IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 426
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 26, 2009 07:32 PM
Oh, but I think you did. You stated rather emphatically what they'd be doing in prison here as if you've been in on discussions on the matter. You're saying things you can't know with any certainty. quote:
So acoustic, since you decided to jump in here with your usual nonsense, why don't you tell me why these terrorists shouldn't be held at the $200,000,000 detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. There is no rational reason for bringing a single foreign born terrorist to the United States...for any reason whatsoever.
That's already been answered by the Administration for which I am not a spokesman.  Personally, I think the "re-branding" idea could work. I suspect, however, that Guantanamo has spawned legal issues not easily resolved, and that these legal issues are part of what is driving the effort to reimagine what happens with the detainees long term. quote:
Or, are you just backing up your leftist brain dead icon O'Bomber, as usual.
As usual? "Icon"? The only "usual" thing going on in these parts lately is the attempt to find some wedge issue with which to score some points at Democrat's expense. I understand. You're hurt, and you're lashing out in a desperate attempt for attention. Don't worry. This power issue is cyclical. Republicans will regain power eventually. IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 361
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 26, 2009 07:48 PM
There is no way to totally segregate these terrorists from the rest of the prison population. There's no way to deny them visitors including their attorneys who can carry messages to their terrorist buddies on the outside. Once they're within the Jurisdiction of the US Court system lots of possibilities open up for them.They need to be and should be held at Gitmo where the only people they can talk to are other terrorists...also detained. Like I said, pull your head out of your butt. I don't need to score any points against demoscats. This is the most dissaproved of Congress in US history. These demoscats just keep shooting themselves in the foot and their job approval ratings show it. While O'Bomber is personally popular with his Kool-Aid drinkers, his policies are not popular with most Americans and that includes the stated policies to bring murderous terrorists to US prisons and release trained terrorists into the United States. Well, I knew you didn't actually have anything rational to add acoustic but you could have at least made an effort to state a case for housing murderous terrorists in US prisons...and releasing trained terrorists into the United States. Oh, that's right, your brain dead leftist icon O'Bomber says so and that's good enough for little old conformist you.
IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 626
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 26, 2009 08:02 PM
oh did i say i wanted them here? NO. did i say the plan was for max security NO intermingling (SEGREGATED means that) even with each other? yes gitmo is OFFICIALLY us territory. it is also on cuba. how is that MORE secure than here? because there are soldiers not prison guards? perhaps you need your eyeglasses fixed - or something. you keep reading what i haven't written. there's always alcatraz, but that brings in good tourist money so i guess that's out! i daren't make the other joke that comes to mind, might get me arrested. IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 361
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 26, 2009 10:11 PM
Gitmo is on the island of Cuba but it's US territory. There will be no segregation of prisoners in the US. Terrorist attorneys will file motions in court to prevent that. There is no way and no grounds for holding them in solitary confinement...unless they break prison rules. They will be afforded all the customary rights as other prisoners. O'Bomber's Kool-Aid brigades are only kidding themselves if they think otherwise....regardless of what the great Constitutional Scholar O'Bomber says for public consumption. Once they're here, the fun and games begin with O'Bomber as the Clown in Chief. There is no better or safer place on earth to house and detain these captured terrorists and no rational reason to move them to the United States....unless you actually have a rational, logical and reasonable reason to do so katatonic. Do you?
IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 426
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 26, 2009 10:35 PM
quote:
Once they're within the Jurisdiction of the US Court system lots of possibilities open up for them.
They already are within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court system as the Bush Administration found out multiple times. Check out Boumediene v. Bush. quote:
There is no way to totally segregate these terrorists from the rest of the prison population.
I bet there is. quote:
Like I said, pull your head out of your butt.
You can say what you like, but the only one talking out their ass is you. quote:
This is the most dissaproved of Congress in US history.
You mean the previous Congress was. That's why voters voted MORE Democrats into office. quote:
release trained terrorists into the United States.
We're dealing with the so-called "trained terrorists" in the other thread. These are regular people that have fled Chinese who were picked up in Afghanistan, and SOLD to the United States as terrorists.
The CSRT policy declares an unlawful enemy combatant to be someone who “was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.” http://tilj.org/journal/entry/43_1_danner/P3/
According to the United States legal system, none of the Uighurs carry this lable anymore. Uighurs exist peacefully in many countries including the United States. quote:
Oh, that's right, your brain dead leftist icon O'Bomber says so and that's good enough for little old conformist you.
Conformist me? You're the one who brings every Republican opinion you find on the internet to this place. Who are you trying to call a conformist? IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 361
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 26, 2009 10:43 PM
So, when are you going to pull your head out of your butt and tell us why it's a "good idea" to move terrorists to the United States....and release some of them in the US?IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 426
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 26, 2009 11:29 PM
Who ever said I had to?I'll tell you why the Uighurs have to come to the U.S. Foreign nation: Why were they in Guantanamo if they're not terrorists? United States: Two reasons. One they were sold to us as terrorists picked up in Afghanistan, and two they gave us leverage to get China's cooperation in our War on Terror. Foreign nation: So if they're not terrorists, and not a threat to the United States, why not release them in your own country? United States: Good point. IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 361
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 27, 2009 08:48 AM
You have an obligation to make a case for housing terrorists in US prisons and for releasing trained terrorists in the United States acoustic. You acquired that obligation the instant you decided to join this argument.So acoustic, let's see your arguments. Btw..."what O'Bomber said" isn't an argument and it's not stating a case. O'Bomber is an empty headed buffoon making a political statement, not a rational argument. But this isn't political. This is National Security and O'Bomber is getting beaten up for confusing the two or not knowing the difference. His own party is doing some of the beating. IP: Logged |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
