DescentBB

And there I thought all those pesky Dems wanted Gitmo closed as it was a stain on Americas honor:

\"WASHINGTON (AP) - In a major rebuke to President Barack Obama, the Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to block the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States and denied the administration the millions it sought to close the prison.

The 90-6 Senate vote—paired with similar House action last week—was a clear sign to Obama that he faces a tough fight getting the Democratic-controlled Congress to agree with his plans to shut down the detention center and move the 240 detainees.\"

So Code Pink and Media Matters, get going and start demonstrating. Or perhaps you never thought this one thru very carfully.

There is no quicker path for the republicans to get back in power, then to have a prisoner at Gitmo be released and then commit a terrorist act.

That doesn't mean that it is right to keep them there without trials, but the politics behind all of this is clear as day. Americans by and large would rather innocent foreigners rot in prison, then risk a non-innocent foreigner attacking one of their loved ones.

Part of the problem is (that I've heard) is that for some of the detainees, their country does NOT want them back and have no place to \"go\" if release. 'oh!

How come they can't be locked up in Federal Maximum Security Prisons on U.S. soil? Of course, if some of them are innocent, we've made some really nasty enemies we wouldn't want to let go now. Thanks a bunch George and Dick!

Right, because it was only during the previous administration that someone tried to take down the Trade Centers.

When youre the most sucessful country in the world, you're going to make enemies.

tunnelcat wrote:How come they can't be locked up in Federal Maximum Security Prisons on U.S. soil? Of course, if some of them are innocent, we've made some really nasty enemies we wouldn't want to let go now. Thanks a bunch George and Dick!

GET OVER IT TC Bush isnt in office.

Do you really think for a second that there arent innocent Americans in the US prison system??? Dont be delusional, of course there is. so did we make "really nasty enemies" out of them?? maybe, such is life, bad things happen to good people. World Trade Center anyone??

I'm Guessing there's a Damn good reason why Congress cut off the funding to close gitmo. Because they saw the Info and said WHOA SH@T they really are bad, and to save face they cut off funding so Obama wouldn't have to go back on his promise. Of course the Man thing to do would have been to stand before the people and say I've reviewed the evidence against these people and Bush was right. But if they did that then they couldnt demonise Bush and Cheny now could they.

TC try expanding your thought process and quit swallowing the left dogma hook line and sinker.

PS. isnt it funny now that there is a Democrat as President suddenly all of the un-named sources that leak info to the press have vanished??? Just an observation

OH TC, By the way Camp Delta Gitmo IS a Maximum security prison and it IS on U.S. Soil

The countries of origin, have no right to fight repatriation, in my opinion…so I say we just airlift them and drop them over said countries.

(with or without parachute)

It has been noted that one of they reasons they are now opposing the closing of Gitmo ... is because they haven't come up with a satisfactory plan for what to do with the detainees yet.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=116&sid=1678817

Spidey wrote:The countries of origin, have no right to fight repatriation, in my opinion…so I say we just airlift them and drop them over said countries.

(with or without parachute)

Now that is what the congress should refuse to fund....the parachutes I mean...I'll pay for the flight if that's what it takes!

Don't forget there was a small sum of money to tranfer the Gitmo bunch to another facility....something like 80 million dollars. So how do you justify the cost in these recessionary times? Maybe Michelle could sell her designer sneakers to help defray the cost?

CUDA wrote:OH TC, By the way Camp Delta Gitmo IS a Maximum security prison and it IS on U.S. Soil

BUT, it's run by the military and is NOT part of justice department. That's where the rub is, military human rights violations and the lack of habius corpus as well as the symbol of national shame it stains us with. The 'War on Terror' was not a declared war, so the military shouldn't be dispensing legal justice.

However, with Obama flip-flopping on deciding to use military tribunals, I guess there's no point in moving them now. If he ever comes back to his original theme of 'change' he promised, there's an empty Maximum Security Federal Prison in Montana they can use.

I don't get why people are freaking out about putting these guys in U.S. based prisons. There are far worse people than them locked up right now. Charles Manson comes to mind.

By the way CUDA, I'm so pissed off at what Bush/Cheney did to this country that I'm NOT going to "GET OVER IT". Cheney especially needs to be charged with war crimes in my opinion! EFF! him and his big fat mouth that's been running all over in the press. He has NO DECORUM for an out of office VP! He needs to keep his mouth closed, crawl into a deep, black hole and SHUT UP!

tunnelcat wrote: He has NO DECORUM for an out of office VP! He needs to keep his mouth closed, crawl into a deep, black hole and SHUT UP!

you mean like Jimmy Carter and Al Gore????

tunnelcat wrote:BUT, it's run by the military and is NOT part of justice department. That's where the rub is, military human rights violations and the lack of habius corpus as well as the symbol of national shame it stains us with. The 'War on Terror' was not a declared war, so the military shouldn't be dispensing legal justice.

They declared the war…but I agree with you, we should just shoot on site, and be done with it!

(I know you didn’t say that, only the dispensing justice part)

from Commentary magazine -
The Gitmo Myth and the Torture Canard

dissent wrote:from Commentary magazine -
The Gitmo Myth and the Torture Canard

HOW DARE YOU BRINGS FACTS INTO THIS DEBATE

The left doesnt care about facts, they only care about feelings

WMD in Iraq

AQ linked with Hussein

Mission Accomplished


lol

Ferno wrote:WMD in Iraq

AQ linked with Hussein

Mission Accomplished


lol

And this addresses Gitmo how????

CUDA wrote:And this addresses Gitmo how????

I was calling on your statement about not caring about facts.

Spidey wrote:They declared the war…but I agree with you, we should just shoot on site, and be done with it!

(I know you didn’t say that, only the dispensing justice part)

You know, that would have simplified a lot of things. No witnesses, no prisoners, no problems! Yeah!

The trouble with Cheney is that he comes off just so EVIL! He reminds me of the Penguin character in the 60's Batman TV show. All he needs is a cigarette in a stiletto holder. He already has the squawk!

CUDA, I think Gore and Carter should shut up too! Can't stand to hear either one of them blither!

CUDA wrote:

dissent wrote:from Commentary magazine -
The Gitmo Myth and the Torture Canard

HOW DARE YOU BRINGS FACTS INTO THIS DEBATE

The left doesnt care about facts, they only care about feelings

You got that right.

So we bring the Gitmo bunch to a US stateside prison. Whats to prevent that prison from being a \"Stain\" on America? Remember Attica?

It’s a no win situation. Terrorism has this insidious aspect of always being the winner by default. Because anything you do as a result, and I mean ANYTHING plays into the plans of the terrorist. And the infighting and resulting tearing apart of the victim is exactly what they wanted in the first place.

Spideys political slant…and of course the Democrats play their part so well.

Spidey wrote:It’s a no win situation. Terrorism has this insidious aspect of always being the winner by default. Because anything you do as a result, and I mean ANYTHING plays into the plans of the terrorist. And the infighting and resulting tearing apart of the victim is exactly what they wanted in the first place.

Spideys political slant…and of course the Democrats play their part so well.

Besides, you know, the whole torture thing, there was this other thing us libs didn't like about gitmo...

...it was the, oh, what was it called, oh yeah:
SUSPENSION OF HABEAS CORPUS

From teh wiki:

The November 13, 2001, Presidential Military Order gave the President of the United States the power to detain suspects, suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as an unlawful combatant. As such, it was asserted that a person could be held indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus and the United States Bill of Rights.

Few of the Gitmo detainees have been charged with ANYTHING.

Since October 7, 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge. As of January 2009, approximately 245 detainees remain.[11]

Three have been convicted of various charges:

* David Hicks was found guilty under retrospective legislation introduced in 2006 of providing material support to terrorists in 2001.[12][13]
* Salim Hamdan took a job as chauffeur driving Osama bin Laden.[14]
* Ali al-Bahlul made a video celebrating the attack on the USS Cole (DDG-67).

Thats the big deal about this camp!

So what…blood is thicker than water, these things should have been handled in an “internal” way.

Dak, I realize you're young and all, but prisoners taken from a battlefield cannot be held for trial. War prisoners can and are held until the cessation of hostility's. With the war on terror, that could be a real long time. I think for the most part the military has already discovered who the innocent goat herder was and turned him loose. The ones remaining are true combatants and should be held until hell freezes over or Bin Laden declares a end to hostilities.

Wood is right the Constitution does not apply to these people. the Geneva convention does. these people were detained while in a Military Combat zone. they can be held until the end of hostilities without trial.

The November 13, 2001, Presidential Military Order gave the President of the United States the power to detain suspects, suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as an unlawful combatant. As such, it was asserted that a person could be held indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus and the United States Bill of Rights.

I'm thinking this applies to every living creature now? If so, I want a voice in what describes a terrorist. Could be one day they call me one =/

flip wrote:unlawful combatant.

Websters wrote:Unlawful combatant

Definition: an individual who violates the law by engaging in combat; an individual who is involved in but not authorized to take part in hostilities; also called illegal combatant, unprivileged combatant

Websters wrote:com⋅bat  /v. kəmˈbæt, ˈkɒmbæt, ˈkʌm-; n. ˈkɒmbæt, ˈkʌm-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [v. kuhm-bat, kom-bat, kuhm-; n. kom-bat, kuhm-] Show IPA verb, -bat⋅ed, -bat⋅ing or (especially British) -bat⋅ted, -bat⋅ting,

Military. active, armed fighting with enemy forces.

it applies to you if you raise arms against the Military. so if you are planning a coup against the government watch out

An unlawful combatant is as is described withing the Geneva convention. Really simply put, someone who is not wearing a military uniform and is taking aggressive action against said army.

It's there, look it up. It's an interesting read.

Is there a such thing as mental combat? Or idealogic warfare? If I disagree with something(say a strip search) and my only action is to refuse to do what is commanded of me, does that make me an unlawful combatant?

no.

this is OBVIOUSLY directed at NON U.S. citizens that take up arms against our government. there is a reason why Timothy McVey and Terry Nichols are not considered Unlawful combatants. first and foremost is they are U.S. citizens and the constitution applies to U.S. citizens. where as the Geneva Convention applies to Unlawful combatants. IE in this case NON U.S. citizens

it is an apples and oranges comparison

Duper wrote:An unlawful combatant is as is described withing the Geneva convention. Really simply put, someone who is not wearing a military uniform and is taking aggressive action against said army.

It's there, look it up. It's an interesting read.

We used to call them spies and they could be shot out of hand. Now it is extended to combatants not wearing a uniform.

Woody, GO READ it. It's part of the original draft.

I read the entire Geneva convention treaty last year when Lothar posted a link to it.

flip wrote:Is there a such thing as mental combat? Or idealogic warfare? If I disagree with something(say a strip search) and my only action is to refuse to do what is commanded of me, does that make me an unlawful combatant?

Mental combat? Idealogic warfare? ... Wouldn't that be Politics as usual?

Yeah like politics in Tienanmen Square.

The administration's plan, according to three government officials, calls for:
_Moving all the Guantanamo detainees to a single U.S. prison. The Justice Department has identified between 60 and 80 who could be prosecuted, either in military or federal criminal courts. The Pentagon would oversee the detainees who would face trial in military tribunals. The Bureau of Prisons, an arm of the Justice Department, would manage defendants in federal courts.
_Building a court facility within the prison site where military or criminal defendants would be tried. Doing so would create a single venue for almost all the criminal defendants, ending the need to transport them elsewhere in the U.S. for trial.
_Providing long-term holding cells for a small but still undetermined number of detainees who will not face trial because intelligence and counterterror officials conclude they are too dangerous to risk being freed.
_Building immigration detention cells for detainees ordered released by courts but still behind bars because countries are unwilling to take them.

Source=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090802/ap_ ... _detainees

I think Fort Leavenworth is too close to the bread basket of America to allow terrorist to be in imprisoned for my liking.

So what is the problem with having the terrorists tried in Gitmo? Why do they have to be transported to the US? Why dump money in building a venue to try them in a US prison? Other than the liberal democrats painting Gitmo as some sort of human rights abomination, nothing will change. Terrorists will still be in prison. They will still get their day in court if tried in Gitmo. Upside is we will not have to sink more millions of dollars into providing them a new home. Last I checked we are in a recession and can't afford the cost to move them and to provide all the security for the dog and pony show the bleeding hearts want to provide them.

woodchip wrote:So what is the problem with having the terrorists tried in Gitmo?..

because if they build a replacement for gitmo they can puff up their chest and say "We closed Gitmo just like we promised!!" and most of the idiots who voted for him will be appeased. Any discussion of how they really just recreated Gitmo will be met by the argument that Obama is wise and has to deal with the subtleties that the original problem presents and the few differences will pointed at and heralded as epic and the many similarities will be ignored by both the media and the administration so by virtue of that presentation reality will be altered...at least in the tiny walnut sized craniums of their supporters.