JediMaster12 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I was just reading my daily Internet news when I noticed the big headlines stating that President Obama signed three executive orders regarding the closure of the detention center at Gitmo. President Barack Obama began overhauling U.S. treatment of terror suspects Thursday, signing orders to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, review military war crimes trials and ban the harshest interrogation methods... With his action, Obama started changing how the United States prosecutes and questions al-Qaida, Taliban or other foreign fighters who pose a threat to Americans — and overhauling America's image abroad, battered by accusations of the use of torture and the indefinite detention of suspects at the Guantanamo prison in Cuba. [/Quote] Many people may think that this is a stupid thing to do but the way I see it, Obama is looking at the legal implications and how our actions look to the world. It seems that President Obama read his constitution very well regarding Article 6 and hence bringing in Geneva and the UN treaties we signed. Perhaps he is doing justice or perhaps not. Any thoughts? For full article: Obama Closes Gitmo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 It seems that President Obama read his constitution very well...President Obama used to teach Constitutional Law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I think the saying 'start as you mean to go on' is appropriate here. To do something so quickly (two days in office is pretty damn fast given the massive in-tray he's bound to have) is great - and he's showing he means business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I think the saying 'start as you mean to go on' is appropriate here. To do something so quickly (two days in office is pretty damn fast given the massive in-tray he's bound to have) is great - and he's showing he means business. My question is where does he propose to put them... Does he intend to turn them loose to kill again? Seriously, this is going to turn into a legal nightmare the instant they are on US soil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 My question is where does he propose to put them... Does he intend to turn them loose to kill again? Seriously, this is going to turn into a legal nightmare the instant they are on US soil. Many will be sent back to their country, or, in those cases where it isn't safe to send them back, they will be sent to other countries. And in even that instance, I doubt they'll be 'turned loose'. Most of the adopting countries will probably have surveillance measures in place to be on the safe side. And then there's the few who still await trial - they'll be sent to military prisons in the US, from what I can gather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Many will be sent back to their country, or, in those cases where it isn't safe to send them back, they will be sent to other countries. And in even that instance, I doubt they'll be 'turned loose'. Most of the adopting countries will probably have surveillance measures in place to be on the safe side. We already tried that and their home country didn't want them back, so unless you plan on returning them to Al Qaeda, there is no place to send a lot of them. And then there's the few who still await trial - they'll be sent to military prisons in the US, from what I can gather. Yeah, I already heard about how the mastermind of 9/11 may not even stand trial for his crimes now, thanks to this Executive Order... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/21/families-outraged-obama-suspend-guantanamo-war-crimes-trials/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 We already tried that and their home country didn't want them back, so unless you plan on returning them to Al Qaeda, there is no place to send a lot of them.Do you seriously know how many military bases the US has (that we know about) in foreign countries? Even if Guantanamo Bay does close down, there will always be another prison the US can send them to. Yeah, I already heard about how the mastermind of 9/11 may not even stand trial for his crimes now, thanks to this Executive Order...The order calls for only the suspension of the trial, nowhere does the order pardon, acquit, or completely release any suspects. Most likely, current trials will resume once the other prisoners have been relocated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Awesome. Just awesome. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salzella Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Awesome. Just awesome. _EW_ Quoted For Truth. assuming, of course, EW was being sincere. it is ever so hard to tell over teh internetzzz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 And he's off to a good start. Keep it up, Mr. President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Do you seriously know how many military bases the US has (that we know about) in foreign countries? Even if Guantanamo Bay does close down, there will always be another prison the US can send them to. Look if you have them on the mainland, then it ends up being a legal nightmare, additionally if they escape you have the general public at risk. Furthermore even their own countries won't take a lot of these guys back. The order calls for only the suspension of the trial, nowhere does the order pardon, acquit, or completely release any suspects. Most likely, current trials will resume once the other prisoners have been relocated. Yeah, and then they'll end up in civilian courts and some of the evidence can't be used because it's classified, furthermore a lot of these people were captured on the battlefield. Seriously, the instant they are in the US, it's going to be a legal nightmare. Seriously this was only done cause the rest of the world and the far left wanted it done, with absolutely no regard to the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Look if you have them on the mainland, then it ends up being a legal nightmare, additionally if they escape you have the general public at risk. Furthermore even their own countries won't take a lot of these guys back.No, I'm not saying that the government will put them on American soil; like hell that will happen. The US has permanent bases in Germany, South Korea, Japan, Kuwait, Guam, etc. There will always be another prison somewhere that will take up more prisoners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 No, I'm not saying that the government will put them on American soil; like hell that will happen. The US has permanent bases in Germany, South Korea, Japan, Kuwait, Guam, etc. There will always be another prison somewhere that will take up more prisoners. Not if Rep. John Murtha (Democrat) of Pennsylvania gets his way. Rep. John Murtha's invitation to house Guantanamo Bay detainees in his district has some local officials seeing dollar signs -- even though Murtha's comment was met with disbelief by others. The Pennsylvania Democrat, chairman of the defense subcommittee for appropriations, is renowned for his ability to steer earmarked dollars to his district. -- Fox News And some people in his district aren't happy: But some residents of his 12th Congressional District were appalled by the safety implications of his statement. "It's just ridiculous and it's a direct insult," said Bill Russell, an Iraq war veteran who ran against Murtha unsuccessfully last year and is running again in 2010. He warned about the dangers of detainees mingling with stateside prisoners. "You've got the risk of recruitment where they're selling their brand of Jihad," he said. He said the proposal is also an insult to the passengers of Flight 93, one of four hijacked planes which went down near Murtha's district on Sept. 11, 2001. The long-serving congressman beat Russell in November even after calling his constituents "racist" and "rednecks" just weeks before Election Day. -- Fox News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Not if Rep. John Murtha (Democrat) of Pennsylvania gets his way.Okay, that's just one congressman asking for it. I'm not saying that putting prisoners in the US is inherently bad, but it's more of a "Not in my backyard" argument; No one will go along with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Okay, that's just one congressman asking for it. I'm not saying that putting prisoners in the US is inherently bad, but it's more of a "Not in my backyard" argument; No one will go along with it. It's an extreme danger to the general public, if one of these wackos were to escape... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 unless it's one of the innocent ones although they'll prolly hate us now that we've put them in jail and tortured them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Quoted For Truth. assuming, of course, EW was being sincere. it is ever so hard to tell over teh internetzzz. You haven't spent enough time with me in Kavar's if you can't tell It was completely sincere _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 It's an extreme danger to the general public, if one of these wackos were to escape...If the US built a prison on American soil to house suspected terrorists who have killed several thousand on the same soil, I'm sure the government would love any excuse to kill any detainees belonging to said group. The facility would most likely be lined with minefields, machine gun nests, a whole battalion on standby, and probably a fail-safe nuclear warhead as a last resort. Kinda like in The Andromeda Strain. Oh, and what jmac said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 unless it's one of the innocent ones jmac they were captured in the middle of a battlefield it's rather unlikely that they are innocent. although they'll prolly hate us now that we've put them in jail and tortured them The only ones I heard of that were waterboarded were the leaders they captured and as a result several terrorist attacks were thwarted. It was only used in extreme situations, it wasn't used on the prisoners at random, it was only used on key Al Qaeda leaders that had been captured, and that saved lives. If the US built a prison on American soil to house suspected terrorists who have killed several thousand on the same soil, I'm sure the government would love any excuse to kill any detainees belonging to said group. The facility would most likely be lined with minefields, machine gun nests, a whole battalion on standby, and probably a fail-safe nuclear warhead as a last resort. Kinda like in The Andromeda Strain. No because you'll have far left groups, human rights watch and everything else, claiming that we're violating their human rights. Heck we'll have them claiming that if it was just like the regular prison system. And then they'll try to get them all released saying we're violating their civil rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 It's all the damned CIA's fault. They should have never let any of this get leaked to the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Prison is big money these days, build a state-of-the art prison somewhere for ONLY these guys and put them there. It'll create jobs. Also EW, you have a House avatar, that makes it harder. jmac they were captured in the middle of a battlefield it's rather unlikely that they are innocent. If a battle erupted in your home town, and you couldn't get out, does that make you guilty? And no, many people at Gitmo are random people apprehended in non-battlefield locations. And please don't say "terrorism makes the whole world a battlefield" because it doesn't, and that's dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Prison is big money these days, build a state-of-the art prison somewhere for ONLY these guys and put them there. It'll create jobs. Yeah, and they can still escape from it and put civilians at risk, it was far better to have them on an island in the middle of shark infested waters. If a battle erupted in your home town, and you couldn't get out, does that make you guilty? No, and as I understand it very few people in that situation were rounded up, typically people in that situation were released. And no, many people at Gitmo are random people apprehended in non-battlefield locations. And please don't say "terrorism makes the whole world a battlefield" because it doesn't, and that's dumb. If that were the case why isn't their home country demanding them back, the overwhelming majority of the people we captured weren't even from the country we captured them in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 jmac they were captured in the middle of a battlefield it's rather unlikely that they are innocent. The only ones I heard of that were waterboarded were the leaders they captured and as a result several terrorist attacks were thwarted. It was only used in extreme situations, it wasn't used on the prisoners at random, it was only used on key Al Qaeda leaders that had been captured, and that saved lives.. yes i know i know you have personally toured gitmo and gotten a detailed history of all the inmates there so you know everything there is to know about them. and i've never heard anyone trash human rights watch for doing their jobs, good job being horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Yeah, and they can still escape from it and put civilians at risk, it was far better to have them on an island in the middle of shark infested waters. People swim, drive, escape from Cuba to the US all the time. Yes, it's deadly. Does this mean it will fail? of course not, the fact that some got here is proof enough. Could a POW in Gitmo do the same? course they could. No, and as I understand it very few people in that situation were rounded up, typically people in that situation were released. Yet, like all prison systems, such is not always the case. Since that is so, you cannot simply claim they all deserve what they get, and regardless of what they did, do we really want to put ourselves on par with historical torturers? We cry and moan and complain about how our POWs were treated in wars, why can we do unto others as we would NOT have done unto ourselves? If that were the case why isn't their home country demanding them back, the overwhelming majority of the people we captured weren't even from the country we captured them in. Probably because their home country is smart enough to notice that countries with terrorists, terror suspects, and possible terror cells, are prime targets for American invasions. Why would they want to paint a target on their forehead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 People swim, drive, escape from Cuba to the US all the time. Yes, it's deadly. Does this mean it will fail? of course not, the fact that some got here is proof enough. Could a POW in Gitmo do the same? course they could. Yes and they are typically on some sort of boat or something of that nature. Yet, like all prison systems, such is not always the case. Since that is so, you cannot simply claim they all deserve what they get, and regardless of what they did, do we really want to put ourselves on par with historical torturers? We cry and moan and complain about how our POWs were treated in wars, why can we do unto others as we would NOT have done unto ourselves? Look, if there were people that were tortured for no reason except to amuse the guards or to get false confessions, someone should be prosecuted. But based on evidence the only people tortured were leaders of Al Qaeda that we captured and it was a matter of life and death, there were a few plots that were foiled in the United States thanks to the information gotten. Probably because their home country is smart enough to notice that countries with terrorists, terror suspects, and possible terror cells, are prime targets for American invasions. Why would they want to paint a target on their forehead? Because if we let them go, it would make us look kinda silly to go in after them into that country... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.