Someone help me understand this

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I'm being serious. I don't want any attitude, sarcastic remarks, or bull shit. Just straight up, someone help me understand why it is a bad thing to put terrorists in prisons located on the US mainland. I always thought a prison is a prison is a prison. Surely we would not put them in local low security city jails? We're talking max security federal prisons.

Why is this controversial?

[ChumpDumper]

I couldn't tell you.

We already have several convicted terrorists in prisons on the mainland -- been here 15 years.

[boutons_deux]

Because people are stupid and irrational.

Some areas whose entire lifeblood is the Prison Industrial Complex don't want these untried terrorists, the vast majority admitted to be innocent, because they think that makes the area a target for terrorists.

The wrongies, eg dickhead, WC, BoniVore, and ilk have scaremongered people into "believing" (ie, no facts, just bullshit) that terrorists are infinitely powerful and able to strike anywhere and everywhere in the USA, destroy the country, even after OBL turned the USA into a paranoid police state.

[jack sommerset]

The most important fact to me is they spent 200 million to open the prison, they should use it. I like the fact its not on US soil.

FYI.One in seven of the 534 prisoners already transferred abroad from the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has returned to terrorism or militant activity, according to an unreleased Pentagon report described by administration officials

[Cant_Be_Faded]

So we are worried that the terrorists may attack a prison that contains terrorists?

[jack sommerset]

So we are worried that the terrorists may attack a prison that contains terrorists?

Curious....What made you ask that question?

[Gino]

Im a conservative and I dont know either. But this was voted down i believe 90-5 in the senate so Im guessing theres a logical reason.

If someone knows, I would like them to share.

[angrydude]

You don't put them in regular prisons with regular inmates because you'd basically be treating them as regular criminals.

The government wants to treat them as enemy combatants. You don't put prisoners of war in a jail with your civilian prisoners.

Now if we're talking about a military prison on the mainland, like Leavenworth or something, then that's different and from a practical standpoint it wouldn't make much of a difference. But I don't think that's what the majority of people are talking about.

I think not closing Getmo is more symbolic now than anything.

[PixelPusher]

But this was voted down i believe 90-5 in the senate so Im guessing theres a logical reason.


It's the logic of 90 politicians who are desperate to avoid the "soft on national security" label, legit or not. It's a close cousin of the "soft on crime" canard that's been fueling our glorious war on drugs as well.

[SnakeBoy]

The individuals at gitmo are just too dangerous to risk bringing here. They have the skills of a master ninja so if they were to escape then law enforcement would have no chance of capturing them again. They have also studied every episode of McGyver, so they could easily build a nuclear bomb out of bubble gum and cigarette butts and kill us all. It's just too risky!


Either that or it's just because all politics are local.

[jack sommerset]

The individuals at gitmo are just too dangerous to risk bringing here. They have the skills of a master ninja so if they were to escape then law enforcement would have no chance of capturing them again. They have also studied every episode of McGyver, so they could easily build a nuclear bomb out of bubble gum and cigarette butts and kill us all. It's just too risky!


Either that or it's just because all politics are local.

:lol master ninjas

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Curious....What made you ask that question?

Because boutons_Nineteen said:

"Some areas whose entire lifeblood is the Prison Industrial Complex don't want these untried terrorists, the vast majority admitted to be innocent, because they think that makes the area a target for terrorists."

[Cant_Be_Faded]

You don't put them in regular prisons with regular inmates because you'd basically be treating them as regular criminals.

The government wants to treat them as enemy combatants. You don't put prisoners of war in a jail with your civilian prisoners.

Now if we're talking about a military prison on the mainland, like Leavenworth or something, then that's different and from a practical standpoint it wouldn't make much of a difference. But I don't think that's what the majority of people are talking about.

I think not closing Getmo is more symbolic now than anything.

This makes sense to an extent. But it sounds like an argument of semantics.

[angrydude]

This makes sense to an extent. But it sounds like an argument of semantics.

Its just a legal thing. Lawyers make their living with this crap.

[coyotes_geek]

I'm being serious. I don't want any attitude, sarcastic remarks, or bull shit. Just straight up, someone help me understand why it is a bad thing to put terrorists in prisons located on the US mainland. I always thought a prison is a prison is a prison. Surely we would not put them in local low security city jails? We're talking max security federal prisons.

Why is this controversial?

It's controversial because no politician, democrat or republican alike, wants to run for re-election being known as the guy who let Obama put terrorists in his district. Whether or not terrorists are more or less dangerous on the mainland is irrelevant. No politician wants them in their district because there will be a large group of their constituents who will hold it against them and a political opponent looking to capitalize on that.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm being serious. I don't want any attitude, sarcastic remarks, or bull shit. Just straight up, someone help me understand why it is a bad thing to put terrorists in prisons located on the US mainland. I always thought a prison is a prison is a prison. Surely we would not put them in local low security city jails? We're talking max security federal prisons.

Why is this controversial?
I'm not completely sure. I have several thoughts on it. I think the biggest is that they will then also fall under US law rather than just constitutional protections. Besides the harm they can do to society if they escape, with would be unlikely, granting legal protection beyond the constitution would probably make for release upon poor evidence. The evidence needed to keep them in custody would change from that needed from capturing them in a battlefield situation.

I haven't worried too much about the situation. This is one of the few areas I trust the government in. I'm happy they are at Cuba rather than in the USA. Where would they go if they escape?

Here's a question... Why bring them here when we have a facility doing just fine with them? Why change what is working? Just because people complain about it?

[PixelPusher]

Meanwhile, in a bizzare alternate universe, where Capt. Kirk is a bad guy and Spock sports a goatee...
http://www.lothere.com/verso/images/1085/mirror_mirror.jpg


Netherlands to close prisons for lack of criminals (http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2246821.ece/Netherlands_to_close_prisons_for_lack_of_criminals )
Published: 19 May 2009 16:31 | Changed: 20 May 2009 15:35
By our news desk
The Dutch justice ministry has announced it will close eight prisons and cut 1,200 jobs in the prison system. A decline in crime has left many cells empty.

During the 1990s the Netherlands faced a shortage of prison cells, but a decline in crime has since led to overcapacity in the prison system. The country now has capacity for 14,000 prisoners but only 12,000 detainees.

Deputy justice minister Nebahat Albayrak announced on Tuesday that eight prisons will be closed, resulting in the loss of 1,200 jobs. Natural redundancy and other measures should prevent any forced lay-offs, the minister said.

The overcapacity is a result of the declining crime rate, which the ministry's research department expects to continue for some time.

Belgian prisoners

Some reprieve might come from a deal with Belgium, which is facing overpopulation in its prisons. The two countries are working out an agreement to house Belgian prisoners in Dutch prisons. Some five-hundred Belgian prisoners could be transferred to the Tilburg prison by 2010.

The Netherlands would get 30 million euros in the deal, and it will allow the closing of the prisons in Rotterdam and Veenhuizen to be postponed until 2012.

[mookie2001]

i've always said if theyre real terrorists, they shouldve been killed upon capture, fuck intel, execute those fuckers and theyll just be another dead terrorist in this '"war". im sure a lot of military think that too and it happens like that.

so that leaves a bunch of people who arent really shit, or else have zero evidence against them, so DONT imprison them, imagine that

if theyre really a "terrorist" put those people in jail FOREVER in the US or wherever we can, we cannot torture though thats low class.

the problem is the patriot act defined a terrorist as any person suspected of breaking any law, local, state, federal or international

the worst thing you do besides torture is release them so they can go back to their shit countries or the UK switzerland and blog and tell their pussyass friends about how we wrongfully imprisoned them

so life in prison, youve got no rights sorry, sorry we didnt kill you, but now youve got to be in SOLITARY, 3rd class prisoner eating bread and water

i cant imagine how bad it would be to be an american criminal and have to share a cell and eat the same food as some foreign muslim

[Wild Cobra]

so life in prison, youve got no rights sorry, sorry we didnt kill you, but now youve got to be in SOLITARY, 3rd class prisoner eating bread and water

What makes you think they have it bad in Gitmo? My understanding is they have it pretty good, considering it's a prison.


i cant imagine how bad it would be to be an american criminal and have to share a cell and eat the same food as some foreign muslim
Well, if for some reason, I shared a cell with a terrorist, I would kill him with my bare hands if he didn't kill me first!

Ever think that may be part of the problem? Believe it od not, we have people in jail who love this country. Mixing in terrorists...

Talk about another prison gang to deal with! How bad do you think the problems between prisoners would become?

[mookie2001]

so life in prison, youve got no rights sorry, sorry we didnt kill you, but now youve got to be in SOLITARY, 3rd class prisoner eating bread and water
that wasnt sarcasm thats what im telling them


and i wouldnt want them mixing, thats what im saying

[whottt]

It's easier to torture the shit out of them if they are off the mainland...at least in theory.

[Nbadan]

.....that's simple, because as soon as they hit U.S. soil they'll want protections like lawyers, the right to know the charges against them, the right to face their accusers and evidence against them, and the right to tell what has been done to them during "enhanced interrogation techniques" at GITMO and other prisons to extract confessions...we can't have that...

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Here's a question... Why bring them here when we have a facility doing just fine with them? Why change what is working? Just because people complain about it?

True, if it ain't broke don't fix it, but that argument is dead with the official plans to close Gitmo prison. It's a dead end.


.....that's simple, because as soon as they hit U.S. soil they'll want protections like lawyers, the right to know the charges against them, the right to face their accusers and evidence against them, and the right to tell what has been done to them during "enhanced interrogation techniques" at GITMO and other prisons to extract confessions...we can't have that...

This is the line of thinking that blows my mind. Heres an idea: laugh at their ethnic faces when they ask for these protections, and keep treating them as we have been treating them, with less torture of course.

[MiamiHeat]

What if they try to convert other inmates, american civilians, to terrorism?

Once they are on US soil, does this mean they should be guaranteed Habeas Corpus? Does it override the Patriot Act and the 'enemy combatant' status?

etc..

[Pistons < Spurs]

What if they try to convert other inmates, american civilians, to terrorism?



Yeah, the possibility of recruiting other Americans to their cause was one of the arguments I recently heard on the radio against bringing them here.

[FaithInOne]

Let them get their shit pushed in by America's Brand of Hardened Criminals.

We may be soft, but we can still produce some bad mf'ers in the pen. Surely the Aryan brotherhood would have enough pride not to be converted to the cause.

[Wild Cobra]

Surely the Aryan brotherhood would have enough pride not to be converted to the cause.
LOL...

Let then share the playground with that group, and see what happens...

[George Gervin's Afro]

The individuals at gitmo are just too dangerous to risk bringing here. They have the skills of a master ninja so if they were to escape then law enforcement would have no chance of capturing them again. They have also studied every episode of McGyver, so they could easily build a nuclear bomb out of bubble gum and cigarette butts and kill us all. It's just too risky!


Either that or it's just because all politics are local.

That's about the most logical explanation for this hysteria..

[LnGrrrR]

You don't put them in regular prisons with regular inmates because you'd basically be treating them as regular criminals.

The government wants to treat them as enemy combatants. You don't put prisoners of war in a jail with your civilian prisoners.

Now if we're talking about a military prison on the mainland, like Leavenworth or something, then that's different and from a practical standpoint it wouldn't make much of a difference. But I don't think that's what the majority of people are talking about.

I think not closing Getmo is more symbolic now than anything.

Prisoner of war =/= nonlawful enemy combatant

So you could put them with the regular population... or keep up this 'third way', where they're not POWs OR regular prisoners. Which, to me, is asinine.

[LnGrrrR]

What makes you think they have it bad in Gitmo? My understanding is they have it pretty good, considering it's a prison.

Well, if for some reason, I shared a cell with a terrorist, I would kill him with my bare hands if he didn't kill me first!

Ever think that may be part of the problem? Believe it od not, we have people in jail who love this country. Mixing in terrorists...

Talk about another prison gang to deal with! How bad do you think the problems between prisoners would become?

Ahh but you'd be cool with sharing a cell with say, a rapist or pedophile, right? :P

Prisoners share prison space with all types of vile people. That's one of the incentives NOT to go to jail.

[ChumpDumper]

What if they try to convert other inmates, american civilians, to terrorism?


Yeah, the possibility of recruiting other Americans to their cause was one of the arguments I recently heard on the radio against bringing them here.
Please -- rumor had it that Ramzi Yousef converted to Christianity and now eats pork.

Do we have any reports of his converting anyone else to radical Islam in Colorado over the past 12 years?

How about Richard Reid?

Zacarias Moussaoui?

They're all in the same place, you know.

Terra-ists on American soil! I bet you're afraid now!

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/1117/panicyj81uh9.gif

[angrydude]

Prisoner of war =/= nonlawful enemy combatant

So you could put them with the regular population... or keep up this 'third way', where they're not POWs OR regular prisoners. Which, to me, is asinine.


Well the government wants to call them nonlawful combatants (whatever that is). In order to call them that they don't want to treat them like civilians, otherwise the terrorist will use that in court to dispute their designation. They'll say that since they are being treated as regular civilian prisoners, they should have the rights of regular citizens.

The govt. doesn't want them to be able to do that.

The rest of it is just politics.

[boutons_deux]

"One in seven of the 534 prisoners ... has returned to terrorism or militant activity."

If they were prove-able terrorist or militants, WTF were they released?

[whottt]

Let them get their shit pushed in by America's Brand of Hardened Criminals.

We may be soft, but we can still produce some bad mf'ers in the pen. Surely the Aryan brotherhood would have enough pride not to be converted to the cause.


LOL...

Let then share the playground with that group, and see what happens...

True...first time one of the terrorists says, "down with Israel", the Aryan brotherhood will be all over his ass..no doubt.

Kindred spirits...not enemies.

[MiamiHeat]

These are NOT conventional soldiers. They do NOT fight for a government or country.

They are idealist terrorists. Treat them as such. They are not POW's

[FaithInOne]

True...first time one of the terrorists says, "down with Israel", the Aryan brotherhood will be all over his ass..no doubt.

Kindred spirits...not enemies.

lmao, I might have overlooked a small detail. :bang

[Spurminator]

Please -- rumor had it that Ramzi Yousef converted to Christianity and now eats pork.

Do we have any reports of his converting anyone else to radical Islam in Colorado over the past 12 years?

How about Richard Reid?

Zacarias Moussaoui?

They're all in the same place, you know.

Terra-ists on American soil! I bet you're afraid now!

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/1117/panicyj81uh9.gif


How many of the Gitmo detainees even speak English?

[j-6]

Let them get their shit pushed in by America's Brand of Hardened Criminals.

We may be soft, but we can still produce some bad mf'ers in the pen. Surely the Aryan brotherhood would have enough pride not to be converted to the cause.

Kind of my thought when I read this. If convicts brand and rape child molesters, wouldn't they lube up with lard (rendered pig fat) and gangbang-ass-fuck Islamic terrorists until they bled to death? One doubts many of the guards would give a shit.