Reply With Quote
I couldn't tell you.
We already have several convicted terrorists in prisons on the mainland -- been here 15 years.
I'm being serious. I don't want any at ude, sarcastic remarks, or bull . 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 couldn't tell you.
We already have several convicted terrorists in prisons on the mainland -- been here 15 years.
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 head, WC, BoniVore, and ilk have scaremongered people into "believing" (ie, no facts, just bull ) 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.
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
So we are worried that the terrorists may attack a prison that contains terrorists?
Curious....What made you ask that question?
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.
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.
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.
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.
master ninjas
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."
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.
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 cons uents who will hold it against them and a political opponent looking to capitalize on that.
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 cons utional protections. Besides the harm they can do to society if they escape, with would be unlikely, granting legal protection beyond the cons ution 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?
Meanwhile, in a bizzare alternate universe, where Capt. Kirk is a bad guy and Spock sports a goatee...
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.
i've always said if theyre real terrorists, they shouldve been killed upon capture, intel, execute those ers 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 , 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 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
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?
that wasnt sarcasm thats what im telling themso 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
and i wouldnt want them mixing, thats what im saying
It's easier to torture the out of them if they are off the mainland...at least in theory.
.....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...
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.
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.
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..
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
