Gen. Patraues Endorses Obama's Plan to close GITMO, end torture.

[JoeChalupa]

No, I think he meant it would be beneficial in removing an item the liberals turned into a controversy.

There wouldn't be a controversy if Cheney hadn't gone down the wrong path.

[Wild Cobra]

That's the worst part about this. It is a US owned and operated facility, yet because it's not on US soil, people that we arrest are not granted any sort of rights.

Does that mean that we could just do whatever we wanted with the prisoners? Line them up, shoot them in the head? How about making them all put on a gay porno? I mean, after all, what rights do they have?

That is another large subject in itself. I'll leave it upon technicalities. Look at all the people set free who are obviously guilty of the crime, but released because of a technicality. How many of these terrorists do you want set free because of a technicality? One of which could be the eye witness was killed in action.

Does Miranda Rights apply? How many on the battlefield were given their Miranda Rights?

You really want all these people released on USA soil because of technicalities?

[ChumpDumper]

No, I think he meant it would be beneficial in removing an item the liberals turned into a controversy.

You are misrepresenting the truth.

[Wild Cobra]

Although the facility was intended to be used as a medium-security prison, Smith says it meets maximum-security criteria.

So what, if so, maybe 12 prisoners can be accommodated with that criteria?

To qualify, it doesn't mean the 464 prisoner capacity can be all maximum security. It only means that part of the detention center has that criteria.

I can find so little on the place, but this is important, from the PDF I linked:

Not being a correctional facility, the detention center is subject to the statutes governing detention centers. The Attorney General ruled in a December 2007 opinion that under the laws governing detention centers, the Two Rivers Detention Center cannot house out-of-state or federal felony offenders. The facility is unable to open because it has no contracts for the housing of inmates.

[ChumpDumper]

So what, if so, maybe 12 prisoners can be accommodated with that criteria?

To qualify, it doesn't mean the 464 prisoner capacity can be all maximum security. It only means that part of the detention center has that criteria.

I can find so little on the place, but this is important, from the PDF I linked:

The town council was talking about modifying the prison, so it would probably house fewer -- but I believe they were talking of taking in 100 or so.

No reason to keep them all in one place.

And the PDF quote only applies to it's use as a state detention facility. If it becomes federalized, none of that would matter.

[Wild Cobra]

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No, I think he meant it would be beneficial in removing an item the liberals turned into a controversy.

You are misrepresenting the truth.

You have gone into typical loser mode, you chump.

When I said "I Think," that is CLEARLY MY OPINION!

Are you saying I am lying about my opinion?

LOL... You're such a loser...

[ChumpDumper]

You have gone into typical loser mode, you chump.

When I said "I Think," that is CLEARLY MY OPINION!

Are you saying I am lying about my opinion?

LOL... You're such a loser...

You are free to misrepresent any truth you like.

[Wild Cobra]

You are free to misrepresent any truth you like.

God, you are so stupid. How is my opinion a misrepresentation of the truth?

It is true I stated it as my opinion, or not?

[boutons_deux]

OBL has turned the USA into nation of balless, paranoid scaredy-cats, aided and abetted by all-fear-all-the-time scare-mongering by the wrongies, epitomized by head.

[jack sommerset]

So why are you so determined to keep it open?

If it's just a prison -- prisons close and prisoners are transferred all the time.

I know you didn't ask me this question but my 2 cents is it cost 200 million dollars is why I would keep it open. From all accounts these guys are not going anywhere there. No escapes so far. It's time we quit wasting money. There is a magnifying glass on this place. What ever differences people have on the treatment of these terrorist can be thrown out the window now. Use the facility for these types of prisoners. If you think there are some innocents in Gitmo write ur congressmen.

[ChumpDumper]

If Petraeus thinks it's a good idea, I think it's worth the cost.

[LnGrrrR]

They aren't American citizens and they weren't arrested. What rights do you want to give them?

I think they should have basic Cons utional rights if they are being held on a US facility, no matter where that soil is.

If the government feels otherwise, then they should specifically write up what rights are allowed to those detained off US soil, but under US jurisdiction. Not just make it up as they go.

[LnGrrrR]

That is another large subject in itself. I'll leave it upon technicalities. Look at all the people set free who are obviously guilty of the crime, but released because of a technicality. How many of these terrorists do you want set free because of a technicality? One of which could be the eye witness was killed in action.

Does Miranda Rights apply? How many on the battlefield were given their Miranda Rights?

You really want all these people released on USA soil because of technicalities?

Yes. I'm also willing to release pedophiles who weren't read their Miranda rights, or killers whose investigation was handled improperly, or other cases in which the defendant is not given due justice.

I think America has the best justice system in the world, because we approach it as fairly as possible, by assuming innocence.

I do not think the founders meant that Americans should only assume innocence for fellow Americans, but for EVERY PERSON. It is the only way to fairly judge someone.

As such, I am willing to risk the security of lesser conviction standards in order to make sure that we tried, to the best of our ability, to prove that these people jailed deserve it.

I have that much faith in our criminal justice system.

Once a prisoner is transitioned from a wartime/battlefield setting to a controlled setting of detention, I feel that certain rights kick in. Those rights kick in because the person is no longer able to harm his handlers, as opposed to a battleground where you don't know what could happen.

[jack sommerset]

If Petraeus thinks it's a good idea, I think it's worth the cost.

right!

[ChumpDumper]

Why the laughter?

[jack sommerset]

Yes. I'm also willing to release pedophiles who weren't read their Miranda rights, or killers whose investigation was handled improperly, or other cases in which the defendant is not given due justice.

WTF? You know they are guilty but you would release a child molestor and/or killer walk because of a legal technicality? That my friend is ed up.

[ChumpDumper]

WTF? You know they are guilty but you would release a child molestor and/or killer walk because of a legal technicality? That my friend is ed up.

That's the rule of law.

[jack sommerset]

Why the laughter?

Have you always agreed with the General?

[jack sommerset]

That's the rule of law.

You would do the same?

[ChumpDumper]

Have you always agreed with the General?

Petraeus? Pretty much. You can run a search if you like.

[ChumpDumper]

You would do the same?

Were I a sworn officer of the law or court?

Yeah -- that's what law is about.

[jack sommerset]

Petraeus? Pretty much. You can run a search if you like.

I'll take ur word on that.

[jack sommerset]

Were I a sworn officer of the law or court?

Yeah -- that's what law is about.

Not me. If everyone knows the guy/gal is guilty of murder, I would not give them a chance to kill again because they were not given their miranda rights.

[ChumpDumper]

Not me. If everyone knows the guy/gal is guilty of murder, I would not give them a chance to kill again because they were not given their miranda rights.

So what would you do?

[jack sommerset]

So what would you do?

What would I do to a killer? I would have the person killed right then and there.