Where to Put Gitmo Prisoners...

[Detroitej72]

I was listening to this topic discussed today on the radio and kept hearing all these folks screaming how they don't want them in their backyard.

What, do they think they'll be camping on their front lawns? I mean, seriously folks, they will be locked up in maximum security prisons. There is even one town, I think in Montana, who has offered to house them because it will create jobs for the towns folks.

I find it rather amusing how some fear mongering right wingers are elevating them to supervillan status, like Lex Luther or the Joker. Do they think so little of our correctional facilities that they think they will escape easily?

I read a piece recently in the Freep where John Engler thinks putting them up in Marquette Prison would be a good idea. The warden there said the few who escape, usually are caught quickly because the terrain is too rough in the winter and the bugs are too tough in the summer. I can just see some terrorist from the Middle East lasting about 2 hours in the frigged winters!

Another thing people seem to forget, we have Ramzi Yusiff, Terry Nichols, the blind sheik from the first WTC bombing, and many other Islamic terrorists rotting away currently in our prison system. Have any of them escaped yet?

What are some of your thoughts?

[mjs]

Another Daily Show clip that hits the mark exactly. "They're not Warlocks . . . Look where we're holding them now . . . Its a glorified Home Depot gazebo kit!"

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...e-Final-Season

[firstandten]

Another thing people seem to forget, we have Ramzi Yusiff, Terry Nichols, the blind sheik from the first WTC bombing, and many other Islamic terrorists rotting away currently in our prison system. Have any of them escaped yet?

No, and if I am a betting man I bet they will go off the deep end mentally before any of them would escape. The Super Max prison at least at the Federal level is felt by many to be close to cruel and unusual punishment. The ones at the state level can't be far behind. What is more critical is that we find out if these people are truly terrorists or are they goatherders who just got caught up in a sweep because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time. The problem we have now is can we really convict any of these people for terrorist crimes in a court of law since we know that many were tortured

[ccbatson]

Having them held in the US is one more step in giving them the rights of US citizens....THEY ARE NOT US CITIZENS and must not be treated as such.

[barnesfoto]

It seems to me that if ordinary Americans can't afford a trip to Cuba right now, we should not be funding the lodging of "furriners" in Cuba...
How about the MCS or perhaps one of the vacant DPS buildings?

[ccbatson]

Not rights conferred to Americans in exchange for the responsibilities required for those rights.

[firstandten]

I worry more about that 5th bucket that you put the Gitmo prisoners into per the president statements. Those are the guys who you know are dangerous but because of Bush's torture policies these people can't be tried for criminal acts so we will need to put them into indefinite detention. The idea of indefinite detention hits a lot of people the wrong way, but given the state of warfare today and the type of person we are fighting we have better start building at least one more super max prison to hold the terrorist that we catch. As I stated before physically holding these guys are the least of our problems. In supermax they live in a state of permanent lock down in there own cells, with very little human contact on a day-to-day basis.

My concern is that even though you know a detainee is dangerous how can you justify locking him up in a place like supermax, maybe for the rest of his life if he hasn't been convicted of any criminal charges

[Flanders]

Build a five acre version of Afghanistan's terrain with faux caves and Gitmo next to Bush's library in TX, and reenact the detainees' capture by the US war hero CIC, one can grow a beard like Osama bin Laden and the coWboy can get on his horse and lasso him, then tie him up like a little doggie. Then Cheney can take over in the next act, reenacting some of the famous Gitmo "advanced interrogation techniques". He could even get the audience involved, asking for volunteers and the curious to participate in getting waterboarded, crouched into small wooden boxes, electrically shocked or slammed headfirst into plywood walls.

Sort of like Buffalo Bill's turn of the century Wild West show.

Fun and re-educational for budding young conservatives and RWers of all ages.

[rb336]

just a simple note to bats --

the constitution does NOT restrict rights to American citizens

[oladub]

Not rights conferred to Americans in exchange for the responsibilities required for those rights.

Bats, Perhaps you chose inappropriate wording. As you are aware, Jefferson wrote that certain unalienable rights are granted by a Creator. You inferred, instead, that governments 'confer' rights. Governments are created to secure rights not allocate them.

However, since these are not US citizens, I suggest trying some of these hostages in US courts for crimes committed against the US, or Iraqi courts, or the courts of their respective home countries, since they can't be held as prisoners of war because we never declared war. The remaining prisoners that are pretty obviously innocent should be temporarily put into something like a illegal alien holding center and offered to the world community for humanitarian reasons with a deadline. After the deadline, the remaining individuals should be sent back to their home countries with the explanation that no fault could be found with them.

[Bobl]

Give them a trial. Send those "evil doers" who are convicted of crimes to prison, or execute them. Send those who are not convicted of anything back where they came from. Do it now. Take action.
Let the history books condemn the Bush administration for diverting our resources to an unnecessary war in Iraq, creating the Gitmo mess, elevating the status of Iran, and destroying our economy.
Now is the time to solve each of these problems.

[firstandten]

Give them a trial. Send those "evil doers" who are convicted of crimes to prison, or execute them. Send those who are not convicted of anything back where they came from. Do it now. Take action..

Thats the easy part, but whats not so easy is the guy you know is guilty but you can't convict in a court of law because he was tortured. If he is found not guilty then you have to let him go, to have him go back and join the battle. If the guy is just a soldier then its no big deal, but if he has some specialized skills or has contacts in the Muslin world, that could really come back to haunt us. The idea of indefinite detention is distasteful to some but maybe a reality we have to consider.

[mjs]

Thats the easy part, but whats not so easy is the guy you know is guilty but you can't convict in a court of law because he was tortured.

You keep saying this. Cite a source that supports this claim. All I've ever heard is that we can't use evidence that came from torture and the torturer could face civil and criminal charges subject to certain limited immunities. Sounds fair to me.

. . . they can't be held as prisoners of war because we never declared.

Interesting legal theory. That might just work. I also agree on the interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Those that opposed them said they were god given rights that couldn't be taken away and weren't Federally listed powers so the Bill of Rights wasn't needed. Those that supported them said they'd feel better if it was written down anyways. Good thing they did seeing how the second President signed a law that attempted to undermine the First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment which is simply a written version of why some thought we didn't need the Bill of Rights in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Bill_of_Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

[4real]

Since NO country wants the terrorist in Gitmo, maybe house them in say Feinstein's house Pelosi's mansion, Obama's Florida house, and let THEM pay for it.
How does that sound
Other than that the only option is Colorado.

[mjs]

You know, despite how its portrayed in Dirty Harry movies, the exclusionary rule isn't really a burden on good cops. It just made life easier for innocents and made the laziest cops put in a little work and act within the Constitution.

A current drug bust goes like this: "Judge I need a drug warrant for this house". "What makes you think they're selling drugs?" "A reliable informant told us and we watched the house at three different times of the day. Every few minutes someone comes to the house, stays only a few minutes, and leaves." "Ok, here you go."

An old school drug bust: "Hey partner, those SOB's just gave us the evil eye on the way into that house." "Looks like a drug house to me, lets kick in the door and then kick in some heads." Then if they got lucky, the guys got time. If not, that showed them not to look at the cops.

Whether its local cops or federal intelligence officers, accountability and notions of fair play doesn't undermine justice.

[firstandten]

You keep saying this. Cite a source that supports this claim. All I've ever heard is that we can't use evidence that came from torture and the torturer could face civil and criminal charges subject to certain limited immunities. Sounds fair to me.

The president said it himself in this interview with George Stephanopoulos about closing Gitmo

OBAMA: It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up".

Some people have summarized the presidents statements in this way !

we cannot release detainees whom we're unable to convict in a court of law because the evidence against them is "tainted" as a result of our having tortured them, and therefore need some new system -- most likely a so-called new "national security court" -- that "relaxes" due process safeguards so that we can continue to imprison people indefinitely even though we're unable to obtain an actual conviction in an actual court of law.

That is the dilemma that the Bush policies put the president in. Thats why I said the fifth bucket of detainees as the president indicated is going to provide the greatest challenge in the closing of Gitmo

The relaxing of due process goes against the very foundation of law in this society

To me that is more of an issue than where we will physically put people

[rb336]

gitmo costs at least 120 million/year to operate, not including the no-bid contract to KBR that is over 100 million/ year. 220 million a year 16 million more go to another company, the dick corporation. that was just what the bushies actually put ON the budget. double or triple it for the real cost

[mjs]

He was answering whether it could be done in 100 days and said we were going to get it done. To me, its says that it may take more than 100 days to clean up the gigantic mess left by the Bush administration and sort out what information is usable. Are you saying we should convict even if the only evidence was derived from torture? Consider that torture is notorious for getting false confessions and that 25% of the Project Innocence cases that were disproven by DNA evidence had false confessions elicited under less harsh methods. . http://www.innocenceproject.org/unde...onfessions.php

[firstandten]

He was answering whether it could be done in 100 days and said we were going to get it done. To me, its says that it may take more than 100 days to clean up the gigantic mess left by the Bush administration and sort out what information is usable. Are you saying we should convict even if the only evidence was derived from torture? Consider that torture is notorious for getting false confessions and that 25% of the Project Innocence cases that were disproven by DNA evidence had false confessions elicited under less harsh methods. . http://www.innocenceproject.org/unde...onfessions.php

I am just pointing out the situation the president is in this because of the Bush administration trying to justify illegal actions as being legal. In no way am I suggesting that we should convict based on evidence gotten by torture , BUT I am just relating a very real fact that indefinite detention in an american prision may be a very real possiblity for some detainees. What I don't know, is if you can legally justify that sort of action without a official declaration of war.

[d.mcc]

I am just pointing out the situation the president is in this because of the Bush administration trying to justify illegal actions as being legal. In no way am I suggesting that we should convict based on evidence gotten by torture , BUT I am just relating a very real fact that indefinite detention in an american prision may be a very real possiblity for some detainees. What I don't know, is if you can legally justify that sort of action without a official declaration of war.

How many are ACTUALLY terrorists? Now answer...How many if released would probably be terrorists...

[firstandten]

How many are ACTUALLY terrorists? Now answer...How many if released would probably be terrorists...

According to the president the detainees fall into 5 buckets, the only bucket that concerns me are the ones that are known to be terrorists but can't be tried. I believe that is a small number but still a concern.

I heard a number that 1 in 7 detainees released to this point went back to fight again and I guess thats to be expected. I think the U.S. doesn't want to release someone who may have specialized skills such as in explosives but your foot soldiers you would just have to live with that.

[mjs]

Why do we have to release foot soldiers? If they are indeed Taliban soldiers, we can hold them as prisoners of war, and treat them as such, according to the Geneva Convention. However, we do have to release civilians that we can not charge with a crime.

Do a sanity check on what you heard. How did this source determine that 1 in 7 are fighting? Have more than 7 been released?

There's no such thing such as a known terrorist that can't be tried. If they can't prove it, then they don't know it.

[firstandten]

Why do we have to release foot soldiers? If they are indeed Taliban soldiers, we can hold them as prisoners of war, and treat them as such, according to the Geneva Convention. However, we do have to release civilians that we can not charge with a crime.

For the most part thats what we did, however we are talking about an undeclaired war, so I believe the Geneva Convention was worked around by the Bush administration in that fashion.

Do a sanity check on what you heard. How did this source determine that 1 in 7 are fighting? Have more than 7 been released?.

The source is the pentagon, however they could be blowing smoke as well.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...on-releas.html

There's no such thing such as a known terrorist that can't be tried. If they can't prove it, then they don't know it.

How about they knew it but they tortured him also, which effectively tainted the evidence that they had. Or they know it, but he represents more of a potential threat because he was caught before he could do anything harmful.

What I mean by they know it, is that there is actionable intelligence gotten on these people by the military, CIA, FBI etc. proving it in a court of law might be a different story.

[mjs]

An April 7th Defense Intelligence report that even reports the names. Since thats what they do for a living, you found a pretty damned good source and 5% confirmed and 9% suspected definitely provides something to think about.

Of the more than 530 Guantanamo detainees transferred from Department of Defense custody to Guantanamo Bay, 27 were confirmed and 47 were suspected of reengaging in terrorist activity.

What you define as "they knew it", the report defines as "suspected", but I get your point now.

Significant reporting indicates an individual is involved in terrorist activities and analysis of that reporting indicates the individual's identity matches that of a specific former Guantanamo detainee. Or, unverified or single-source, but plausible, reporting indicates a specific former detainee is involved in terrorist activities. For the purposes of this definition, engagement in anti-U.S. propaganda alone does not qualify as terrorist activity.

[ccbatson]

They are not soldiers in uniform, and they are not soldiers of a sovereign state with whom we are at war...therefore, they are not prisoners of war.