Best
119 Comments
Post
  • #15
    !
    My only problem with Cuba, is that it is too close to the US. Siberia is better, let them kill one another there!
  • #36
    !
    They are in Cuba, will continue to remain in Cuba. Let's not forget Obamas broken promise to shut down Gitmo. Even the President knows better than to transfer them here.

    Which makes this a ploy on the part of Blackburn. Something to tell her herd of cattle, sorry constituents, about if they ask what she's done to repair our anemic economy.

    What's that make you for endorsing it?
  • #111
    !
    @BobSmith "Too bad Obama damaged our relations with Russia so much"

    So we should have LOST the Cold War? I mean, I can't think of a much more damaging thing to "our relations with Russia" than kicking Russia's ass.
  • R Load more replies

  • #5
    !
    Absolutely. The last thing we need is to bring terrorist into our Country where they have access to our justice system. By the very nature of war and terrorism the farther these people are from our shores the better off we are as a nation. The only people that want them hear are the ACLU and the lawyers who no doubt give would make big bucks defending these people. By the way I consider Obama and Holder to be part of the ACLU.
  • #44
    !
    Here's a clue, kiddo. Let's first prove that they are terrorists, at which point it is moral and logical to incarcerate them. Were any other country to treat our citizens in this manner it would be the beginning of World War III.
  • #68
    !
    They ALREADY have access to our justice system. Go read up on Supreme Court decisions like Rasul v. Bush, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and Boumediene v. Bush. Imprisoning them outside the United States is immaterial to whether they have access to US courts.
  • #88
    !
    @Litdes

    You don't pay attention to the news very well...I believe we treat them better than Iran/China/North Korea, hell, even Mexico, does our citizens that incarcerated...
  • #93
    !
    @Cal and yet there are no trials or challenges to their incarceration. Doesn't sound like the "access" is very meaningful.

    "The US Supreme Court decisions did not explicitly set out the rights of the detainees under international law, but provided for a possibility for the detainees to challenge their indefinite detention."
    http://www.asser.nl/default.aspx...
  • #94
    !
    @jaybebo84 actually, I am a news-junkie, and none of those countries is claiming American civilians in civilian clothing is an enemy combatant and a prisoner of war. They also don't incarcerate without charge or trial, even if you disapprove of the results.
  • #6
    !
    They should be tried (and fried) in Gitmo under military law. If they are brought to the US some bleeding heart liberal judges will find a way to release them and give them refugee status in our country.
  • #50
    !
    In other words, you're afraid that they'll be given a fair trial and we'll realize that we don't have sufficient evidence of their guilt, and have to release them.
  • #63
    !
    @Saving_USA
    You're damn right I'm afraid if they're brought to the US some draft-dodging, hippie judge will get them released on a technicality. They should be tried in Gitmo by people who served in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  • #69
    !
    @puppybrownie
    Funny how in the real world, military tribunals have been much LESS effective than civilian courts at prosecuting and convicting terrorists.
  • #67
    !
    I trust the same judicial system that imprisoned John Gotti, Charlie Manson and Manual Noriega to manage the few Gitmo prisoners remaining.
  • #53
    !
    Blatant political maneuvering and PR scat. There is almost no possibility of the bill's passage and, if passed, Obama could simple veto it without fear of an overrated.
  • #47
    !
    So we should house our prisoners in someone else's country and endanger their citizens instead? Are we not capable of defending our own prisons?
  • #108
    !
    If these people pose a threat to the US in federal prisons then we ought to be shutting down these prisons because they aren't capable of maintaining security.
  • #65
    !
    First, WTF does this bill have to do with the Bergdahl deal? Second, does this bill make it illegal to transfer prisoners from Gitmo into facilities Stateside, or does it prohibit allowing former prisoners who have been released into the U.S.? Third, U.S. citizens have been complaining about the travesty of justice that is Guantanamo Bay since it first made news. If the facility is shut down, then we either release those held there (probably not a good idea to just release all of the detainees), or we need to move them *SOMEWHERE*. Fourth, we really need to decide on whether the detainees are prisoners of war who are subject to military law, or civilian criminal suspects and then put them on trial (my preferred resolution). We can't just hold them indefinitely as neither P.O.W.'s nor criminal suspects, as we've been doing so far. That just tells the world that Americans are hypocrites who don't really have any faith in their own laws and/or system of justice.
  • #49
    !
    Marsha has been playing with a short deck for many years now. "My bill will prevent Guantanamo detainees or any other foreign terrorists who take up arms against the United States from being transferred to American soil." Really?! If she would modify her bill to only cover domestic whack jobs which would include seditionists like her, Skinheads, Neo-Nazis, and domestic terrorists that kill police officers, we would be a hell of a lot safer. Gitmo detainees still need to have it shown they have done the American public any harm.
  • #45
    !
    I guess our prisons are good enough to hold Charles Manson and all those horrible killers but not good enough to hold Arabs that have not even been charged with anything yet?
  • #119
    !
    We had prisoners of war camps in Arizona and other places in WWII. So, the idea is not new. Are we in a war or is this being perceived as a criminal incarceration? Personally, I think that we should get out of Guantanamo and cede it back to Cuba in order to improve our relations with that country.
  • #113
    !
    How about sending all of them home? With a huge red cross tatooed on their foreheads? And tell them that if anyof them ever show up in a US controled area, that cross would be used as an aiming point. BTW use pork base ink for the tatoo (if there is pork base ink, don't know):)
  • #110
    !
    You have to be kidding me. We have a civil liberties problem (see: Edward Snowden) and this is what we "want"? This isn't settled law at all: this only became an issue in the post 9/11 world. Let's break it down: if terrorists are caught on the battlefield (ie. Afghanistan), then they can be held in military detention (even in the US: see Ft. Leavenworth Discipline Barracks). If they are caught by civilian authorities, then they should be held in federal detention. Why is this relevant? Because in Gitmo, we hold people -yes, some are actual terrorists who do pose a threat- but we never even hold trials: we detain them and just assume they are. Therefore, those who we aren't sure are actual terrorists are by default guilty. And now we're going to keep them there and ignore them. I guess we really want that white elephant in the room. Back on topic: we really need to take them state side because they aren't really being tried and -at least in civil or military court (See above), they will get their day in court as defined by the constitution.
  • #105
    !
    Even if you treat these assholes as POWs, rather than terrorists: POWs stay in detention until the war is over. THEN the victor decides which to hang as war criminals and which to send home. Since these folk insist they are fighting for Allah or Mohammed, they get to sit where they are until either Allah or Mohammed steps onto the deck of the USS Missouri and surrenders. Then we can sort them out.
  • #99
    !
    She attended Mississippi State University, earning a B.S. in home economics. In college, she joined Chi Omega and worked as a student manager for the Southwestern Company, selling books door-to-door.

    On the other hand, she's a member of the International Conservation Caucus.
  • #59
    !
    The war on terror is a lie. If anyone is a terrorist, we are all terrorists. We can call it shock and awe, we can claim those weddings we bombed were accidents, we can deny bombing civilian airliners (Cubana flight 455), we can pretend the death squads weren’t trained and funded by the US, however none of that changes the fact that terror has often been our weapon of choice.

    Treat human beings as anything less than human, because they are accused of a crime (even terror) is in and of itself a crime... we are a nation of criminals.

    Those who can't be prosecuted because there is no evidence against them, or the sole evidence is inadmissible because it came from torture, should be returned to their country of origin.

    Those who can be prosecuted should be brought to the US and prosecuted as quickly as possible.
  • R Load more comments...
Post