• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hardin, Montana Requests Guantanamo Detainees

The better term is "enemy". Because wars do not concern themselves with guilt or innocence, that being a matter for civillian courts in peacetime. Rather soldiers and patriots are concerned with national survival and the protection of the kids at home.

Since the illegal enemy combatants are found on battlefields bearing arms against American troops, since those darling little people can't get the nations they claim to be from to acknowledge them and claim them, they're stateless enemy combatants and what the hell is a nation fighting a war against an amorphous multinational internationally nonspecific cowardly enemy supposed to do with the flotsam picked up on the battlefield?

Personally, I'm all for questioning them until they're drained dry and then feeding them to the pigs.

I haven't forgotten what those people did on September 11, 2001, and will never forget and never forgive the people involved.

What's wrong with you?

Your aparently missing the fact that alot of those detained are, most likely, not terroists (or enemy combatants for that matter), I refer to my previous post. Whats wrong with me? Basically I object when innocent people are detained and tortured, I guess Im just moraly bankrupt.
 
Last edited:
Your aparently missing the fact that alot of those detained are, most likely, not terroists (or enemy combatants for that matter), I refer to my previous post. Whats wrong with me? Basically I object when innocent people are detained and tortured, I guess Im just moraly bankrupt.


You apparently miss the fact that most if not close to all those who fit under your description have already been released. Your lines faded away 2 years ago.

People in there now are in 3 primary classes.
1. New captures
2. People with nowhere to release(the Chinese Uyghers ie)
3. Hard core Terrorists.

I object to treating enemy soldiers(or whatever classification you prefer) are treated as if they are common criminals subject to trials during the war and then possible release during the war.
Already had some go back and resume fighting for the enemy==those who released them are as responsible for those they killed as they are.
 
You apparently miss the fact that most if not close to all those who fit under your description have already been released. Your lines faded away 2 years ago.

People in there now are in 3 primary classes.
1. New captures
2. People with nowhere to release(the Chinese Uyghers ie)
3. Hard core Terrorists.

I object to treating enemy soldiers(or whatever classification you prefer) are treated as if they are common criminals subject to trials during the war and then possible release during the war.
Already had some go back and resume fighting for the enemy==those who released them are as responsible for those they killed as they are.

Well the last person to be released that i know about is Binyam Ahmed Mohamed who was released on Febuary 23rd this year. So the fact that a number of these people are innocent is still and ongoing issue. It could only be the tip of the iceberg for all we know. As for those who end up fighting allied forces in Afganistan you have to ask yourself how many of these people were radicalised to begin with and how many were radicalised as a result of their experiences.

Im all for preventing our troops from getting killed as well but the only way we,re going to win the war in afganistan is by getting the Afgans on side. Abducting and torturing innocent people [among other things] is hardly endering us to them. Al Qaeda as a whole basis its actions on the theory that the West is involved in a conspiricy against the muslim world. Acting like the enemy Al Qaeda portrays us as is hardly going to help us.
 
Personally, I don't care where they are detained. My main concern is their legal status. I believe our government needs to create a judicial ancillary in order to deal with these types of situations. No, we shouldn't have a blank check to imprison people indefinitely without trial, but we shouldn't extend the rights of an American citizen to everyone in the world either. We need to find a pragmatic middle ground and we need to create a new legal field and judiciary to define and implement it.
 
Where the f*** do you get the idea that the "left" has sympathy for these guys? If you don't understand the issue any better than that, maybe you should stay out of it. Most of these detainees are not terrorists, and should not have rotted in Gitmo for eight years. Those that are terrorists should be either locked up for life or killed. Either way, some sort of justice should have been rendered by now, and your Republican administration weakened America by screwing up what should have been a straight forward POW issue.

you are the one that refers to these people as "poor shmucks" as if we just swept in and picked up some random muslims out of the market place.

How do you know if any of these people aren't terrorists? Even if we don't define them as terrorists, and rather as enemy combatants, they should not be afforded the civil proceedings of an American civilian. This is a strictly military matter, and as such these "poor shmucks" should be tried underneath the military system. I don't think they need to be detained indefinantley without trial, but all this poo-pooing about how they should be tried in civil court is just ludricrous. This is not a criminal issue, its a military issue. And don't call it my Republican administration, I have nothing to do with the republicans whatsoever.
 
Yes, i believe the number was 1 in 7. Lets see, that means that 6 in 7 were innocent. That's a failing grade to me and every single school in the nation. Unless of course you go to Liberty University or something, I'm not sure exactly what they base their grades on.

Actually, it means that 6 out of 7 weren't caught or known to be fighting Americans again. It says nothing about their guilt or innocence. Might want to check where your diploma was printed before you start making snotty remarks.
 
You are aware that we admitted that we were wrong afterward and apologized for our actions in additions to paying the survivors for what we did to them. Once again, if you don't bother to learn your own history then you are doomed to repeat it.

I am aware that the US apologized to the Japanese and German civilians that were held at Manzanar and other camps. I was not aware that we made such apologies to German POWs or their families. Got a link to that?
 
Personally, I don't care where they are detained. My main concern is their legal status. I believe our government needs to create a judicial ancillary in order to deal with these types of situations. No, we shouldn't have a blank check to imprison people indefinitely without trial, but we shouldn't extend the rights of an American citizen to everyone in the world either. We need to find a pragmatic middle ground and we need to create a new legal field and judiciary to define and implement it.

Thats exactly the problem. There is no set of laws or rules, either internationally or within the US, regarding the kind of combatants we face today. The Geneva Conventions don't apply. The US Constitution doesn't apply. The screw up we are dealing with, is that there was no pursuit of establishing a code or guidelines, as to how we(or anybody dealing with this down the road) should proceed. There needs to be some kind of measure introduced(into the Geneva Conventions, IMO) dealing with the rights of non-uniformed enemy combatants.
 
Your aparently missing the fact that alot of those detained are, most likely, not terroists (or enemy combatants for that matter), I refer to my previous post. Whats wrong with me? Basically I object when innocent people are detained and tortured, I guess Im just moraly bankrupt.

Upon what exactly do you base this assertion?
 
Upon what exactly do you base this assertion?

Upon the fact they are still releasing people who have been deamed innocent [the most recent, to my knowledge being in February this year] Alot of the time these people have been held for 4 or 5 years so I would have thought it was fairly obvious that this policy needed a bit of a rethink.
 
Hardin Montana is the home of a 464 bed maximum security federal prison....which is empty and unused. The Mayor of Hardin has offered to hold detainees from Gitmo. Why would this be a bad idea?


2009515221159953734_8.jpg


story HERE

As long as the people in that district do not mind and there is no contact with the outside world I say go for it. The reason I say restrict contact with the outside world is because coded messages can be sneaked out.


However the story seems fishy. Is this actually a supermax prison or is this just a regular prison with a supermax wing?
 
Whose idea was it to build that facility in that location? Just another typical US government project, eh?

From CNN --

HARDIN, Montana (CNN) -- The tiny town of Hardin, Montana, is offering an answer to a very thorny question: Where should the nation put terror detainees if the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is shut down by the end of the year as President Obama has pledged?

Hardin, population 3,400, sits in the southeast corner of Montana, in the state's poorest county. Its small downtown is almost deserted at midday. The Dollar Store is going out of business. The Hardin Mini Mall is already shut. The town needs jobs -- and fast.

Hardin borrowed $27 million through bonds to build the Two Rivers Regional Correctional Facility in hopes of creating new employment opportunities. The jail was ready for prisoners two years ago, but has yet to house a single prisoner.

People here say politics in the capital of Helena has kept it empty. But the city council last month voted 5-0 to back a proposal to bring Gitmo detainees -- some of the most hardened terrorists in the world -- to the facility.

"It would bring jobs. Believe it or not, it would even bring hope and opportunity," Greg Smith, Hardin's economic development director, told CNN.
 
Heh. ;)

Of course, they're trying to save their town and don't mind not being hypocritical about how they do it (no NIMBYs there!). They've got a big, brand new, completely empty prison, high unemployment, and a terrible economic outlook. Seems like killing two or three birds with one stone, to me.

Seriously, if you'd ever been to Hardin, you'd understand in a heartbeat. The news story paints the picture exactly right. The place is bleak - empty storefronts and drunken Indians wandering the streets (the res is dry; the Crow go to Hardin to drink).

Besides, we already house terrorists in our prisons. While I favor execution over life in prison, if we're determined to let 'em live, why not let 'em live there?

I hear ya'! I've been through Hardin many times running I-90 - there isn't much there but a truck stop, a Mickey D's, and a whole lot of nuthin!

A quick question - If the reservation is dry, what about the casino out at Lame Deer on 212? Is it dry as well?
 
Hardin Montana is the home of a 464 bed maximum security federal prison....which is empty and unused. The Mayor of Hardin has offered to hold detainees from Gitmo. Why would this be a bad idea?


2009515221159953734_8.jpg


story HERE

No, absolutely not, not by any means.

The state can't hold Git'mo detainees without first charging them and finding them guilty of a crime.

Placing anyone here automatically gives them constitutional rights and access to the court system. This is why they were originally held on foreign land.

No, absolutely not!
 
I am aware that the US apologized to the Japanese and German civilians that were held at Manzanar and other camps. I was not aware that we made such apologies to German POWs or their families. Got a link to that?

Bump for Indy. Still waiting on that link.
 
From CNN --

HARDIN, Montana (CNN) -- The tiny town of Hardin, Montana, is offering an answer to a very thorny question: Where should the nation put terror detainees if the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is shut down by the end of the year as President Obama has pledged?

Hardin, population 3,400, sits in the southeast corner of Montana, in the state's poorest county. Its small downtown is almost deserted at midday. The Dollar Store is going out of business. The Hardin Mini Mall is already shut. The town needs jobs -- and fast.

Hardin borrowed $27 million through bonds to build the Two Rivers Regional Correctional Facility in hopes of creating new employment opportunities. The jail was ready for prisoners two years ago, but has yet to house a single prisoner.

People here say politics in the capital of Helena has kept it empty. But the city council last month voted 5-0 to back a proposal to bring Gitmo detainees -- some of the most hardened terrorists in the world -- to the facility.

"It would bring jobs. Believe it or not, it would even bring hope and opportunity," Greg Smith, Hardin's economic development director, told CNN.
Wow, the locals actually paid for it themselves. That's a novel idea. It must be a pretty sorry place if they can't get a meaasly 27mil from the federal honey pot. :shock:

Greg Smith, Hardin's economic development director, must not be doing his job very well.


.
 
A quick question - If the reservation is dry, what about the casino out at Lame Deer on 212? Is it dry as well?

The Crow res is dry.

Lame Deer is part of the Northern Cheyenne res, and I've never been there. Dunno if they're dry or not. Anyone else know?
 
The Crow res is dry.

Lame Deer is part of the Northern Cheyenne res, and I've never been there. Dunno if they're dry or not. Anyone else know?

That's right, I forgot about how it changes from Cheyenne to Crow somewhere out there east of Little Bighorn!

You'd almost think with it being a casino that in order to attract business they'd have to serve alcohol, but I also know that some of the tribes are absolutely, positively, 110% dead-set opposed to alcohol sales on the reservation.

Considering the problems it's caused, I can't really say I blame them...
 
You'd almost think with it being a casino that in order to attract business they'd have to serve alcohol, but I also know that some of the tribes are absolutely, positively, 110% dead-set opposed to alcohol sales on the reservation.

Considering the problems it's caused, I can't really say I blame them...

No, but then the drinking gets exported off the res. NOT good for neighboring communities, like Hardin. Things only get more complicated because the res Indians can't be arrested by local law enforcement. Gotta call in the res police for that.

It's a big mess, no matter how you look at it.
 
Alcohol among Native Americans

Alcohol found its way to the Native American population of North America during early contacts between Native people and European visitors, traders and explorers who, for whatever reasons, were eager to share their intoxicating drink. And, like many other so-called civilizing influences, alcohol altered the Native American existence, culture, and way of life for many years even yet to come.


It is theorized that traders wishing to gain the upper hand in their dealings introduced alcohol, because of its effects on Native thoughts and reasoning. And, when alcohol became an expected part of trading events, Europeans often came out with the lion's share of traded goods. It wasn't long before Native Americans began to lose their hold on an age-old cherished culture, losing more and more of themselves in the process. Though alcohol was not the only factor in the declining culture, it certainly posed a significant part of the process.


Alcohol, with its addictions for the unsuspecting Natives, allowed warriors to be cheated, slaughtered, or both, all for their coveted furs. And, like the "white man's" diseases, alcohol demanded a heavy toll. Countless Natives lost their lives to alcohol and its effects, some of them spinning out of control in a downward spiral that lasted years. Alcohol became an anesthetic, numbing the heart and soul of a people who had lost their hold on a way of life that would never again be able to sustain them.


The last sentence in the article reads...Finding, believing in, and respecting culture and heritage is a positive first step toward a more hopeful future for all of us.

This is so true for all cultures and their heritage..begin to respect them and positive things will happen.
 
Last edited:
No, but then the drinking gets exported off the res. NOT good for neighboring communities, like Hardin. Things only get more complicated because the res Indians can't be arrested by local law enforcement. Gotta call in the res police for that.

It's a big mess, no matter how you look at it.

Actually, Hardin does quite fine living off the illness of their neighbors. As do most "border" towns.

Native Americans are subject to the exact same laws as you are. They are arrested quite frequently in Hardin and although adult NA's make up only 6% of the state of Montana, we make up more then 20% of the prison population. Given that in Montana, the laws of the state were developed to make just -being- Indian illegal, and any activity pertaining to our cultures was illegal........... anyway.
 
It's true, Hardin wants the detainees. We in Indian country are watching and kind of snickering about it, hoping they get the detainnees, hoping if Montana has some other focus for their hatred and racism, it'll let up on us. Probably not, but we can hope eh?

Alcohol among Native Americans

Alcohol found its way to the Native American population of North America during early contacts between Native people and European visitors, traders and explorers who, for whatever reasons, were eager to share their intoxicating drink. And, like many other so-called civilizing influences, alcohol altered the Native American existence, culture, and way of life for many years even yet to come.


It is theorized that traders wishing to gain the upper hand in their dealings introduced alcohol, because of its effects on Native thoughts and reasoning. And, when alcohol became an expected part of trading events, Europeans often came out with the lion's share of traded goods. It wasn't long before Native Americans began to lose their hold on an age-old cherished culture, losing more and more of themselves in the process. Though alcohol was not the only factor in the declining culture, it certainly posed a significant part of the process.


Alcohol, with its addictions for the unsuspecting Natives, allowed warriors to be cheated, slaughtered, or both, all for their coveted furs. And, like the "white man's" diseases, alcohol demanded a heavy toll. Countless Natives lost their lives to alcohol and its effects, some of them spinning out of control in a downward spiral that lasted years. Alcohol became an anesthetic, numbing the heart and soul of a people who had lost their hold on a way of life that would never again be able to sustain them.

It was even more insidious then what's portrayed here. It was US gov't policy as well as army policy to use booze as a tool of their manifest destiny policies. The thought of one general was "let them get drunk and kill each other. It will save us the trouble." I'm paraphrasing, not an exact quote, but you get the idea. I'm too lazy right now to dig up the quote.

The other part of this, the gov't used to hire whiskey traders to go in to our communities before important negotiations to "soften" us up. The whiskey traders rarely brought real honest to god whiskey, it was usually highly watered down, or mixed with kerosene and other poisons. Again, if the whiskey killed us, so much the better.

That's why the irony of those huge casinos, preying on other people's addictions, never ceases to stike me at the sick irony of the whole thing.
 
Alcohol, with its addictions for the unsuspecting Natives, allowed warriors to be cheated, slaughtered, or both, all for their coveted furs. And, like the "white man's" diseases, alcohol demanded a heavy toll. Countless Natives lost their lives to alcohol and its effects, some of them spinning out of control in a downward spiral that lasted years. Alcohol became an anesthetic, numbing the heart and soul of a people who had lost their hold on a way of life that would never again be able to sustain them.

This is so heartbreaking, I almost regret posting it.

Just south of the Pine Ridge Indian Reseervation in South Dakota, only about 1/2 mile south of the town of Pine Ridge, lies the town of Whiteclay, Nebraska - a small little town with a population of about 20. Also in Whiteclay are four liquor stores.

According to a March 10th, 2009 article in the Omaha World-Herald --

"Drive slowly through Whiteclay, and you’ll likely see Native American men sitting along the road, often in a stupor. Stop and park, and you see up close the despondency of individuals visibly in the grips of alcoholism.

Just up the road from Whiteclay, across the shortgrass plains country that marks the border with South Dakota, lies the Pine Ridge Reservation. Home to the Oglala Sioux, the reservation is lamentably burdened by unspeakable poverty and hopelessness. The four liquor stores in Whiteclay, an unincorporated village of fewer than 20 people, sell beer in remarkable volume to the reservation’s residents."


"Remarkable volume" doesn't even begin to come close to describing the beer sales in Whiteclay. According to the Liquor Control Commission in the State of Nebraska, in 2008 these four stores sold an estimated 175,690 cases of beer in 2008.

Let me illustrate how big that number is --

On occasion I carry beer in the truck as cargo. A pallet of bottles of beer is 7 cases to a layer, 6 layers high - 42 cases/pallet. I can carry 21 pallets of bottled beer (882 cases) in a semi-trailer without being overweight.

175,690 cases of beer = 199 trailer loads of beer. Each one of these Whiteclay liquor stores is going through about a trailer load of beer a week.

481 cases of beer sold everyday in a small town in Nebraska located just across the state line from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation... the numbers speak for themselves.

This isn't something I say lightly: I'm ashamed of my country for what we've done - and what we continue to do - to the Native Americans. :(
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom