• 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!

Illinois prison to get Gitmo detainees

Catz Part Deux

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,721
Reaction score
6,738
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
AP sources: Ill. prison to get Gitmo detainees - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – Taking an important step on the thorny path to closing the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the White House plans to announce Tuesday that the government will acquire an underutilized state prison in rural Illinois to be the new home for a limited number of terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo.

Administration officials as well as Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn will make an official announcement at the White House.

Officials from both the White House and Durbin's office confirmed that President Barack Obama had directed the government to acquire Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Ill., a sleepy town near the Mississippi River about 150 miles from Chicago. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting Tuesday's announcement.

Is it just me, or did anyone else get the impression that closing Gitmo did NOT equate to transferring prisoners held there to U.S. prisons, without charging them, without submitting them to a trial, and without a conviction.

How, exactly, is this an improvement?
 
"Get the impression", Catz? What impression did you get? He claimed he'd close Gitmo, he never was asked or pressured to give details. All anyone wanted to hear was that Gitmo was closing, no one ever asked Obama how, no one cared.

He's now locked himself into the one year promise to close the prison, this is the best he can do as other nations refuse to take these men, even the nations of these detainees origin. We're the only fools on the block, the only ones insane enough to take these enemies of our nation and plant them right in the middle of the US 150 miles from Chicago. It's a savvy move by Obama being so close to his home town, he probably expects to shield some of the obvious criticism this decision deserves.

However, let's not pretend anyone was expecting or getting some kind of impression, none was given, none was asked.
 
We're the only fools on the block, the only ones insane enough to take these enemies of our nation and plant them right in the middle of the US 150 miles from Chicago.
\

They're our prisoners, so it's only natural that we house them in the US.
 
AP sources: Ill. prison to get Gitmo detainees - Yahoo! News



Is it just me, or did anyone else get the impression that closing Gitmo did NOT equate to transferring prisoners held there to U.S. prisons, without charging them, without submitting them to a trial, and without a conviction.

How, exactly, is this an improvement?


It's not any improvement, it is however a desperate move on the part of Obama, to live up to his utterly stupid rhetoric of placing a time line for closing Guantanamo. He is lacking all credibility when he makes this move, because just as soon as those detainees hit our shores, the lawyers will move for trials in civilian courts, and Obama has handed them their release on our shores.


j-mac
 
At least Obama solved the issue on where to house them what better place than his home state(or if you a birther loon then his adoptive home state). On the other hand that probably means they will be tried with a jury full of anti-war scum and others who sympathize with the Gitmo detainees and they'll be released. Libs should be cheering this decision.Libs could have a countdown or a betting poll on when all of them will be released. If they did the same thing with the Nazi war criminals then most likely they all would have never been convicted.
 
Last edited:
Why not just keep them in Gitmo? What difference does it make?

Because I don't believe in having US troops stationed on foreign soil. Gitmo should be shut down and turned over to the Cubans. Likewise all US bases worldwide should also be shutdown and the troops brought back home.
 
Why not just keep them in Gitmo? What difference does it make?
It makes no practical, rational or logical difference.
It makes a political difference.
 
Because I don't believe in having US troops stationed on foreign soil. Gitmo should be shut down and turned over to the Cubans. Likewise all US bases worldwide should also be shutdown and the troops brought back home.

More surrender?

Do you understand how strategically important Gitmo is?
 
\

They're our prisoners, so it's only natural that we house them in the US.

Really, how long has it been....this "it's only natural?" If so "natural" it must have precedence. Enemy combatants captured abroad and 'housed in the US?'

"Only natural", huh?:rofl
 
Because I don't believe in having US troops stationed on foreign soil. Gitmo should be shut down and turned over to the Cubans. Likewise all US bases worldwide should also be shutdown and the troops brought back home.



What do you suppose would happen in the world should the US decide that what you propose become reality?


j-mac
 
Really, how long has it been....this "it's only natural?" If so "natural" it must have precedence. Enemy combatants captured abroad and 'housed in the US?'

"Only natural", huh?:rofl

I'm not sure about the whole, "natural", thing, but we did bring German, Italian and Japanese prisoners to the US during WW2. We forced them to perform manual labor. Another war crime.
 
More surrender?

Do you understand how strategically important Gitmo is?

Of course it's strategic if you engage in a policy of foreign interventionism. Then it becomes abundantly clear how vital it is to have US troops stationed all over the globe. It's the only way we can keep the world under our thumb.
 
Really, how long has it been....this "it's only natural?" If so "natural" it must have precedence. Enemy combatants captured abroad and 'housed in the US?'

"Only natural", huh?:rofl

We did it in WWII.
 
Of course it's strategic if you engage in a policy of foreign interventionism. Then it becomes abundantly clear how vital it is to have US troops stationed all over the globe. It's the only way we can keep the world under our thumb.


Interventionism would have kept WW2 alot smaller than it was. Intervention has proved it's worth in the modern world. A half million Americans died during WW2. We haven't lost nowhere near tht many in every conflict since. Would you rather just wait and let them all die at one time and quadriple the numbers in the process?

Gitmo is about protecting the homeland. At Gitmo, we have an LP/OP (listening post/observation post) to observe everything coming in and out of the GOM. Why wouldn't we want that advantage? Seems to me that we wouldn't want enemy subs sinking American ships in the GOM, like the Germans did during WW2. Just a thought.
 
\

They're our prisoners, so it's only natural that we house them in the US.

Really? What crimes have they been imprisoned for? Is it a normal course of action to house prisoners, indefinitely, in the U.S., without even charging them with a crime or giving them a trial? In what world is that acceptable?

Oh, wait. It would be acceptable IN CUBA. Is that what we've become?
 
Back
Top Bottom