• 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!

Pentagon Sends Obama Plan to Close Guantanamo, Move Detainees to US

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,136
Reaction score
82,407
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Pentagon Sends Obama Plan to Close Guantanamo, Move Detainees to US

Hours after 10 percent of the remaining detainees leave Cuba, the defense secretary said he’s handed the president a plan for “Gitmo North.”...

defense-large.jpg

US SecDef Ashton Carter


One possible destination is the Thomson Correctional Center (2001) which is a maximum-security prison located just north of Thomson (650), Illinois. Due to state budget constraints, this 1,600 cell facility is almost empty. The only prisoners are housed in a minimum security unit with 200 beds. Although it would also house other federal prisoners, the cell-house dedicated to Guantanamo Bay detainees would be improved to SuperMax status and be managed by the DoD. This facility was previously selected by the Obama administration, but Congress then withdrew any funding for imprisoning Guantanamo Bay detainees in the mainland US. Nevertheless, the White House announced in 2012 that the project would go forward.

AR-140409657.jpg

Thomson Correctional Center - Maximum security facility on 146 acres of denuded land in rural northwestern Illinois
 
I definitely want Guantanamo closed and returned to Cuba. When the prisoners are brought into the USA, they will be under US Law. That means any evidence obtained by torture is tainted and not admissible in a Court of Law. Many of these prisoners are a result of renditions/kidnappings, and were sold to their captors with questionable guilt. It would seem that official recognition of this "torture" would require prosecution of the individuals responsible for the torture. The whole matter is a bag of worms in a tidy fecal bundle. A CIA specialty, don't ya' know?
 
Simpleχity;1065465496 said:
Pentagon Sends Obama Plan to Close Guantanamo, Move Detainees to US

Hours after 10 percent of the remaining detainees leave Cuba, the defense secretary said he’s handed the president a plan for “Gitmo North.”...

defense-large.jpg

US SecDef Ashton Carter


One possible destination is the Thomson Correctional Center (2001) which is a maximum-security prison located just north of Thomson (650), Illinois. Due to state budget constraints, this 1,600 cell facility is almost empty. The only prisoners are housed in a minimum security unit with 200 beds. Although it would also house other federal prisoners, the cell-house dedicated to Guantanamo Bay detainees would be improved to SuperMax status and be managed by the DoD. This facility was previously selected by the Obama administration, but Congress then withdrew any funding for imprisoning Guantanamo Bay detainees in the mainland US. Nevertheless, the White House announced in 2012 that the project would go forward.

AR-140409657.jpg

Thomson Correctional Center - Maximum security facility on 146 acres of denuded land in rural northwestern Illinois
Click to expand...

It would seem to me that it is less a problem of accommodation than of the law. How domestically do you put people in jail on the basis of battlefield forensics or enhanced interrogation? That would be interesting.
 
won't even make it through congress and Obama has no authority to bring them here.
 
ludin said:
won't even make it through congress and Obama has no authority to bring them here.
Click to expand...

Obama is the commander in chief. The Gitmo prisoners are prisoners of the war on terror (enemy combatants officially)

So, how is it the CIC has no authority to decide what to do with enemy combatants held by the military?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Obama is the commander in chief. The Gitmo prisoners are prisoners of the war on terror (enemy combatants officially)

So, how is it the CIC has no authority to decide what to do with enemy combatants held by the military?
Click to expand...

very simple. President Obama signed a bill saying that he couldn't do it. hehe.

It’s Illegal For Obama To Import Gitmo Detainees

pretty simple if you ask me.

of course Obama only upholds he thinks should be upheld which is technically why he should
be impeached for failure to uphold his oath of office.

he can't EO his way out of this one. the bill is very clear.
any transfer of prisoners to the US would be unconstitution under the grounds of article 2 that the president
faithfully execute the laws of the land.

something we know that Obama has no clue on even though he is a supposed constitutional scholar.
I am not sure which constitution he was studying but it wasn't ours.

maybe it was Kenya's.
 
ludin said:
very simple. President Obama signed a bill saying that he couldn't do it. hehe.

It’s Illegal For Obama To Import Gitmo Detainees

pretty simple if you ask me.

of course Obama only upholds he thinks should be upheld which is technically why he should
be impeached for failure to uphold his oath of office.

he can't EO his way out of this one. the bill is very clear.
any transfer of prisoners to the US would be unconstitution under the grounds of article 2 that the president
faithfully execute the laws of the land.

something we know that Obama has no clue on even though he is a supposed constitutional scholar.
I am not sure which constitution he was studying but it wasn't ours.

maybe it was Kenya's.
Click to expand...

So, the Congressional Republicans got their way and attached a rider to the defense appropriations act for the specific political purpose of making sure that Obama couldn't fulfill his promise to close Gitmo. Looks like case closed. Now, the task will be to blame Obama for the continued use of Gitmo for indefinite detention without trial.... let's see, what was that about the Constitution? Isn't there something in there about speedy trials and such? Maybe that was Kenya's constitution.
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, the Congressional Republicans got their way and attached a rider to the defense appropriations act for the specific political purpose of making sure that Obama couldn't fulfill his promise to close Gitmo. Looks like case closed. Now, the task will be to blame Obama for the continued use of Gitmo for indefinite detention without trial.... let's see, what was that about the Constitution? Isn't there something in there about speedy trials and such? Maybe that was Kenya's constitution.
Click to expand...

only people whining about gitmo are liberals.
I honestly think it is a bad idea to bring people like that here.
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, the Congressional Republicans got their way and attached a rider to the defense appropriations act for the specific political purpose of making sure that Obama couldn't fulfill his promise to close Gitmo. Looks like case closed. Now, the task will be to blame Obama for the continued use of Gitmo for indefinite detention without trial.... let's see, what was that about the Constitution? Isn't there something in there about speedy trials and such? Maybe that was Kenya's constitution.
Click to expand...

only people whining about gitmo are liberals.
I honestly think it is a bad idea to bring people like that here.

they are not in the US and were captured on a battle field fighting US troops.
military trial.

nope has nothing to do with Kenya at all but nice try.
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, the Congressional Republicans got their way and attached a rider to the defense appropriations act for the specific political purpose of making sure that Obama couldn't fulfill his promise to close Gitmo. Looks like case closed. Now, the task will be to blame Obama for the continued use of Gitmo for indefinite detention without trial.... let's see, what was that about the Constitution? Isn't there something in there about speedy trials and such? Maybe that was Kenya's constitution.
Click to expand...

only people whining about gitmo are liberals.
I honestly think it is a bad idea to bring people like that here.

they are not in the US and were captured on a battle field fighting US troops.
military trial.

nope has nothing to do with Kenya at all but nice try.

PS try reading the article again it wasn't just republican it was the vast majorities of democrats as well.
in fact the bill itself passed with a veto proof majority.
 
Guantánamo Concentration Camp is criminal in that it keeps people imprisoned and subject to torture without ever having been charged or tried. The Americans knew they could not get away with this had they tried to do so in the USA so they pulled a trick of placing it in Cuba. Failure to close it is one of Barack Obama's most serious broken promises.
 
ludin said:
only people whining about gitmo are liberals.
I honestly think it is a bad idea to bring people like that here.
Click to expand...

Is it a good idea to maintain a prison in Cuba, of all places?
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, the Congressional Republicans got their way and attached a rider to the defense appropriations act for the specific political purpose of making sure that Obama couldn't fulfill his promise to close Gitmo. Looks like case closed. Now, the task will be to blame Obama for the continued use of Gitmo for indefinite detention without trial.... let's see, what was that about the Constitution? Isn't there something in there about speedy trials and such? Maybe that was Kenya's constitution.
Click to expand...

Who says that he can't close Gitmo? It doesn't require bringing prisoners from Gitmo to the US in order to close Gitmo ya know. ;)
 
Kal'Stang said:
Who says that he can't close Gitmo? It doesn't require bringing prisoners from Gitmo to the US in order to close Gitmo ya know. ;)
Click to expand...

OK, so where is he going to take them?

I suppose he could simply declare the war on terror over, and the prisoners of that war released.

Not a great idea, but a possibility.
 
Dittohead not! said:
OK, so where is he going to take them?

I suppose he could simply declare the war on terror over, and the prisoners of that war released.

Not a great idea, but a possibility.
Click to expand...

Well, Heinrich gave an answer. But aside from that, why not put an end to the "War on Terror"? What good has it actually done?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Well, Heinrich gave an answer. But aside from that, why not put an end to the "War on Terror"? What good has it actually done?
Click to expand...

Not much. Putting an end to it might not be a bad idea. Releasing the prisoners of... I mean enemy combatants however, might not be such a great idea. We could send them to Abu Ghraib, I suppose, since at least Unitedwestand admits it exists. I'm not sure anyone in the administration wants to admit it, but maybe.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Not much. Putting an end to it might not be a bad idea. Releasing the prisoners of... I mean enemy combatants however, might not be such a great idea. We could send them to Abu Ghraib, I suppose, since at least Unitedwestand admits it exists. I'm not sure anyone in the administration wants to admit it, but maybe.
Click to expand...

:shrug: Just tell them that if they commit another terrorist act or help in anyway with one then they will be shot instead of captured next time. Then actually do so if they do. Of course i'm of the mindset that if you go to war with someone then you actually do war against them and not today's PC version of war. No prisoners. Just kill em. Besides, assassinations don't have to be against political opponents. Find em, sniper em, done. I'm a no mercy type of guy when it comes to war.
 
Kal'Stang said:
:shrug: Just tell them that if they commit another terrorist act or help in anyway with one then they will be shot instead of captured next time. Then actually do so if they do. Of course i'm of the mindset that if you go to war with someone then you actually do war against them and not today's PC version of war. No prisoners. Just kill em. Besides, assassinations don't have to be against political opponents. Find em, sniper em, done. I'm a no mercy type of guy when it comes to war.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure that will have an effect on people willing to blow themselves up to kill infidels. Sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom