• 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

j-mac said:
To be honest I had never heard of this. I knew about the sub Germans that were captured on American soil, and tried under a Military commission. But not that we kept POW's here.

it doesn't change how I feel what Obama is doing is wrong, but it was educational. thanks.


j-mac
Click to expand...

not a problem

spud_meister, educating one soul at a time
 
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

Correct, and we gave them no rights.....no access to civilian courts.....no habeas corpus, no Constitutional defense, no ability to even challenge their detentions. During WW2, american citizens were captured by the US and electrocuted after being caught spying and conspiring against the US, Roosevelt wanted to send a message, held tribunals for the handful....and sent them to death, the American citizens afforded life sentences.

I am sure about the natural thing. It ain't natural at all. There has never been an enemy combatant imprisoned here and given equal rights under our laws. If it was so natural, why didn't any of these 50,000+ Italian prisoners for example be given civilian trials? Why weren't any afforded "natural" habeas corpus? Why weren't any permitted to challenge their detentions?

Those arguing natural or arguing precedence here, need to explain. Why is this decision by Obama so "natural" if it's simply never happened before? Ever?
 
windovervocalcords said:
If you want to whine for the next four years, knock yourself out.
Click to expand...

I'm used to it :mrgreen:

I did it for 8 years under Bush and expect to do it for 8 years under Obama. From a libertarian point of view, there's not a nickel's worth of difference between the two.
 
Charles Martel said:
Correct, and we gave them no rights.....no access to civilian courts.....no habeas corpus, no Constitutional defense, no ability to even challenge their detentions. During WW2, american citizens were captured by the US and electrocuted after being caught spying and conspiring against the US, Roosevelt wanted to send a message, held tribunals for the handful....and sent them to death, the American citizens afforded life sentences.

I am sure about the natural thing. It ain't natural at all. There has never been an enemy combatant imprisoned here and given equal rights under our laws. If it was so natural, why didn't any of these 50,000+ Italian prisoners for example be given civilian trials? Why weren't any afforded "natural" habeas corpus? Why weren't any permitted to challenge their detentions?

Those arguing natural or arguing precedence here, need to explain. Why is this decision by Obama so "natural" if it's simply never happened before? Ever?
Click to expand...

Not only that, the Supreme Court has already decided that military tribunals are constitutional and enemy combatants don't have rights under our constitution.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
I'm used to it :mrgreen:

I did it for 8 years under Bush and expect to do it for 8 years under Obama. From a libertarian point of view, there's not a nickel's worth of difference between the two.
Click to expand...

We're discussing bringing detainees to America...and granting them rights under our laws, that's quite a bit more than a nickel difference:cool:
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
No, it's only 4.37¢ :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

He spending hundreds of millions to hold trials in NY and house prisoners in Illinois. So, not only is your argument dead wrong, your colossal math mistake here doesn't go unnoticed either.
 
apdst said:
Not only that, the Supreme Court has already decided that military tribunals are constitutional and enemy combatants don't have rights under our constitution.
Click to expand...

True enough and the Supreme Court actually didn't need to rule. Enemies captured abroad have simply NEVER been afforded any Constitutional rights whatsoever. Ever. This would be unprecedented, so, not only don't I understand arguments this Obama policy is "natural", I don't understand why there is any confusion whatsoever. NO enemy combatant has EVER received rights, Supreme Court ruling or no Supreme Court ruling.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
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?
Click to expand...

Are you questioning Obama!? Are you seriously questioning Obama? The man CLOSED Gitmo. Closed. That's it. And now just because some dilapidated jail in Illinois, which happens to be the State Obama is from, is getting a bunch of Gitmo inmates meaning that the State is going to receive a good chunk of federal money to fix the jail, staff the jail, and keep it running for indefinitely doesn't mean that Obama didn't close Gitmo. He closed it, closed it good. And now a bunch of people in Illinois get a lot of money. Not connected, don't look into it.

But you Catz, I just can't believe the gall you have to raise objection to Obama. It's hope and change! I hope you've learned your lesson and will never again question the good works of Obama, the Hope and Change bringer.
 
Ikari said:
Are you questioning Obama!? Are you seriously questioning Obama? The man CLOSED Gitmo. Closed. That's it. And now just because some dilapidated jail in Illinois, which happens to be the State Obama is from, is getting a bunch of Gitmo inmates meaning that the State is going to receive a good chunk of federal money to fix the jail, staff the jail, and keep it running for indefinitely doesn't mean that Obama didn't close Gitmo. He closed it, closed it good. And now a bunch of people in Illinois get a lot of money. Not connected, don't look into it.

But you Catz, I just can't believe the gall you have to raise objection to Obama. It's hope and change! I hope you've learned your lesson and will never again question the good works of Obama, the Hope and Change bringer.
Click to expand...

Thank you for those instructional swats, sir. I needed them.
 
Charles Martel said:
He spending hundreds of millions to hold trials in NY and house prisoners in Illinois. So, not only is your argument dead wrong, your colossal math mistake here doesn't go unnoticed either.
Click to expand...

I guess my math is off, because Bush spent trillions of dollars to start an unjust war in Iraq, destroy its infrastructure and kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

Your lack of perspective doesn't go unnoticed either ;)
 
apdst said:
Why not just keep them in Gitmo? What difference does it make?
Click to expand...
None. All of this is the result of liberal whining about style, not substance.
 
So it wasn't Gitmo the liberals hated, it's WHERE it was located that they had a problem.

Uh........huh?
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
I guess my math is off, because Bush spent trillions of dollars to start an unjust war in Iraq, destroy its infrastructure and kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

Your lack of perspective doesn't go unnoticed either ;)
Click to expand...


The "unjust war" meme is not only tiresome, but proven wholly wrong.


j-mac
 
Manc Skipper said:
Really? On which plane of existence would that be the case?
Click to expand...


The one where most people exist, and not some 'stuck on stupid' realm where you still hold out hope of seeing Bush in handcuff's.


j-mac
 
Guess someone really owed O in Chicago! Ayers probably wanted them closeby so he could conspire with them to continue his domestic terrorism campaign.
 
Last edited:
LowRevs said:
Guess someone really owed O in Chicago!
Click to expand...

I think this is the other way around since this move will mean money into Illinois.
 
51% in Illinois Oppose Prison for Guantanamo Terrorists In Their State - Rasmussen Reports

Fifty-one percent (51%) of Illinois voters oppose relocating some suspected terrorists from the Guantanamo prison camp in Cuba to a prison in their state.
Click to expand...

More:

49% Oppose Closing Guantanamo Prison Camp - Rasmussen Reports

Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters nationwide now disagree with President Barack Obama’s decision to close the prison camp for suspected terrorists at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted after the President’s speech on Guantanamo last week, shows that 38% agree with his decision.

Just 25% share the President’s view that the Guantanamo camp weakened national security. Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree with that perspective.

And, by a 57% to 28% margin, voters oppose moving any of the suspected terrorists to prisons in the United States. Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party strongly oppose transfers to U.S. prisons. Democrats are evenly divided.
Click to expand...

Just something to think about.
 
j-mac said:
Especially to the Lawyers.


j-mac
Click to expand...

In all honesty, I wouldn't trust a politician out of Illinois. I think their governors these days come pre-indicted so you know what you're getting. Hehehe. But Chicago is the model of government corruption and greed. To come up in Illinois politics, you have to go through Chicago. If you go through Chicago and are successful, chances are you're not clean.
 
Ikari said:
In all honesty, I wouldn't trust a politician out of Illinois. I think their governors these days come pre-indicted so you know what you're getting. Hehehe. But Chicago is the model of government corruption and greed. To come up in Illinois politics, you have to go through Chicago. If you go through Chicago and are successful, chances are you're not clean.
Click to expand...


Ain't that the truth.


j-mac
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
I guess my math is off, because Bush spent trillions of dollars to start an unjust war in Iraq, destroy its infrastructure and kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

Your lack of perspective doesn't go unnoticed either ;)
Click to expand...

Your initial error involved nickels and not trillions so this latest guess isn't correct either. This is a nice change of subject, it doesn't change the facts...this decision by Obama isn't natural, it's unprecedented. And those supporting it need to realize, they're breaking from precedence, they're making rules up as they go. Neither effective nor correct.
 
thomson is actually being sold as JOBS

LOL!

yet again, as always---they're incoherent

it's not really about gitmo

at least, not in the TODAY we're all living

why aren't you hearing any more about moving ksm to manhattan?

about the prosecution of the cia?

is it cuz those questions are such political winners?

moving em to thomson puts em under the thumb of our courts, with all their peculiarities, peskiness and pecadillos
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom