Why the hell would another country take detainees if we wont take them? And Jim Webb is a moron

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/05/webb-takes-on-a.html



I hate how the GOP and now some democrats act as if the people in Gitmo are some kind of new criminal that our jails can't house. My goodness, if we put them in General Population in any Maximum security Prison in this country, they wouldn't last a day. Do politicians realize how dumb they sound?

I don't understand why people think that FOREIGNERS
trying to kill Americans are worse than Americans
trying to kill Americans -- the result is the same!
If supermax prisons are good enough for Timothy
McVeigh/the blind sheik/et al., then why not for
the guys currently housed at Gitmo? Are we afraid
they're going to give us COOTIES or something?

:sheesh:

even tho its ran by the state not the federal government.

And George made him look stupid reading him his own quotes.

he ousted absolute moron George Allen, thank goodness. Anybody much more liberal than Webb wouldn't have succeeded then. Maybe now, but not then.

here goes.

It could be that our Leaders fear for the lives of the Gitmo
Detainees if put into Prison Population.

SH--SH--there just might be an undercurrent of Anti-Muslim
Sentiment which cannot be openly admitted.

Remember how some kept trying to hang a Muslim Moniker around
Pres. Obama's neck during the campaign. There was a reason for
this. Somebody thought it might discourage enough people that
he could lose the election.

The GOP believe they can force Obama's hand and he will keep
Gitmo open.

Becuz most of them are isolated from the general prison population as would the Gitmo detainees. Democrats in historically red states are starting to take this position becuz republicans have took the position that these people are some how dangerous to us in a Maximum Security facility. Its really idiotic. I saw that guy on young turks talk about this as well.

I don't agree with everything he says, but he is definitely not a moron.

but offer no solutions. And don't want them in their state. This is why its tough for Obama to take some of these stances. Dems don't back him up on things like closing Gitmo.

This is why I am little less troubled about the military commissions for SOME of the detainees because Republicans and even some Democrats (like Webb, apparently) are raising such a hissy fit and giving Obama such grief about where he can and can't send these detainees so that he can get Gitmo shut down like it should be. I don't exactly understand what it is about these detainees that has these particular Congressmen and Senators- grown men and women- pissing in their pants, particularly when at least some of whom may well be completely innocent of any evildoing. Also, aside from practically demanding that Obama keep Gitmo open and going, I haven't heard any of them articulate any alternative solution whatsoever to the deplorable situation that Bushco left for Obama. Furthermore, we've detained, tried, convicted, and imprisoned dangerous terrorists through our "normal" criminal justice system, so I don't understand WTF they are talking about when they shriek wildly about not wanting them anywhere near their communities, especially since, AFAIK, I don't think they know (and we surely don't) just how dangerous these individuals are but then again it shouldn't really matter since we imprison serial killers and mass murderers all of the time. Their intransigence on this issue also sure as hell doesn't make it easier for other countries to be willing to take them in. Are they admitting that they are just a bunch of wimps and pussies and that's how they think of their constituents too? Are they questioning the competence of the correctional officers and their ability to safeguard their communities? Really? Some people have made the spurious assertion that any prisons housing these detainees might become terrorist targets but that would require some really well-armed and REALLY "ballsy" terrorists AND some REALLY good intel about where exactly the detainees are, something that I'm sure can be kept reasonably secret.

this Gitmo thing must be approach with diligence. JW is one of the few politician trust-worthy, with foresight and integrity.

George Will actually said it was a fallacy to pretend that somehow we were'nt capable of housing Gitmo detainees in the US. I said yes! my husband looked at me and said "do you realize you just agreed with George Will?".

On a day in which the President wisely counseled for "fair minded words" rather than "reucing those with differing views to caricature" a DUer labels Jim Webb a "moron"

Sad.

have no super powers. They can't jump over fences draped with Razor Barb Wire or run thru concrete walls. It sounds dumb for anyone of any party to pretend that our justice system can't control these people. LIke all of our criminals who are american made are all saints, but the Arabs are some how more evil and can do more harm. It just sounds so dumb it makes me mad.

In the whole wide world, no country will take them? Give them a billion dollars each, and see if someone will take them then. A lot of people want the Cheney Hotel to stay open forever, or until all these people die. Why?

These people aren't rapists and murderers, they are terrorists. Harming a single individual is not their objective. Should they actually manage to escape a prison the logical thing they would do is to go into hiding rather than committing another crime which would increase the risk of them being caught again. A single individual being pursued by the FBI, has no friends, and doesn't even speak English likely can't pull off an act of terrorism by themselves if they escape.

It doesn't happen. THose place have censors in the ground so nobody can tunnel out, cameras on every inch of the place, Razor Barb Wire on the top and bottome of fences, and most of them are on 23hr lockdown.

that putting these so called "terrorists" in our home states might create targets for further terrorist aggression against the towns that these prisons reside in?

sure we would not, and should not, have to worry about the prisoners themselves once they are on the inside, but what if other terrorists determine that their brothers in captivity stateside instead of in cuba, are more accessible to them now, and they decide to plan and execute a rescue mission of sorts, to free their brothers from american captivity.

with them (the captive terrorists) now on american soil, in american towns, they would have lots of leverage to accomplish this, since they could, for instance, take a school thats nearby, maybe one that contains children of guards or prison commanders, hostage, demanding the release of their buddy in captivity in exchange for the lives of the children in that school whom are related to the very guards keeping said buddy in captivity.

while this scenario is unlikely, the odds of it happening are much greater then when they were held isolated from the continental united states.

i think the idea of closing gitmo is a good one, on principle, but the placement of these guys we are holding has to be considered a national security issue. i would rather see the UN or another NATO country step up and help out by taking these guys off our hands. they pose just as much a danger to them as they do us.

release the information of what prison they're in. Keep that Classified.

When's the last time terrorists have held up a school in the United States? How would they possibly be capable of busting their buddies out of a maximum security prison?

The only proven semi-effective way to get prisoners released is to hijack an airplane. That's much harder after 9/11.

so what is so ridiculous about it happening here?

if deranged kids can take over a school (even though their motives were different) could a couple of terrorists do the same, but with even greater efficiency?

I would not bet the lives of my 2 children on a scenario like this NOT happening, however remote the possibility. I live very close to a federal prison, a state prison, and a county prison, and for the safety of myself and my family, would prefer they either stay in cuba, or get placed somewhere outside the continental united states, and not in my backyard. i have enough to worry about with the 87 registered sex offenders in a 6 mile radius of my house, and I dont need the threat of any attack against not just my local school, but any building or institution or whatever in my town that would become a possible target for use as leverage to get these terrorists out of jail.

Terrorists could also hold up a school and threaten to kill kids unless the prisoners are released from GITMO as well. Proximity to the prison gates isn't going to logistically help their objective. In such situations the hostages don't get released until the prisoners are safe and out of the country.

And if they really are concerned that it could be the prison guards' kids that are being held hostage, they could easily create a system to have the national guard relieve the prison guards in the event of such an emergency.

This may go on in countries where the people doing it think they have a reasonable probability of success because the government is known for negotiating with terrorists. But it's well known that the United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists under conditions of threat.

Sure there's a remote probability that such a scenario could happen here. But that's not a good reason to circumvent the constitution. There is much more danger of having a maximum security prison on your backyard because if those inmates escapes they may actually violently attack the first person they see. Yet you don't see anybody arguing that we should ship those people off to GITMO or another country because it would make us safer.

Unlike, say, Tim McVeigh, Muslim terrorist inmates can shoot ball lightning out their asses or fell you with spontaneous combustion just by looking at you.

"These are not the terrorists you're looking for, move along..."

or whatever the name of that show I've never seen is?

First of all, a large percentage (we don't know how many) of the people in Gitmo actually are innocent. Many were turned over to US forces because of local feuds or for bounties. Those people should be repatriated as humanly as possible and the stigma of "terrorist" erased from their records and reputations.

Another group of prisoners have committed crimes, but they were crimes against some other country. Those prisoners should do time in their own countries where they could be visited by family members, where they speak the language and have the same religion.

It appears from the military tribunal numbers that the administration is proposing that there are actually very few prisoners who may be guilty of a crime against the US, like terrorism. Some of them should receive prisoner of war status, under the Geneva Convention, not criminal defendant status. The advantage of being a pow is that when the conflict ends, they can be repatriated and reintegrated into their home countries without having to serve out a long US prison sentence.