DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on February 06, 2015, 04:27:12 PM
-
Senator Tom Cotton remarks while questioning Brian McKeon,
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, on Guantanamo Bay Prison.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWltqffDNOw
-
Frank words from a Politician. Nice to see
-
This guy is a pointy-headed idiot. Holding prisoners in Guantanamo costs several hundred thousand per year. They should shut it down and jail them in the US.
He is not frank, he is a dolt.
-
Yea, because that's what we did with prior POW's...we put them in our state penetentiaries. News Flash....that's not what our penetentiaries are for. There for criminals, who committed crimes IN the U.S, who have been found guitly in a court of law, and serving out their sentences. These terrorists are enemy combants, so they get no such privilege. They'd be costing whatever they cost, regardless their location. The best case scenario is to keep them away from other prisoners in the U.S, and let them stew amongst themselves
The fact he so riled you up is proof positive of just how on the mark he was 8)
-
They could easily vacate a federal prison and use it exclusively for the inmates at Guantanamo. Why should we pay over a hundred thousand per prisoner in Gitmo when in the US it would be every bit as secure and cost perhaps a third or less?
God does not design our prisons with any specific intent, nor does the Constitution say a thing about it.
Of course, holding prisoners with no trial and no charges... THAT the Constitution DOES address.
Obama is 100% right, and Tom Cotton should be off managing a Piggley Wiggley in Arkadelphia.
-
God has squat to do with our prisons, so we can put that deflection effort aside
Put those prisoners in the Federal prison....where exactly? Our system is already over crowded.
And what the hell is the difference between vacating a federal prison for all of them to stay in and keeping them all at Gitmo?? These are enemy combantants, and NOT covered by our Constitutional rights/guarantees. Gitmo is the perfect place for them
-
What does a terrorist cost while he is loose?
A high security prison would be expensive anywhere, a low security prison would draw a rescue raid.
-
Yet again, Gitmo is perfect
-
High security prisons in the US cost a fraction of what it costs to incarcerate prisoners in Guantanamo. Raids on federal prisons are very, very unlikely. Gitmo should be closed. It is against the Constitution, it is against decency and it is too goddamned expensive.
-
High security prisons in the US cost a fraction of what it costs to incarcerate prisoners in Guantanamo.
Show us......Show us the break down in cost, please. Nor is it against the Constitution, although the latter is laughable, considering all the unconstitutional acts your Bro Obama pulls, that you have no problem with
-
High security prisons in the US cost a fraction of what it costs to incarcerate prisoners in Guantanamo.
Why?
The rent is reasonable.
-
You are the one paying the rent, and it is hardly reasonable. $2,700,000 per prisoner per year. That's $7,390 per day.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/24/us-usa-guantanamo-congress-idUSBRE96N1JJ20130724 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/24/us-usa-guantanamo-congress-idUSBRE96N1JJ20130724)
If you want the Constitution to allow you to have your blessed guns, you also have to obey the rest of the sucker.
-
These barbarians are not protected by our Constitution, so there's nothing to "obey", in their regards ::)
-
Everyone in this country has rights.
The US signed the UN Declaration on Human Rights, and that states that no one shall be held without a trial.
The fact is that we do not know who these people are or whether they did what they are suspected of doing.
You lose. Fascists like you always lose when it comes to rights.
This has NOTHING to do with the grotesque expenditures of paying over $2,500,000 to hold each one of these people at Guantanamo.
-
How many prisoners were taken and held for the duration of the war during the Civil War?
WWI and II?
Prisoners of war are a special case and have more to expect from the Geneva Convention than from the US Constitution.
I see the problem is caused by our Congress, or our Commanders in Chief who during this conflict have neither one specifically designated these guys as criminals nor as POWs.
If they are just too poorly defined to be constitutionally protected, this is much more a failure of leadership than a failure of the Constitution or the Geneva treaty.
-
They are obviously prisoners of war, despite not wearing uniforms when captured.
They should be tried and sentenced or released.
Even if this does not happen, we are paying way too much to keep using Gitmo as a prison just to satisfy the revenge instincts of fools like Sen. Cotton.
-
They are obviously prisoners of war, despite not wearing uniforms when captured.
They should be tried and sentenced or released.
Even if this does not happen, we are paying way too much to keep using Gitmo as a prison just to satisfy the revenge instincts of fools like Sen. Cotton.
No.
Prisoners of war are not tried for the normal conduct of warfare.
Prisoners of war are held for the duration , unless they can be accused of war crimes.
If they are ordinary criminals , in whose jurisdiction was their crime committed?
Neither President Bush nor President Obama nor the Congress have done the right thing.
Keeping the status of these guys ambiguous keeps them from availing themselves of their rights as accused under our constitution, or as prisoners of war as combatants under the Geneva Convention.
Of course this works out well for them also, some of them are caught red handed in murder if they are criminals ,or would be held for the duration of a war that they intend to continue forever.
Ambiguous prisoners can be traded like playing cards, a lot of them have been released without a trial or a resolution of the conflict.
The placement and the expense are not as important as the precedent, kind of a bad precedent whether you look at Bush , Obama or the Congresses that have all dropped this ball.
-
They are obviously prisoners of war, despite not wearing uniforms when captured.
They should be tried and sentenced or released.
No.
Prisoners of war are not tried for the normal conduct of warfare.
Prisoners of war are held for the duration , unless they can be accused of war crimes.
The placement and the expense are not as important as the precedent, kind of a bad precedent whether you look at Bush , Obama or the Congresses that have all dropped this ball.
BINGO
-
No,there is no Bingo here, sirs: go forth and bingo yourself.
Guantanamo is a huge waste of money and bad propaganda.
-
Again, missing the mark, as it was Plane's point being made, not mine
-
I am dead on accurate., Gitmo is far too expensive. Criminal behavior should result in a trail and a conviction.
You are not qualified to select my targets, punk.
Everyone agrees Khalid Sheik Mohammad is guilty. He is proud of what he did. So execute him already.
Gitmo should not be used for housing anyone. It is a naval base that we probably do not need as a naval base. It is not a place where the government should be able to do unconstitutional acts that violate the UN agreements that this country has signed.
-
Again, missing the mark...this isn't about "criminal" behavior. This is about taking enemy combatants off the battlefield, while we're at war with them & Radical Islam. Gitmo is the perfect location to house them, not to mention has squat to do with the Constitution, since they are not American citizens, covered by it
period, Professor Punk
-
Gitmo should only be closed after the terrorists are executed.
-
They have had a decade to try them and execute them. Keeping them in Guantanamo costs $1.2 million per prisoner. I think that the GOP should have a bake sale to pay this, since I don't think it is worth my money to waste it on a useless base.
They could easily clear out one of many Federal prisons and hold them in this country.
-
They have had a decade to try them and execute them. Keeping them in Guantanamo costs $1.2 million per prisoner.
Exactly....we should execute them all now.
Screw bringing these type bastards to the mainland!
Execute them!
(http://34stby2ora6b105yxl1yqt7219yg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/gitmo-300x180.jpg)
-
This being a country of laws and not of men is something we hear all the time.
I don't see how they can execute anyone without even charging them with a crime and putting them on trial.
Summary executions are something that Nazis were famous for. Even Stalin had trials.
The ones that confessed to being masterminds, perhaps they could execute, but I do not see this happening. If it were easy to do, it would have been done already.
-
I don't see how they can execute anyone without even charging them with a crime and putting them on trial.
Perhaps you fail to grasp how Obama is using our drones