US Senator Tom Cotton on Gitmo

[Christians4LessGvt]

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

[sirs]

Frank words from a Politician.  Nice to see

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[sirs]

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   

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[sirs]

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

[Plane]

     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.

[sirs]

Yet again, Gitmo is perfect

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[sirs]

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

[Plane]

High security prisons in the US cost a fraction of what it costs to incarcerate prisoners in Guantanamo.

  Why?

  The rent is reasonable.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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

If you want the Constitution to allow you to have your blessed guns, you also have to obey the rest of the sucker.

[sirs]

These barbarians are not protected by our Constitution, so there's nothing to "obey", in their regards   

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Plane]

   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.