Hermit wrote:If I were a Jihadi, I'd sure rather stay at Club Gitmo,
than get sent to a SuperMax prison. Does anyone
who whines about Gitmo being a "recruiting tool"
for terrorists really believe it will make any difference
what zip code we house these prisoners?
It is absurd to hold civilian criminal trials
for these combatants with the type of rules
we use in everyday criminal trials.
It also is a fact that most of the ones we
release go straight back to the battlefield.
Most of the ones still there are the worst of the worst;
too dangerous to ever be released and lacking
"proper" evidence to convict in a court.
ewlewis wrote:I feel that the reality of it all is that most Americans are far to apathetic to really care. The current administration is fully aware of this. Essentially this was just a big talking point to make him look like a man of action. He doesn't have to follow through with it, because most don't care anyway.
eric wrote:ewlewis wrote:I feel that the reality of it all is that most Americans are far to apathetic to really care. The current administration is fully aware of this. Essentially this was just a big talking point to make him look like a man of action. He doesn't have to follow through with it, because most don't care anyway.
Yeah but they seemed to care before the election. They were mad at someone who assured them he'd leave it open for not closing it down and apathetic about someone who promised to close it down leaving it open.
eric wrote: 1) From my perspective that outrage has fell silent and Guantanamo is no longer a topic, let alone a hot topic. Why?
2) I can think of no other conditions that changed between the periods of 2002 thru 2008 and 2009 to present. What's going on?
3) I wonder why this doesn't bother his voters?
HappySquareHead wrote:As someone who supported Obama, I know I'm disappointed that Gitmo's still opened...but like conservatives who were disappointed by GW's promise to partially privatize Social Security, we have no where else to go.
HappySquareHead wrote:Why is it that after over 200 years our constitution is no longer able to deal with criminals? ... This makes it easier to deny them constitutional rights.
HappySquareHead wrote:What I don't get is why weren't these people dealt with extra-judicially to begin with? If they were thought of as so dangerous and the evidence against them so slim that they couldn't be convicted, why didn't we just make them "go away" like we have done with so many others? We've changed governments, for crying out loud...why capture and warehouse a relative handfull of private citizens from foreign countries when we could've just as easily made them disappear? When the truth came out (as it always does), we could've said, well, it was right after 9-11, and our intellegence community got a little carried away...people would accept that.
gnossos wrote:Well I think you know I don't like it.
I think it's died down for a large number of reasons. We HAVE taken a lot of people out of there. A lot of people view this as a first "step" and the missed deadlines as, I don't know, "oops"? Maybe blame naivety of a young politician over-estimating how quickly he could get things done? Further, there is at least a skeleton of a plan to get the rest out of there, but there are a lot of hitches with that with people saying "I don't want these people in the US, even if they're in jail".
So I think to a lot of people there's the impression that it isn't going fast enough, which is frustrating, but that there are in fact things in motion to help bring it to a close, even if evidence tends to indicate it will keep getting drawn out until... who even knows.
There's also a LOT of noise all over the place right now and frankly I think Gitmo just fell to the wayside of people's attention.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests