Why is everyone so insistent on not wanting Gitmo al Qaeda suspects in their (state) prisons?

[jenmito]

Do they not understand that prisons aren't homes where these people can come and go freely? Do they have no confidence that prisons actually keep people AWAY from the outside community? Do they think every one of these people are worse than mass murderers who are already being kept there? Why do some people talk like these suspects are magic and can escape and kill everyone in their state? :shrug:

ETA-Jack Murtha said HE wouldn't mind if some of them were kept in PA. Good for him!

[davidinalameda]

1. these are federal prisoners

most, if not all, state prisons are so overcrowded and cost the states millions, if not billions in some states

these prisoners are not the responsibility of the states

let the feds deal with them

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Here is the reality

these suspects, prisoners et al, should be kept in a MILITARY BRIG under the status of Prisoners of War

Yes, it is that simple

Save that Military Brig a special POW camp built in the middle of nowhere with ICRC personnel on-site

They do NOT belong in any state criminal system

[hedgehog]

7. Pfftt!!!! Even the Military doesn't want these guys! Someone from Fort Leavenworth

was complaining that if the prisoners were transferred to the military stockade there, it would interfere with the post's larger mission as a training center because students from Moslem nations would refuse to come.

[wmbrew0206]

57. Ft. Leavenworth main mission is training.

Ft Leavenworth is home to a lot of the US Army's higher Career Schools. I believe it has even become the Army Center of Excellence for Education, but I'm not positive of that. If you are going to command a Battalion or higher, you are going to be spending a lot of time at Ft. Leavenworth. These schools also have a lot of foreign military officers attending.

The fact that it is home the Army's main stockade is a coincidence.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. And the point is? Why you house them in a special POW camp

we last did that during WW II... time for the US Military to get their head out of their ass

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. Lacking any clear criteria for the cessation of hostilities

Holding people under POW status in perpetuity is tantamount to arbitrary, indefinite, and extrajudicial detention. Terrorism is a crime, not a war. They should be tried if there is evidence, released otherwise.

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. We call this a war, then fine, POW status it is

that said, why they might not do it... this gives Al Qaida quasi recognized status as an active combatant...

As to release, every insurgency sees the eventual exchange of POWs, even in the most gray of circumstances, see Central America

We can and probably should, treat this the same way. This means that sooner or later you do have that exchange

Now as to Prisoner review, absolutely... many of these guys were nabbed because a neighbor accused them. Those that are freed... need to receive reparations on the way back home

[alcibiades_mystery]

94. Lacking any clear criteria for cessation of hostilities

etc.

Exchange requires a, well, exchange.

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. There wasn't a clear criteria in CA either

the problem is that the bushies used the term WAR... that term has very specific connotation under international law

Reality is that terrorism is a police operation, falling under law enforcement and a civil legal system

I'd say they did that on purpose. That said... these guys were nabbed under a war footing....

Now in the future the world community should change the footing to police intelligence work, with few (read very isolated areas) events involving Special Forces.... and when SF are used, those captured should be turned ASAP to civilian courts, preferably under international jurisdiction.

But the guys in guantamo were captured under the guise of a war

Now truth be told, many of them should be exchanged or returned home ASAP, but there are a few who would return to the battlefield... and if that is the case, and they are POWs... then in a POW camp they remain. And yes, for the duration is the correct standard, or until they will NOT return to any battlefield. Which in one case, perhaps two, out of how many...may mean the rest of their natural lives. And yes, those who'd return to the battlefield can be counted with the fingers of one hand. That is not a right wing talking point... by the by... nor can I fully blame them either.

This is classic International Law regarding POWs. By the way treating them as standard POWs opens all kinds of cans of worms due to what was done to them. On the other hand, they cannot be tried in any kind of legal system that tells us that it is civilized since the evidence obtained is inadmissible. This is first year law school or international law stuff. You cannot introduce evidence obtained under duress, which is exactly what torture is.

[alcibiades_mystery]

96. I'm not convinced insurgent in central america were held as prisoners of war

Most states adopted specific laws under which they were prosecuted, from what I recall. This "guise of war" business is empty technical language. There weren't specific POW camps, were there? A negotiated prisoner exchange is not sufficient to qualify somebody as a POW. The Israelis exchange prisoners with various groups all the time, but the prisoners they release have been charged with various offenses under the Israeli state legal code.

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. They were and there were POW exchanges

the problem was the US never recognized them as combatants, but other countries did... and those POW exchanges took place under the watchful eye of the ICRC, and local red cross societies. Hell the ICRC crossed lines regularly.

Now there was plenty of torture practiced as well, under the watchful eye of Mike, an euphemism for CIA... why the first time I saw here Agent Mike, somebody owes me a keyboard

But that is a whole different ball game and WHY we need to go back all the way to the 1980s AT LEAST to find out how far torture has been practiced by at least SOME elements of the intelligence community.

Now I severely doubt Al Qaida will take prisoners, but that is a whole different ball of wax, and we know the Taliban took some Russians during the Afghani war in the 1980s and the few that survived said death would have been preferable. So you run into that problem as well. You may treat them one way under your laws, that does not guarantee the other side (who never signed a thing) will treat your guys in even anything aproaching humane ways... see WW II and Japan for examples of this, as well as the Vietnam War. For the record the North Vietnamese never signed any conventions of war.

And truth be told, after the last eight years, nobody will believe us for at least a generation that we will treat POWs right.

[alcibiades_mystery]

109. Evidence?

:shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. Just because the US press does not cover these thigns does not mean they do not happen

google is your friend

Took five seconds or less to find THIS for example

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-4324.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

112. Your evidence does not say anything about POW status

Just saying. Then again, I only browsed it. It would have been nice if you actually held up your side of an argument by presenting evidence instead of getting all pouty about it. Don't "google is your friend" me. Just provide actual evidenxce with your arguments. It's easier, and saves time and irritation all around. As it stands, you still have NOT provided persuasive evidence for your key point, though you've repeated that key point many times. If it's so obvious, it should be easy enough for you to prove it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. The ICRC negotiated those exchanges

they were Prisoner of War exchanges

Again, if people don't get it, ain;t my fault

By the way, the guv'ments recognizing the Frente Farabundo Marti and the Sandinista as combatants included Cuba, the USSR, and a few others... why they were part of the COLD WAR...

By the way, if you want evidence to our torture, Iran-Contra scratched the surface... but I know this for a FACT, since I talked to some survivors, as in debriefed them.


By the way, here is more from the ICRC SITE

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/section_ihl_prisoners_of_war

I'll stand by what I said, just because the US Press and guv'ment don't go there, does not mean others have not

And yes, the ICRC CROSSED front lines during those wars... you think it was just to scratch somebody's belly, or give some money?

Oy...

I also stand by what I said, Al Qaida is at war with the US (we used the language, we are a state actor) hence we're obligated to treat these folks under the statues of the geneva convention

It is harder to a point since unlike the guerrillas in LA, they actually don't wear a uniform

[alcibiades_mystery]

117. As I said, prisoner exchanges are an insufficient condition

I know you fancy yourself an expert on such matters, but your proof is weak, to say the least. Rebels in Central America were generally held by the state with a status no different than criminals. They were rarely if ever held in military detention in accordance with the Geneva Conventions (maintaining rank, separate quarters, etc.). They were "tried" under sedition and rebellion laws, for the most part. They had a legal status separate from that of POWs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. I'm not an expert, just had a small role in it

and just like Mexico, where the ICRC has set up shop, starting with... drum roll, the Mexico City Earthquake, but truly after the civil war started down there ... yes Virginia, there is a civil war,

they worked the same way in CA, all the way to going to detention centers...

Oh never mind, who the fucking cares?

You are right, I should never EVER TRY to splain these complex things to Muricans... who cannot even get it. (or rather don't want to)

[alcibiades_mystery]

124. Jesus

Get over yourself. You can't prove the point you're trying to make, and suddenly everybody else is dumb American or something. Wouldn't it be easier to just provide some evidence for your contention? What fucking piffle.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. I did, have a good life

I showed you ONE event where exchanges were done

I gave you a LINK to the ICRC page EXPLAINING TO YOU what the standards for a POW are

SO YOU GET OVER YOURSELF

I know, if this is NOT on the US Press (and it wasn't), it never happened

I had a FRONT ROW SEAT to some of this crap

And MOST of this crap is in SPANISH... or CLASSIFIED still

I could never, ever go into details I am personally familiar with, get it now?

[alcibiades_mystery]

129. Sure

That's the role you play on this board, anyway. The question was never about exchanges, because exchanges are insufficient to demonstrate POW status, as I've said numerous times already. Stop pretending that it is some kind of information blockade that prevents you from proving the point you're trying to make. You either have an argument (claim+evidence) or you don't. Saying "you can't see the evidence" is fatuous in the extreme, but I'm used to your self-indulgent belief that you know more than others by now. You just can't show us, right? :eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. I gave you the evidence

now you tell me this

If the ICRC was involved in Prisoner exchanges and visiting prisons (which was PRINTED in the Mexican Press at the time, for example)... what exactly were they doing?

Oh I get it, they were just playing games. I mean it didn't have anything to do with the Geneva Convention, after all if the US Press didn't print it, never happened.

I had a poli sci instructor back in the 1980s who was at one time a member of the company... CIA so you get it, what Company means.

I used to think he was the top cynic, but he is right. The American sheeple are extremely easy to control, no matter who is in charge. If it wasn't printed in the US press... it never happened. So the Powers that Be, whoever they are... know that in order to keep control, you just need NOT to print certain stories... walla, mission fucking accomplished.

I still remmeber when Iran Contra broke... he said... and I paraphrase, this will go nowhere.

The rest of us were going what the hell do you mean? I mean this is as bad as Watergate

The worst will never hit the US press... it never did... it went nowhere.

Mission fucking accomplished

And yes, there are certain things I WILL TAKE TO MY GRAVE, and I will CLUE YOU WHY... Refugee safety. That is what many Red Cross workers outside the US live with. So get a clue.. buy one if you need to. Because there is a certain level of secrecy even in humanitarian work. And you know what? It is needed.

[alcibiades_mystery]

136. Oh my God

Stop your bullshit. Everybody knows what "Company" merans. You're not special. Your evidence does not prove POW status. It simply doesn't. These people were held as common criminals by the state regimes in Latin and Central America. That the Red Cross got involved when it came time for exchanges does not signal anything at all. You're simply wrong on this point, and it makes your endless claims of secret expertise seem extremely dubious and even pathetic. You don't know what you're talking about, and I doubt anybody ever gave you any kind of classified clearance. It's laughable. You can't prove your point, so you're hiding behind your little fantasy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

137. You STOP YOUR FUCKING BULLSHIT

you are the ignorant one, and proud of it/

And insulting to boot

And my little fantasy is REAL...

That is the reality, things happened that YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE, nor an interest in learning about

Revel in your ignorance

Be happy about it

Proud in it

The American People, err sheeple, are ignorant and proud of it

And yes, if it wasn't printed in the US... it never happened

Why WW II started in 41 and WW I in 1917

I get it.

Revel in your ignorance... be happy with it... and believe whatever you fucking want to believe

Some of us have TRIED to clue people like you in... but he also said something else... for the Murican people things that happened outside US borders don't matter... and the Murican people don't care even when people TRY to clue them in. You are a perfect example

[alcibiades_mystery]

138. I'm not in the least bit ignorant of any of the things you're describing

Your problem is that you think you're the only who knows common historical facts known by most moderately educated people.

I know from long experience that when you cannot prove your point, you turn simply to accusing others of ignorance. The fact is that you cannot demonstrate your contention, and your accusations grow ever more embarrassing the further you stray from the basic point with your insults. In this latest post, you've provided no further evidence whatsoever, but just a string of insults that prove nothing but your own insecurity. You don't know what you're talking about except in your little fantasy world, and that's fairly obvious.

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. So you can tell me details about the Central American mess

that include refugee status

Or negotiations held with folks by the ICRC?

RIGHT... you can't

How about details about Agent Mike as an euphemism for torture? This surely made it to the NYT... NOT

Or battalion 100?

Or the incursion of Guatemalan troops into the Mexican border, in the 1980s, and the massacre of Maya Indians and Humanitarian workers.

Chances are you can't, since most of those things were seldomly published in the US Press... they didn't make it... aka control of the sheeple

And that is the fucking point

There is much that you don't know... A LOT that you don't know

[alcibiades_mystery]

141. Oh please

All of these things have been covered in excruciating detail by the Left and academic press for the last twenty years. Anyone with a decent used bookstore within ten miles can access any of that information. You're not special. There are no sheeple. Just arrogant and self-important blowhards who think they know better than anyone else, and make up fables of secret information whenever they're cornered in an argument.

[nadinbrzezinski]

142. THE POINT YOU KEEP MISSING IS... THEY ARE NOT MAINSTREAM

KNOWLEDGE

IS THAT FUCKING CLEAR TO YOU NOW?

AND THE GUATEMALAN INCURSION INTO MEXICO THAT ALMOST LED TO A WAR WASN'T... NOT OUTSIDE THE MEXICAN PRESS

Jesus fucking age... people cannot read, nor do they want to know how to read

Now it is time for me to IGNORE YOU, since you OBVIOUSLY KNOW THIS STUFF

OR PERHAPS YOU CAN TELL ME EXACLY WHO CAME TO MEXICO? BONUS POINTS IF YOU CAN TELL ME WHY THE WAR DIDN'T HAPPEN... AFTER ALL THERE WAS A MILITARY MOBILIZATION... OH AND FREE CLUE, NOT ONLY IN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA EITHER.

[alcibiades_mystery]

143. Why are you yelling

Let's stay on topic: can you prove that rebels were held as POWs? No? Then we're done here. All your other hyperventilating is further evidence of the way you react when somebody calls you on your supposed expertise. Ugly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

144. I gave a link

ignore you go. I am done with th idiocy

And by the way... here is a free fucking clue for you

the mexico incursion was off the US radar since it happened a WEEK before sabra and shatilla, which pushed it OFF the security council agenda

No sherlock did not make it to the US Press either

Here is another clue for you, the US mobilized

A third clue, the USSR and the US ambassadors in NY got the prospective ambassadors and had a talk to them

And yes, they WERE POW in central America... if your LEFTIST US PRESS, which is right of center and not a true left, didn't cover this, not my fucking fault.. you could try to GOOGLE mexican press, or central american press IN SPANISH, use babel fish. After all THEY DID COVER ALL THIS

Free clue for the search string, Ocotzingo.

By the way you have read in the NYT about the work of the ICRC RIGHT NOW in Chiapas, haven't you... right.

Or the fact that there IS an office of the ICRC in Mexico City RIGHT NOW.

RLOL

The American sheeple are purposely ignorant. I stand by what I said. Thanks prof... you were right... easy to manipulate as hell... and god knows they don't want to know either.Or when people try to tell them... see example above.

Damn took 20 years to find out he was right.


Why bother? I mean after all the American leftie press (GOOD JOKE if I ever heard one) is talking about these things in detail, right...

Just took some of us years back then to splain some supposed lefties here, about the murdered nuns in El Salvador... and they didn't believe it until we took the time and effort to translate FOREIGN press.

To their credit... the left is pissed about the Colegio de las Americas... problem is that there is much more that has been done in the shadows that the left is clueless, see that press.

Now if you think you exposed anybody... sure, to the sheeple you look like you scored a point. To those who actually know the score, you look like an idiot.

Oh and a pointer, Ocotzingo is just one of the many events that occurred

[alcibiades_mystery]

145. For all your bluster, you say nothing

As far as I can tell from your various ramblings, you think the following: the involvement of the ICRC is sufficient to qualify people as POWs in any given conflict. This is simply not true. It is simply not true. So all your yapping about the US press is beside the point, and just a way for you to avoid the real issue. But since we're doing little quizzes, please explain the relevance of the infamous Decree 50 in El Salvador, and how it relates to your argument that insurgents were held as combatants under the Geneva Conventions. Thank you.

[SharonAnn]

63. The state military facilities they are talking about have military brigs for convicts.

These are not the regular state prisons.

They are places like Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. Hard-core military facility with a hard-core military brig.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. Which fits the Geneva Convention, we cannot house them

in anything less than what we use to house our own... FINE... that is where they belong

[Avalux]

3. Magical thinking is their specialty.

My asshole of a Senator Cornyn stated that he sure doesn't want them here in Texas - as if they have far-reaching powers to destroy us all. So dumb.

[bdamomma]

11. they have enough criminals in Texas like himself and his past pResident.

[jenmito]

23. Yeah. Cornyn is one of 'em. Isn't he the same guy who blocked Hillary the other day?

[Avalux]

34. That would be him. Look for more obstructionist behavior with other noms.

I guess he feels he needs to put on a show for the repuke base.

[jenmito]

40. That's what I thought...

yeah, they gotta act like they're putting up a fight.

[hamsterjill]

47. Yep - and now Lamar Smith is in on it!

From www.ktsa.com:

Local Congressman Angered Over President's Plan To Close Guantanamo Bay
Web Posted: 01/23/2008

By Christian Bove

President Barack Obama has signed an executive order to start the process of closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within one year.

But Congressman Lamar Smith says he doesn't want any of the 200 terror suspects currently housed at Gitmo to end up in the U.S.

"I have filed legislation that would prohibit transferring any of those detainees to the U.S.," he said. "Even if they were to be moved to the U.S. to a good maximum security prison, that could allow them to get in front of a federal judge that could release them until their trial."

Another option he says would be to house the prisoners overseas, but that also causes a problem since those countries would have no obligation to detain the prisoners.

[treestar]

48. The judge wouldn't release them without determining they aren't

a danger to the community.

[Kookaburra]

4. Sounds like more Repuke talking points.

[drm604]

5. Bingo.

They're playing the fear card as usual.

[bdamomma]

13. that is all they (the repigs) have.

and they still staying how bush kept America safe. what batsqueeze???

[jenmito]

24. Yup. And once again, the NYT is helping them make their case again. Just like

with the case for Saddam wanting nukes.

[mth44sc]

6. Did seem to be much objection here

to the two they held in Charleston, SC for half of forever...

[Bluerthanblue]

8. fear mongers working overtime.

:shrug:

"not in my backyard mentality?

I'd be willing to bet any one of us is more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a 'terror' suspect escaping from a prison.

[jenmito]

25. Exactly.

And along with their talking points come the false statistics about how many Gitmo detainees get released and go "back" to killing.

[butterfly77]

9. I don't get it...

Are these terrorists suppose to be more dangerous than other murderers,serial killers,and other psycopaths that we have all over the country in these prisons and walking among us everyday. They must be the baddest of all bad..

[jenmito]

27. That's what I'M sayin'...

and how 'bout those DC snipers years ago? Didn't THEY go to prison? How are they less dangerous than THESE guys?

[wryter2000]

10. Because they're skeery, skeery Muslins

They have superpowers and stuff, and the only way you can keep them in line is torcher. And we all know prisons are country clubs with liberrys and gyms.

[jenmito]

28. Yup...

they're still using the fear card.

[Urban Prairie]

12. Federal Prisons

Is where they belong, unless one of those vacant FEMA encampments can be activated that I have viewed on You Tube. If I could ask President Obama one question, it would be what those were for.

[McCamy Taylor]

14. They should be in federal prisons, silly. What state crimes did they break.

However, I guess people are worried that if they are in a federal pen in your state, terra-ists might target your state. So, put them in a federal pen in some place like Wyoming where foreign terra-ists would stand out like sore thumbs and where there is nothing worth blowing up anyway.

[jenmito]

31. I didn't mean "state prisons." I meant prisons in people's states...

which could be federal prisons. Murtha said he'd take some Gitmo prisoners into HIS state. He's the only one I've heard say that so far.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. Because they're fucking idiots, the people at GITMO aren't rapists and murderers

If they are even guilty of anything, they are terrorists, which means that they aren't interested in harming individuals. Drop them off in my backyard or your backyard, it makes no difference to my safety whatsoever. Their potential crime, again if they are even criminals, is to blow up bridges or buildings. And no they aren't going to just blow up the first one they see.

[jenmito]

35. I agree...

It's just more scare tactics.

[eleny]

16. Here in Colorado we have the blind sheik and one of the accomplices

We also had Timothy McVeigh not 5 miles south of my home.

Oh, and John Gotte was down there in Florence, too, where the sheik is incarcerated.

All this manufactured kerfuffle won't have a long shelf life. If this is all they've got, they don't have much.

[Hansel]

59. Oh that's where he went.

He used to be in Minnesota. I think they moved him after 911.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. Try them or free them

Anything else is tyranny.

[Two Americas]

46. thank you

Sometimes things are black and white.

There should be no confusion or controversy about this.

[PBS Poll-435]

18. NIMBY

:shrug:

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Technically, they don't belong in ANY prison until they are convicted of a crime.

As mentioned elsewhere, maybe in a POW camp, where they can get regular visits by the Red Cross, get care packages from home, etc. Those few who are REALLY bad guys can go on trial and upon conviction in a federal court, be moved to a federal prison.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

108. "Charged with", not "convicted of".

Imprisoning people who have been charged with a crime until you can bring them to trial is a perfectly standard (and in my view reasonable) thing to do.

The American government does, however, have obligations to charge, try, and release if aquitted all those it imprisons, as rapidly as feasible.

[boomerbust]

21. How about

Just building a special prison for these peaple. It should not be all that complicated.

[TheWraith]

22. We'll take them here in New York, but...

I suspect they'd probably last about fifteen minutes if you dropped them in Attica.

[ieoeja]

43. You think New Yorkers would like to get their hands on those involved in 9/11?

And where is the Pentagon: Maryland or Virginia? At any rate you have two states who could claim jurisdiction over a few of these guys.

[ShortnFiery]

54. If you want to get the TRUE master-minds - perhaps, go to Saudi Arabia?

:evilgrin: IMNSHO, that's the SOURCE Country.

[alcibiades_mystery]

60. Attica is a state prison

They are presumably up for federal charges.

If they were put into a state prison, they should be afforded the proper protection relative to their status. I would think protective custody would be appropriate if their status was properly adjudicated.

Rule of law is rule of law. No excuses. Equal treatment under the law is a principl;e, not a toy to be played with on a whim.

[Hellataz]

26. I think a lot of people have a more lenient view of state prisons and feel terrorist will be given

too much leeway. As I understand it, a lot of state prisons allow prisoners some rights and contact with the outside world via calls, packages, visitors...so on and it's also been known for some prisoners to continue their criminal organizations from the inside while continuing contact with their crews on the outside. With this in mind, maybe some people are scared that if these prisoners from Gitmo are given that same outside world contact that they will use it to plan attacks on America, or at the very least corrupt fellow inmates to join their cause, creating homegrown terrorists that might be let loose via parole. I would imagine that state prison guards might not be up for the task of keeping an eye out for terrorist mastermind plots.

[Every Man A King]

29. Better question

Why would you want to imprison innocent people?

[jenmito]

32. That IS a better question...

They should all get trials and either be put in jail or set free.

[stillcool]

121. yeah really..but then they've already been

imprisoned and tortured for 7 years..what's a few more? Perhaps we should preemptively kill them.

[backscatter712]

30. Good for Murtha. Ritter added to Murtha's chorus.

Gov. Ritter of Colorado suggested that some of the dangerous Gitmo detainees could be held at the federal Supermax prison in Florence, CO.

[hileeopnyn8d]

37. I'm glad he did

That's a federal Supermax, which is where they belong, if they are actually guilty of a crime. I've been reading on another forum the comments from some people, and you would think someone was suggesting housing them in the foreclosed home nextdoor by their reactions.

Just who the hell do they think we have in our Supermax prisons now?

The problem is, that deep down, even those right-wingers know that a good number of these people are not guilty of much at all. So, they fear their offenses will not warrant putting them in a supermax. Instead they'll be in prisons where they'll have greater contact with other prisoners, and the fear is that they'll "turn" them into scary muslim terrorists.

[kwenu]

33. Because people with a clue know American prisons aren't as secure as you think.

Yes. Our prisons can definitely detain people but our prisons aren't great in keeping jailed criminal elements out of contact with outside criminal element. The risks of bringing suspected terrorists into such a system is a significant risk.

[jenmito]

41. But they're only SUSPECTED terrorists and they can't be any more dangerous

than mass murderers.

[kwenu]

134. Apples to oranges analysis. I'm not arguing about effective detention.

[jenmito]

140. "The risks of bringing suspected terrorists into such a system is a significant risk."

You most certainly ARE.

[kwenu]

146. I most certainly am NOT! And I am not going to teach reading comprehension.

Your 3rd grade teacher should have handled that.

[Every Man A King]

45. Yea lets just kill them all texas style n/t

[kwenu]

131. I may be Texan but that doesn't give you the right to engage in ignorant stereotyping.

[RaleighNCDUer]

113. Bullshit.

The Blind Cleric has not been safely held only because he's blind.

When is the last time someone escaped from a high security federal facility? When is the last time someone escaped from a Supermax?

What kind of super voodoo do you think these islamic soldiers are capable of?

[kwenu]

132. What does this response have to do with what I wrote. It's not just about detention.

[RaleighNCDUer]

148. You talk as though the terrists are gonna work their evil wiles from

within the walls of the federal pen.

Except the VAST majority of the evil doers in Gitmo are just soldiers. They don't make policy. In an organization like AQ you have maybe a dozen top people who make the decisions, who plan the policies, who create the strategies - and most of these dozen are still still at loose in Waziristan. Those very few we do have would, after a fair trial and just conviction, serve the rest of their lives in a federal super-max prison. Not some crummy, overcrowded state pen where the guards are underpaid community college dropouts.

What do you think they are going to do? How scared of them has Bushco made you?

[Zomby Woof]

36. Katy in Ohio is against it!

Watch her in-depth legal analysis here:

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-197911

[jenmito]

39. Yeah, I saw her phony videos posted on a thread here

about how CNN was playing her videos. :rofl:

[Iggo]

38. These people have never been to prison.

[crimsonblue]

42. Bring 'em all to Kansas

put them in Ft Leavenworth. I couldn't give two shits about it.

[apnu]

44. I think its because "everyone" is afraid of the prison revolving door.

That is to say, once they are in the federal system, some local judge (that won't happen, federal prisoners have to talk to federal judges, not city or county judges) will let them out on the street where they will pull some magic car bomb out of their asses and blow up the place.

I know it doesn't make sense, and I know that's not how it will actually happen, but I think that's how "everyone" you're talking about is reasoning. (if you can call it "reason")

[alcibiades_mystery]

61. If people are convicted and serve the proper sentence and are eligible and qualified for parole

They should probably be paroled. Equal treatment under the law.

[apnu]

102. I totally agree.

The way I see it. If you paid your dues (either fines or serve your time) then you're square with the house. That stands for everybody in every situation.

From Geitner "screwing up" (or cheating on, depending on your perspective) his taxes to a felon serving his/her time in county lockup. In both cases they paid their dues and should be treated as square with the house.

[Phx_Dem]

49. No shit. The argument some blowhard made yesterday

was ludacris. He said "if they escape, we'll have a terrorist in our neighborhood." Jesus, where to start with that gem.

First of all, they can't be a serious terrorist threat without a plan and a means to carry it out; i.e., suitcase nuke, anthrax, bomb-making materials or whatever. Secondly, wouldn't an escaped serial killer be a much more immediate threat to the community?

The ignorance of Republicans is absolutely astonishing. They act like our prisons are filled with super nice people who wouldn't pose a threat if they escaped.

[jenmito]

66. Ridiculous, isn't it?!

It makes NO sense unless they don't want any PRISONS in their states.

[jazzjunkysue]

50. The ironic thing is, they'd be exposed to more physical cruelty in a regular max sec prison.

It wouldn't be illegal because it wouldn't be conducted by the CIA, and amnesty international might not pick up on it.

I really have no opinion either way, but at least in one of our prisons, there would be people who knew what was going on. In gitmo, supervision is suspect.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

51. Because people watch too many god damned movies and they think

there's going to some crazy escape scene and they'll blow up a whole town.

[TxRider]

52. Mainly because they would be killed.

You do not want these guys released into a general population prison. They wouldn't last a month unless they were kept in solitary confinement.

[ShortnFiery]

55. Yeah, I think it's termed "The Jeffery Dahlmar Solution."

:wow: :nuke:

[alcibiades_mystery]

62. They would probably be classified for PC, sure

Or maybe not. The notion that they would certainly be attacked by other prisoners is ludicrous. Other convicted terrorists have been placed in population without serious incident. The security level of the prison would be a factor.

In any case, their prison classification would be an issue for the Bureau of Prisons, and is certainly no obstacle to the closing of the extra-judicial and completely arbitrary detention at Guantanamo bay.

[ShortnFiery]

53. It's because dey ain't human like THEIR lovely home grown murderers and serial killers.

Whys theze all gots TERRORIST COOTIES that makes them "more dangerous" than yer average murderer/rapist. :eyes:

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. That's what it is!

It's them terrorist cooties.

[kenny blankenship]

84. And do you want them dating your state's bank robbers and cutthroats?

[dcindian]

56. It is the same racist scare tactics used in their election runs.

A Lee Atwater special.

[wmbrew0206]

58. If any of the true AQ members escaped a prison in the US

they would not be looking to out run the police, they would be looking to kill as many Americans as possible before they are caught/killed. They would have no chance of making it "home" or living a normal life after blending into the larger population, thus leaving them one option.

[alcibiades_mystery]

65. That's the status of very many people we keep in US prisons

It's a necessary effect of criminality. It is not an obstacle to getting rid of Gitmo.

Indeed, Ramzi Youssef said as much to US marshals as he was being transported for trial. Have we set up a special extra-judicial detention center for him, or have we simply put him in a secure prison facility?

[wmbrew0206]

67. That is not the status of "very many people we keep in US prisons"

Your average serial killer's or mass murder's goal for escaping a prison is to escape from the nearby area and then resume their activities once again once they feel safe enough to do so.

You don't also have that many of them in one place, where you could have 10 to 20 hard core AQ members.

AQ members goal in escaping prison is to kill as many Americans they can find until they are stopped, their preferred means is by being killed by non-believers and achieving martyr status.

No politician wants to be the one who allowed a bunch of AQ Jihadis to be imported into their district and then have to explain it if one gets lose and kills some local residents. That doesn't help your re-election chances.

[alcibiades_mystery]

69. Armed and dangerous

It's the same function. The US prison system can handle anyone we put in. It's not complicated, and this fretting is ridiculous. The average "escapee" terrorist - a dubious hypothetical unworthy of basing a policy decision on - would have no more capacity to kill "many Americans" than would the average escapee gangbanger drive-by killer. It's a ridiculous assertion.

[wmbrew0206]

72. Your average gangbanger drive-by killer doesn't think he'll go to heaven if he gets killed while

killing non-believers. If an AQ member were in a US prison and escaped, they only thing they would be looking to do is kill a non-believer or die trying.

Whether or not it is possible or even likely is a different story. What politician is going to take that chance by allowing AQ members to be imported to their district?

[alcibiades_mystery]

73. I find your premise unlikely

and immaterial.

Principle trumps in this case. You either believe in the Constitution or you do not. All this fretting about absurd hypotheticals reeks of cowardice.

[wmbrew0206]

76. The question the OP asked was not whether or not to close Gitmo,

is was why so many don't Gitmo prisoners in their state prisons.

You can still close Gitmo and not move those in prison there to state prisons.

What part of my premise is unlikely? True AQ members want to kill and will kill Americans if given the chance? That real (and I'm not talking some young men in the wrong place at the wrong time) AQ members who have been to training camps in Afghanistan have a higher % chance of escaping a state prison guarded by Joe Sixpack versus a Maximum Federal Security Facility.

There is also the question of whether or not it is legal under the Geneva Conventions to house POW's in state prisons.

[alcibiades_mystery]

78. I state din a post upthread, I think, that housing them in state prisons is a non-starter

They are obviously to be housed in federal maximum security if they are convicted of real offenses.

We're talking past each other.

But yes, I find the premise that an al Qaeda escapee would act substantially differently from any other long-sentence escapee to be dubious on its face, and the whole martyr business is just propaganda. They would, like the others, seek some escape route, and kill those who obstructed them, not unlike the guys that escaped from the Texas prisons back in 2000-2001. The difference between the average criminal and the al Qaeda escapee, in terms of capacity, is nil. But again, it's a moot point. Those who have committed offenses and can be convicted should be tried in the federal courts, and sentenced to maximum security in the federal system, just like Ramzi Yuseff, Tim McVeigh, or the Unabomber. Those against whom charges can't be brought should be released, and if releasing them to their home countries is a threat to their safety, they should be eligible for political asylum in the United States. Electoral calculations on points of basic human rights are pure cowardice, and beneath the dignity of this great Republic.

[wmbrew0206]

85. I agree with all of your points but three

1. For the last six years it has been my experience that if a real AQ member finds himself trapped, he would rather die than be captured and will take as many non-believers as possible with him. I believe that an escaped AQ member in the US, where he can't speak the language and has no hope of ever reaching "home," will consider himself trapped and act accordingly. I've had to deal with AQ members martyr operations, so I don't consider it propaganda. I realize this is a message board and anyone can claim to be anything, so if you disagree with me, we'll have to agree to disagree.

2. How do you see a US federal court presiding over a case that took place in a foreign country? I'm not a lawyer so I'm looking more for an explanation on this one.

3. While your last sentence is great in theory, the only problem is politicians run our republic and electoral calculations are what they base a lot of their decisions off of.

[alcibiades_mystery]

91. Well

1. The situation is completely different, supposing anything you say is true. Presumably, you dealt with trapped "al Qaeda" (probably Taliban locals or symathizers) or Iraqi insurgents (i.e., not al Qaeda) in a military role, given you Marine avatar. Transposing those experiences on to a domestic escape is simply nonsensical. Your experience simply does not apply.

2. There are mechanisms for this. The US should petition to turn people out of jurisdiction over to international courts. The US can also bring indictments for particular acts committed on foreign soil, such as the Cole and Embassy bombings.

3. It's not "theory." It is an ethics. Presumably, they teach you something about that before they hand you big weapons, no? You either follow the Constitution, or you are not defending it. We should not excuse any bullshit reasons politicians come up with top violate the human rights of anybody, even the "bad guys." You either behave ethically, or you behave like a disgusting animal and a traitor. It's not really that complicated.

[wmbrew0206]

98. OK

1. My experience with AQ is dealing with men who are from the Arabian Peninsula, Pakistan, or North Africa. I have dealt with the Taliban and local insurgents in Iraq, but 99% of the time, local insurgents are not looking for martyrdom. Local insurgent's motivation is either money or the US presence. If cornered, they will surrender and take their chances. AQ members are looking for martyrdom and will not surrender. I've had enough experience and read enough reports to know how these guys act when cornered. This is my rational for saying how they will react if they were to get loose on American soil.

3. We are NOT talking about me here. We're talking about politicians and whether they do what is right or what is in their best political interests. I've seen enough of how politicians act to believe they will do what is best for their political career than what is right.

[alcibiades_mystery]

99. You're taking a rare bird and imagining it in a place where it is not

You're rustling ostriches in Manhattan, because you read a few books about ostriches or something. It's silly, and not a basis for policy.

You should oppose any action that sacrifices human rights for political expediency. It's cowardice.

[wmbrew0206]

100. We'll have to leave it this

AQ members are not "rare birds." These guys are hard core kool aid drinkers that buy into a perverted version of Islam where they go to heaven for killing non-believers. There are enough examples over the last eight years to be able to predict what they will do when they considered themselves trapped with an amount of certainty.

Once again, I'm not opposing sacrifices for human rights. I am not even sure what you are basing that claim off of. I've consistently said that I think these prisoners need to be out of Gitmo and in the Federal prison system. I'm answering the OP question on why these prisoners should not be in STATE prisons. I don't see an politician jeopardizing his career by trying to import these prisoners into their district's state prison system based off of political calculations.

[alcibiades_mystery]

103. They will do what many other classes of prisoner will do

They are rare birds indeed. We need a policy for them, but they shouldn't drive policy, any more than you arrange a judicial system around the idea of the serial killer.

Since we agree that they should be in federal prison, I guess we're done here.

[jenmito]

77. There are serial killers who could escape and start their serial killing again...

whether they think they'll go to heaven upon their death or not. It doesn't matter. Remember the "DC snipers"? Did they kill as many people as they could so they could be martyred and go to heaven and get 72 virgins? Who cares-but if not, it's even worse-they'd kill as many people as they could WITHOUT wanting to get killed so they could keep killing random people. What politician wants to allow THOSE people into their district? Your argument really doesn't make sense.

[wmbrew0206]

80. Your arguments make no sense

The OP asked why no one wants these prisoners in state prisons.

Here is why:

1. If a serial killer escapes from a prison, he is looking to continue to live to do something else (namely kill people but not right away) but he is looking to survive and get out of the area. An AQ member is looking to die and do so in the process of killing non-believers. They will start trying to kill American as soon as they can, meaning the immediate area around the prison.

2. The DC snipers were not AQ. They were not looking become martyrs. Additionally, these two committed state crimes and have to be housed in a state prison, not federal.

3. Finally, no politician wants to risk being the guy/gal who imported these AQ members into their district and then has to answer for it when one escapes and kills some local residents.

[jenmito]

81. Yes they do. YOURS make no sense:

My OP asked why nobody wants these prisoners in prisons in their state. Here's why your arguments make no sense:

1. How in the world do you know serial killers are looking "to continue to live to do something else (namely kill people but not right away)..."? AND how in the world do you know al Qaeda members will start trying to kill Americans "as soon as they can"? You just made that up (unless you have proof proving your point).

2. That's my point: The DC snipers were not al Qaeda but were just as dangerous. They not only killed as many random Americans as they could, they didn't want to die which means they would've been alive to KEEP killing.

3. Finally, no politician wants to risk being the one who had ANYONE from a prison in their state get out and kill local residents, al Qaeda or not.

[bottomtheweaver]

82. That's how you know it's a winger talking point:

governors HEART HEART HEART prisoners of any shape or size because the prison industry is one of the few growth sectors of the economy.

Sebelius, I don't know. Sour grapes maybe?

[wmbrew0206]

86. Here are your answers

1. How in the world do I know AQ members will start killing Americans as soon as they can? Six years of intel experience, with two trips to Al Anbar and one to Afghanistan. AQ members are in a jihad and embrace martyrdom. When trapped, will choose to die and take as many unbelievers with them as possible rather than being captured. If an AQ member escaped a US prison and could not speak the language and had no hope of ever seeing "home," they would considered themselves trapped and will act accordingly. The last seven years is full of examples of AQ members when trapped, trying to take as many non-believers with them as possible.

2. Your missing my point on this one. If the DC snipers escaped, they would not be looking to martyr themselves. They would want to get out of the district and as far away as possible and they would be able to know where they are, speak the language, and interact with the local population, however if cornered, they would surrender. This is the difference between the two. AQ members would not be able to do any of the above so there would be no reason for them to get out of the area.

3. We agree on this one. However, try being the Congressman who allowed Gitmo prisoners to be transferred to your district and then one of them escaped and killed locals. There is only three people the district can blame, two people of those three (in most states) they won't have a large voice in electing, but the third they sure as hell will. Your electorate will blame their Congressmen adding the additional risk to the community unnecessarily.

[jenmito]

92. And here are my responses:

1. How in the world do you know serial killers are looking "to continue to live to do something else (namely kill people but not right away)..."? AND how in the world do you know al Qaeda members will start trying to kill Americans "as soon as they can"? You just made that up (unless you have proof proving your point).

2. You do NOT know that the DC snipers wouldn't want to stick around and kill again right away. After all, they stayed in DC after their first shootings were discovered. Just because they don't want to martyr themselves doesn't mean they don't care if they live or not.

3. The prison would be blamed for allowing ANYONE to escape. And what are the chances that anyone would escape? I'd say close to zero. This is all just a big scare tactic to try to keep Gitmo open.

[wmbrew0206]

101. Once again

1. Go read my last response. I don't feel like typing in out again.

2. The DC Snipers SURRENDERED when cornered in 2001. What makes you think they would do the same again? If they don't want to martyr themselves, that is a very clear indication that they DO care if they live.

3. OK I can't make this anymore plain. If a prisoner, THAT WAS IMPORTED, to a state prison escaped and killed someone, citizen are going to blame the person THAT IMPORTED the prisoner to the state. No politician wants to be the one blamed, hence they are against this idea.

[jenmito]

106. My responses:

1. Oops-my mistake. I copied and pasted my first response so I could use it to compare to your answers (and then I was going to write my response to your last answer) but I erased my entire answer instead of my first response. I'll answer your response NOW:

All of your intel experience and trips can't tell you that these suspected al Qaeda members wouldn't try to get as far away from the prison they just escaped from before trying to kill others (and martyr themselves). What are the chances that they'd escape from prison and, if caught while escaping, would have the ABILITY to kill others along with themselves? This is a REAL stretch as a reason for not keeping these people in our prisons ANYWHERE.

2. The DC snipers surrendered the first time they were caught. That doesn't mean that after being in prison for however long and getting caught trying to escape they wouldn't be willing to die while trying to kill others.

3. Good point (that I must've missed the first time) that they were imported to that state, but I think MY point, that these people would have almost NO chance of escaping let alone having the ability to kill others and themselves if caught, is better. And again-if these politicians aren't confident that their prisons WORK to keep prisoners in, they shouldn't allow prisons in their states at all.

[wmbrew0206]

115. I don't think we're going to agree on the first two points, but here is my response to #3

I would say that the chance of an AQ member escaping from a state prison guarded Joe Sixpack would be quite a bit higher than being able to escape from a federal prison where both funding levels and hiring standards are higher.

[jenmito]

116. I'm not talking about state prisons...

I'm talking about federal prisons in politicians' states. I made that clear to a poster very early on in this thread. Federal prisons exist in states, don't they?

[stillcool]

123. Too funny...

you've got the talking points down. By your logic we should imprison all the people in the Middle-east. Gitmo's everywhere!!!!

[stillcool]

122. oh my....

hook, line, and sinker. Do you know how many people have already been released from Gitmo, after being tortured and locked up for years? They have had NO charges brought against them. Why is that? After all these years, there is no evidence of any criminal wrong-doing? How can you believe this bullshit? Fuck re-election chances. How about taking responsibility for what our government has done?

[woo me with science]

68. I think there is also a fear that they will evangelize

fellow prisoners to their cause.

[alcibiades_mystery]

70. So what?

We don't sacrifice the rule of law because of the possibility that prison persuasion will be effective. Besides, the prisons deal with precisely this problem all the time in the form of gangs, which are far more disruptive to the life of average Americans than 250 possible criminals. There's classification and other mechanisms put in place to deal precisely with "prison conversion" to further criminality.

[woo me with science]

71. Oh, I'm not arguing with you.

Just throwing one more reason into the mix that nobody has mentioned, and I think it's a significant one. Remember all the concern about conversions to Islam in prison several years ago, and that was even before anyone thought these particular prisoners would be considered for civilian installations.

[bottomtheweaver]

74. It's Bushco pushback. They don't want to be prosecuted for war crimes

and gross violations of the Geneva Conventions. Can you blame them? (The Bushniks that is.) I can't, but they're guilty as hell and it's Obama's job to PROSECUTE THEM.

[Optical.Catalyst]

75. Send them to Yucca Mountain, Nevada

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/

Nobody is going to complain about them being there.

[kenny blankenship]

79. I was thinking Alaska

Lots of fresh air. Lots of sunshine for 6 months. Then 6 months of dark.

Nothing to blend in with. Nowhere to hide. If you escape you'll be frozen solid within 5 miles of the wire.

And Sarah Palin.

[snowbear]

97. Actually, there is a location in Alaska I think would be perfect for the U.S. detainees...

.
.

The small community of Delta Junction would be ideal!! ~~~




They have a military base there (Fort Greely, 600,000 acres) that was almost completely shut down a few years ago, but was salvaged in order to place one of the nation's missile defense systems there.

One reason it could work well there is that it's remote, but still on Alaska's road system.

It's located in interior Alaska (99 miles south of Fairbanks) in one of the coldest parts of the state.. (Anyone who did escape would freeze to death)

Major aircraft can land on the runways at Fort Greely.

The tiny town of Delta Junction fought tooth and nail a few years ago to have a new maximum security prison built there, but the state decided to expand the prison down in Seward instead. (Evidently the residents there want the jobs a prison would bring in ) .. and if they put one there - people from Fairbanks or Anchorage would apply for jobs.

It's actually not a bad idea kenny! ~~~

http://www.alaska-highway.org/delta/fort_greely.htm

[Optical.Catalyst]

111. Amchitka Island is probably avaiable also

http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/aleutians/amchitka-homepage.htm

http://www.uaf.edu/news/featured/06/amchitka/gallery/historical/source/johnson-cannikin-ground-ze.html

United States Atomic Energy Commission, Dr. James A. Schlesinger, Chairman. Operation Cannikin, November 6, 1971. As a test of the warhead for the Spartan missile of the Safeguard Ballistic Missile Defense program, Operation Cannikin was detonated to measure the yield of the device, measure the x-ray flux and spectrum, and assure deployment of a reliable design. The Cannikin test of a nuclear device of under five megatons was detonated at a depth of 5,875 feet in volcanic breccia within a mined 52-foot diameter spherical cavity.

No excavating, drilling and/or removal of materials is permitted without U.S. Government approval, between the ground surface and minus 6,200 feet below mean sea level and out to a horizontal distance of 3,000 feet from the surface ground zero location, N5,704,186 meters, E646,322 meters. Any reentry into drill holes within this horizontal restricted area is prohibited.

This sounds like the place to me.

[Nevernose]

130. Except for the millions of people who live within 60 miles.

Contrary to popular belief, Nevada is not a wasteland. There are plenty of places around the country (some probably in Nevada) already capable of handling any criminals we want to imprison there -- assuming that the guys in Guantanamo ARE criminals, sine none of them have been given a fair trial yet.

[marshall]

83. I imagine they are worried about them attracting other terrorists

Probably not a worry about them getting out or abusing the other prisoners. They may feel that any prison with these guys in it will be a prime target for another attack, in this case one that seeks to free them.

[Luminous Animal]

87. We already have Al Qaeda terrorists

in U.S. Federal prisons. This faux brouhaha is yet another excuse to keep people living in fear.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/23/al_qaeda/index.html

[elleng]

93. Its just a stupid thing to say,

think it'll help them get votes their next time around. Sounds like someone actually dreamed it up.

[treestar]

105. They aren't even being held on the level of evidence any US

prisoner is - no probable cause. Some of them aren't even guilty of anything and there isn't even enough evidence to think they might have been.

They are all aliens, so they never have to be released into the US, if it is found there isn't enough evidence to hold them, they will no doubt be deported back home directly.

[lynne]

107. AP writes that Abu Ghraib will be reopened by the Iraqi's next month -

- I'm guessing that's where some of the detainees will end up. Yikes . . . I'd think not good news for them. :scared:

[stillcool]

128. If they're released ..

it would be because there is no evidence to charge them with. Why would they go to an Iraqi prison? I haven't got a handle on why they can't go home. What is so bad that's awaiting them and why?

[deadlyaj]

119. Lock 'em up in Texas

we'll take 'em

[stillcool]

120. Because a terrorist is coming to..

a neighborhood near you!!! Be Afraid..be very, very afraid. They're going to break out and bomb us all into smithereens!! Not only that, they're going to convert the whole prison, and get all the other prisoners to join them!! Not only that..but we've got to keep the lid on all the shit that went down in Gitmo. If they can hold up Holder's confirmation until he promises not to prosecute anyone for authorizing torture, that's half the ball game. But there is something else about Gitmo, that some in our government are very, very afraid of.

[jenmito]

126. Yeah. I can't believe people here buy that RW argument...

at least two Dems., Murtha and Rockefeller, are on record saying they'd allow Gitmo detainees in THEIR prisons in THEIR states. I don't know why anyone would buy the talking point that these people are "the worst of the worst" and can't be held anywhere in the U.S. like our prisons can't handle them for some reason.

[stillcool]

127. they're pushing the fear thing hard.

I hate to think that people buy into it that easily. I'm hoping that the more bombastic posters are doing their thing for other reasons.

[jenmito]

133. Yup, just like the RWers...

I, too, hope that the Dems. here are doing it for other reasons.

[leftstreet]

147. Because the US is escalating in Afghanistan

The Military Industrial Congressional Complex needs scary al Qaeda talking points in the news - because more war is going to be a tough sell.