PDA

View Full Version : Obama Liar, Liar, Liar...Obummer going weak on closing Gitmo


memyselfI
05-20-2009, 03:32 PM
Who didn't see this coming a freakin mile a way. What lying sack of Raiduhs. With the court ruling that detainees can be kept indefinitely, Bush Lite is free to continue the Bush policy. Luckily the court ruled that Obummer's outrageous expanded definition of who could be kept and why was illegal.*

I am soooo glad I didn't vote for the fraud. Not many Dems or Libs I know have gotten here yet but I think much of that is still clinging to false hope that they were not taken as suckahs. Some of it could be being to proud to say the were duped...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/20/white_house_closing_gitmo_a_hasty_decision_96593.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/20/gibbs_closing_gitmo_a_hasty_decision.html

* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/us-can-hold-gitmo-detaine_n_205752.html

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said closing the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, was a “hasty decision,” in his daily press briefing with reporters.

President Obama’s decision to close the controversial detention center in the early days of his presidency was met with adulation on the political left and earned headlines in newspapers across the world. It was seen as a clear break from Bush-era national security policy.

But recently Obama has irked many liberals with his decision to continue Bush-era military commissions to try Guantanamo Bay prisoners and his decision not to release photographs allegedly depicting U.S. soldiers abusing detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq. To an extent, this break with the political left is indicative of the difference between campaigning and governing.

Gibbs' comment appears to affirm some White House critics who argued that closing Guantanamo Bay was a policy shift easier said than done.

The White House comment (Click here to see video) comes on the eve of a major national security speech by Obama. Obama is expected to address, in part, Senate Democrats' opposition to funding the closure of Gitmo. Democrats have withheld funding closure until the White House offers a clear plan on how the detention center will be shut down and importantly, where detainees will be sent.

The closure of Guantanamo Bay has quickly turned into a "not in my backyard" issue. No U.S. representative wants to explain why a Gitmo detainee was allowed to live in his or her district. In the same vein, Obama has found U.S. allies no more willing to accept detainees. France and Britain each accepted one former detainee. There are about 240 detainees at Guantánamo Bay and 30 are clear for release.

blaise
05-20-2009, 03:34 PM
Hope.

Donger
05-20-2009, 03:40 PM
Ah, I love the smell of idealists awakening from their stupidity.

blaise
05-20-2009, 03:42 PM
Ah, I love the smell of idealists awakening from their stupidity.

It wasn't idealism. It was selling a bill of goods.

Calcountry
05-20-2009, 03:43 PM
Ah, I love the smell of idealists awakening from their stupidity.ROFLROFLROFLROFL

Calcountry
05-20-2009, 03:43 PM
It wasn't idealism. It was selling a bill of goods.It is never the ideal being wrong, we just didn't fund it with enough money.

Donger
05-20-2009, 03:45 PM
It wasn't idealism. It was selling a bill of goods.

I don't know if I agree with that assessment. I suspect that Obama probably fully intended to close Gitmo. However, once he learned more about the challenges and what we face with our enemies, he realized that "feel good" tactics aren't realistic.

memyselfI
05-20-2009, 03:46 PM
Ah, I love the smell of idealists awakening from their stupidity.

Please, you must not be talking about me. I bought into his bull shit for about a day and a half last year and that was MORE THAN long enough for me to believe in or trust him.

blaise
05-20-2009, 03:52 PM
I don't know if I agree with that assessment. I suspect that Obama probably fully intended to close Gitmo. However, once he learned more about the challenges and what we face with our enemies, he realized that "feel good" tactics aren't realistic.

I'm sure he intended to, but more because it sounded good to promise it on the campaign trail than because of a moral ideal.

Donger
05-20-2009, 03:56 PM
Please, you must not be talking about me. I bought into his bull shit for about a day and a half last year and that was MORE THAN long enough for me to believe in or trust him.

No, you are actually worse than Obama. At least he gets it on this issue.

dirk digler
05-20-2009, 04:02 PM
Maybe you should wait because from what I understand his speech on Thursday will partly be about Gitmo and that they are still planning to close it.

Could be wrong on that but I will wait until Thursday to hear what he says before passing judgment.

blaise
05-20-2009, 04:12 PM
Maybe you should wait because from what I understand his speech on Thursday will partly be about Gitmo and that they are still planning to close it.

Could be wrong on that but I will wait until Thursday to hear what he says before passing judgment.


I'm guessing these three words will be included: "The prior administration"

memyselfI
05-20-2009, 04:22 PM
Gitmo should be closed and the detainees should be held in a manner consistent with our laws and constitution. Not for them but because we are who we are.
Posted via Mobile Device

dirk digler
05-20-2009, 04:23 PM
I'm guessing these three words will be included: "The prior administration"

As it should because the prior administration put all future POTUS in a very tough spot with what they did in Gitmo.

They should have done one of 2 things.

1. We already have a POW infrastructure\policy setup they could have treated all detainees like POW's and followed the Geneva Convention.

or

2. They should have taken all these detainees to secret locations, interrogated them and if satisfied that they got all the info they needed kill them and dump them in the sea.

You pick.

SBK
05-20-2009, 05:04 PM
I do find it strange all the democrats that used to be totally against Gitmo, and pretending that the folks there weren't the worst folks around, not all the sudden calling them terrorists and making sure we all know they will never release them into the US.

Strange turn of events....

KC Dan
05-20-2009, 05:13 PM
I do find it strange all the democrats that used to be totally against Gitmo, and pretending that the folks there weren't the worst folks around, not all the sudden calling them terrorists and making sure we all know they will never release them into the US.

Strange turn of events....
They are concerned with their voters turning on them in the next election if Habib the Terrorist turns up in their backyard just like wind turbines. It all sounds good until it actually "may" happen. Obama was just moving too fast for them.

SBK
05-20-2009, 05:17 PM
They are concerned with their voters turning on them in the next election if Habib the Terrorist turns up in their backyard just like wind turbines. It all sounds good until it actually "may" happen. Obama was just moving too fast for them.

It'd be nice if there was anyone that stood on principle, and not on getting elected again. If it's right, do it, if it's actually the right thing to do you will be rewarded for it.

It's just like that with abortion. There is a group of people that can actually say, and not see the contradiction, that abortion is a good thing, an expression of liberty and choice--but we'd like to do everything we can to lower how many there are. If abortion is in fact good, why do you want to limit it, to lower the number of expressions of freedom, liberty and choice?

cardken
05-20-2009, 05:26 PM
I don't know if I agree with that assessment. I suspect that Obama probably fully intended to close Gitmo. However, once he learned more about the challenges and what we face with our enemies, he realized that "feel good" tactics aren't realistic.

QFT!:D

HonestChieffan
05-20-2009, 06:16 PM
He built the box, now he has to figure out how to get out.....

memyselfI
05-20-2009, 06:16 PM
I do find it strange all the democrats that used to be totally against Gitmo, and pretending that the folks there weren't the worst folks around, not all the sudden calling them terrorists and making sure we all know they will never release them into the US.

Strange turn of events....

Hypocrites.

jAZ
05-20-2009, 06:22 PM
I like how denise linked to but didn't include this quote which destroyed the entire premise of the quoted article in her OP.

"It was a mistake to set up something that became a rallying cry for enemies around the world and to hope for so long that we could simply continue to perpetuate the theory of keeping detainees there while the courts ruled otherwise," Gibbs responded.

"I don't doubt that the President--and I think he'll say this tomorrow--that we've made some hasty decisions that are now going to take some time to unwind. And closing Guantanamo Bay obviously is one of those decisions," he added.

But later in the briefing Gibbs was asked a follow up question on what looked like a startling admission. Gibbs said that he meant that the "hasty decisions" were made by the previous administration.

"And you said hasty," a reporter asked, “you talked about hasty decisions tomorrow, that it's going to take some time to unwind. Are you talking about the President's hasty decisions or the previous administration's hasty decision as it regards Guantanamo?”

"No, no, no, I'm sorry," Gibbs said. "My boss might want to know the answer to that. No, no, I'm discussing decisions that were made in the previous administration."

The reporter asked again, “You were not referring to the executive order?”

“No, no, no,” Gibbs said.

It was obviously to me without having yet read the subsequent clarification, that the bolded part of the quote above shows that the "hasty remark" is obviously a reference to Bush having set up Gitmo.

Sorta casts the entire article by RCP into a rather sad, pathetic light, which isn't suprising.

Nightwish
05-20-2009, 06:24 PM
I don't know if I agree with that assessment. I suspect that Obama probably fully intended to close Gitmo. However, once he learned more about the challenges and what we face with our enemies, he realized that "feel good" tactics aren't realistic.
Although what Denise is talking about is something totally different, Obama hasn't backed off on closing Gitmo. Congress is acting to block him from closing it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_guantanamo

jAZ
05-20-2009, 06:25 PM
I do find it strange all the democrats that used to be totally against Gitmo, and pretending that the folks there weren't the worst folks around, not all the sudden calling them terrorists and making sure we all know they will never release them into the US.

Strange turn of events....

That is interesting, and Obama is likely to blame in some respects for letting the politics develop in that respect. Letting the GOP define the terms of the discussion as a race to see who can most loudly declare that they don't want to house these people in their state only made the job harder.

KC Dan
05-20-2009, 06:26 PM
I like how denise linked to but didn't include this quote which destroyed the entire premise of the quoted article in her OP.
"It was a mistake to set up something that became a rallying cry for enemies around the world and to hope for so long that we could simply continue to perpetuate the theory of keeping detainees there while the courts ruled otherwise," Gibbs responded.

"I don't doubt that the President--and I think he'll say this tomorrow--that we've made some hasty decisions that are now going to take some time to unwind. And closing Guantanamo Bay obviously is one of those decisions," he added.

But later in the briefing Gibbs was asked a follow up question on what looked like a startling admission. Gibbs said that he meant that the "hasty decisions" were made by the previous administration.

"And you said hasty," a reporter asked, “you talked about hasty decisions tomorrow, that it's going to take some time to unwind. Are you talking about the President's hasty decisions or the previous administration's hasty decision as it regards Guantanamo?”

"No, no, no, I'm sorry," Gibbs said. "My boss might want to know the answer to that. No, no, I'm discussing decisions that were made in the previous administration."

The reporter asked again, “You were not referring to the executive order?”

“No, no, no,” Gibbs said.
It was obviously to me without having yet read the subsequent clarification, that the bolded part of the quote above shows that the "hasty remark" is obviously a reference to Bush having set up Gitmo.

Sorta casts the entire article by RCP into a rather sad, pathetic light, which isn't suprising.
While everything that you state may be true, how do you feel about Obama announcing closure and the Dem's celebrating in February only to take Obama out at the knees (no funding) when no workable plan was released on how to close it and distribute the inhabitants? Hasn't this whole exercise been a joke?

Nightwish
05-20-2009, 06:26 PM
I do find it strange all the democrats that used to be totally against Gitmo, and pretending that the folks there weren't the worst folks around, not all the sudden calling them terrorists and making sure we all know they will never release them into the US.

Strange turn of events....
Exactly which Democrats are those?

memyselfI
05-20-2009, 06:30 PM
Although what Denise is talking about is something totally different, Obama hasn't backed off on closing Gitmo. Congress is acting to block him from closing it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_guantanamo

No, I'm talking about Gibbs saying they acted hastily and indicating they are reviewing their options.

Translation of newspeak code word: change our minds and blame Congress.

Same shit, different dude.

jAZ
05-20-2009, 06:30 PM
Ah, I love the smell of idealists awakening from their stupidity.

I don't know if I agree with that assessment. I suspect that Obama probably fully intended to close Gitmo. However, once he learned more about the challenges and what we face with our enemies, he realized that "feel good" tactics aren't realistic.

What makes you claim that Obama won't close Gitmo?

HonestChieffan
05-20-2009, 06:31 PM
Exactly which Democrats are those?

What Dems came out in opposition of Obo's plan?

KC Dan
05-20-2009, 06:32 PM
What makes you claim that Obama won't close Gitmo?I for one thinks that he wants to close it. But, where or where to put those pesky inmates? In your backyard? In my backyard? Where or where? They are not coming to the US anytime soon. Our Congress will never allow it because it would be political suicide.

Nightwish
05-20-2009, 06:44 PM
No, I'm talking about Gibbs saying they acted hastily and indicating they are reviewing their options.

Translation of newspeak code word: change our minds and blame Congress.

Same shit, different dude.
The part of your article that Jaz highlighted, but you left out entirely, seems to suggest that Gibbs was saying that opening Gitmo was the "hasty decision."

jAZ
05-20-2009, 06:55 PM
While everything that you state may be true, how do you feel about Obama announcing closure and the Dem's celebrating in February only to take Obama out at the knees (no funding) when no workable plan was released on how to close it and distribute the inhabitants? Hasn't this whole exercise been a joke?

Agreed.

The vote today is evidience that the issue has been somewhat politically mishandled, not abandoned as is being suggested by the quoted article and denise's hyperventiation.

This article details the behind the scenes on this issue pretty well.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/off-track-senate-democrats-block-funding-to-close-gitmo-after-white-house-left-them-high-and-dry.php?ref=fpb

Off Track: Senate Democrats Block Funding To Close GITMO After White House Left Them High And Dry
By Brian Beutler - May 20, 2009, 3:19PM

We reported earlier that the Senate voted overwhelmingly this afternoon to strip the funding for the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay from a supplemental war spending bill.

The move has angered many. It comes a day after Senate Democrats announced they would withhold the money until the White House settles on a comprehensive plan for dealing with detainees--and critics on the left are charging that Democratic leaders have caved to Republican scare tactics.

That's certainly part of the story--but a bigger problem, according to several sources, has been the White House's failure, for months, to co-ordinate strategy and messaging on the issue with Congress, where the bulk of opposition to the plan lies.

"Congress, on the legislative calendar, got ahead of Obama on this," says Ken Gude, who focuses on Guantanamo as associate director for the Center for American Progress."They've established their task forces they're working on their own timeline and the timelines didn't match."

According to Gude, "it's the kind of problem you have when you have two different tracks moving, but not at the same rate."

On his first day in office, President Obama signed an executive order calling for the detention facility to be shuttered within a year. Four months later, strategists and Hill staffers say the White House didn't follow through. According to one strategist who advises Democrats on this issue, "things kind of got lost a little in the period between when the executive order was signed and today. There wasn't much direction from the White House to Capitol Hill. There was a breakdown between the White House and Congress."

What happened next will come as no surprise to students of Washington politics. Republicans rushed to fill the ensuing leadership void, and high-jacked the issue entirely. They have insisted for months now that closing the Guantanamo prison is the first step in a process that will result in terrorists walking American streets, and Democrats have met those charges with silence. (A day after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ceded rhetorical ground to the GOP--"we will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States"--Senate Republicans released a memo headlined "Meet Your New Neighbor, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad?" Reid has since clarified his position, calling Obama's approach the right one.)

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)--who supports closing the facility--had some harsh words, too. "The lack of a comprehensive, well-thought-out plan led to a predictable political backlash on Guantanamo," McCain said. "Instead of unifying Americans behind a plan that keeps us safe and honors our values, the administration's course of action has unified the opposition to moving forward and move forward we must."

That doesn't get the dynamic exactly right, but it's close. President Obama will deliver a national security address tomorrow, in which he's expected to defend the administration's plan and recommit to its deadline. Looking forward, a White House task force is expected to complete a full report on closing the facility by July. And that, Gude says, should keep the administration on track to get the job done by winter.

"It's important to recognize that this money was not necessary to do the kind of things Obama needs to do in the short term to close Guantanamo."

One of those things might involve an explanation from FBI Director Robert Mueller of his statement before the House Judiciary Committee today. "The concerns we have about individuals who may support terrorism being in the United States run from concerns about providing financing, radicalizing others [and] the potential for individuals undertaking attacks in the United States," Mueller said, referring to the supposed risk of moving Guantanamo detainees into U.S. prisons.

The National Security Network--a progressive think tank and strategy shop--has put together a detailed list of terrorists sitting harmlessly in U.S. custody and, in recent days, politicians have insisted that high security facilities in their states would be perfectly safe places to keep the inmates.

All of which is to say that Senate Democrats didn't have to do things this way--even public opinion is on their side--but that their decision also emerged from a greater context,

Guantanamo isn't the only issue on which the White House and Senate leaders have been out of sync recently. Last week I reported that a similar leadership vacuum is responsible for the long wait Dawn Johnsen has had to endure as Democrats struggle to come up with the 60 votes they'll need to overcome a filibuster before they can confirm her to run the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

I still want to know what the consequences are of holding a military tribunal in Gitmo and then closing the prison. That appears to me to be the biggest difference between closing the prison and ramping to down to 10-20 people.

jAZ
05-20-2009, 06:57 PM
I for one thinks that he wants to close it. But, where or where to put those pesky inmates? In your backyard? In my backyard? Where or where? They are not coming to the US anytime soon. Our Congress will never allow it because it would be political suicide.

We house terrorist in US prisons already. That's more of a political tool being used to great affect than any actual underlying issue at play here.

jAZ
05-20-2009, 06:58 PM
The part of your article that Jaz highlighted, but you left out entirely, seems to suggest that Gibbs was saying that opening Gitmo was the "hasty decision."

denise seems to have acted hastily too.

Donger
05-20-2009, 06:58 PM
What makes you claim that Obama won't close Gitmo?

Where did I claim that?

memyselfI
05-20-2009, 06:59 PM
The part of your article that Jaz highlighted, but you left out entirely, seems to suggest that Gibbs was saying that opening Gitmo was the "hasty decision."

Forget the article, watch the video.

jAZ
05-20-2009, 06:59 PM
Where did I claim that?

Here...
I don't know if I agree with that assessment. I suspect that Obama probably fully intended to close Gitmo. However, once he learned more about the challenges and what we face with our enemies, he realized that "feel good" tactics aren't realistic.

jAZ
05-20-2009, 07:00 PM
Forget the article, watch the video.

ROFL

KC Dan
05-20-2009, 07:00 PM
Agreed.

The vote today is evidience that the issue has been somewhat politically mishandled, not abandoned as is being suggested by the quoted article and denise's hyperventiation.

This article details the behind the scenes on this issue pretty well.
I still want to know what the consequences are of holding a military tribunal in Gitmo and then closing the prison. That appears to me to be the biggest difference between closing the prison and ramping to down to 10-20 people.
The bottom line is: they aren't coming to the US. Congress will not allow it. So, where do they go? That is why Obama screwed the pooch with his announcement so soon after becoming POTUS. His administration should have done the leg work first on how to deal with the prisoners before his executive order was signed. Now, he is in a lose-lose scenerio.

jAZ
05-20-2009, 07:01 PM
Forget the article, watch the video.

"I'm discussing decisions that were made in the previous administration."

“You were not referring to the executive order?”

“No, no, no,”

KC Dan
05-20-2009, 07:03 PM
I may play the "shot game" tomorrow during his announcement for each time he says "the previous administration". I have a feeling that I may need to buy more alcohol first though. :)

RedNeckRaider
05-20-2009, 07:06 PM
I may play the "shot game" tomorrow during his announcement for each time he says "the previous administration". I have a feeling that I may need to buy more alcohol first though. :)

Rep

jAZ
05-20-2009, 07:06 PM
The bottom line is: they aren't coming to the US. Congress will not allow it. So, where do they go? That is why Obama screwed the pooch with his announcement so soon after becoming POTUS. His administration should have done the leg work first on how to deal with the prisoners before his executive order was signed. Now, he is in a lose-lose scenerio.

That's not the bottom line.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003121058&referrer=js

Levin Is Open to ‘Guantánamo North’ in Michigan
By Josh Rogin, CQ Staff
Most lawmakers view the prospect of moving prisoners from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to their districts as a negative proposition. But at least one Democratic senator is open to the idea as a potential economic boost to his struggling state.

Carl Levin , chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said that construction and staffing at a new maximum-security prison in Michigan could help his cash-starved state.

“If the governor and the local officials are open to it, that’s something that should be considered,” said Levin, making the point that each state should make its own determination.

Former Michigan Gov. John Engler, a Republican, suggested this month that creating a “Guantánamo North” in the Upper Peninsula could net the state upward of $1 billion per year, according to reports.

Other Senate Democrats have backed away from their initial openness to bringing some Guantánamo prisoners to U.S. soil, and Senate leaders agreed to drop funding that President Obama requested to close the prison from the fiscal 2009 supplemental appropriations bill (S 1054).

But many still argue that holding alleged terrorists in U.S. prisons is not a security problem.

“We are already holding some of the most dangerous terrorists within the United States,” said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin , D-Ill. “If we can safely hold these individuals, we can safely hold the Guantánamo detainees.”

Even Levin’s Republican counterpart on the committee, John McCain of Arizona, said he was open to the possibility of moving Guantánamo detainees to secure facilities in the United States, saying, “It depends on the circumstances.”

But McCain said the issue has been muddied by the public perception that the administration would release dangerous prisoners to walk the streets in U.S. neighborhoods. “Whether that’s accurate or inaccurate, that’s the impression that the American people have,” McCain said.

memyselfI
05-20-2009, 07:08 PM
"I'm discussing decisions that were made in the previous administration."

“You were not referring to the executive order?”

“No, no, no,”

Freudian slip. Then CYA.

Watch, you'll see.

KC Dan
05-20-2009, 07:08 PM
That's not the bottom line.

Levin Is Open to ‘Guantánamo North’ in Michigan

Hey, something for those laid off car workers to do - Obama said he was going to create jobs..... They are not coming to the US and yes, it is the bottom line.

memyselfI
05-20-2009, 07:10 PM
I may play the "shot game" tomorrow during his announcement for each time he says "the previous administration". I have a feeling that I may need to buy more alcohol first though. :)

You may need a paramedic close by. ROFL

memyselfI
05-20-2009, 07:10 PM
Hey, something for those laid off car workers to do - Obama said he was going to create jobs..... They are not coming to the US and yes, it is the bottom line.
[/INDENT]

Well MSNBC just reported that the first Gitmo detainee is coming to the US to face trial in a civilian court. I'll believe that when I see it.

jAZ
05-20-2009, 07:14 PM
They are not coming to the US and yes, it is the bottom line.


What exactly do you mean by "they"? You mean no one who is in Gitmo now? Or not that final 10-20 we had discussed.

jAZ
05-20-2009, 07:23 PM
Well MSNBC just reported that the first Gitmo detainee is coming to the US to face trial in a civilian court. I'll believe that when I see it.

hasty

KILLER_CLOWN
05-20-2009, 07:23 PM
I don't know if I agree with that assessment. I suspect that Obama probably fully intended to close Gitmo. However, once he learned more about the challenges and what we face with our enemies, he realized that "feel good" tactics aren't realistic.

BS. He never intended to be anything more than bush lite as us conspiracy theorists(misnomer) were saying all along.

jAZ
05-20-2009, 07:25 PM
Freudian slip. Then CYA.

Watch, you'll see.

Watch and see what exactly?

SBK
05-20-2009, 07:25 PM
Exactly which Democrats are those?

Let's start with Harry Reid.

KC Dan
05-20-2009, 07:40 PM
What exactly do you mean by "they"? You mean no one who is in Gitmo now? Or not that final 10-20 we had discussed.
How about the non-Chinese detainees. I think the others will not hit our shores. At least, I hope not.

jAZ
05-20-2009, 07:50 PM
At least, I hope not.

You were confusing your feelings for the facts. I'm sure you hope not. But that's not the same as "bottom line".

Like I've said before, I don't see the end game for the final few prisoners who can't be tried in US courts because we abused them and their testimony won't work.

But that's only a portion of the people there.

Those that *can* be tried in the US will be.

Today was all about political grand standing in order to 1) change Obama's policy against his will and 2) use the issue against him no matter what happens.

It doesn't matter really, what 49 of the states think. In the end, they will likely end up in CO along with the blind sheik or maybe now in MI at some new "gitmo north".

stevieray
05-20-2009, 08:09 PM
Tonight! Live!..on Obama Idol!...jAZ Taylor sings another great tribute hit...

You've got a Friend/

;)

petegz28
05-20-2009, 08:11 PM
I said from day 1 ...even BEFORE day 1, he would not close Gitmo. He is doing exactly what I said. His next move is to come up with some "legislation" that "Obamaizes" Gitmo therefore giving the perception that he fixed everything that was wrong but we still keep it open.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-20-2009, 08:13 PM
I said from day 1 ...even BEFORE day 1, he would not close Gitmo. He is doing exactly what I said. His next move is to come up with some "legislation" that "Obamaizes" Gitmo therefore giving the perception that he fixed everything that was wrong but we still keep it open.

Yup you must have purchased the Obama playbook because the 1st 120 days are scripted.

dirk digler
05-20-2009, 09:20 PM
We house terrorist in US prisons already. That's more of a political tool being used to great affect than any actual underlying issue at play here.

Yep and it appears most people here and in Congress don't have a clue what they are talking about.

What they would do is house them in max or super max prisons and they would be confined to their cells for 23 hours a day with 1 hour out by themselves for exercise. All their mail and phone calls would be monitored and they would have no contact with anyone except their lawyer and if they had family in the US.

Oh and here is where we currently keep terrorists and it is in Colorado. Shocking I know.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/13/supermax.btsc/index.html

The handful of journalists allowed in were not allowed to see the headline-grabbing terrorists isolated under specially designed procedures. We didn't get a glimpse of Zacharias Moussaoui, Ramzi Yousef, Richard Reid, Theodore Kaczynski or Terry Nichols. But we've seen them in court, and they're not the guys you'd most fear.

jAZ
05-20-2009, 09:29 PM
Yep and it appears most people here and in Congress don't have a clue what they are talking about.

What they would do is house them in max or super max prisons and they would be confined to their cells for 23 hours a day with 1 hour out by themselves for exercise. All their mail and phone calls would be monitored and they would have no contact with anyone except their lawyer and if they had family in the US.

Oh and here is where we currently keep terrorists and it is in Colorado. Shocking I know.

I thought this was an outstanding email to TPM...

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/05/creeping_wusseydom.php?ref=fpblg

I think as a country, we've been desensitized by the keyword "9-11". ... I fail to see how a representative would refuse this responsibility for their state. In the weeks and months after 9-11, would any representative have refused to incarcerate someone linked to the perpetration of 9-11? I, as a Coloradan would be proud for my state to undertake such a responsibility. Additionally, beyond the patriotic obligation, our representatives should be clamoring for the political capital gained from volunteering their state to house Gitmo detainees. On one hand, a representative could claim that they are promoting their state's commitment to the defense of the nation. On the other hand, a representative could claim that they are compromising to bring an end to Gitmo detention and mainstream the process for trying alleged terrorists.

***SPRAYER
05-20-2009, 09:30 PM
Ah, I love the smell of idealists awakening from their stupidity.

Maybe on national security, but B.O. still has complete free reign to destroy our economy with his centralized planning.

dirk digler
05-20-2009, 09:37 PM
I thought this was an outstanding email to TPM...

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/05/creeping_wusseydom.php?ref=fpblgI think as a country, we've been desensitized by the keyword "9-11". ... I fail to see how a representative would refuse this responsibility for their state. In the weeks and months after 9-11, would any representative have refused to incarcerate someone linked to the perpetration of 9-11? I, as a Coloradan would be proud for my state to undertake such a responsibility. Additionally, beyond the patriotic obligation, our representatives should be clamoring for the political capital gained from volunteering their state to house Gitmo detainees. On one hand, a representative could claim that they are promoting their state's commitment to the defense of the nation. On the other hand, a representative could claim that they are compromising to bring an end to Gitmo detention and mainstream the process for trying alleged terrorists.

Yep that person is exactly right.

And here is everyone's hero Ron Paul on Glen Beck today stating the same thing. I didn't realize we went to Pakistan to get the people who did the 93 bombing and they are currently jailed in NY without any problems.

NAPOLITANO: Should Guantanamo Bay be closed as a prison camp for detainees?

PAUL: Yes.

NAPOLITANO: Why?

PAUL: Sure it should be closed. We don't need it. It was unnecessary the way these prisoners were captured were very questionable. They haven't had really due process, so the real thugs that need to be tried, they ought to be tried, but they have deleted the funding mainly because the Republicans have won the argument because they turned this into, you know, if you don't support the continuation of these military tribunals and you don't support Guantanamo, maybe you support sending them into your district and they will be your neighbors, and the Democrats were convinced of that. They won the P.R. fight, and so therefore, they all became squeamish, and even the President backed down, so that's why there's no funding for closing Guantanamo, and I guess it will be open for an an indefinite future.

NAPOLITANO: I visited Guantanamo about three years ago. As a physical plant, it is extraordinary. It is better than many prisons...in the United States of America, but the issue is not the physical plant. The issue is not the three square meals a day. The issue is why are these people there, and how can we keep them without proving that they have done something wrong and some legitimate, recognized court of law?

PAUL: I think that's the key to it, and so far, they don't have an answer, because they're not allowing them to be tried in a legitimate court of law. I think a good example was set with the individuals that were involved with the bombing of the towers in 1993. I mean, we even went into Pakistan, arrested them, brought them over here and tried them in our court system, and they're not our neighbors. They are in a federal prison and nobody feels threatened by them. I'm not sure why they are so determined not to pursue the law. Anyway, it has been politicized enough and it looks like the politicians are going to win this argument and the rule of law will not win.

jAZ
05-21-2009, 12:08 AM
Another volunteer...

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/15695/

Montana mayor says his town will take 100 Gitmo prisoners

Author: John Wojcik
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 05/20/09 13:29

Dick Cheney is slamming the Obama administration for its plan to close the notorious Guantanamo military prison. Cheney claimed this week that he didn’t “know a single congressional district in this country that is going to say, gee, great, they’re sending us 20 Al Qaida terrorists.” But Ron Adams, mayor of Hardin, Mont., told the World that his town is requesting that 100 Gitmo detainees be sent there, where they could be held in the empty local prison and then get “fair trials like everyone is entitled to.”

Earlier this month, under the radar of most of the nation’s media, Hardin’s town council voted unanimously to request that the U.S. government send the detainees there.

The detainees “have to go somewhere,” Adams said, and “although I don’t have the power to make the final decision, we have the room and the facilities here to house them.”

Asked whether people in his town had concerns about taking in people whom Cheney and Bush have repeatedly described as “dangerous” and “the worst of the worst,” the mayor replied:

“First of all, there are lots of tough criminals in America who have committed horrible crimes and we have them housed in towns all across this country. With all those feds that will come in here along with the Guantanamo detainees, we’ll have a lot more law enforcement around here than we have now. We need everything we can get, what with the high cost of law enforcement these days.”
He noted that Hardin, “like other towns, is hard hit by the economic crisis. People don’t want to hear scare stories about how dangerous the terrorists are. They’ve heard all that and they know all that. What we need is some help to get us through these hard times and we believe that there will be at least 100 new jobs created if they come here. This would be a boost to any small town suffering in this economy.”

Other right-wing Republicans have, of course, joined the Cheney bandwagon against the closing of Guantanamo. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said in an appearance on MSNBC this morning that “no community in the U.S. would welcome terrorists, would-be terrorists, former terrorists or any kind of terrorists from Guantanamo, not even into its courthouses for a trial.”

Soon after Shelby made that claim, Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) issued a statement repeating his assertion that the detainees could be tried in his Alexandria, Va., district.

memyselfI
05-21-2009, 07:27 AM
I said from day 1 ...even BEFORE day 1, he would not close Gitmo. He is doing exactly what I said. His next move is to come up with some "legislation" that "Obamaizes" Gitmo therefore giving the perception that he fixed everything that was wrong but we still keep it open.

Me too. I applauded him for saying he'd do it but said I would believe it when I saw pigs fly and wouldn't give him a shred of credit for closing it until it's actually closed and out of commission. That does not mean relocating, renaming, revamping...

it means closing that facility and placing those prisoners into situations that are consistent with the laws and constitution of this country. Anything less is not 'closing' anything but reshuffling the deck.

blaise
05-21-2009, 09:51 AM
Yep and it appears most people here and in Congress don't have a clue what they are talking about.

What they would do is house them in max or super max prisons and they would be confined to their cells for 23 hours a day with 1 hour out by themselves for exercise. All their mail and phone calls would be monitored and they would have no contact with anyone except their lawyer and if they had family in the US.

Oh and here is where we currently keep terrorists and it is in Colorado. Shocking I know.

I don't know if they'll be able to put them in the ADX in Colorado if they haven't been sentenced. I could be wrong, but that's how I think it works. The other question would be is how many prisoners the ADX could logistically take on in a short time.

Chief Henry
05-21-2009, 01:16 PM
How many times did Obama say the magic words "Previous Administration" this morning ?

Is KC Dan drunker than a skunk right now ?

Calcountry
05-21-2009, 01:33 PM
How many times did Obama say the magic words "Previous Administration" this morning ?

Is KC Dan drunker than a skunk right now ?I was just wondering how long he would have the temerity to keep speeking.

Chief Henry
05-21-2009, 01:37 PM
I was just wondering how long he would have the temerity to keep speeking.

How long was his speech ?

Calcountry
05-21-2009, 01:46 PM
How long was his speech ?I didn't have a stop watch on it, but his apologizing, boring ass shit gets old real fast. You never know when he is going to quit.

KC Dan
05-21-2009, 02:34 PM
How many times did Obama say the magic words "Previous Administration" this morning ?

Is KC Dan drunker than a skunk right now ?
I didn't listen to it yet. Had to work so I recorded it. I have a spankin' new bottle of tequila and plan on starting up the recording before the Laker game. That way I'll be good and drunk before the game starts. The speech wasn't longer than an hour, was it? I get home at 5pm and the game starts at 6pm.

dirk digler
05-21-2009, 02:49 PM
I don't know if they'll be able to put them in the ADX in Colorado if they haven't been sentenced. I could be wrong, but that's how I think it works. The other question would be is how many prisoners the ADX could logistically take on in a short time.

Legit question and Obama answers it for you today

Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders - highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal "supermax" prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists.

Iowanian
05-21-2009, 02:58 PM
This problem could be easily cured with the same solution as the "death row over crowding" issue in American prisons.

Death Row Over-crowding. That has to be the very definition of Irony.
Same solution removes these assholes from being a further plague on the Earth.

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:00 PM
Legit question and Obama answers it for you today

Great. It's bad enough that we Coloradans get the turds from California and Texas, but now we have to deal with terrorists, too?

dirk digler
05-21-2009, 03:03 PM
Great. It's bad enough that we Coloradans get the turds from California and Texas, but now we have to deal with terrorists, too?

You have been for awhile. The SuperMax prison holds quite a few terrorists. You probably just didn't know.

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:04 PM
You have been for awhile. The SuperMax prison holds quite a few terrorists. You probably just didn't know.

Nah, I knew about them. It was a joke.

dirk digler
05-21-2009, 03:06 PM
Nah, I knew about them. It was a joke.

Do they allow tours? Now that would be cool

blaise
05-21-2009, 03:06 PM
Legit question and Obama answers it for you today


He did, but it's sort of vague. If I was part of the Bureau of Prisons I wouldn't be too excited. It's sort of an interesting dynamic. Obama is going to want that, Eric Holder is going to be the one that has to basically put them at the Federal Prisons because the Atty General is in charge of the prisons. Normally the Atty General has a close relationship with the Federal Prisons, and they act as sort of a team. The B.O.P. isn't going to really like taking these guys.
The Supermax's don't have people escape, but at the same time you need them to be a very controlled environment. The ship has to be tight. If you add an influx of prisoners, may of them with the specific desire to do harm to Americans at any opportunity, to the prison in a short time you're asking for trouble. We'll see. At the least it doesn't sound very well thought out (based on that one quote anyway). Maybe he has a more concrete plan.

dirk digler
05-21-2009, 03:13 PM
He did, but it's sort of vague. If I was part of the Bureau of Prisons I wouldn't be too excited. It's sort of an interesting dynamic. Obama is going to want that, Eric Holder is going to be the one that has to basically put them at the Federal Prisons because the Atty General is in charge of the prisons. Normally the Atty General has a close relationship with the Federal Prisons, and they act as sort of a team. The B.O.P. isn't going to really like taking these guys.
The Supermax's don't have people escape, but at the same time you need them to be a very controlled environment. The ship has to be tight. If you add an influx of prisoners, may of them with the specific desire to do harm to Americans at any opportunity, to the prison in a short time you're asking for trouble. We'll see. At the least it doesn't sound very well thought out (based on that one quote anyway). Maybe he has a more concrete plan.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread the one in Colorado already houses terrorists and quite a few of them and that SuperMax is in lockdown state 24/7. I am pretty confidant in saying that if they do go to a max or super max prison they will be in their cell 23 hours a day with 1 hour out for rec by themselves with little or no contact with anyone besides family or attorneys.

blaise
05-21-2009, 03:26 PM
As I pointed out earlier in this thread the one in Colorado already houses terrorists and quite a few of them and that SuperMax is in lockdown state 24/7. I am pretty confidant in saying that if they do go to a max or super max prison they will be in their cell 23 hours a day with 1 hour out for rec by themselves with little or no contact with anyone besides family or attorneys.

I know about the Supermax. I know who's in the ADX in Colorado, and more than have been mentioned here. My point is that if the prison is at capacity now, and you intend to add X number of terrorists into the prison in a short time, you're compromising security. Just because they're in their cells 23 hours a day that doesn't mean there can't be unforseen risks. Guys go on hunger strikes, the prison can't allow them to die and so they force feed them. In order to do that they have to physically restrain them and force feed them via tube. They sometimes need to go out for medical care, or dental care. It's a very dangerous environment in there, and you're talking fairly flippantly about adding a bunch more dangerous people in a short time. Yes, they do spend almost all day in their cells in the Supermax, but you can't just pretend that you can add a bunch of guys like that to the population all of a sudden and it's all going to be ok.

Garcia Bronco
05-21-2009, 03:27 PM
What they should do is build a prison for specifically these guys and keep them there.

blaise
05-21-2009, 03:29 PM
And let me tell you. You probably wouldn't find a tour cool. You'd probably wet your pants.

dirk digler
05-21-2009, 03:38 PM
I know about the Supermax. I know who's in the ADX in Colorado, and more than have been mentioned here. My point is that if the prison is at capacity now, and you intend to add X number of terrorists into the prison in a short time, you're compromising security. Just because they're in their cells 23 hours a day that doesn't mean there can't be unforseen risks. Guys go on hunger strikes, the prison can't allow them to die and so they force feed them. In order to do that they have to physically restrain them and force feed them via tube. They sometimes need to go out for medical care, or dental care. It's a very dangerous environment in there, and you're talking fairly flippantly about adding a bunch more dangerous people in a short time. Yes, they do spend almost all day in their cells in the Supermax, but you can't just pretend that you can add a bunch of guys like that to the population all of a sudden and it's all going to be ok.

You're assuming that they would all go to one prison when in fact they will all be spread out across the country as they should.

Also every max or super max prison in the country is already over-crowded that is nothing new it has been like that for 20 years.

I am not trying to be flippant I did training at MO State Penitentiary so I know how dangerous it is.

blaise
05-21-2009, 03:58 PM
You're assuming that they would all go to one prison when in fact they will all be spread out across the country as they should.

Also every max or super max prison in the country is already over-crowded that is nothing new it has been like that for 20 years.

I am not trying to be flippant I did training at MO State Penitentiary so I know how dangerous it is.

Didn't you notice that all those guys you mentioned before were in Colorado? That's the ADX prison, that's where they would go, and that's what Obama was talking about. They wouldn't be going to Coleman, or Lewisburg. They'd be going to the ADX in Colorado- all of them.

dirk digler
05-21-2009, 04:06 PM
Didn't you notice that all those guys you mentioned before were in Colorado? That's the ADX prison, that's where they would go, and that's what Obama was talking about. They wouldn't be going to Coleman, or Lewisburg. They'd be going to the ADX in Colorado- all of them.

Yes but it really depends on what the numbers we are talking about. If there was over a hundred then I don't see how they could all ship them to one place. As far as Obama's quote goes I think he just used that facility as an example. There is several terrorists that are in jail in NY for the 93 bombing.

Here is the listing of facilities that are supermax.



U.S. Penitentiary Florence ADMAX (Administrative Maximum) Facility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence) - Florence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence,_Colorado), Colorado (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado) (entirely Supermax)
United States Penitentiary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Marion) - Marion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion,_Illinois), Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois) (Downgraded to a medium-security facility in September 2006)<sup class="noprint Template-Fact" title="This claim needs references to reliable sources since January 2009" style="white-space: nowrap;">[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]</sup>
Alcatraz Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcatraz_Island) - San Francisco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco,_California), California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California) (Closed March 21, 1962)
USP Tucson (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USP_Tucson&action=edit&redlink=1) - Tucson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucson,_Arizona), Arizona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona)
Holman Correctional Facility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holman_Correctional_Facility) - Atmore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmore,_Alabama), Alabama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama)
ASPC-Eyman, SMU II (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ASPC-Eyman,_SMU_II&action=edit&redlink=1) - Florence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence,_Arizona), Arizona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona)
Varner Supermax (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Varner_Supermax&action=edit&redlink=1) - Grady (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grady,_Arkansas), Arkansas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas)
Pelican Bay State Prison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelican_Bay_State_Prison) - Crescent City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_City,_California), California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California)
California State Prison, Corcoran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Prison,_Corcoran) - Corcoran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corcoran,_California), California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California)
United States Penitentiary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Atwater) - Atwater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater,_California), California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California)
United States Penitentiary (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Penitentiary,_Coleman&action=edit&redlink=1) - Coleman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleman,_Florida), Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida)
United States Penitentiary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Atlanta) - Atlanta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta,_Georgia), Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_%28U.S._state%29)
Tamms Correctional Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamms_Correctional_Center) - Tamms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamms,_Illinois), Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois)
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabash_Valley_Correctional_Facility), SHU - Carlisle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlisle,_Indiana), Indiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana)
Westville Correctional Facility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westville_Correctional_Facility), WCU - Westville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westville,_Indiana), Indiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana)
United States Penitentiary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Correctional_Complex,_Terre_Haute) - Terre Haute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terre_Haute,_Indiana), Indiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana)
United States Penitentiary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Leavenworth) - Leavenworth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leavenworth,_Kansas), Kansas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas) (being downgraded to medium security)
United States Disciplinary Barracks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Disciplinary_Barracks), Fort Leavenworth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Leavenworth), Kansas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas) (military prison)
Maine State Prison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_State_Prison) - Warren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren,_Maine), Maine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine)
Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Correctional_Adjustment_Center) - Baltimore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore), Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland)
Minnesota Correctional Facility - Oak Park Heights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Correctional_Facility_-_Oak_Park_Heights) - Stillwater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stillwater,_Minnesota), Minnesota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota)
Mississippi State Penitentiary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_State_Penitentiary) - Parchman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchman,_Mississippi), Mississippi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi)
Northern Correctional Institution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Correctional_Institution) - Somers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somers,_Connecticut), Connecticut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut)
Florida State Prison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_State_Prison) - Raiford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiford,_Florida), Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida)
United States Penitentiary (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Penitentiary,_Allenwood&action=edit&redlink=1) - Allenwood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allenwood,_Pennsylvania), Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania)
Sing Sing Correctional Facility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sing_Sing) - Ossining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossining_%28town%29,_New_York), New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York)
Ohio State Penitentiary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_State_Penitentiary) - Youngstown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown,_Ohio), Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio)
Idaho Maximum Security Institution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_Maximum_Security_Institution) - Boise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boise,_Idaho), Idaho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho)
Oklahoma State Penitentiary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_State_Penitentiary) - McAlester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAlester,_Oklahoma), Oklahoma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma)
United States Penitentiary (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Penitentiary,_Lewisburg&action=edit&redlink=1) - Lewisburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewisburg,_Pennsylvania), Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania)
Riverbend Maximum Security Institution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverbend_Maximum_Security_Institution) - Nashville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nashville,_Tennessee), Tennessee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee)
Polunsky Unit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polunsky_Unit) - Livingston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livingston,_Texas), Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas)
United States Penitentiary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Beaumont) - Beaumont (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaumont,_Texas), Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas)
Utah State Prison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_State_Prison) - Draper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draper,_Utah), Utah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah)
Wallens Ridge State Prison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallens_Ridge_State_Prison) - Big Stone Gap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stone_Gap,_Virginia), Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia)
Red Onion State Prison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Onion_State_Prison) - Pound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound,_Virginia), Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia)
Ionia Maximum Correctional Facility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionia_Maximum_Correctional_Facility) - Ionia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionia,_Michigan), Michigan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan)
Mt. Olive Correctional Complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Olive_Correctional_Complex) - Fayette County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fayette_County,_West_Virginia), West Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia)
Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wisconsin_Secure_Program_Facility&action=edit&redlink=1) - Boscobel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boscobel,_Wisconsin), Wisconsin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin)
North Branch Correctional Institution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Branch_Correctional_Institution) - Cumberland, Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumberland,_Maryland) (final housing unit will begin operation in summer of 2008)
New Hampshire State Prison - Men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_State_Prison_-_Men) - Concord, New Hampshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord,_New_Hampshire)
Massachusetts Correctional Institution - Cedar Junction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Correctional_Institution_-_Cedar_Junction) - Walpole, Massachusetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walpole,_Massachusetts)
Attica Correctional Facility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attica_Correctional_Facility) - Attica, New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attica,_New_York)
Upstate Correctional Facility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstate_Correctional_Facility) - Malone, New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malone,_New_York)

jAZ
05-21-2009, 04:58 PM
What they should do is build a prison for specifically these guys and keep them there.

Ask if the Mayor in MT if we can use his.

KC Dan
05-21-2009, 05:12 PM
Ask if the Mayor in MT if we can use his.
The mayor in MT wants the federal money. How about you ask his constituents?

jAZ
05-21-2009, 05:47 PM
The mayor in MT wants the federal money. How about you ask his constituents?

He wants the jobs. I'd guess they do too.

KC Dan
05-21-2009, 05:49 PM
He wants the jobs. I'd guess they do too.You guess? I'll await your full report following your survey. ;)

blaise
05-21-2009, 06:40 PM
dirk- some of those are state facilities. I don't think he's going to leave their security up to the states. And I'm familiar with some of the other facilities there, and they're not capable of handling these guys. Allenwood is not a supermax. It's nowhere near like the ADX. Lewisburg is not a supermax. I don't care what that list says- it's not.
You said you can't see them shipping them all to one place, and that's what I'm saying. They plan to. There may be a very small number that they deem a small enough risk not to, but it's going to be a small number. I highly, highly doubt even a single one would go to a state prison. In fact, I would almost guarantee they wouldn't.

jAZ
05-21-2009, 07:15 PM
You guess? I'll await your full report following your survey. ;)

I'll gladly continue on while you wait.

KC Dan
05-21-2009, 07:34 PM
I'll gladly continue on while you wait.
Just like the POTUS speech today. Hit fast, provide no substance, blame others and move on (resolving nothing) after claiming you are always right and others are always wrong...

Bwana
05-21-2009, 07:40 PM
Shocking!

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 08:59 PM
And I'm familiar with some of the other facilities there, and they're not capable of handling these guys.
Why aren't they capable of handling these guys? They're not supermen, after all, they don't have super strength, they're not going to bend the bars and walk out, they aren't going in armed to the teeth, they're men. They're men with scary religious ideas, but last time I checked, scary religious ideas don't melt bars or cause walls to crumble.

memyselfI
05-21-2009, 09:04 PM
Just like the POTUS speech today. Hit fast, provide no substance, blame others and move on (resolving nothing) after claiming you are always right and others are always wrong...

You know, I'm convinced that Obummer is so enthralled with himself that he's convinced that people will suspend doubt and deny their skepticism due to the fact that they find him charismatic and trustworthy. Even in the face of evidence to the contrary, they will continue to see only what they want to see. Bush Lite is banking on this...

He saw it work with DUHbya. He knows it will work for him at least for alittle while. During this time all he has to do is maintain those poll numbers that suggest people like him more than his policies. Once they start to doubt him as a person then he's in trouble just as Bush was. It is during this time that he will expand his power and flex his muscle. Then we can look back, as we did with Bush, and say 'what the hell did we do?'

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 09:11 PM
Even in the face of evidence to the contrary, they will continue to see only what they want to see.
Well, you're right about one thing - people will see what they want to see. Recent posts from you and BEP prove beyond a doubt that that works both ways.

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 09:26 PM
Well, you're right about one thing - people will see what they want to see. Recent posts from you and BEP prove beyond a doubt that that works both ways.

Projecting again?:rolleyes:

That is if you read what was written right!

You spend more time discussing others.

Iowanian
05-21-2009, 10:23 PM
Yeah...lets move these assholes to prisons on our soil, where they can befriend other anti-socials, muslim converts and crazies that are pissed off at the country. Let them hold "training and exercise" for their new students before they get out....I mean, we want them to be comfortable.

nothing bad could come from that at all.....

jAZ
05-21-2009, 11:18 PM
Just like the POTUS speech today. Hit fast, provide no substance, blame others and move on (resolving nothing) after claiming you are always right and others are always wrong...

http://www.smileto.ca/images/20071106123255_mehotel.jpg

Iowanian
05-21-2009, 11:45 PM
your boyfriend looks like a real stud. congratulations.

jAZ
05-22-2009, 12:23 AM
Yeah...lets move these assholes to prisons on our soil, where they can befriend other anti-socials, muslim converts and crazies that are pissed off at the country. Let them hold "training and exercise" for their new students before they get out....I mean, we want them to be comfortable.

nothing bad could come from that at all.....

You are not an idiot.

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~kastor/ceml_articles/cu_in_us.html

The term ``control unit'' was first coined at United States Penitentiary (USP) at Marion, Illinois in 1972 and has come to designate a prison or part of a prison that operates under a ``super-maximum security'' regime. Control unit prisons may differ from each other in some details but all share certain defining features:


Prisoners in a control unit are kept in solitary confinement in tiny cells (six by eight feet is usual) for between twenty-two and twenty-three hours a day. There is no congregate dining, no congregate exercise, no work opportunities and no congregate religious services.
These conditions exist permanently (temporary lockdowns occur at almost every prison) and as official policy.
The conditions are officially justified not as punishment for prisoners but as an *administrative* measure. Prisoners are placed in control units in *administrative* moves and since there are no rules governing such moves (in contrast to *punitive* moves), prisoners are denied any due process and prison officials can incarcerate any prisoner in a control unit for as long as they choose, without having to give any reason [2].

memyselfI
05-22-2009, 07:17 AM
Well, you're right about one thing - people will see what they want to see. Recent posts from you and BEP prove beyond a doubt that that works both ways.

I see Bush Lite. Which is closer to the truth than anything his most of his sheeple are seeing. Bush lite is unacceptable and is not change.

Iowanian
05-22-2009, 07:41 AM
It sounds like they'd be much, much more comfortable at Club Gitmed than in a tiny, cramped American goulag.

blaise
05-22-2009, 08:26 AM
Why aren't they capable of handling these guys? They're not supermen, after all, they don't have super strength, they're not going to bend the bars and walk out, they aren't going in armed to the teeth, they're men. They're men with scary religious ideas, but last time I checked, scary religious ideas don't melt bars or cause walls to crumble.

Obama himself mentioned the word "supermax" when he was talking about incarcerating these guys. There's only one Federal Supermax prison, the one in Colorado. So are you trying to ridicule me or him?
I didn't realize they were being put in prison for their religious beliefs, either, weird.
And the issue isn't only whether they can escape, but it's nice to know you wouldn't have any concern for the safety of the employees in charge of the prisoners caretaking, or the other prisoners in the institution.

Let me ask you- how would you go about giving them their meals? How do you think that's done with prisoners who want to try and cause you harm an any opportunity, because that's how they need to treat these guys. How would you go about getting them showered, or taking them down to a doctor? You think every prison has the funding, equipment or staff to care for that type of prisoner?
It's easy right? Like when correctional officer Louis Pepe was stabbed in the eye with a sharpened comb handle by Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, one of the guys in a NY federal prison for plotting to bomb US embassies. Now he has permanent brain damage.

stevieray
05-22-2009, 09:10 AM
...maybe jAZ will let them move in.

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 10:43 AM
Obama himself mentioned the word "supermax" when he was talking about incarcerating these guys. There's only one Federal Supermax prison, the one in Colorado. So are you trying to ridicule me or him?
I didn't realize they were being put in prison for their religious beliefs, either, weird.
And the issue isn't only whether they can escape, but it's nice to know you wouldn't have any concern for the safety of the employees in charge of the prisoners caretaking, or the other prisoners in the institution.

Let me ask you- how would you go about giving them their meals? How do you think that's done with prisoners who want to try and cause you harm an any opportunity, because that's how they need to treat these guys. How would you go about getting them showered, or taking them down to a doctor? You think every prison has the funding, equipment or staff to care for that type of prisoner?
It's easy right? Like when correctional officer Louis Pepe was stabbed in the eye with a sharpened comb handle by Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, one of the guys in a NY federal prison for plotting to bomb US embassies. Now he has permanent brain damage.
How do they do it with the tons of guys they are already doing all those things with, who are every bit as dangerous (if not moreso) as these detainees? That will give you your answer. Or are you assuming there is something about them that makes them magically more dangerous than our nation's worst?

blaise
05-22-2009, 10:48 AM
How do they do it with the tons of guys they are already doing all those things with, who are every bit as dangerous (if not moreso) as these detainees? That will give you your answer. Or are you assuming there is something about them that makes them magically more dangerous than our nation's worst?

Um, our nations worst, of the Federal System are in the Supermax in Colorado. That's how they do it. I see you're choosing to ignore the fact that Obama himself referenced sending these guys to the supermax.

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 11:12 AM
Um, our nations worst, of the Federal System are in the Supermax in Colorado. That's how they do it. I see you're choosing to ignore the fact that Obama himself referenced sending these guys to the supermax.
Several states also have supermaxes (there's one about 70 miles from me), and Obama did not limit the options to only the federal supermax.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 11:19 AM
I don't know if I agree with that assessment. I suspect that Obama probably fully intended to close Gitmo. However, once he learned more about the challenges and what we face with our enemies, he realized that "feel good" tactics aren't realistic.

Well, the two possible alternatives that I can think of are both unflattering to Obama. Either he was disingenuous in his campaign calls to change the policies of the Bush administration relative to all sorts of national security issues in general and detainee handling in particular or he was dramatically unprepared for the job of POTUS.

blaise
05-22-2009, 11:19 AM
Several states also have supermaxes (there's one about 70 miles from me), and Obama did not limit the options to only the federal supermax.

You think they're going to state prisons? I highly doubt it. I would put the chances around zero percent.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 11:26 AM
Gitmo should be closed and the detainees should be held in a manner consistent with our laws and constitution. Not for them but because we are who we are.
Posted via Mobile Device

Don't let them drive this wedge between us! :(:p

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 11:29 AM
You think they're going to state prisons? I highly doubt it. I would put the chances around zero percent.
No, but the option is there. For the record, I doubt most of them will go to prisons on US soil, at least not in the 50 states.

The Mad Crapper
05-21-2010, 01:04 PM
The sun will still rise over Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the foreseeable future.

Last night the House Armed Services Committee finished this year's bill authorizing $567 billion worth of defense spending and another $159 billion for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars for the fiscal year beginning in October. […]
The actual bill hasn't been released yet. But buried at the bottom of an extensive summary the committee released last night is an express prohibition on the use of any Defense Department money to buy a new detention facility. According to the bill summary, the bill now requires Defense Secretary Robert Gates to give Congress a report that "adequately justifies any proposal to build or modify such a facility" if it wants to move forward with any post-Guantanamo detention plan.

According to Rush Limbaugh, the bill was passed in committee unanimously - every single Democrat supported this language.

That might place insurmountable obstacles to the the so-called "Gitmo North" plan to transfer Guantanamo detainees to Thomson [Correction Center, Illinois]. "They can't just create Guantanamo North and move everyone up there. That's clearly barred," said Chris Anders, a senior lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union who monitored yesterday's mark-up. "It doesn't mean that the proposal is dead, but it's hard to see how it makes a comeback after the House Armed Services Committee says there can't be money spent on Thomson."

Chalk up another spectacular failure for the Obama regime.

http://www.moonbattery.com

vailpass
05-21-2010, 01:09 PM
This is actually a great move by obama, it is what I really wanted when I voted for him in part becasue he said he was going to close gitmo. What a masterful job of leadership he has shown here, examining all the facts then making a decision that is right even if it isn't popular. God what a Potus, obama makes Bush look like Jimmy Carter.
Campaign promises are meant to be broken, everyone knows that. obama should not be expected to be any different, that's where the hope and change comes in./obots