Wait a sec. That guy was released a couple of days ago and he's already an Al-Q leader? Damn! Oh wait, I see he was released under the Bush administration... as were the 60+ others the wingnuts are screaming about. Well, that has to be a typo because I was told that Bush kept the country safe. I was also told that Gitmo is where hardened terrorists go. I was not told it would be a factory to make new terrorists. Something is terribly wrong with this article.
Nice response. I could careless who was in power. Blame game is pointless to me. I'd just like to see them do what they can to prevent terrorism.
Are you kidding me? Rural communities practically fall all over themselves lobbying to have job-creating prisons created in their towns (see the supermax facility in Colorado which created a virtual boomtown), as do private corrections companies. Imprisoning people is big business. Anyway, there's no need to have a special prison, this isn't harry houdini we are talking about, nobody has explained why a regular federal prison is not suitable on security grounds.
Once again, it's not that there is a likelihood anyone will ever escape. However, what is pretty certain is that wherever they do decide to move these prisoners will be treated as a potential terrorist target and all the security and political baggage that comes along with it. McCain has already stated he anticipates Obama may run into a huge NIMBY (not in my backyard) problem with this. Whether you can believe it or not, this may actually be a huge obstacle that will need to be overcome in order to shut down the prison at Guantanamo Bay. But, I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.
Please. They are not going to waste people and resources attacking an impenetrable SuperMax prison in an attempt to free a guy they've been able to do without for an extended period of time. This is pure Hollywood hokum. You're telling me Florence, CO all of a sudden becomes more of a terrorist target than San Fran or DC or the Houston refineries? The whole purpose of terrorism is to send a message to the people of the country you oppose. An unsuccessful attack on a prison on the high plains of CO is not going to send that message. Besides, As Greenwald points out above, there are already similar types of guys serving in prisons across the US and several other countries with no incidents.
If terrorists attack is such a likelyhood if prisoners are transferred to US territory then why hasn't there been an attack on Guantanomo yet? Are we saying that a supermax prison in the middle of the US is more vulnerable than a US military base in a hostile country?
Just to add another note. Israel has imprison many terrorists who represent groups that are sworn enemies of Israel and also happen to be just a few miles away from the prison. I've never heard of a successful escape by Hamas, Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad members from Israeli prisons. Israel also puts the those people on trials open to the media.
Whoever said it was likely there would be an attack? You are however definitely creating the possibility of an attack where there was none before. Unless you are prepared to say it is impossible these facilities will ever be at risk. Besides, I'm not making this up. Politicians are actually concerned about this, many of whom are democrats as evidenced by the link I posted above. And below is just another example. You guys are being naive if you think this is going to be a non-issue. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/23/gitmo.detainee/index.html
did you read the article rimmy posted, we haven't just started prosecuting terrorists suspects since 9-11.
Gitmo is the epotime of "9-11" changed everything. I'm not for giving terror suspects the same rights as americans if they are from other countries, i am however against holding them long term with no resolution. its lazy and its weak and we're better than that.
Yes, I read the article...the stance of the article appears to be it's not likely to cause problems because it hasn't caused problems before. I'm not sure if that would make me anymore thrilled to live next to a prison of terrorist suspects, but I agree that it's unlikely anything bad would ever happen. I definitely prefer the idea of scattering the suspects all over the country, as opposed to creating a singular "New Gitmo" which may meet more resistance from people who would have to live nearby. Not to mention having a single prison would still carry the stigma of being another "terrorist prison" just like the last one, regardless of the whether it is deemed to be more humane. Then again, I'm not enough of an expert on matters to know if there are strategic or security reasons for keeping many of the terror suspects in one place. Regardless, my interest in this stems mainly from how this will play out politically. Not just where they're going to be moved, but how they're going to be tried, potentially released, etc. It seems like it will take some difficult political maneuvering, and I will be thoroughly impressed if the prison is closed by this time next year with relative ease. I think it may end up being more work than Obama bargained for, especially since he's probably more interested in tackling other problems.
Oh well, since Sam Brownback and Lindsay Graham voiced opposition....LMFAO. I would like to see what Brownback and Graham would do if they CLOSED the prisons in SC and KA.....I'm guessing they would probably would jump for joy at the possibility that their citizens are now safe? Or would they be somewhat concerned at the loss of millions of dollars for their states? But for Tim McVeigh, Abdul Rahman, and Ted Kaczynzki - the town of FLorence Colorado would not exist in the way it presently does....it lobbied for MILLIONS of dollars to get them there...if you're going to build a multimillion dollar cash cow federal prison in your town, you get to take federal prisoners. If South Carolina and Kansas don't want federal prisons - we can close them. Or even better, we can upgrade a smaller federal prison where the people in the district will be happy for the additonal jobs. Again there are HUNDREDS of congressional districts that will gladly take the extra work. And all you need is ONE. Gladly. This also illustrates the weird reverse-free rider effect of prisons. Districts without prisons WANT prisons to create jobs, but then once the prisons are there they want them half-full so as to make them easier to deal with. Basically - the second half of this equation has to be ignored or else no prisons would ever be filled ever.
Where did this idea that Al Qaeda would conduct jail breaks come from? Is there any precedent? A major part of their MO is that every individual is expendable, kind of like the borg or something. "Yeah, we set our members on fire, have them blow themselves up, and pilot planes into buildings and terra firma (my first English pun! high five with a beard wiggle!), but hey, we are ready to conduct secret operations to free someone from an American prison after they are contaminated, deprogrammed and interrogated goods. You betcha."
Wow, yet another surprise from the Bush administration. Maybe Obama will have a tough time closing Gitmo in a year... Utter incompetence. (Unless it's utter criminality... I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the "records" were shredded because they went to torture and other crimes.) Man, it's going to take a long, long time to undo the damage done by the Bush administration. A long time.
