Close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility?

It will be interesting to see what happens to the detainees. I'm sure at least some of them are people that we want to keep locked up.

 

This has been a hot topic here in Charleston as the Naval Weapons Station here in Charleston has a nice big secure brig where they already hold (or have held) terrorist suspects in the past.

Why cant they keep it open and handle the suspects there as they would here? Why does moving somebody all of a sudden give them rights. Geez, if it was that easy, give them rights now.

 

Gotta wonder about this myself. Why all the attention to the base, as opposed to the policies that have been followed at the base? Will it change when Guantanamo's closed?

 

Cause even though they are on an American base in Cuba, they are outside of the country and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the courts there (here). (Open to interpretation but that was essentially the Bush Administration's interpretation of the law.)

It's a delicate situation and deals whether they are held as criminals, POW's, etc. If we bring them to our soil, I don't think we can classify them as POW's or something of that nature. Also, I think it has something to do with interigation techniques able to be used on different types of people in custody. Obviously if they are here, their rights would be violated by techniques such as waterboarding. But if we don't bring them here then we can. (Please refrain from telling me that it is illegal by international law because the USA did not sign the document at whichever convention that was proclaimed. They do not see it as illegal for that reason. (Again open to interpretation, if everyone else says it is, does it really matter what we think kind of thing. If we get caught doing it in another country and are prosecuted by them, I'm pretty sure the we don't view it as illegal would hold up in their court, but that is another conversation.))

So in the end I think it really just comes down to denying them certain rights that they would get if they were within the borders and types of interigation techniques they can use to extract information from them. And it might have to do with how they are tried, in our normal legal court system or by Military tribunal. The different rules between the two probably give the US an advantage within the system if we try them by Military tribunal.

 

Huge mistake. The message is that Bush is gone and we're open for their business. Al qaeda's been planning for 8 years and it's now time to set things in motion.

 

Dear John,

Are you writing a thesis or simply a term paper? With ALL that has come to your mind the last couple of days, one might suspect. If so, please omit this site as a contributing reference, for your own good of course. If not, then no explanation is required. Thank you-

An Earthling

 

You cannot be serious. Do you think al qaeda and the taliban give a flying phuck about the Geneva Convention? I laugh at your premise. :lol::lol:

 

Closing Guantanamo is a mistake. Changing interogation methods for terrorists is a mistake. We arent holding Iraqi troops as prisoners of war there. These are radical Muslim terrorists that would just a soon chop a head to make a point. They dont care about some decorum we afford their cohorts. It's meaningless and wont have any effect whatsoever on how they treat us.

This was a dumb campaign issue but Obama promised it and he is delivering.

What are we going to do with the 70 that Bush wanted to repatriate but their own countries wouldn't take them back?