PDA

View Full Version : Democrats Want Gitmo Prisoners Sent to U.S.



stephanie
03-07-2007, 10:25 PM
The Democrats MUST NEVER be in charge of our National Security, AGAIN

By: Mike Allen
March 7, 2007 09:27 PM EST


Key House Democrats plan to insist the Pentagon shut down the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and are contemplating the relocation of many of the 385 or so remaining terrorist suspects to military brigs along the East Coast -- including Quantico, Va., and Charleston, S.C.

"It sets us back in the war on terrorism to be maintaining Guantanamo," said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), who's heading an investigation of the facility for the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

"It will enhance our reputation to close it down and to apply our system of justice to all of these detainees," he added.

After two trips to Guantanamo, Moran told The Politico that he's recommending Congress cut funding to the detention center at the end of summer 2008. The men held there should then be released, tried or moved to the United States, he said.

A Democratic official involved in developing the Guantanamo strategy said the Democrats, who control the new Congress, expect Republicans to object to bringing the detainees onto U.S. soil because their attorneys would surely argue they were entitled to myriad new rights.

The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Democrats are planning hearings in April or May to "build a record" that closing Guantanamo would be beneficial and that it would be legal, as well as logistically feasible, to bring its detainees to the United States. The hearings would start with panels of lawyers, some of whom are convinced the plan is workable and some of whom represent detainees now at Guantanamo.


And to make the measure more palatable to Republicans, Moran said he would suggest the detainees be transferred to military bases that would allow them to be tried in federal courts under the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Republicans certainly could not consider that a mollycoddling, liberal bastion," Moran said. "The 4th Circuit is as conservative as you get. But the whole world would see that the United States stands for the rule of law. And I think the high-value targets would be shown to be people who undoubtedly should be detained and prosecuted.

"But you've got to distinguish among these people," he said. "We have to prove they actually did something that was designed to hurt American citizens."

A senior administration official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, said he was puzzled by the Democrats' frequent discussion of closing Guantanamo.

"While we want to bring these guys to trial as quickly as possible, where do Democrats believe we should keep Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 plot?" the official asked. "Which American city will they choose to place America's most wanted terrorists?"

The Democratic official said the plan would be to relocate the terrorists to military brigs that have suitable courtrooms. In addition to Quantico and Charleston, many could go to Fort Leavenworth, Kan., or to the Norfolk Naval Station, which has four courtrooms.

Still other possibilities include the Marine Corps Air Station in Beaufort, S.C., and Fort Gordon, Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield, all in Georgia.

The rest of this sickening article...
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=2E2A4850-3048-5C12-00A7B247454E775D

LiberalNation
03-07-2007, 10:29 PM
What's the difference. There all just military bases, being in Cuba or the US doesn't make a lick of difference.

stephanie
03-07-2007, 10:36 PM
What's the difference. There all just military bases, being in Cuba or the US doesn't make a lick of difference.

Sure...
Maybe if your a lawyer, you can defend a few of these people, pro bono..

And if there so non threatening, maybe you could keep a couple in your home..
Since prison is such a harsh environment...

Gunny
03-07-2007, 10:36 PM
What's the difference. There all just military bases, being in Cuba or the US doesn't make a lick of difference.

Incorrect. The difference is whether or not the detainees are on US soil, a fact well-known to the Dems, and the whole point to this BS.

Y'all won't be satisfied until you've elected Osama bin Laden President of the US.

gabosaurus
03-07-2007, 10:38 PM
Prisoners of War are usually held in the nation that captured them.
It would be to our advantage. Cheney and Powell could get their jollies from live tortures instead of having to watch them on film.

stephanie
03-07-2007, 10:44 PM
It would be to our advantage. Cheney and Powell could get their jollies from live tortures instead of having to watch them on film.

Kinda like you do, with some of the threads you post?

LiberalNation
03-07-2007, 10:45 PM
Incorrect. The difference is whether or not the detainees are on US soil, a fact well-known to the Dems, and the whole point to this BS.
US military bases and embassy’s are automatically US soil is how I learned it.

LiberalNation
03-07-2007, 10:46 PM
Sure...
Maybe if your a lawyer, you can defend a few of these people, pro bono..

And if there so non threatening, maybe you could keep a couple in your home..
Since prison is such a harsh environment...
What are you talking about.

stephanie
03-07-2007, 10:49 PM
What are you talking about.

I think you know...

LiberalNation
03-07-2007, 10:52 PM
I didn't say release them, i said I don't see a real difference between holding them on a US military base in Cuba and holding them in US military bases on the continental US your comments therefore doesn’t make much sense.

Hobbit
03-07-2007, 10:53 PM
US military bases and embassy’s are automatically US soil is how I learned it.

A recent Supreme Court ruling makes it a bit fuzzier than this. They said that the prisoners at Gitmo could not have access to U.S. courts because they were not being held within the United States.


Prisoners of War are usually held in the nation that captured them.

Usually, but it's not required. Only high-priority German and Japanese prisoners were carted all the way back. In this war, the advantages of holding them outside the U.S. are a) if they escape, they can't bother anybody but Cuba and b) stupid, hippie, liberal, jackass douches like yourself can't turn courts into circuses trying to set them free to attack us again.


It would be to our advantage. Cheney and Powell could get their jollies from live tortures instead of having to watch them on film.

Jackass. I bet you'd eat kittens alive if you thought it would somehow villify Bush.

LiberalNation
03-07-2007, 10:57 PM
A recent Supreme Court ruling makes it a bit fuzzier than this. They said that the prisoners at Gitmo could not have access to U.S. courts because they were not being held within the United States.
Remember hearing that but I thought it was because Bush declared them to have special status as enemy combatents not because they were being held on US base outside of the US.

Gunny
03-07-2007, 11:02 PM
Prisoners of War are usually held in the nation that captured them.
It would be to our advantage. Cheney and Powell could get their jollies from live tortures instead of having to watch them on film.

Grow up.

stephanie
03-07-2007, 11:03 PM
Remember hearing that but I thought it was because Bush declared them to have special status as enemy combatants not because they were being held on US base outside of the US.

LN.....What diff. where their being held??

They will cut your throat in a heartbeat..

Also, if they were held on the homeland, that would give their buddy's more reasons to attact US HERE...Trying to break them out...

They really are better held there than here...
But these Democrats calling for this...........
Well their just idiots....
And should not be trusted, with keeping us, the American people, safe...

Gunny
03-07-2007, 11:05 PM
US military bases and embassy’s are automatically US soil is how I learned it.

Guess you haven't been paying attention the past 6 years. The whole point to keeping them in GTMO is to avoid the quesion of whether or not they are entitled to rights under US Law.

Dems want to bring them here because they sure they would then get a ruling that they are, and undermine Bush's policy. Pretty obvious ploy.

manu1959
03-08-2007, 01:17 AM
i think they should move them to the US....say pelican bay.....release them into the general population.....i am sure the aryan brotherhood would love the new playmates....