Still want to close Gitmo?

[T-Bone]

12 former detainees are launching attacks. This is not the first time released detainees went back to the battlefield. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that these people were bad to begin with. That's why they were in gitmo.

Washington Post article

-T

 

[T-Bone]

No outrage? The great Obama still wants to close gitmo knowing that the detainees go back to the battlefield and kill?

Wow.

-T

 

[KILL KILL]

A quick Google search says that about 800 people have been detained at Gitmo (all but 80 have been let go). It's unfortunate that a small handful of people have violated the law since leaving. However, I don' believe its right to hold someone prisoner indefinitely without legal representation or bringing charges.

 

[Rod1]

If they are criminals charge them with something, if they are not release them simple as that.

My guess is that a lot of these criminals have a lot of dirt in CIA proceedings or US allies so they dont want them in court.

Something fit for a dictatorship not America.

 

[Prefect]

Who cares? The public gives these people too much credit. They are not masterminds or the only people who would wish harm on the u.s. These guys are extremely incompetent in comparison to state sponsored terrorism.

 

[RhinoRush]

A quick Google search says that about 800 people have been detained at Gitmo (all but 80 have been let go). It's unfortunate that a small handful of people have violated the law since leaving. However, I don' believe its right to hold someone prisoner indefinitely without legal representation or bringing charges.

As much as I hate agreeing with this douche, he's right here.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Yes, I still want it closed.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

based on the OP, youre gripe is that they were released, not that gitmo need to keep them. theyre not comic super villains. you could keep them in an american prison as easily as you could anyone else.

some of these guys are bad and legit terrorists that need to be killed or locked away. some were made bad by being kept wrongfully for years. some were never bad and were just grabbed up in the chaos that was 2003. some were literally sold to the US and claimed to be terrorists.

 

[KILL KILL]

As much as I hate agreeing with this douche, he's right here.

thanks?

 

[UpaLoompa]

Yes. Indefinite detainment without trial is anathema to this country's founding principles.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Yes. Indefinite detainment without trial is anathema to this country's founding principles.

but what if the accused are........TERRORISTS?!

 

[djacobox372]

But we haven't close it yet, so WTF does this prove?

 

[T-Bone]

Yes. Indefinite detainment without trial is anathema to this country's founding principles.

They are prisoners of war. And will be released when the war is over. That's the way it ought to be.

-T

 

[clmetal]

Maybe we can stage a natural gas explosion there.

The recidivism rate has been pretty high since people were let go. And the worse once remain

"unfortunate " and" violated the law" is a pretty weird obama-like way to describe freed terrorists returning to lawless areas of the world (waziristan or wherever) to resume their fight against us.

 

[KILL KILL]

They are prisoners of war. And will be released when the war is over. That's the way it ought to be.

-T

I wasn't aware congress had declared war. my bad.

 

[Fawlty]

Yes, still want to close Gitmo. Bring them onshore, prosecute them as appropriate. And close our other torture bases too.

And make a deal with Cuba to turn it into a museum.

 

[T-Bone]

I wasn't aware congress had declared war. my bad.

Of course. They approved action in Afghanistan and for Iraq.

-T

 

[KILL KILL]

Of course. They approved action in Afghanistan and for Iraq.

-T

That's not declaring war...

 

[Space]

It's OK, we still have the secret CIA prisons in Europe for terrorists to be tortured in.

 

[T-Bone]

That's not declaring war...

The Constitution is very clear on this. Only Congress can declare war.

But now we have a problem. We don't know what war means. Let's consult an authoritative source.

war
wôr/
noun

1. 1.
   a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

Now I'm willing to bet that when the founding fathers drafted the Constitution, they did not want a weasel word it like only Congress can authorize the use of force. Back then they were men. They authorized War.

The Iraq resolution state of the following:
as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."


When it came to Afghanistan after 9:11, the Authorization to use force basically stated

granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.


So I know what you were thinking. You are perplexed that the word War I was missing. We know War is armed conflict. The founding fathers knew that and so did Congress. When Congress gives the president the ability to use military force in a manner that he sees fit, and nullifies the War Powers Act, then then you are declaring war.

So yes, we declared war. They are prisoners of War. Even though we did not explicitly use the word War.

Whew. T is tired now.

-T