RSS | 
Twitter
| 
Be a fan!
Fed jails adequate for Gitmo prisoners
You're a prisoner of war in a loosely defined conflict that has no foreseeable end. You have no access to a lawyer and no access to the courts. Basically, you're trapped in a cruel limbo, with no rights whatsoever.
That's what the roughly 250 prisoners who are being detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba are facing right now. And though some of them have probably committed heinous deeds and are unworthy of sympathy, holding them indefinitely without charges and without trial is an affront to U.S. principles of justice and fairness and has been rightly condemned around the world.
Last week, the U.S. Senate took a step toward the long-overdue closure of Guantanamo Bay. By a 79-19 vote, they approved a plan that would allow terrorist suspects being detained there to come to this country for trial. The measure already passed the U.S. House of Representatives and will likely be signed by President Obama.
Rate This Story:
1 the lowest - 5 the highest
Current rating:
Earlier this year, in what couldn't exactly be called a "profile in courage" moment, the House and Senate declined to approve funds for shuttering the facility, with some expressing knee-knocking fear about the detainees being on U.S. soil.
"We don't want them around," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said. "We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States."
No, we shouldn't allow terrorists to be released in the United States. But it's not like they're going to be sent here on cruise ships and housed at five-star hotels. Their most likely destination would be federal lock-ups, which already hold a host of unsavory characters, from convicted "shoe bomber" Richard Reid to swindler Bernard Madoff. The likelihood that they could escape from any of them is infinitesimal. And even if they did, where could they go?
As Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina pointed out, "The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational."
Just asking and saying : 10/27/2009
But its more rational to bring 250 MORE affiliated terrorists into our country? And why is it that they are eligible for any of US justice or anything since they were involved in war against our country?
Glad you asked : 10/27/2009
The previous comment by "BP" displays a total lack of consideration for what makes for justice. The cockamamie Military Commissions, invented in 2006 by CheneyBush to hide their crimes against humanity, are not dispensing justice. The federal courts have 200 years of that under their belts and I trust them, as I do our high- max prisons which have never lost a prisoner in 100 years. I want the guilty punished under respected, REAL laws, not junk laws,-- and in memory of my fiercely fair-minded nephew who died in 9/11 at the WTC. VL
78 cleared for release : 10/27/2009
This article doesn't mention that 78 have been cleared for release to other countries. In other words, they pose no danger to the U.S. or allies, but because of Congress's ban, they can't be released to U.S. communities. Does this strike anyone else as wrong--that allies should take them because the U.S. refuses?
Gitmo in Greene or Halliburton C omes Full Circle : 10/28/2009
Send them to SCI Greene, the training ground for Abu Ghraib's lead torturer. Or maybe the county jail, where they can drill for Marcellus shale gas on work release. Or would that be too much like terrorist activity?
Wondering : 10/28/2009
War is hell and "justice" in time of war is not the same as the run of the mill justice you seem to think applies. Naive, anonymous?
No sympathy : 11/2/2009
I don't feel sorry for someone who want my country to be destroyed and my family and I dead. Maybe we should send them to a beer summitt.....
