What are the positives and negatives of closing Guantanamo Bay pris

I think because we are such a fair minded, and kind bunch…we should bring them here…give them the same rights as any “illegal” in a sactuary city, and take care them. Then… should they ever go back to their own country (and they would have that choice)…they can tell all those “back home” what wonderful people we are.

p

Yep. Bring them to trial. And in the future, don’t take prisoners in stateless wars. Kill all combatants even if they try to surrender.

The Geneva conventions rules of engagement do not apply to stateless conflicts …unless you take prisoners. So let’s not take any.

Positives: We can stop being in violation of the Geneva conventions, a legal treaty approved by the senate and the current law of the land. We will no longer be denying habeus corpus rights to prisoners. It will help protect our soldiers who might be captured in some future conflict. It will hopefully signal the end of the US practicing torture in our name. We can begin to restore our moral authority in the world.

Negative: Can’t think of one…

“Positives, it will detain these terrorists, and keep them there since they don’t deserve to get out. “

How do you know they don’t deserve to get out? Do you know the circumstances of their capture? Do you know exactly what they are guilty of?

“Negative, why give them trials in civilian courts when they are the ones that started this war. Terrorists don’t need to be allowed to be like us. If I had my own opinion about this which I do, all terrorists should stay in the prison. They comitted these crimes, they’ll pay the price.”

How do you know any of this? How do you know these people are terrorists? What is the evidence? Or are we a totalitarian government that can just accuse people, detain them, and offer no due process.

What country do you people live? Cause that sure doesn’t sound like America to me.

“I think because we are such a fair minded, and kind bunch…we should bring them here…give them the same rights as any “illegal” in a sactuary city, and take care them. Then… should they ever go back to their own country (and they would have that choice)…they can tell all those “back home” what wonderful people we are. “

Phrannie, your sarcasm might be funny if it weren’t such a scary thing to watch our basic concepts of justice and civil rights being trampled on. Just answer me one question. What are these people guilty of? Do you know? Cause I sure don’t.

Do you not see what Bush has done. If any of these people were guilty of acts of terrorism, why couldn’t they be tried? Now, if there are any who are guilty, it will be very difficult to prosecute them because of the treatment they received at Gitmo.

Do you think habeus corpus should only apply to american citizens? Do you not consider that an inalienable right to all people? Do you really think the United States of Amercia should be denying ANYONE their habeus corpus rights?

Negative- We will allow many of these people to have a trial in which an already bias public will release them to commit more crimes. Positive- Other nations will like us Americans have a new set of priority Popularity at all cost.

Positives, it will detain these terrorists, and keep them there since they don’t deserve to get out. Negative, why give them trials in civilian courts when they are the ones that started this war. Terrorists don’t need to be allowed to be like us. If I had my own opinion about this which I do, all terrorists should stay in the prison. They comitted these crimes, they’ll pay the price.

The place is really doing more harm than good. No evidence is required to bring people there, or hold them. No formal charges have been brought against anyone there. Some people are there simply because they were turned in by rivals seeking reward money. So the US has made little to no progress in the war on terror, as far as we know, by interrogating and torturing people at Gitmo.

On the other hand, Gitmo is costing the US dearly on the international scene. Citizens from several countries have been detained there, causing Gitmo to be a major point of contention between America and EU governments, as well as OIS governments. The US might find countries more willing to help in investigating potential terrorism if the spectre of Gitmo wasn’t around, not to mention renew US standing as a country that actually abides by the Geneva Convention rather than find ways to duck it.

Wow, I’m so tired of you liberals bashing Bush just because he had enough guts to stand up for America and fight back. You think Americans are discriminatory? We aren’t the only ones. There are plently of other groups who are Anti-American, and these people are just some of them. Is that a crime? No, and they shouldn’t be held in Gitmo just for disliking us. They should be held there because they have been proven guilty of terrorism and tried in a court of law. Those who are innocent should be dismissed but what of those who are guilty?

Do you really think Third World countries want OUR criminals on top of their own? What if they are tortured there? Do we have to go save these terrorists’ sorry lives because we are partially responsible for them being there? When Third World countries release these criminals and these terrorists return home and strike again, won’t we be responsible (or through irresponsibillity perhaps) for our own destruction when we could have prevented it by keeping them in our own prison?

Since when did America fear the public eye of the world? Do you remember World War II? Without fear, without hesitation our President ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war quickly and effectively and create an image of the strength of America for the World. Now because we have a prison especially for terroists we fear that our moral image has been compromised. A mission in the Middle East is consdered dangerous, not because our soilders, our FATHERS and BROTHERS and UNCLES, perhaps MOTHERS and DAUGHTERS and AUNTS, ar e in danger or in any more risk of dying. No. Missions are now considered dangerous because the news is watching and maybe a few more civillians’ lives are in peril so don’t screw up or the world will think you are immoral. Think of the stress that adds to these soldiers. Then, after we destroy the target building, we go and rebuild it because we don’t want to be bullies.

Let me ask you this. Did the terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center rebuild our towers?

The answer is no.

And because they blew up our buildings and killed many Americans both directly and now indirectly with the war we want to let them go with a slap on the hand and say “Don’t do that again, okay? It wasn’t very nice.”

They go free for murder because it’s immoral to keep them in prison. I’m sorry, that’s the worst excuse I’ve ever heard.

How many Americans would be freed from our prisons if that was the case? There are plenty of mass-murders behind bars that will be there for life. Should we let them go too? It’s immoral right?

I think that our government has given us plenty of reason to be suspicious of its motive. I agree that habeas corpus should be administered if for no other reason than to see why these people are being detained… I no longer take federally offered excuses at face value.

Patriot Act II… or The Domestic Security Enhancement Act allows for American citizens to be labeled as terrorist enemy combatants for varying minor offenses… denationalized… and held without habeas corpus in these same prisons housing “militants”… gitmo is one of many. see section 501[expatriation of terrorists] of this act.
see section 111[expanding enemy combatant designation] of this act. Both augment section 802 of Patriot Act I which itself is an amendment of United States Codes 2331 and 3077(1) under title 18.

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM. (a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking by assassination or kidnapping' and insertingby mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping’;

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking and'; (3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting; and’; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

(5) the termdomestic terrorism’ means activities that–

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;(B) appear to be intended–*

(I) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

(1)act of terrorism’ means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;’.

*notice that this revision changes the definition of domestic terrorism to include the vague “appearance” of intent…

With subjective discretion… a U.S. citizen can be stripped of citizenship… placed in a prison camp outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. legal system and under the authority of a military tribunal… without the writ of habeas corpus he was born with full rights to. This means he can languish in a prison cell indefinitely without so much as any assurances to his family that he is even still alive… I find this highly problematic… to say the least.