So What's The Difference?

UNTflyer · May 14, 2009

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The proposal being floated with members of Congress is another indication of President Barack Obama's struggles to establish his counter-terrorism policies, balancing security concerns against attempts to alter Bush-administration practices he has harshly criticized.

========

To me, this just smacks of political window dressing. The beef with Bush and GTMO was that detainees were being held without trial, even though the fact that over half of them were released was overlooked by the media.

The only difference is that holding them in GTMO means if they escape they'll have to swim 12 miles in shark infested waters to make it to Cuban territory. Here, they can escape to a local subdivision and hold your family hostage.

meangreendork · May 14, 2009

Nice scare tactic, kid.

Really though, there's not a huge difference here.

KRAM1 · May 14, 2009

Is there a country song out there with the title..."Nothing But Broken Promises"? This guy is a train wreck, especially for the folks who thought they were actually voting for a guy wanting to "change" for the better. Seems he found that all that BIG TALK on the campaign trail is a bit harder to back up when you actually win the election. Go figure! Seems to me GITMO is still open, and will be for a bit longer, and, oh, those photos the ACLU were wanting exposed to the public so the enemy can use them for propaganda purposes within 30 seconds of their release, well, maybe not so fast there! You just can't make this stuff up.

Now watch all the Obama-ites jump and claim this shows how he is willing to "reach across the aisle" or how he is willing to listen...too funny. What it really shows is the realities of the job. Don't worry though...he will find a way to blame BUSH and apologize some more while in Egypt soon. Take heed and comfort Obama-ites, he still has plenty of time to break more promises and to demean the United States at every opportunity.

All you folks who think he's great, please write him a note and let him know that you are willing to house one of the GITMO prisoners at your house once he figures out that no other country in the world wants them....I am sure he will be happy to let you have them as nanny's for your kids or simply "play pals".....too funny. (Yes, I am using tons of sarcasm here....don't get your panties in a wad folks).

UNTLifer · May 14, 2009

Nice scare tactic, kid.
Really though, there's not a huge difference here.

What's the scare tactic? Just pointing out Obama will have and is having a difficult time living up to many of his campaign promises.

UNTflyer · May 14, 2009

Obama: "I will close GTMO!"

Sheep: <wild cheering>

Obama: "And I will move terrorist detainees to a prison near you."

Sheep: <crickets>

hickoryhouse · May 14, 2009

Nice scare tactic, kid.
Really though, there's not a huge difference here.

I don't see one.......

What is the difference?

meangreendork · May 14, 2009

Raising the stakes of paranoia, one post at a time.

Let's see if you can follow me here.

So he opens a prison in the US, I'd assume it's the military taking charge of its security concerns. I don't believe they'll stick Abu Al-Azizi Mohammed in the jail out in Gatesville when he needs to be locked up in the military equivalent of a maximum security prison. Note how the article doesn't state where exactly these guys are going to be placed, and I love how you're immediately jumping to the worst conclusion, despite the simple fact that there are domestic criminals that are *gasp* also locked up in prisons on US soil.

The amount of detainees locked away in a military prison on US soil will be far less than that in a general population prison here in the US. That's more security per-prisoner.

My real concern is this - is it even legal for the US to have detainees of this nature even housed on US soil when the detainees are in that gray area between civilian and combatant?

KingDL1 · May 14, 2009

Raising the stakes of paranoia, one post at a time.
Let's see if you can follow me here.
So he opens a prison in the US, I'd assume it's the military taking charge of its security concerns. I don't believe they'll stick Abu Al-Azizi Mohammed in the jail out in Gatesville when he needs to be locked up in the military equivalent of a maximum security prison. Note how the article doesn't state where exactly these guys are going to be placed, and I love how you're immediately jumping to the worst conclusion, despite the simple fact that there are domestic criminals that are *gasp* also locked up in prisons on US soil.
The amount of detainees locked away in a military prison on US soil will be far less than that in a general population prison here in the US. That's more security per-prisoner.
My real concern is this - is it even legal for the US to have detainees of this nature even housed on US soil when the detainees are in that gray area between civilian and combatant?

There was a reason it was off US soil guys, or the piece of mine I had was if any of their buddies tried to attack the prison GTMO is really hard to get near.

hickoryhouse · May 14, 2009

That gray area does pose a good question, I have no idea about the legality of that topic, and that doesn't concern me at all actually.

I am not concerned about them being detained on US soil either.

I actually, other than geographic location, see absolutely no difference between the two. Git Mo or some maximum security military facility in the plains of Nebraska who cares. As long as they are locked up, and our military and national defense can continue to do the job that they are tasked to do, including locking up dangerous people, terrorists, and trying to obtain information that could keep us safe.

Edited May 14, 2009 by hickoryhouse

UNTflyer · May 14, 2009

Raising the stakes of paranoia, one post at a time.
Let's see if you can follow me here.
So he opens a prison in the US, I'd assume it's the military taking charge of its security concerns. I don't believe they'll stick Abu Al-Azizi Mohammed in the jail out in Gatesville when he needs to be locked up in the military equivalent of a maximum security prison. Note how the article doesn't state where exactly these guys are going to be placed, and I love how you're immediately jumping to the worst conclusion, despite the simple fact that there are domestic criminals that are *gasp* also locked up in prisons on US soil.
The amount of detainees locked away in a military prison on US soil will be far less than that in a general population prison here in the US. That's more security per-prisoner.
My real concern is this - is it even legal for the US to have detainees of this nature even housed on US soil when the detainees are in that gray area between civilian and combatant?

The problem is that the philosophy of the Obama administration is that they should not be held by the military, that they should be processed through our civilian justice system.