Prison Complex 150 Miles from Chicago the Leading Contender for Gitmo Detainees

What? Oh no!

It would cost less than $25 to just have them shot by a firing squad where they stand. I will donate a $21.95 box of 30.06 shells for the job.
__________________________________
Sounds like you want to copy what was done by totalitarian governments in the past – before any fair trial just drag people outside and shoot them.

what about sending them to brushy mountain in tennessee

Not one nation on this earth will modify a single of its policies according to whether Gitmo is or is not used. And yet this fool persists in his errand.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Nov 14, 2009 8:03:34 PM
_________________________________
The other presidential candidate Republican John McCain also wanted to close down Guantanamo.
“I believe we should close Guantanamo,” McCain said in a foreign policy address in Los Angeles, where he argued that the United States cannot go it alone in the world and must respect the views of valued allies.
“Our great power does not mean that we can do whatever we want, whenever we want,” said McCain
———————————–
I guess he was just another ‘fool’ like Obama, ‘hapless, dangerously inept’ and all the other insults Fascist posted.
Fascist knows best.

The finest facility in the world for detaining them, and for holding their trials, already exists. It is at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Fascist Hyena | Nov 14, 2009 8:03:34 PM
I suppose you believe the most secure prison in existence is Alcatraz island too. The ONLY reason they are in Guantanamo was because the Bush administration was playing a technicality to avoid the Constitutional checks of the other branches of government. Thinking that a prison on the tip of Cuba – CUBA, if they get 500′ they are likely home free forever with quiet free rides off the island just to tick us off- is more secure than one in the midst of Illinois is a sign that you have no idea what you are talking about.
If Guantanamo bay was the most secure facility in existence, it would have been built out and in use well before Bush went scouting for a technical loophole in the Constitution to grant him a personal Executive dungeon without oversight. Quit playing stupid games and lock them up to rot in a concrete box on the mainland, which has been more than secure enough to handle every one from McVeigh to Nazis to the last Al Quadia terrorists caught and prosecuted successfully in our best-in-the-world legal system.

I guess my next question is WHY close Gitmo?
Kristen | Nov 14, 2009 9:01:46 PM
It is isolated with no easy reinforcement lines and the potential for complete isolation (hurricane). If a targeted strike gets the detainees through the wall and they make it off the base, they are homefree – Cuba would give them walking money and a quiet ride off the island just to tick us off.
It is hard to imagine a worse location to house the prisoners. Even in Bagram, any escape attempt (or external attack of several hundred) could be pursued. Not so with Cuba, unless the US wants to add ‘at war with Cuba’ to their list of international credentials (and don’t think Russia and China wouldn’t play that to their best advantage).
Who puts a prison in the only place this side of Iran where any escapees would be unpursuable within 100′ of the property line (ok, may 1000′ – our marksmen are quite good, but that still isn’t secure).

PELLEY: Would you close Guantanamo Bay?
MCCAIN: Yes. I would close Guantanamo Bay. And I would move those prisoners to Fort Leavenworth.
PELLEY: Why? What’s wrong with the way it was handled?
MCCAIN: Guantanamo Bay has become an image throughout the world which has hurt our reputation. Whether we deserve it or not, the reality is Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib have harmed our reputation in the world, thereby harming our ability to win the psychological part of the war against radical Islamic extremism.

Sen. McCain (R-AZ), himself a former longtime prisoner of war . . . says Guantanamo should be shut down. He thinks the prisoners should be moved to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. In a March 2008 speech, McCain said the United States should “close Guantanamo and work with our allies to forge a new international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control.”

McCain says Gitmo should be shut down (and much other nonsense); Senator Jim Webb says these guys should not be tried in federal court.
Try to advance your argument on its own merits, if you can. There are many reasons to keep Gitmo going, and to try all unlawful enemy combatants there. I have mentioned some of these reasons, and would be happy to mention many more.
I have yet heard nothing offered is support of closing Gitmo, other than that Mc Cain wants it done, and lots of stuff about “image,” which is not much of a basis for important policy decisions.
As for why these men should not be tried before military commissions, I have heard no reason offered at all. What Eric Holder had to say on the subject was simply goofy.

As for why these men should not be tried before military commissions, I have heard no reason offered at all.
________________________________
You’ve heard of the Supreme Court of the United States . .. .
On June 12th, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that enemy combatants under U.S. control are entitled to the Writ of Habeas Corpus as set out in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. This means that enemy combatants may not be detained indefinitely without receiving fair hearings under CIVILIAN COURTS.

“On June 12th, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that enemy combatants under U.S. control are entitled to the Writ of Habeas Corpus as set out in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution.”
Of course I’ve heard of it, and I know exactly what it means. It means nothing more nor less than that each of these detainees has a right to have the government justify to a court the reason for detaining him. It has absolutely nothing to do with the undoubted power of the military tribunals to conduct their trials. No one, including Eric Holder, contends otherwise.
You’ve got to do better than that.

The theory is that the existence of Gitmo is being used as a recruitment tool by terrorists and insurgents.
Skip | Nov 14, 2009 10:46:37 PM
The fact is the only reason Gitmo exists is because the Bush administration was taking a short cut around checks and balances. Hold them forever without trial – fine, that can be done Constitutionally. But do it the way our Constitution requires, with the agreement of two out of three of the branches of government. None of this tin pot trying to keep them out of the jurisdiction of the basis of our government.

“None of this tin pot trying to keep them out of the jurisdiction of the basis of our government.”
But the jurisdictional issue has been settled: the federal courts have sucessfully asserted jurisdiction over the Gitmo detainees and proceedings. They have not by any means said that the military commissions established by the congress in 2006 are improper in any way.
Skip, the difference you offer between the Cole and WTC offenders is, indeed,a difference, but it has no legal significance at all. There is no question whatsoever that every one of these men could be tried by military commission at Gitmo (or Leavenworth, or wherever). The decision to try them in New York federal court was wholly discretionary, and I think it is extremely unwise.

But the jurisdictional issue has been settled: the federal courts have sucessfully asserted jurisdiction over the Gitmo detainees and proceedings. They have not by any means said that the military commissions established by the congress in 2006 are improper in any way.
Fascist Hyena | Nov 14, 2009 11:47:01 PM
If you’re a lawyer you’re a breathtakingly poor one. In June of 2006, the Supreme Court found that President Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals and that the commissions were illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld). As for the jurisdictional issue, it was indeed settled a year ago in Boumediene v. Bush (which frankly appears grounds for prosecution of Bush or at least members of his justice department). Bush’s clumsy and unconstitutional short cuts have so bungled the cases that the courts are now slowly ordering the release of captives. Yet you think. “They have not by any means said that the military commissions established by the congress in 2006 are improper in any way.”
Get out of your armchair and actually read some of the rulings.

as I’ve mentioned before, I’ll wager that in his first 4 years, Obama’s Justice Dept brings more bad guys to trial and conviction than Bush’s “I can’t recall, remembering’ ‘Justice’ Dept did in 8 long years of bluster

so we can funnel money and jobs to Illinois while scoring virtue points with the lapdogs.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn
funny, no one seemed concerned about funnel money and jobs to Bush/Cheney cronies during the last 8 years especially in the war zones. Haliburton, KBR , Blackwater etc, 9 billion in cash ‘lost’….. soldiers dying while taking showers from defective wiring done by Bush contractors….. breathtakink hypocrisy by the ‘right’

tierra, Skip & jhw539, thanks for all the good information. It is rare to find such intelligent responses in these comments. To be educated while being entertained is a win-win.
The prison described in this article sounds like a good place for the Guantanamo prisoners. The facility is very secure, the majority of people who live nearby want it to happen and it will do a good job of putting these terrorists into the category of criminals. They aren’t super-villains like some on the far right seem to regard them. It will bring down their status to treat them like the criminals they are.