AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Sure I can explain it. I'm pretty sure you can't. But why don't you start. You make the case for why those prisoners should be transferred to the USA instead of being held at GITMO. Perhaps Cyclop can help you out there.

* Theodore Kaczynski, the Unabomber
* Dandeny Muñoz Mosquera, former chief assassin for the Medellín Cartel of Colombia
* Terry Nichols, conspirator in the Oklahoma City bombing
* Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber"
* Eric Robert Rudolph, abortion clinic and 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bomber
* Carlos Lehder, Colombian cocaine trafficker, a founding member of the Medellín Cartel
* Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged "20th hijacker" in the September 11, 2001 attacks. Spared the death penalty when it was determined he was not directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.
* Ramzi Yusef, World Trade Center bomber
* Robert Hanssen, American FBI Agent turned Soviet spy
* Omar Abdel-Rahman, terrorist leader
* Sammy Gravano, "The Bull", notable Mafia leader
* John Walker Lindh, "American Taliban", incarcerated at the Supermax prison for a short time, now currently serving his sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution, Terre Haute at Terre Haute, Indiana.[5]
* Christopher Boyce, Soviet spy (now released)
* Larry Hoover, the leader of the Chicago-based Gangster Disciple Nation gang. On June 18, 1998, Hoover was convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise and sentenced to six life terms, seven terms of 20 years, three four-year terms, and one five-year term under federal mandatory sentencing guidelines, with all sentences running concurrently and in addition to the 150-200-year sentence he received for his 1973 murder conviction.
* Jeff Fort, co-founder of the Black P. Stones gang, and founder of its El Rukn faction, and attempted terrorist for Libya
* Kenneth McGriff, American drug trafficker and organized crime figure. Subject of the book "Queens Reign Supreme", and basis of the fictional characters Nino Brown in the 1991 film New Jack City and Majestic in Get Rich or Die Tryin.

Make the case for why GITMO should be closed

You first. Make the case for why GITMO should be closed and the prisoners housed here in the USA. Make the case for why your own senators should not have voted against the funding.

Foxfyre wrote:

Make the case for why GITMO should be closed

That's nonsense. Whether Guantanamo should be closed or not has nothing to do with the question of how much of a danger the Guantanamo detainees would be if they were imprisoned in facilities on US soil rather than in Cuba. You're trying to divert the discussion.

I don't think you're able explain why it would be dangerous to have alleged terrorists detained in US prisons. I think you're engaging in irrational fearmongering.

If you actually had a good argument, you would have made it by now. You wouldn't have any reason for this "ask the Senate, they know exactly what the problem is" or "I know what it's all about, but you don't, so you will have to explain it first" silliness.

There's no reason why the Guantanamo inmates couldn't be moved. In fact, there's no reason why Guantanamo inmates who are verifiably innocent shouldn't be released right now.

Foxfyre wrote:

You first. Make the case for why GITMO should be closed and the prisoners housed here in the USA. Make the case for why your own senators should not have voted against the funding.

I just did, in the post preceding this one. There is no danger to US citizens posed by bringing Guantanamo inmates to the US.

I am not bound to explain or defend the votes of my Senators, so I don't know why you are even bringing it up.

Cycloptichorn

old europe wrote:

I don't think you're able explain why it would be dangerous to have alleged terrorists detained in US prisons. I think you're engaging in irrational fearmongering.

If you actually had a good argument, you would have made it by now. You wouldn't have any reason for this "ask the Senate, they know exactly what the problem is" or "I know what it's all about, but you don't, so you will have to explain it first" silliness.

There's no reason why the Guantanamo inmates couldn't be moved. In fact, there's no reason why Guantanamo inmates who are verifiably innocent shouldn't be released right now.

The main reasons I would not like to see the terrorists transferred stateside is that would give them more rights then they have now. It would also give them more freedom then they have now. It would also give them more ability to talk to the outside world then they have now. It would also allow them to be able to talk their **** to other prisoners and who knows what trouble that could brew.

I say that if we are to move them, send them back to their home countries. Let them deal with these people as they please. My only issue with that is that they are likely to simply return to terrorism as they see the great satan as their enemy.

As far as releasing them, 1 in 7 Freed Detainees Rejoins Fight, Report Finds.

Pretty good reason.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

You first. Make the case for why GITMO should be closed and the prisoners housed here in the USA. Make the case for why your own senators should not have voted against the funding.

I just did, in the post preceding this one. There is no danger to US citizens posed by bringing Guantanamo inmates to the US.

I am not bound to explain or defend the votes of my Senators, so I don't know why you are even bringing it up.

Cycloptichorn

I say there is a danger to US citizens posed by bringing Guantanamo inmates to the US. You're going to have a tough road to hoe to get them into your California prisons if your own senators are opposed to that. Some of the prisoners are not dangerous terrorists and could be released of course if they had anywhere to go. Nobody wants them including us and they could be in danger if we force them to return to their home country. As for the truly dangerous types, a federal judge recently ruled that they can be held indefinitely at GITMO which is a state-of-the-art prison and they are treated more humanely than they would be treated ANYWHERE else including a US prison.

So make the case. Why close GITMO and bring them here?

Foxfyre wrote:

Make the case for why GITMO should be closed

That's nonsense. Whether Guantanamo should be closed or not has nothing to do with the question of how much of a danger the Guantanamo detainees would be if they were imprisoned in facilities on US soil rather than in Cuba. You're trying to divert the discussion.

The main reasons I would not like to see the terrorists transferred stateside is that would give them more rights then they have now. It would also give them more freedom then they have now. It would also give them more ability to talk to the outside world then they have now. It would also allow them to be able to talk their **** to other prisoners and who knows what trouble that could brew.

I say that if we are to move them, send them back to their home countries. Let them deal with these people as they please. My only issue with that is that they are likely to simply return to terrorism as they see the great satan as their enemy.

As far as releasing them, 1 in 7 Freed Detainees Rejoins Fight, Report Finds.

Pretty good reason.

The problem with the whole fair trial thing is that it would fall on the government to provide a lot of sensitive information regarding spy networks, informants, techniques used, information handling and other rather important things I believe terrorists or the general public really don't need to know about. That is why military tribunals were decided on.

Problem solved? Hardly.