Military to Build $100 mi. Courthouse for Guantanamo Trials

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The military proposes to build a new courthouse at the Guantanamo military base in Cuba. The estimated cost of the courthouse is $100 million, and the courthouse is expected to be used to try 60 cases.

The military already has a courthouse at Guantanamo, but the military says that it is insufficient to try the Guantanamo detainees. Since the trials are estimated to last for years, they want to be able to conduct trials of more than one defendant at a time and allow for maximum observers.

$100 million / 60 cases = $1.7 million per case.

The military rejects considering the idea of bringing the detainees to an existing courthouse in the U.S. to conduct the trials.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/18/eveningnews/main2279127.shtml

Another reason for building the new courthouse is that it could also justify a delay the trials. It will probably take at least two years to construct such a courthouse. That would take us to the end of Bush's term. 100 million bucks to shrug this problem off on the next guy is cheap.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,412 • Replies: 120

No top replies

Why are they even getting trials? They should've been shot when they were caught.

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Why are they even getting trials? They should've been shot when they were caught.

Among approximately 500 prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, only 10 have been tried by the Guantanamo Military Commission.
Mone of them have been proven guilty.

Out of 245 detainnees who where send back to other countries, 205 were freed immidiately, only forty charged for various crimes.

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Why are they even getting trials? They should've been shot when they were caught.

http://guy.troll.free.fr/images/Bannieres/Troll.jpg

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:
Why are they even getting trials? They should've been shot when they were caught.

Among approximately 500 prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, only 10 have been tried by the Guantanamo Military Commission.
Mone of them have been proven guilty.

Out of 245 detainnees who where send back to other countries, 205 were freed immidiately, only forty charged for various crimes.

& some went right back into their hellish jobs of killing & plotting to kill Americans, & of course, some of their own people. Of course, I'm sure that's no concern of yours.

0 Replies

Green Witch wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:
Why are they even getting trials? They should've been shot when they were caught.

It's so uncouth & egotistical posting a self portrait. But I'm not surprised that you haven't discovered civilities or social graces.

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

& some went right back into their hellish jobs of killing & plotting to kill Americans, & of course, some of their own people.

Ah, you're with an agency and followed them.

Keep on with your good work and be cautious: the next one could be around the other corner!

0 Replies

Despite gaining their freedom by signing pledges to renounce violence, at least seven former prisoners of the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have returned to terrorism, at times with deadly consequences.

At least two are thought to have died in fighting in Afghanistan, and a third was recaptured during a raid of a suspected training camp in Afghanistan, Lieutenant Commander Flex Plexico, a Pentagon spokesman, said last week. Others are at large.

Additional former detainees have expressed a desire to rejoin the fight, be it against UN peacekeepers in Afghanistan, Americans in Iraq, or Russian soldiers in Chechnya.

link

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:
& some went right back into their hellish jobs of killing & plotting to kill Americans, & of course, some of their own people.

Ah, you're with an agency and followed them.

Keep on with your good work and be cautious: the next one could be around the other corner!

I just stay tuned in, a pity you don't.

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
& some went right back into their hellish jobs of killing & plotting to kill Americans, & of course, some of their own people.

Ah, you're with an agency and followed them.

Keep on with your good work and be cautious: the next one could be around the other corner!

I just stay tuned in, a pity you don't.

Ah, but tuned in to what? Tim Leary was tuned in, too...

0 Replies

Dartagnan wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
& some went right back into their hellish jobs of killing & plotting to kill Americans, & of course, some of their own people.

Ah, you're with an agency and followed them.

Keep on with your good work and be cautious: the next one could be around the other corner!

I just stay tuned in, a pity you don't.

Ah, but tuned in to what? Tim Leary was tuned in, too...

Tuned into whatever you're not.

0 Replies

So, what do you think about spending $100 million to build a courthouse for 60 trials because it will take too long in the smaller courthouse?

They want simultaneous court sessions with larger audiences. Why is the military not willing to consider transporting them back to a US courthouse for trial where simultaneous trials could be accomplished immediately? Is it because they would then be subject to US constitutional laws and not military tribunal laws?

Who will be paying for the transportation and housing of these larger audiences for the years of trials?

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

So, what do you think about spending $100 million to build a courthouse for 60 trials because it will take too long in the smaller courthouse?

They want simultaneous court sessions with larger audiences. Why is the military not willing to consider transporting them back to a US courthouse for trial where simultaneous trials could be accomplished immediately? Is it because they would then be subject to US constitutional laws and not military tribunal laws?

Who will be paying for the transportation and housing of these larger audiences for the years of trials?

Compared to the cost of the unilateral American aggression against Iraq, building a throw-away-courthouse for $100 million bucks barely seems to be worth mentioning.

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

So, what do you think about spending $100 million to build a courthouse for 60 trials because it will take too long in the smaller courthouse?

They want simultaneous court sessions with larger audiences. Why is the military not willing to consider transporting them back to a US courthouse for trial where simultaneous trials could be accomplished immediately? Is it because they would then be subject to US constitutional laws and not military tribunal laws?

Who will be paying for the transportation and housing of these larger audiences for the years of trials?

It's a waste of $$$, especially when a wall & a blindfold would do the trick for much less.

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

It's a waste of $$$, especially when a wall & a blindfold would do the trick for much less.

I absolutely agree, even though having a president shot is not really such a good idea when you went to export the concept of democracy to the rest of the world.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:
It's a waste of $$$, especially when a wall & a blindfold would do the trick for much less.

I absolutely agree, even though having a president shot is not really such a good idea when you went to export the concept of democracy to the rest of the world.

Whatever you mean by that....are you advocating for the assination of a president?

0 Replies

Would that be a problem for you?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Would that be a problem for you?

I asked you the question, I haven't advocated for the assination of any president. What did you mean?

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

old europe wrote:
Would that be a problem for you?

I asked you the question, I haven't advocated for the assination of any president. What did you mean?

I know.

You have merely advocated for the assassination of the entire population of Iraq, and of all the detainees of Camp Gitmo.

So far.

Which makes me wonder whether or not you would have a problem with the assassination of a president.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:
old europe wrote:
Would that be a problem for you?

I asked you the question, I haven't advocated for the assination of any president. What did you mean?

I know.

You have merely advocated for the assassination of the entire population of Iraq, and of all the detainees of Camp Gitmo.

So far.

Which makes me wonder whether or not you would have a problem with the assassination of a president.

That dog won't hunt. I advocated for the killing, like dogs, of our enemy, you OTOH....tsk, tsk.

0 Replies

Military to Build $100 mi. Courthouse for Guantanamo Trials

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know