Well, that ought to kill property values. Anybody want the most hardened, violent, anti-America scumbags as neighbors?
From CBS.
After he takes office, Barack Obama wants to close the prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But if it's shut down, what does the government do with all those detainees?
CBS News national security correspondent David Martin has exclusively learned that the president-elect's transition team has already asked the Pentagon what it would take to move the prisoners at Guantanamo to the Navy base at Charleston, S.C.
And if we let some of them go, and it appears Obama will, do they get 20 bucks and a ride to the Greyhound Station?
Many of the about 250 Guantanamo detainees are cleared for release, but the Bush administration has been unable to find a country willing to take them. . . .
The plan being developed by Obama's team has been championed by legal scholars from both political parties. But as details surfaced Monday, it drew criticism from Democrats who oppose creating a new legal system and from Republicans who oppose bringing terror suspects to the U.S. mainland. . . .
One challenge will be to figure out what to do with the 90 or so Yemeni detainees, the largest group in the prison. The Bush administration has sought to negotiate the release of some of those detainees as part of a rehabilitation plan with the Yemeni government. Talks have so far been fruitless.
I guess I fail to see the logic in Obama's plan. He opposes "torture," by which he means waterboarding, and he wants to move the terrorists to the United States so he can close Gitmo. All he has to do to solve the first problem is to ban whatever it is that he defines as torture.
On Gitmo, does a change in geography mean something that I am not aware of? They want to move these nutballs from one Navy Base on an island to another Navy base on the mainland. How does this change anything other than place them in closer proximity to American civilians? If Obama wants to try them in military tribunals, quasi-military tribunals, or whatever euphemism they want to use, can't they do that at Gitmo?
If the burning need is to try terrorists in a Federal Courthouse, just leave them in Gitmo and fly in a federal judge. They could even wire up a courtroom here in the States and try them remotely while they and their lawyers sit in Cuba. Criminal defendants routinely have video-link hearings in this country. It doesn't matter where they are physically sitting when it takes place.
This whole thing is nothing more than a malignant strain of Bush Derangement Syndrome, where the lefties are in full fever-swamp mode solely because it was a Bush policy. If Obama kept the terrorists at Gitmo and said he was going to give them a "fair" hearing, that alone would cool down the moonbats. Form over substance is all they are after. The merits of keeping them at Gitmo have nothing to do with it.
Comments
"On Gitmo, does a change in geography mean something that I am not aware of?"
The prisoners were held in Guantanamo Bay, not on American soil. Therefore, guaranteed rights and privileges secured to American citizens and visitors were not applied to those held in Gitmo.
In June, a case heard before the Supreme Court secured the right of Habeas Corpus for said prisoners. The ruling dismissed the claim alleging the prisoners were not subject to Habeas Corpus as they were not on American soil.
Yes, a change of geography does make quite the difference.
Random, if the point is to bring them here for the purpose of conveying Constitutional rights, they could do the same thing by making the Obama tribunals, wherever they are held, subject to the same rights. The geography is meaningless if the government gets to make the rules, which Obama does.
Isn't there a symbolism in bringing the prisoners to America? After years of many people questioning the tactics used in Gitmo, I would believe the alternative setting is simply a symbolic gesture to abide by the constitution and demonstrate differing policies.
I don't share the hesitance you expressed in your article--I don't foresee a massive breakout of suspected, untried, sometimes un-accused prisoners storming downtown Charleston.
Gitmo might currently hold the "most hardened, violent, anti-America scumbags," but it also probably holds a few innocent people.
It is not a matter of questioning tactics or abiding by the Constitution. It is a safety issue for our country. The worst thing to do is to bring those prisoners onto US soil. You are asking for a stateside attack when you do this. No, there will not be a massisve breakout due to the nature of the security at Charleston, however it makes the area a target.
Bingo Sherrie.
Bill, I am former Navy. Some people just do not comprehend the current situation. The are not thinking of the rights of the people of our country. Just the rights of others.
The rights of the bad guys - the bad guys who chop our guys' heads off.
Clueless.
Thanks for your service.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!