January 23, 200917 yr Exactly. What's right about that? If they are justified as criminals then it is wrong. If they are considered prisoners of war or some labeling like that, I don't know the legalities concerning it. I would assume you have the right to hold them till the end of the war. I would not think we had to release the Nazi prisoners of war before the war ended so that they could join the front line again. I would assume that the same could be true here.
January 23, 200917 yr It will be interesting if it happens and I PRAY IT DOES NOT, that the Obama administration says, hey Bush did it and you didn't get on him about it. My understanding is that we are just holding people there and not prosecuting almost no one. First, those detainees we have evidence against, or are otherwise certain are terrorists aren't planned on being released. From what I've read, it seems like the States are their next stop. Second, if a low-level detainee with no evidence is released and commits an attack, who is to say it wasn't their unnecessary stay (or torture) at GITMO that inspired them to attack American targets? I think it's a shaky argument to keep it open.
January 23, 200917 yr If they are justified as criminals then it is wrong. If they are considered prisoners of war or some labeling like that, I don't know the legalities concerning it. I would assume you have the right to hold them till the end of the war. I would not think we had to release the Nazi prisoners of war before the war ended so that they could join the front line again. I would assume that the same could be true here. They aren't considered POWs by the U.S., which has allowed the U.S. to navigate around the guidelines regarding POWs.
January 23, 200917 yr First, those detainees we have evidence against, or are otherwise certain are terrorists aren't planned on being released. From what I've read, it seems like the States are their next stop. Second, if a low-level detainee with no evidence is released and commits an attack, who is to say it wasn't their unnecessary stay (or torture) at GITMO that inspired them to attack American targets? I think it's a shaky argument to keep it open. You might have misunderstood me. I am not making an argument to keep it open. Really don't have an opinion one way or another. Just see this as a situation that could blow up (no pun intended) in O's administration face.
January 23, 200917 yr You might have misunderstood me. I am not making an argument to keep it open. Really don't have an opinion one way or another. Just see this as a situation that could blow up (no pun intended) in O's administration face. I see.
January 23, 200917 yr Author First, those detainees we have evidence against, or are otherwise certain are terrorists aren't planned on being released. From what I've read, it seems like the States are their next stop. Second, if a low-level detainee with no evidence is released and commits an attack, who is to say it wasn't their unnecessary stay (or torture) at GITMO that inspired them to attack American targets? I think it's a shaky argument to keep it open. That's comforting.
January 23, 200917 yr I hate to show my ignorance but did he issue an executive order to close the base at Gitmo or just the prison??
January 23, 200917 yr I hate to show my ignorance but did he issue an executive order to close the base at Gitmo or just the prison??Just the prison.
January 24, 200917 yr Well Fox News is now reporting that at least one known terrorists that was released is now back working with terrorists activists groups.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.