Senate votes to block funds for Guantanamo closure!!!!!! YES

passback

Banned
338
10
Joined Sep 2, 2007
WASHINGTON - In a major rebuke to President Barack Obama, the Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to block the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States and denied the administration the millions it sought to close the prison.

The 90-6 Senate vote - paired with similar House action last week - was a clear sign to Obama that he faces a tough fight getting the Democratic-controlled Congress to agree with his plans to shut down the detention center and move the 240 detainees.

The vote came as FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress that bringing Guantanamo detainees to the United States could pose a number of risks, even if they were kept in maximum-security prisons. Mueller's testimony to a House panel put him at odds with the president and undercut the administration's arguments for shuttering the facility.

"The concerns we have about individuals who may support terrorism being in the United States run from concerns about providing financing, radicalizing others," Mueller said, as well as "the potential for individuals undertaking attacks in the United States."

Last month, Obama asked for $80 million for the Pentagon and the Justice Department to close the facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by January. In the eyes of the world, the prison has come to exemplify harsh U.S. anti-terror tactics and detention without trial for almost all of its inmates, most of whom were captured in Afghanistan.

The administration put its Democratic allies in a difficult spot by requesting the Guantanamo closure money before developing a plan for what to do with its detainees.

Obama is scheduled to give a major address Thursday outlining in more detail his plans for Guantanamo, but it's already clear that many in Congress have little appetite for bringing detainees to U.S. soil, even if the inmates would be held in maximum-security prisons.

In recent weeks, Republicans have called for keeping Guantanamo open, saying abuses at the facility are a thing of the past and describing it as a state-of-the-art prison that's nicer than some U.S. prisons. And they warn that terrorists who can't be convicted might be set free in the United States.

"The American people don't want these men walking the streets of America's neighborhoods," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said Wednesday. "The American people don't want these detainees held at a military base or federal prison in their backyard, either."

In another development Wednesday, a federal judge said the United States can continue to hold some prisoners at Guantanamo indefinitely without any charges.

Obama's new Pentagon policy chief, Michele Flournoy, said it's unrealistic to think that no detainees will come to the United States, and that the government can't ask allies to take detainees while refusing to take on the same burden.

"When we are asking allies to do their fair share in dealing with this challenge we need to do our fair share," Flournoy told reporters.

Obama ally Sen. +$%@ Durbin, D-Ill., pointed out that not a single prisoner has ever escaped from a federal "supermax" prison and that 347 convicted terrorists are already being held in U.S. prisons.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, among the few Republicans joining former GOP presidential nominee John McCain of Arizona in calling for Guantanamo to be closed, scoffed at the idea that the government can't find a way to hold Guantanamo prisoners in the United States. Graham noted that 400,000 German and Japanese prisoners were held during World War II.

"The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational. We have done this before," Graham said. "But it is my belief that you need a plan before you close Gitmo."

While allies such as Durbin have cast the development as a delay of only a few months, other Democrats have made it plain they don't want any of Guantanamo's detainees sent to the United States to stand trial or serve prison sentences.

Despite the setback, some Democrats said Obama should not be underestimated.

"The president's very capable of putting together a plan that I think will win the approval of a majority of members of Congress," said moderate Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson. "I can't imagine that he won't."





 
465
10
Joined Oct 14, 2002
"The American people don't want these men walking the streets of America's neighborhoods," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said Wednesday. "The American people don't want these detainees held at a military base or federal prison in their backyard, either."
I've never understood this argument.

A. most prisons already hold people convicted of doing vile things. are suspected terrorists worse than murderers?
B. most prisons are not located in residential neighborhoods.
 

passback

Banned
338
10
Joined Sep 2, 2007
Originally Posted by 718stylez

"The American people don't want these men walking the streets of America's neighborhoods," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said Wednesday. "The American people don't want these detainees held at a military base or federal prison in their backyard, either."
I've never understood this argument.

A. most prisons already hold people convicted of doing vile things. are suspected terrorists worse than murderers?
B. most prisons are not located in residential neighborhoods.



Most prisoners arent linked to terrorist groups that would blow themselves up along with thousands of others at the same time
 
6,398
16
Joined May 1, 2006
Originally Posted by Mangudai954

Not all of the detainees are confirmed terrorist correct? What a complicated situation.
correct. the vast majority of the inmates at Guantanamo are "suspects," which under the Patriot Act could mean just about anything.
-1 for democracy
 
5,710
1,015
Joined Mar 31, 2005
Originally Posted by 718stylez

"The American people don't want these men walking the streets of America's neighborhoods," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said Wednesday. "The American people don't want these detainees held at a military base or federal prison in their backyard, either."
I've never understood this argument.

A. most prisons already hold people convicted of doing vile things. are suspected terrorists worse than murderers?
B. most prisons are not located in residential neighborhoods.

Yes terrorist are more dangerous. Consider this, if Osama was captured and chilling in a State prison in your city, you don't think thatmaybe his people will follow Osama to that city and plan an attack in that city? How many Senators and Congressmen are willing to take the risk of a terroristact in their districts? If they agree to do this, they do not get REELECTED, simple as that.

Obama showed his inexperienced by signing that order to close Guantanamo without a plan on what to do with those prisoners. Just watch, a year will go by andGuantanamo will still be open for business.
 
31,482
1,911
Joined Sep 16, 2003
Originally Posted by thegoat121886

Originally Posted by Mangudai954

Not all of the detainees are confirmed terrorist correct? What a complicated situation.
correct. the vast majority of the inmates at Guantanamo are "suspects," which under the Patriot Act could mean just about anything.
-1 for democracy

I have to agree with that. I mean really, if they have proof beyond "reasonable doubt" that are you are, they can snatch you right out of your housein the middle of the night and detainee you for however long they want. Pretty scary.


Dozens of the detainees are Afghan and Pakistani nationals described in classified intelligence reports as farmers, taxi drivers, cobblers and laborers. Some were low-level fighters conscripted by the Taliban in the weeks before the collapse of the ruling Afghan regime.


"There are a lot of guilty [people] in there," said one officer, "but there's a lot of farmers in there too."



 

jibbycanoe

Banned
1,803
10
Joined Jan 28, 2008
Originally Posted by thegoat121886

Originally Posted by Mangudai954

Not all of the detainees are confirmed terrorist correct? What a complicated situation.
correct. the vast majority of the inmates at Guantanamo are "suspects," which under the Patriot Act could mean just about anything.
-1 for democracy
agreed. and +1 for fear.
doesn't matter what the facts are if you can scare people into making a decision or having a belief. I for one will be honest and say I have no idea whatthe right answer is. complicated indeed...
 
1,356
12
Joined Sep 17, 2007
Originally Posted by thegoat121886

Originally Posted by PAsSback

thegoat121886 wrote:
[hr][/hr]

You want terrorists in a jail/prison near you? I doubt that
what terrorists?


Exactly. If there are 240 "terrorists" why have only 20 or so been charged. That place and all the mess up stuff that has gone down there has pushcountless individuals towards making acts of terror. If you ask me we as a nation should be embarrassed enough to close it down.
 
465
10
Joined Oct 14, 2002
Originally Posted by 718stylez

"The American people don't want these men walking the streets of America's neighborhoods," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said Wednesday. "The American people don't want these detainees held at a military base or federal prison in their backyard, either."
I've never understood this argument.

A. most prisons already hold people convicted of doing vile things. are suspected terrorists worse than murderers?
B. most prisons are not located in residential neighborhoods.



Most prisoners arent linked to terrorist groups that would blow themselves up along with thousands of others at the same time
1. That argument assumes that everyone in Guantanamo is a terrorist, when there have been multiple reports that a fair degree of them were sweptup in raids. Google Murat Kurnaz.
2. It also assumes that our prisons and judicial system have never handled terrorists before, when that is blatantly false. The Unabomber/Tim McVeigh/TerryNichols/Ramzi Yousef (the guy that blew up the WTC in 1993) were all held in Federal Super Max Security prisons.

Some senators make it seem like they are gonna release these detainees to a mainstreet nearest you
 
465
10
Joined Oct 14, 2002
Yes terrorist are more dangerous. Consider this, if Osama was captured and chilling in a State prison in your city, you don't think that maybe his people will follow Osama to that city and plan an attack in that city?
I disagree. And you are comparing 2 vastly different groups with the Detainees/OBL. Its like comparing a low level Nazi prison guard to Hitler.Low level Nazi guards didn't go to Nuremburg.

This argument isn't about Osama Bin Laden its about the detainees. One glaring difference between OBL and these detainees is that Osama is a known terrorist not a suspectedterrorist. We should prosecute them, throw them in the hole and move on.
 
5,710
1,015
Joined Mar 31, 2005
Originally Posted by MetallicNitro

Yeah because terrorism is such a huge threat...

Exactly the mind frame that got the US attacked on 9/11/2001. Can I ask how old you were on that day?

Also please tell that to the family of Spc. David A. Schaefer Jr., 27, killed last Saturday, May16, by this threat called "TERRORISM." You mean he was murdered from terrorism?
The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Spc. David A. Schaefer Jr., 27, of Belleville, Ill., died May 16 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his unit. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 2nd Infantry Regiment, 172nd Infantry Brigade, Schweinfurt, Germany.
 
5,710
1,015
Joined Mar 31, 2005
Originally Posted by 718stylez

Yes terrorist are more dangerous. Consider this, if Osama was captured and chilling in a State prison in your city, you don't think that maybe his people will follow Osama to that city and plan an attack in that city?
I disagree. And you are comparing 2 vastly different groups with the Detainees/OBL. Its like comparing a low level Nazi prison guard to Hitler. Low level Nazi guards didn't go to Nuremburg.

This argument isn't about Osama Bin Laden its about the detainees. One glaring difference between OBL and these detainees is that Osama is a known terrorist not a suspected terrorist. We should prosecute them, throw them in the hole and move on.



Are you this naive to think that there are ZERO high level known terrorists in Guantanamo? I use Osama as an example. Google... David Hicks,Salim Hamdan, Ali Al-Bahlul, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, Walid Bin Attash.

How many Congressmen want these known terrorists in their States?

Or maybe we should let them go back to their countries like what we mistakenly done in the past. Look what happened...

Google... Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri

 
889
10
Joined Sep 30, 2010
First of all, this is not something to be happy about. Obama did the most responsible thing to close Guantanamo, and the Senate just irresponsibly reversedthat decision because of fear and the opinion of Robert Mueller. Keep in mind that Robert Mueller was nominated by none other but George W. Bush himself. Hmm,no wonder he doesn't support what Obama is trying to do. In the Bombshell Memos from Colleen Rowley to Mueller she states how they had been trying to warnthe FBI higher ups about 9/11 suspect Moussaoui's flight training in Minneapolis (to which the FBI did nothing). Guantanamo has become a disgrace becauseof the numerous violations of UN Sanctions, the Geneva Conventions, and even the slaps to the face of the International Red Cross by concealing victims oftorture from them. If anything, scholars have been testifying that the methods of detainment at Guantanamo are ineffective and have been fuel for anti-USsentiments throughout the world. The article itself states: "In the eyes of the world, the prison has come to exemplify harsh U.S. anti-terror tactics anddetention without trial for almost all of its inmates, most of whom were captured in Afghanistan."

Again, the majority of detainees in Guantanamo are suspects. And many of these suspects have been tortured in order to get confessions. If you were beingtortured, wouldn't you eventually confess to something you didn't do if you were starving, being waterboarded, or worse. These methods of torture arecurrently being used at Guantanamo, a major reason why many want this place shut down.

The decision to deny the funds is incredibly narrow-sighted and a product of FEAR. But the one good thing that will arise out of this is the revelation of aplan for the detainees. The entire argument of having terrorists in your neighborhood is absolutely ludicrous because they are already there in the form of ourown citizens and other transfers! In response to another senator's worry about releasing detainees into the United States, that's the stupidest thing Ihave ever heard. We don't even allow day-laborers to be released onto our soil, why would we release detainees unless we wanted to?

The US population needs to think about this before just jumping onto the bandwagon of fear mongering Senators and get the facts about Guantanamo before wantingto keep it open because that's the "safest" option. Wait for Obama's plan and address to make up your minds.
 
465
10
Joined Oct 14, 2002
Are you this naive to think that there are ZERO high level known terrorists in Guantanamo? I use Osama as an example. Google... David Hicks, Salim Hamdan, Ali Al-Bahlul, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, Walid Bin Attash.

How many Congressmen want these known terrorists in their States?

Or maybe we should let them go back to their countries like what we mistakenly done in the past. Look what happened...

Google... Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri
I'm not saying everyone is innocent. I'm saying try them and then send them to jail. sort out whose who and be done with it.

I understand that Senators don't want these prisoners in their states for political purposes, but its just that, political. they make it seem like it wouldbe a security threat to their constituents when it's not. They'd be in Super Max prisons or Military prisons. Not a cakewalk by any means.
 
6,823
10
Joined May 25, 2003
Obama didn't have a clue what he was doing when he made the pledge to close it back in January.... now he's had to backpedal to thecorrect decision....

And if he decides to push for it to be closed anyway..... well HIS loss.... the country DOES NOT support any damn terrorists coming into this country.They've taken polls on it already showing this.

Also it'd be America's loss when some of them get released seeing as a good % that have been released are already back to fighting for Al-Qaedah
 

chi ill

Banned
2,624
10
Joined Jan 23, 2009
Originally Posted by PAsSback

Originally Posted by thegoat121886


You want terrorists in a jail/prison near you? I doubt that
Oh my god you're ignorant .

Also for the record ... everyone in Guantanamo aren't confirmed "terrorists" per se .

They're people like everyone else ... we have rapists and murderers in jails close to us already , why not ?

This fear factor that the government gives to the American people is so sad because you guys sit & eat it all up .
 
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker or head over to our upgrade page to donate for an ad-free experience Upgrade now