Could a Gitmo closure supporter please explain how this is any better?

@jonesy123 (3948)
United States
May 14, 2009 11:18am CST
One of the first things Obama loudly proclaimed was that Guantanamo Bay will be closed. Well, that now opened a nice can of worms for him. Nobody wants those detainees. None of the US states wants them, definitely not living as free people, but also not as prisoners in one of their prisons. Other countries don't want them either. Their home countries might, but they face prosecution and death there. They are considered snitches or have other accusations against them. Being that we are so nice and human, we don't want that for them either. So what to do? Looks like the plan is to ship them to the US after all, into some sort of prison camp.... to be detained indefinitely. Yes, indefinitely. Obama opposed the military commissions that were put together to put these people on trial. Nothing else is really applicable. So now the idea is to hold them without trial, well, forever. So how on earth is this any better than keeping them in Guantanamo Bay in the first place. And quite frankly, I rather have them go through some sort of trial and be able to proof their innocence than not be able to do anything at all. Holding them without trial indefinitely... that's against basic American principles. And wasn't that something Obama wanted to show the world, that we uphold our principles, are human, take the higher road? I don't think holding somebody without a chance for a trial forever is not part of that. So, please, anybody, who supported this closure... can you tell me how this is better now?
2 responses
xfahctor
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
14 May 09
" to be detained indefinitely" Thats the part that jumped out at me.....very interesting. Try them and be done with it. The most propper places for them would be either the country of the battle field we caught them in, or a federal military prison. Obviously the first place presents all sorts of complications. So military prison is probably the better choice and the tab for their internment there should be part of the budget for the war they were captured under. They should also be isolated from the prison population (if they want to keep the detainees alive that is), perhaps a dedicated wing for them. But again, try them and be done with it.
jonesy123
@jonesy123 (3948)
• United States
14 May 09
So in essence it would be better to keep Guantanamo open and the trials going. I'm for that. There is no need to move them. Our prisons are already overcrowded, how are they going to accomplish isolation from the general population? And yes, no trial is definitely a no-no.
xfahctor
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
14 May 09
Actually the closure of Gtmo does have a benefit. The controversy, particularly internationaly, virtualy goes away. One less thing to incite anger, if we don't need to do it, why do it? I'm not a big fan of over worrying about international opinion, I think you know that about me, but it cannot be denied that it does have benefit in certain area's, particularly in the psychological aspect of warfare.
Taskr36
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
14 May 09
Well Obama should use the same technique for Guantanamo that he's used for everything else in the war on terror, rename it. Call it "The South Cuba Ocean View Resort" and I'm sure it will fix any perception issues we have.
gitfiddleplayer
@gitfiddleplayer (10362)
• United States
15 May 09
I'm not a supporter and its not any better. If Dorkbama wants to cuddle these psychos then there is room at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW for them all.