In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Obama wants terrorists"GITMO" HERE
footlong
Member Posts: 8,009
Comments
ALL READY HERE.
Yep, there's twenty-some in CO, and Terry Nichols and Tim McVay were incarcerated here. Plus, there's an empty maximum security prison in Montana that wants 100 Gitmo detainees.
with our open border policy I would not be surprised if there are militant cells already in the US just waiting for the right time...
and don't forget the domestic hitler-lover neo-nazi terrorists...for the life of me I can't believe how those losers can idolize that paper-hanging loser and his message [V]
quote:Originally posted by duckhunter
ALL READY HERE.
Yep, there's twenty-some in CO, and Terry Nichols and Tim McVay were incarcerated here. Plus, there's an empty maximum security prison in Montana that wants 100 Gitmo detainees.
Did you hear Diane Feinstein's explanation of her support for Landru's executive order?
Ship them to Colorado - there's no neighborhoods or communities there.
She is in desperate need of an enema. She has too much crap in her head. She knows nothing about guns she wants banned and she knows nothing about a state she wants to put in danger... since, of course, it ain't Commiefornia.
I say lock 'em up here and put them in the general population. I guarantee they won't last a week. Problem solved.
I don't agree with this. Put a child molester in the general population and they wouldn't last a week. Put a terrorist in the general population and you may find a whole lot of converts.
The retards that just got caught in NYC yesterday trying to blow up a synogogue are prison converts to Islam (the religion of peace).
quote:Originally posted by Aspen79se
quote:Originally posted by duckhunter
ALL READY HERE.
Yep, there's twenty-some in CO, and Terry Nichols and Tim McVay were incarcerated here. Plus, there's an empty maximum security prison in Montana that wants 100 Gitmo detainees.
Did you hear Diane Feinstein's explanation of her support for Landru's executive order?
Ship them to Colorado - there's no neighborhoods or communities there.
She is in desperate need of an enema. She has too much crap in her head. She knows nothing about guns she wants banned and she knows nothing about a state she wants to put in danger... since, of course, it ain't Commiefornia.
If the federal super-max prison has room, put them there. No one can provide a logical reason for not placing them there, or in Leavenworth.
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by Aspen79se
quote:Originally posted by duckhunter
ALL READY HERE.
Yep, there's twenty-some in CO, and Terry Nichols and Tim McVay were incarcerated here. Plus, there's an empty maximum security prison in Montana that wants 100 Gitmo detainees.
Did you hear Diane Feinstein's explanation of her support for Landru's executive order?
Ship them to Colorado - there's no neighborhoods or communities there.
She is in desperate need of an enema. She has too much crap in her head. She knows nothing about guns she wants banned and she knows nothing about a state she wants to put in danger... since, of course, it ain't Commiefornia.
If the federal super-max prison has room, put them there. No one can provide a logical reason for not placing them there, or in Leavenworth.
I would PREFER to house them in GITMO... off of the US mainland (and I consider Hawaii part of the US mainland for this discussion).
If they had to come here, I'd agree with you - SuperMax is the most secure location for them.
But, I am offended by Feinstein's reasoning.
Doug
Charles Manson is more dangerous than anybody at Gitmo
What? There's a dude that said on MSNBC's "Lockup", "I removed his brain and took a bite." And, more messed up than that, was they way he said it, like it was the most boring thing he'd done that day.
spanielsells: I didn't catch her's, but I did catch on of Ks senators. It all boils down to political grandstanding.
Charles Manson could convince someone to do that right now and they would.
I doubt it. And this guy thought it up all by himself.
Gitmo was a convenient political club the Left used to beat the bush administration with.
Now that they're in charge, they're running as fast as they can from their wild-eyed screeds. It never occurred to them that the prisoners have to be housed SOMEWHERE when they were screaming bloody murder about the evils of Gitmo to anyone who would listen. Now, politicians at every level (especially the dems) are telling everyone who will listen that they don't want the hadjis in THEIR town/district/state. None of our allies want them (especially the Euros who were so adamantly in agreement with Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest of the braindeads.)
Huh, guess maybe Bush wasn't so stupid after all.
I like a good incentive.[:D]
Put them in a super max--they are criminals-no more no less. Personally I wish we wouldn't have even taken prisoners to begin with-shoot them where they stand as enemy combatants and be done with it. There would have been none of this torture nonsense, where the majority of it is more what I would call college hazing--although it does make us look a little like hipocrites since we bash every country and leader who is accused of torturing their people.
The City of Hardin MT has a new 27 million dollar, 460 bed prison that they are begging any state or federal government to put to use. No takers yet.
That's the one I referred to earlier. That large of a facility could house all the inmates, and hardening it would further improve the security. Plus, if the get out, they're in Montana. Not like there's a lot to do there. It's kind of like Kansas in that way.
They may also get automatic representation or other benefits (like diplomatic immunity) per whatever our agreement is with their country of origin. Some foreign nationals get more rights than ones from some other countries.
If we fail to live up to our end of our agreements with foreign countries, then our citizens may not get the protection agreed upon, when they are abroad.
For this reason alone, I say we need to leave them off our soil.
I heard Cheney say the other day that one reason not to bring them onto US soil is because they would automatically get some (constitutional?) protections once they arrived.
They may also get automatic representation or other benefits (like diplomatic immunity) per whatever our agreement is with their country of origin. Some foreign nationals get more rights than ones from some other countries.
If we fail to live up to our end of our agreements with foreign countries, then our citizens may not get the protection agreed upon, when they are abroad.
For this reason alone, I say we need to leave them off our soil.
1: They would have the same rights as anyone else arrested in this country; citizen or otherwise. That's how America works.
2: Diplomatic immunity only exists for...diplomats. I highly doubt there are recognized representatives of foreign nations there.
3: Any prisoner freed would not stay here. They'd be deported to either their country of origin, or another country willing to accept them.
4: Several are in legal "limbo" because they can't stand trial because the information used to prosecute them came from torture, which is inadmissible as evidence. They've also made continuous threats against the U.S., which makes it unwise to release them. I believe the number is between 10-20.
Gitmo is a complex problem, and will require a complex, difficult, and nuanced decision. The decision won't just affect the detainees, but the standing of the U.S. in the eyes of the rest of the world.
There are some protections required to be given to foreign nationals that doesn't rise to the level of "diplomatic immunity".
Back when I worked LE, I had a sheet in my clipboard of procedures to follow when arresting or detaining foreign nationals. We were told that we were required to follow these directions whenever we arrested a non-US Citizen. There were some protections given to anyone from certain countries and others were only if the foreign national requested certain actions (like notifying their consulate or embassy). We were told that these proceedures were to be followed so that any of our citizens would receive proper protections when in other (foreign) countries.
I am not an expert on these matters (in any sense of the word) but I believe that although "diplomatic immunity" would be unlikely to be given to most detainees, I think it would be possible, especially with some countries, so why take the chance?