The GOP's Guantanamo Scare Tactics

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
I had the pleasure last night of attending a discussion at Radio City Music Hall between Karl Rove and James Carville. It was certainly entertaining, with plenty of finger-pointing, raised voices and Carvillian theatrics. When the conversation came to closing Guantanamo, we heard Karl Rove return to a common theme - that there "aren't enough empty Supermax cells for the Guantanamo prisoners."

This argument drives me crazy. It rings so clearly of the scare tactics we got from Rove and friends for eight years and it is simply not true. The claim that a nation that imprisons 2.4 million people can't find cells for 241 people is simply preposterous. It also exposes the fallacy of the "lock-em-up" argument for extended incarceration. If we believe our maximum security prisons were unsafe, why are they ok for serial killers?

We absolutely have room for Guantanamo detainees in our Supermax prisons. Their conditions won't improve much over Guantanamo - but Rove and friends aren't concerned about their treatment anyway. This is a moving-target argument (a specialty of Rove's). It diverts the discussion in a non-productive direction and seeks to stall action on an important policy reform - to bring Guantanamo prisoners onto U.S. soil and under the rule of our Constitution. Rove's aim here is not to keep America safe but to derail Obama's efforts to close Guantanamo.

Rove seems to forget that our prisons already hold terrorists safely - the federal supermax in Florence, Colorado already holds convicted terrorists like "shoe-bomber" Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui. . Michelle Malkin echoed Rove's argument last week and wrote that Florence doesn't have room for anyone else. Even if Florence is indeed full and we can't bear to transfer some of the aging inmates and drug prisoners there to a maximum security facility, there are plenty of other options - it might just take some cooperation between the federal and state systems.

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin said Sunday that he would be willing to house suspected terrorists from Guantanamo in an Illinois Supermax There is a federal high security facility in downstate Illinois, but also a state supermax with plenty of room at Tamms.

We could safely house the prisoners at Guantanamo at a simple high-security facility - Supermaxes often amount to their own form of torture and we need to be careful not to create another domestic Guantanamo. In the past I've advocated for the closure of Tamms, or at least reforms to bring them into compliance with international human rights standards. Prisoners there are under solitary confinement 23 hours a day, with no end in sight.

But because I find it important for our international image that we close Guantanamo, I think moving them somewhere like Tamms would be an acceptable compromise. Reforming practices in our domestic supermaxes is an important goal and shouldn't be sidelined. But moving 241 suspected terrorists to these facilities will only bring them more visibility and will perhaps lead to reforms that affect all supermax inmates. We can't let the red herring of crowded supermaxes derail the closure of Guantanamo. It's an affront to all of the work we've done building the world's biggest prison system.
 

medicineman

New Member
So Dank, you were in NYC last night eh? Or maybe you were just plagiarizing. Maybe you should credit the author, or since most of us know you live in OK, tell us you were on Vacation to NYC, just saying.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
I had the pleasure last night of attending a discussion at Radio City Music Hall between Karl Rove and James Carville. It was certainly entertaining, with plenty of finger-pointing, raised voices and Carvillian theatrics. When the conversation came to closing Guantanamo, we heard Karl Rove return to a common theme - that there "aren't enough empty Supermax cells for the Guantanamo prisoners."

This argument drives me crazy. It rings so clearly of the scare tactics we got from Rove and friends for eight years and it is simply not true. The claim that a nation that imprisons 2.4 million people can't find cells for 241 people is simply preposterous. It also exposes the fallacy of the "lock-em-up" argument for extended incarceration. If we believe our maximum security prisons were unsafe, why are they ok for serial killers?

We absolutely have room for Guantanamo detainees in our Supermax prisons. Their conditions won't improve much over Guantanamo - but Rove and friends aren't concerned about their treatment anyway. This is a moving-target argument (a specialty of Rove's). It diverts the discussion in a non-productive direction and seeks to stall action on an important policy reform - to bring Guantanamo prisoners onto U.S. soil and under the rule of our Constitution. Rove's aim here is not to keep America safe but to derail Obama's efforts to close Guantanamo.

Rove seems to forget that our prisons already hold terrorists safely - the federal supermax in Florence, Colorado already holds convicted terrorists like "shoe-bomber" Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui. . Michelle Malkin echoed Rove's argument last week and wrote that Florence doesn't have room for anyone else. Even if Florence is indeed full and we can't bear to transfer some of the aging inmates and drug prisoners there to a maximum security facility, there are plenty of other options - it might just take some cooperation between the federal and state systems.

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin said Sunday that he would be willing to house suspected terrorists from Guantanamo in an Illinois Supermax There is a federal high security facility in downstate Illinois, but also a state supermax with plenty of room at Tamms.

We could safely house the prisoners at Guantanamo at a simple high-security facility - Supermaxes often amount to their own form of torture and we need to be careful not to create another domestic Guantanamo. In the past I've advocated for the closure of Tamms, or at least reforms to bring them into compliance with international human rights standards. Prisoners there are under solitary confinement 23 hours a day, with no end in sight.

But because I find it important for our international image that we close Guantanamo, I think moving them somewhere like Tamms would be an acceptable compromise. Reforming practices in our domestic supermaxes is an important goal and shouldn't be sidelined. But moving 241 suspected terrorists to these facilities will only bring them more visibility and will perhaps lead to reforms that affect all supermax inmates. We can't let the red herring of crowded supermaxes derail the closure of Guantanamo. It's an affront to all of the work we've done building the world's biggest prison system.
First of all...why close it? Everyone familiar with Gitmo will tell you it is the finest prison in US possession. I don't understand the reason to close it at all.

Secondly, perhaps you are unaware of reports from the US prison Board that they feel their prisons (supermax's included) are hot spots for recruiting into terrorism. Want more terrorist cells? Put the terrorists amongst our homegrowns and that's exactly what you'll get.

Thirdly, no foreign nations even wish to take THEIR terrorists back from Gitmo.... what does that tell you?


Hooboy...
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
I didn't say I wrote it... What's your point.... I guess you had you ass kicked by the Consrvatives enough and now your wanting some one who can turn your own logic against you?
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
First of all...why close it? Everyone familiar with Gitmo will tell you it is the finest prison in US possession. I don't understand the reason to close it at all.

Secondly, perhaps you are unaware of reports from the US prison Board that they feel their prisons (supermax's included) are hot spots for recruiting into terrorism. Want more terrorist cells? Put the terrorists amongst our homegrowns and that's exactly what you'll get.

Thirdly, no foreign nations even wish to take THEIR terrorists back from Gitmo.... what does that tell you?


Hooboy...

Because it is a Huge Waste of Tax Payer Money, especially when we already have Supermax Prisons that can house them so far that they would never see the light of day again.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Money? That's enough reason to infect our prison population with terrorism?

Who cares about money? Certainly not the Obama administration.

Sometimes real security is expensive...but ultimately worth it.
 

natrone23

Well-Known Member
Secondly, perhaps you are unaware of reports from the US prison Board that they feel their prisons (supermax's included) are hot spots for recruiting into terrorism. Want more terrorist cells? Put the terrorists amongst our homegrowns and that's exactly what you'll get.
Another ridiculous argument. What do you think they are going to be in general population with the rest of the inmates lol

No doubt they would be seperated from general population

What do you think Khalid Sheik Mohommad and Debo Jones are going to be sharing a cell at San Quentin?
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
How are they going to infect our prison population with terrorism?
In a Supermax prison there is no human contact except with the Guards. Even when they get out of their cell for 30 minutes to 1 hour a day the inmate is cuffed until they get to the yard or showers and are there by themselves.

Look I'm not happy about the money that CONGRESS has spent (not the president, all the president can do is suggest) but in the total scheme of things it's really not much more than the Congress under Bush has spent.

Now please next time you make a post, do a little research and quit posting from your emotions.
Thanks for playing CrackerJax
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Gitmo is in Cuba, these are prisoners that were taken by the US and as such should be held on US soil.
We have plenty of room in US supermax prisons. Face it, if your argument were a bucket, it would hold no water hold no water. It has too many holes.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
The United States imprisons percentage wise the highest number of its own citizens of any country in the world. Maybe some of the people that are incarcerated for "victimless crimes" should be released, that would free up alot of space. Of course if we had never started the last two middle eastern wars, we wouldn't have to imprison any of the "enemy combatants" would we?

Rove = douchebag Carville = blowhard Both are getting paid to put on a show arguing about other peoples lives...sick fucks both of them.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
I didn't say I wrote it... What's your point.... I guess you had you ass kicked by the Consrvatives enough and now your wanting some one who can turn your own logic against you?
There's saying your a narcissist who doesn't know how to attribute an article Dank, and I have to agree.
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
By allowing them to be on U.S. soil, they are afforded Constitutional rights. Which means defense attorneys get access to strategic intelligence and/or an activist judge may issue a ruling to release any of them.

We are not talking about legitimate prisoners of war as they wear no uniform. We are talking about enemy combatants in a holy war against the West.

A clash of civilizations. This not a conventional war. We do not fight nations per se. Although nations may align against us, none have come right out and declared war (there has been a lot of sabre rattling lately). Ultimately we fight an ideology without regard to borders.

It is irrelevant what the Mahdi Obama says because his words mean shit; we are at war with Islam.
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
There's saying your a narcissist who doesn't know how to attribute an article Dank, and I have to agree.
Actually you and another person who shall remain nameless are the biggest narcissist here. You seem to think you have all the answers. I hate to bust your bubbles, but y'all don't.
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
By allowing them to be on U.S. soil, they are afforded Constitutional rights. Which means defense attorneys get access to strategic intelligence and/or an activist judge may issue a ruling to release any of them.

We are not talking about legitimate prisoners of war as they wear no uniform. We are talking about enemy combatants in a holy war against the West.

A clash of civilizations. This not a conventional war. We do not fight nations per se. Although nations may align against us, none have come right out and declared war (there has been a lot of sabre rattling lately). Ultimately we fight an ideology without regard to borders.

It is irrelevant what the Mahdi Obama says because his words mean shit; we are at war with Islam.
I hate to break it to you, but considering that Guantanamo Bay is a Military Base then they would be on US soil anyway. Funny how conservatives can say that a military base is US soil when someone like John McCain (who was born in Panama) wants to run for president.
Being that a US military base is US soil by this law then they would be afforded Constitutional rights anyway.
You see you can't have it both ways. Either a US Military Base is US soil or it's not.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Actually you and another person who shall remain nameless are the biggest narcissist here. You seem to think you have all the answers. I hate to bust your bubbles, but y'all don't.
You see the problem with that is that I have a collection of opinions on a lot of things, and I also have no problem with naming the people I quote, or including their name in articles I C&P so it's not I who was caught trying to usurp credit for something that I did not do.

Though yes, I think my opinions on how the world ought to work is considerably more fair, more just, and closer to achieving real equality than yours.
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
No not putting the author in the C&P was just an oversight on my part. nothing more, nothing less.
 

Loftiest

Member
First of all...why close it? Everyone familiar with Gitmo will tell you it is the finest prison in US possession. I don't understand the reason to close it at all.

Secondly, perhaps you are unaware of reports from the US prison Board that they feel their prisons (supermax's included) are hot spots for recruiting into terrorism. Want more terrorist cells? Put the terrorists amongst our homegrowns and that's exactly what you'll get.

Thirdly, no foreign nations even wish to take THEIR terrorists back from Gitmo.... what does that tell you?


Hooboy...
There's a number of arguments for closing it, but the biggest reason is the fact it's a significant recruiting mechanism, given the history (or perception) of detainee abuse there. I'd like to see it closed for that reason and the greater ideal of due process.

No one is suggesting letting them mingle amongst the general population; they'll be segregated from them and suggesting otherwise is dishonest.

A good number of them have been taken back. As to why countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan don't want them back, it's simple: Al-Qaeda's stated mission is to overthrow Western backed monarchies.
 

medicineman

New Member
I didn't say I wrote it... What's your point.... I guess you had you ass kicked by the Consrvatives enough and now your wanting some one who can turn your own logic against you?
I guess you were addressing me: Point of fact. What you did was actually a form of plagairism. If you write an article word for word or cut and paste, you need to reference it to the author, either with a link or a name. What you wrote makes it look like you attended the meeting which by most intelligent reasoning, one would know in fact you did not. Why did I know right away? The spelling was correct.
 
Top