Well, Obummer officially signed the *whatever* to close Gitmo today.
He wants to close it because apparently he thinks (and is probably right) that there are innocent people in there as well as Terrorists.
But, honestly i don't think that you can release a bunch of terrorists on the grounds of freeing a few innocent people. Plus, the terrorists that are for sure terrorists made it very clear that they would love to attack America (maybe again considering there situation). So that makes it even more justified to close the prison.
But, over all, i don't think the order will go through. It is supposed to take 12 months for it to full close, and that leaves plenty of time for legal crap to be brought up and people to sue and what not.
All in all, what do you think?
I just hope that in the end there still is a Gitmo prison.
I think your opinion might change if you were one of those innocent people in there. Also considering that the majority of people in Gitmo ARE probably innocent.
And it's not like he's just letting them go. Many of them will be transferred to US prisons AFTER they have a fair trial, which is what the Constitution says.
Others will be sent to foreign prisons for crimes against those countries.
A lot of the people sent down to Guantanamo Bay were arrested without being charged. The crimes that they were charged with were not brought up until they were given a trial under a "military commission". In addition to this, under the PATRIOT Act, the government does not need probable cause to send you down to Cuba.
If someone says they think you're a terrorist, that's all they need to ship you out. There have been reports of this happening to people; they were sent down, not charged or tried, and then simply released after two or three years with no explanation as to what they were originally arrested for.
As far as the military commissions go, they are completely against the United States' belief in a "fair trial". Evidence did not have to be physically presented; hearsay could be used as a testimony. In addition to this, coercion has been known to be used throughout the trials while the witnesses are on the stand in order to get them to confess.
Well, i think that is wrong that the innocent were accused unfairly, so i think they need to give THEM a fair trial, not shut down the whole base and let off people who have admitted they would love to harm the U.S. again.
Because, let's face it, if you are a terrorist organization and you want you're man back, or if you are a terrorist and you want out, as soon as you leave the amazingly secure Gitmo, you're chances of escape or being "rescued" shoot up.
I think Obama needs to think this through before he goes and does this. I agree with the fact that they need to try those that claim they are innocent, but they can do that will still keeping the genuine terrorists locked up.
And i heard a rumor that they might move them up to Levon worth. What is the point of that? From one prison to another? Just keep them in Gitmo. There is no actual evidence that says the prisoners at Gitmo were tortured on a regular basis for unjustified reasons.
I think your opinion might change if you were one of those innocent people in there. Also considering that the majority of people in Gitmo ARE probably innocent.
I don't think my opinion would change. If i were an innocent, and truly American, i would rather stay there than jeopardize the country.
And, you don't know that most of them are innocent. That is speculation based off of the fact that SOME of them are innocent, and since there are some people have morphed that into almost all of them.
Maybe send them to that prison in Arizona where the Sheriff makes them work. The issue itself is a difficult one, of course it is wrong to hold innocent people, but can we really release them all or send them somewhere where it shall be easier for them to escape with terrorists that do want to kill us among them. There should have been trials for these people, but it can be quite difficult to know if someone is a terrorist or not. And, could they not technically be considered prisoner's of war? If they are POWs, then the military must hold them for obvious reasons. And no matter what goes on at Gitmo, it's many times better then how their people treat ours when captured. Still, it should be on a case by case basis. Gitmo is a brilliant place for obvious terrorists, but we should obey the Constitution and give them a fair trial. And if they are terrorists, perhaps execuiting a few wouldn't be such a bad idea. But, we shall see how this publicity stunt pans out, maybe it'll work for the better, but I am personally for a case by case basis for these people and if they are terrorists to keep them there and possibly execuite them, but if they are innocent, release them with full apologies, compensation, and a clean record.
You think being in the military just makes you honorable? Tell that to the 1/8 girls that gets sexually abused while on base.
My girlfriend's at her tech school for the Air Force right now, and when she does CQ duty at night, they don't let her patrol by the Marine dorms because they're seriously afraid of her getting raped.
If they'll do that crap to their fellow soldiers, why should they care what the hell they do to prisoners? (As witnessed through the Abu Ghraib situation)
