Last week, the FBI inspected an empty super-maximum security prison in the near-forgotten town of Thomson, Illinois (located on the NW side of the state). The result of the inspection was the the prison was as well suited to hold Guantanamo prisoners as much as any other.
Today, Illinois Interim-Governor Pat Quinn authorized the move of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners to the prison. The prison has been/will be sold to the FBI, and once the prisoners are here they will begin receiving fair and just trials.
It has been said that this move will create 3,000 jobs, however it is unclear how many of those jobs will actually be in the Thomson area.
Most republicans are against the move, but one Illinois republican who formerly served the FBI said he has plenty of confidence the FBI will protect the nation. (Do not have a source for this, it was on Chicago Tonight -- a WTTW/PBS nightly broadcast, and I thought it was interesting.)
I don't understand why people think these monsters deserve anything. Did they give us fair trials when they cut our heads off? No. Did the give us fair trials when they killed 2,900 people? No. Did they give the thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan fair trials when they r*ped the women and slaughtered the entire family?
No, that's what I though.
I don't understand why you would support hurting so many people for a shitty chance at saving someone who might be a even worse person then them. Did we give them fair trials when they did nothing wrong? Did we give them fair trials to figure out the facts? No. Did we give those hurt by our army anything when we destroyed those they cared about? No. But did we take out revenge upon a race unfairly? Yes. Did we hurt them in anger and not justice? Yes. Did we destroy everything in our path to take what we wanted? Yes! We've completely destroyed anything peace or love or justice or freedom or even the USA has ever stood for so many times we can no longer count.
Most of them the government doesn't have a shred of evidence against. So hurting innocent people because of a fictional crime is all well and okay? For the extremely small chance they might know something? What about when it's you and you've done nothing? Or your mom? Or your entire family? Why would you ever lower yourself to their level?
And no one kills for no reason. It is not human nature. It may be money, it maybe revenge for some wrong, it may be rage in general, or maybe it's just insanity, but it has to be something or many little somethings. People don't take the time to figure out the facts when they're pulling out the nails of someone they don't like.
Anyway, for me taking away my freedom is a horrible punishment. Unless something would come of it, I don't think I could live without freedom.
But we are better then them, its that simple. Terrorists would and do torture people. Therefore we won't.
I hate that argument. You take any person who was directly affected by a terrorist, and they'd probably try to figure out a way to torture and or kill them. At least I would, and so would anyone I know.
We fight fire with fire.
Which is why this is different than when US soldiers are killed in other prisons, as the US soldiers are caught in the act.
What about the business people? The private contractors who were HELPING them? What about all those who had no idea what hit them?
Soldiers are irrelevant, I understand their capture, torture, and executions are another fact of war. The people who never had a chance, who never got a chance to fight back. Those are the people who they deserve to kill and torture.
Most of them the government doesn't have a shred of evidence against. So hurting innocent people because of a fictional crime is all well and okay? For the extremely small chance they might know something? What about when it's you and you've done nothing? Or your mom? Or your entire family? Why would you ever lower yourself to their level?
If they have the slightest reason to capture me and hundreds of others, potentially saving thousands, because just ONE of us knows something, that's a price I'm willing to pay. Sure, it would suck balls and would be totally unfair, but that one person who knows something that could save 10x the amount of people there would be worth it.
And no one kills for no reason. It is not human nature. It may be money, it maybe revenge for some wrong, it may be rage in general, or maybe it's just insanity, but it has to be something or many little somethings. People don't take the time to figure out the facts when they're pulling out the nails of someone they don't like.
No one does anything for no reason. I don't really care what their doing it for, unless they were threatened with the deaths of say, their entire village, they have no right nor good reason. (In that scenario, I'd rather just lose the whole village. According to the Muslim religion, I'd see them in Paradise.)
Anyway, for me taking away my freedom is a horrible punishment. Unless something would come of it, I don't think I could live without freedom.
I'd much rather live in prison than fry in the electric chair. Nowadays, prisons are resorts. You'll have more comforts than you could imagine. Sure, you'll be locked up on a restricted schedule, but that's about it.
Which is useless when you have no idea if those people even have information.
I think 5,000 lives is worth eternal hell for one. Or even 500.
I think 5,000 lives is worth eternal hell for one. Or even 500.
But what about 500 for 0? Which is a huge possibility. Or ya know: What if we kill everyone with the kind of mustache Hitler had? We're saving 6 million there!
There is a huge differance. These people might actualy know somthing, while having Hitler stach people are not likly to know anything the government whould need...
But what about 500 for 0? Which is a huge possibility.
Small, virtually nonexistent probability. The government isn't going to snatch up 500 people off the streets for the sole purpose of torturing them for information. This isn't Stalinist Russia.
The people they snatch are actual suspected terrorists and/or funders. Now, even if only 25% of them are terrorists, you're taking potential mass murderers off the streets, saving hundreds if not thousands of lives.
What if we kill everyone with the kind of mustache Hitler had?
WOW. The only fucking thing that accomplishes is MORE fire, MORE conflicts, MORE troubles, MORE wars, MORE extreme sides, MORE money wasted away into nothingness. NO.
Soldiers are irrelevant, I understand their capture, torture, and executions are another fact of war. The people who never had a chance, who never got a chance to fight back. Those are the people who they deserve to kill and torture.
These people didn't have a chance either, for different reasons. These people COULDN'T fight back. Know why? Because they aren't the people WHO fight. The large majority of Gitmo prisoners never had thoughts of being terrorists. If that qualifies them to be tortured, then there's something seriously fucking wrong with your mentality.
I'd much rather live in prison than fry in the electric chair. Nowadays, prisons are resorts. You'll have more comforts than you could imagine. Sure, you'll be locked up on a restricted schedule, but that's about it.
State-run prisons of relatively minimal-level offenders is different than super-private FBI-run prisons of convicted terrorists. The FBI can and will do whatever the fuck it wants to definite terrorists. It would be much worse to be locked up That being said, it doesn't matter which is worse. Our policy is war crime ==> death. Period. There are no excuses, it will happen whether you or anyone else likes it or not.
I think 5,000 lives is worth eternal hell for one. Or even 500.
Most of these people were arrested for being Muslim or Muslim-looking.
There were 2 BILLION Muslims around the world as of late 20th Century. There are 325,000 known terrorists around the world. That being known terrorists, I'll inflate it to 8 million for the unknown, much above what it most likely is. I'll deflate the number of Muslims to 1 billion for the number that we may randomly run into in the M.E. any day. That's a .8% chance that we will arrest a terrorist by randomly arresting people, not dividing the number that will actually break their incredibly strong alliance to even speak. If you think having less than a .8% chance of getting information by randomly arresting and someone is a good idea, then wow.
Oh, I'm sorry, they weren't randomly arrested. They were identified as Muslims living in an area where Muslims are terrorists then randomly arrested. No one can say that anyone in the world is definitely not a terrorist at first glance. Most of these people haven't a single bit of evidence against them, and had zero investigation against them. If they had substantial evidence for arresting Gitmo detainees, we'd HEAR about it. It's controversy. If there was anything to support the arrest of those in Gitmo (evidence or information gained), we would have been told in the Bush Administration so that Gitmo was more supported. Most of these people are useless. If they had decent enough purpose as terrorists, they'd be known terrorists and they'd be killed by the time it takes to arrest them.
Well, actually they can't. These pricks are Americans the second they set foot on our soil, and as such are protected by the Constitution. Now, they probably will find out, as there will be media crews covering the story for the next 50 years. Something is bound to leak.
The point was that life as a known terrorist in a secretive prison is worse than living hell.
The further point was that all that doesn't matter, because they'll be killed whether or not it's debatable, because it's our policy to simply kill them.
They build a prison, make sure it's safe, and want to move prisoners there. What's the argument over?
Prison's already been built, they've already made sure it's safe, and 95% of public officials that haven't been known to completely stonewall in the past year support it. So, nothing.
These past pages have simply been debating over whether they are terrorists, which affects the security very little. Security issue is over whether the prison will be attacked, since the FBI has ascertained that the prison is safe, and with possible terrorists we aren't going to let them escape. So, it's over whether the prison will be attacked. (If the prison was to be attacked, it would have been attacked when we would have had less of an idea of whether or not they would be coming. With all the proposed prisons and this new one, they're in the middle of the nation. That means that if terrorists are going to try to attack the prison, we'll know plenty ahead of time. Therefore, it will not be attacked.)
and just to put my official statement on whether these people are terrorists: We'll find out if they are when they get a fair investigation and fair trial. Then you can debate about security of terrorizing people who probably aren't terrorists.
There is a huge difference. These people might actually know something, while having Hitler stach people are not likely to know anything the government would need...
Well, yes that was a strong response but check out balerion's responses.
The point is, they don't have any evidence against the majority of those people. And since 911, how many terrorist attacks have killed over 100 people? (I'm assuming not many, but that's not a thing I would be particularly interested in, so correct me if I'm wrong)
I myself would rather be killed in a attack then live in a world where the FBI could pick me up and torture me for just being Muslim/of a certain race.
