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.)
Which part, me not wanting them anywhere near me, or stating that they in no way are entitled to the rights of a citizen, or that I wouldn't mind if some citizens went crazy and killed them?
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)
What's worse: 10 attacks that kill 100 or 100 attacks that kill 10?
What's worse: 10 attacks that kill 100 or 100 attacks that kill 10?
How about we don't arrest the people we shouldn't be arresting, the other side won't be as angry with us and there won't be nearly as much tension or conflict, and those 10 attacks turn into 1?
I don't really have a problem with not being attacked because we don't interfere. Unless you'd rather attack lots of countries and arrest everyone that shares the same religion as the opposition, and then have more US deaths from counterattacks, in which case we have a gap separating us.
When we are the difference that makes attacks smaller, it's usually because we see them coming, not because we've been torturing people who don't have information.
The other side is not going to get less angry at us for not arresting people as they are already madder than mad. They would laugh at you for suggesting such a thing.
They've made several pleas in the past to release the Gitmo detainees. We did not, and it caused more conflict and tensions. Most of those detainees had no information and no evidence of terrorism.
Therefore, we stop arresting people when we have no idea whether or not they have information, less conflict, less tension. Generally less war with less conflict and tension.
Guantanamo bay in cuba? IM from cuba my friend. Guantanamo bay is just another prison, prisoners are criminals and deserve to die. did they ask you if you did it when they shot you in the face?
German, have you ever heard of something, and this may sound very foreign but I'm gonna go for it, called an enemy combatant.
If we have reason to believe that someone is an enemy combatant we can place them in Guantanamo Bay until we can gather enough evidence to prove that they are such. You're right, most of the time we have no evidence upon the time they are detained. However, detaining can buy the FBI time to accumulate evidence proving that they are in fact enemy combatants.
Let me argue your part for you,
But most of them aren't guilty! We don't have the right to detain innocent people!
A very good point (You) bring up there German. But if catching 1 terrorist, one SINGLE terrorist through this system, and I can guarantee you that it is much more efficient and many people have been tried through the system, and we save lives isn't it all worth it.
Or... would you rather not detain a few regular people and just let others die for the sake of that.
If the above is true then there is no hope for you on this earth...
