Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Michigan and Kansas getting GITMO prisoners?

229 suspected al-Qaida, Taliban and foreign fighters may be moved to a max. security prison in Michigan or Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas. Obama wants GITMO closed by Jan. 22, 2010. They are looking to create a courtroom-within-a-prison complex within these facilities to help lessen the burden of transporting such dangerous prisoners. Even though, "As many as an estimated 170 of the detainees now at Guantanamo are unlikely to be prosecuted. Some are being held indefinitely because government officials do not want to take the chance of seeing them acquitted in a trial. The rest are considered candidates for release, but the U.S. cannot find foreign countries willing to take them."

Is it worth the $100 million to upgrade these facilities for say, 59 detainees and make this change just to create a "Guantanamo in Kansas or wherever"???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090802/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_guantanamo_detainees

Answer Question
 
thundernlight

Asked by thundernlight at 2:53 PM on Aug. 2, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 14 (1,383 Credits)
Answers (18)
  • Of course the US cannot find any countries to take the others.Seems we always end up with the low lifes.Just like alot of the illegals crossing our borders.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:58 PM on Aug. 2, 2009

  • WHY spend millions to upgrade and move them when we have a perfectly workable facility in GITMO? Stupid, stupid, stupid. More government waste.
    mancosmomma

    Answer by mancosmomma at 3:05 PM on Aug. 2, 2009

  • If they need to create "mini Gitmos," why get rid of the one already in existence?! Seems to be yet ANOTHER waste of taxpayer dollars, not to mention what happens to detainees when they ARE released?!
    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 3:07 PM on Aug. 2, 2009

  • Agree ladies what is the sense in that?
    tnmomofive

    Answer by tnmomofive at 3:24 PM on Aug. 2, 2009

  • Oh they won't be in there for long. I believe that the constitution, gives anyone the right to a trial, if on our land, rather a citizen or not. So what are they going to hold them on? From what I understand the evidence they have on them was obtained illegally, therefore can not be used in a trail and therefore they can not hold them. So they will be let go into our society. Isn't that lovely.

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 4:11 PM on Aug. 2, 2009

  • I live in Kansas and don't want them in my state. Keep them in Gitmo.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 4:12 PM on Aug. 2, 2009

  • Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 4:32 PM on Aug. 2, 2009

  • Michigan....it all makes SENSE!!! Gov. Granholm (lovely woman, BTW....NOT!!) has been cutting back on State Police funding and emptying prisons under the guise of budget cuts!
    michiganmom116

    Answer by michiganmom116 at 4:55 PM on Aug. 2, 2009

  • GREAT LETTER from McCarthy--link above!!!!

    My favorite part:

    "The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States).

    Continued
    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 5:03 PM on Aug. 2, 2009

  • Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.


    patriotic

    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 5:04 PM on Aug. 2, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Cafemom Join now to connect to other members! Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN