That Guantanamo thing again

| December 1, 2012

Apparently the Government Accountability Office has released a report that told lawmakers that, if the political will exists, the American prison system exists that could be used to incarcerate the terrorist prisoners we are holding at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba here in the United States. Of course, President Obama promised to close the island facility four years ago, and still hasn’t been able to do that because of opposition. But now that his final election is over, he thinks he can try it again.

I don’t like Lindsay Graham much, he’s usually too squishy on most issues. But if Fox News, quoted him correctly, he got this one exactly right;

“Most Americans believe that the people at Guantanamo Bay are not some kind of burglar or bank robber,” Graham said. “They are bent on our destruction. And I stand with the American people that we’re under siege, we’re under attack and we’re at war.”

“Some of my colleagues in this body have forgotten what 9/11 is all about,” he said. “The people who attacked us on 9/11, in that prison, want to destroy our way of life. They don’t want to steal your car. They don’t want to break in your house. And we’ve got a military prison being well run, so I think the American people are telling everybody in this body, ‘Have you lost your mind? We’re at war. Act like you’re at war.’”

Personally, I like knowing where those guys are and that there’s no where for them to go. Some dingus at the Defense Department, Alan Liotta, in the Office of Detainee Affairs, told the Senate Committee that closing Guantanamo would remove a recruiting tool for the jihadists. WTF? It doesn’t matter where you put them, that will be the new recruiting tool. At least at Guantanamo, they’re not here.

The Left is so infantile and immature on this subject.

Category: Terror War

Comments (18)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Stacy0311 says:

    Fly them home to haji land. Somewhere over the Atlantic, open the ramp and ask them (through a translator of course) “Can you fly? No? Well better hope you can swim.”

  2. For a bunch of guys who can be perfectly level headed, its a disappointment to hear you support this position. The admins idea that closing it removes a recruiting tool is stupid and naive, I’ll agree with that. The better and more factual arguement is that the whole thing was an extra judicial setup for interrogation that sidestepped pesky international laws that got in the way of prosecuting the war on terror. But the need for that has long since passed. Al Queda is a much diminished entity now and we know a lot more about what we are doing. Gitmo is not all that necessary and there are perfectly good reasons to shut it down and move the people there to prisons stateside and good reasons to leave it be too.

    Why not make the case on whatever those level headed arguments are, rather than the purely political claptrap argument from Graham that these people are essentially too dangerous to put in a prison on American soil? That’s just a bullshit argument and every time I hear a republican make this sort of panty waist argument, I throw up in my mouth a little. These guys are not the X-Men. The American prison system is more than capable of locking them down and keeping them there. In America, you go to prison, you pretty much stay there until you get let out or you die. Simple as that. These guys are not any more dangerous than the assorted serial killers, rapists, psychopaths and other evil bastards we have locked up. Rural communities compete to have prisons in their backyard for Pete’s sake. Why? Because you don’t get out of jail in this country. I live in Indianapolis and right here in Metro Indy there is a prison across the street from a senior living facility out in the far burbs.

    It’s a purely political argument that’s only about partisan warfare, not a discussion being had on the cold hard pros and cons of Gitmo’s utilization. Those few hundred guys or whatever is left can obviously be housed in American prisons. Maybe there are good practical reasons to keep using Gitmo. I wish Graham would make those and stop sounding like a panty waist and trying to scare people that those guys are somehow super criminals that can only be contained at Gitmo. Thats comicbook talk, not the conversation of a clear eyed grownup, and shows its a political argument, not a factual one.

  3. JP says:

    I don’t know, the idea of some haji getting butt-raped by Bubba repeatedly kind of makes me smile…

  4. Stacy0311 says:

    how about we just take them out back and put a fucking bullet in their heads? Under the Law of Landware that was beat into my head back in boot camp and every year since, we would be legally justified in a quick execution of these turds

  5. valerie says:

    Political Season Says:
    December 1st, 2012 at 10:24 am

    Actually, you are 180 degrees off. The move to have them brought to the US is for the purpose of eventually getting political show trials, brought to you by the kind of people that think Hamas is not a terrorist organization.

  6. Joe Williams says:

    Keep at Gitmo. Do not bring our prison, giving the Hajis T
    chance to convert more true belivers. Joe

  7. AW1 Tim says:

    The problem with bringing them to these United States for incarceration, is that it puts the lives of those who live around the facility in danger.

    While incarcerated at Gitmo, it’s almost impossible for any of their “friends” to try and break them out. Once you bring them here, however, it’s a whole ‘nuther ballgame.

    Terrorists have, apparently, been infiltrated into these United States across the Mexican border with assistance from the cartels. It would be quite easy for them to try and take over some local school, like the Chechnyans did at Breslan, and hold those students and faculty hostage, demanding that we release their “friends”.

    We should be under no illusions that they can, and would do such a thing and that they’d have no remorse or hesitation about killing everyone inside if their demands were not met.

    Hell, it wouldn’t even have to be a school nearby. They could kidnap locals anywhere, or attempt some other such nefarious act.

    The key to increasing the safety of our citizens is to leave these rat bastards where they are. We need to start up the military tribunals, and execute as many as we possibly can. These guys aren’t normal POW’s. They aren’t anyone we need to “prosecute” under our criminal justice system. They are terrorists who deserve no mercy from us, as they have never shown us any mercy. The Geneva protocols don’t apply to them, as they aren’t state actors.

  8. UpNorth says:

    ” trying to scare people that those guys are somehow super criminals that can only be contained at Gitmo.” That’s the rub, they aren’t any kind of criminals. They’re unlawful combatants who waged war against the U.S., they deserve to be where they are.
    They are not burglars, murderers, car thieves or the like.

  9. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @2.If you please.

    “Al Queda is a much diminished entity now and we know a lot more about what we are doing.” The second part of that sentence is absolutely devoid of meaning but it’s the first part that I’m interested in learning about. What is the measure by which you gauge Al Q’s present strength relative to some unspecified point in the past?

    You say that, “In America, you go to prison, you pretty much stay there until you get let out or you die. Simple as that.” What does that mean? Are you suggesting that escapes never occur? Also, few inmates die in prison and those who are released are subject to supervision by a parole or probation officer. The Federal prisoners usually have probation tacked on to their sentences so that they too are supervised upon release. So, if the terrorists don’t die in prison, and they are released, what would you have them do? Be repatriated to strike again or somehow force them to remain in the US to be supervised to eliminate a return trip?

    “These guys are not any more dangerous than the assorted serial killers, rapists, psychopaths and other evil bastards we have locked up.” There are thousands of relatives of the 9/11 victims who would disagree with you about that. Moreover, terrorists tend to kill civilians by the busload. Even serial killers and rapists do one of their crimes at a time.

    As for the political argument, that may or may not be true. But it cuts both ways, doesn’t it? Or is it a non-political stance to favor transfer of the detainees to the US and political only when the transfer is opposed?

  10. Roger in Republic says:

    After WW II fanatical Nazis carried on an insurgency that lasted into 1948. Known as the Werewolves they carried out assassination of German mayors and American soldiers. When they were caught they went before Military Tribunals and were executed after one appeal. They met their richly deserved ends tied to a post facing a group of armed American soldiers. No uniform, no Geneva Convention. Under the law of war these non-uniformed, non-state actors have no rights or constitutional protections unless they set foot on US soil. Any argument to the contrary is without factual basis. Shoot, shovel, and shut up.

  11. Ex-PH2 says:

    The prison where these jihadists might be held is probalby Thomson Prison over in the Quad Cities area at Thomson, IL, west of Rockford, IL. The Obama Administration paid the state of Illinois $165 million for it in October 2012. Here’s the link to that story:

    This is a quote from a second article: ‘The prison’s sale has been stalled for years, most recently because of opposition from a Virginia Republican who chairs a subcommittee overseeing the Bureau of Prisons.
    Congressman Frank Wolf rejected the sale request because he believed terrorism suspects would be housed there. Federal officials say that’s not true.
    Sen. Dick Durbin and Gov. Pat Quinn announced the sale Tuesday, saying federal officials decided to go around Wolf and act on their own authority.
    Durbin says it’s an unusual move but not illegal.
    Thomson was built in 2001. Budget troubles kept it from fully opening. It has 1,600 cells but housed fewer than 200 inmates before closing to prepare for a sale.’

    I’ll leave it to you all to decide what is best for the Thomson, IL, citizens: jobs at the prison, or staying hard hit by the recession. The likelihood that Gitmo detainees will be housed there is probably rather high, no matter what or how many denials come out of the DC-area people.

    The real problem with jihadists and with religious extremists of any sort, e.g., the Wesboro nutballs, is their rigid refusal to consider anything outside of their own sphere of (lack of) knowledge.

    This is a from an article I read online this weekend:

    It is rigidity that is the problem, it is rigidity that is the problem in any walk of life. There is nothing wrong, for example, with religion in itself, it is the rigidity you often find that is the problem, the sense that things have to be one way and one way only.

    The emphasis on one way only strikes right at the center of jihadism and all other forms of extremism. Extremism tends to feed on itself, like a parasite feeding on its own substance — like a cancer. They all kill the host.

    From what I’ve seen in videos coming out of Egypt last year, from Syria, from the most recent riots before the Egyptian people went ape-shit on Morsi, the people particiapting in these demonstrations (and that includes the Occutards) almost appear to be on some kind of “high”.

    You don’t get that shit-eating grin and vacant look unless you’re on something, and it doesn’t have to be something you ingested or smoked.

    I personally do not like even the vagues suggestion for using Thomson Prison as a holding place for the Gitmo detainees. I feel that it will do what Gitmo did not — erase the barrier to access to these detainees by their fellow travelers.

    Oh, you don’t think so? Anyone who knows even a little about federal and/or state prisons knows how easy it is for inmates to get things they are not supposed to get, from the outside.

  12. ex af says:

    The stupidest thing this country ever did was set up Gitmo. They should have been put into the prison system. Let them eat 3 meals a day and be told what to do every second for the rest of their life. Mess with the guards then end up going nuts in a concrete cell with one hour a day out of it.

    We’re a nation of laws. We really forgot that after 9/11. Out of fear or stupidity or just being dumbed down by a political hack in the Oval Office with his criminal cabal.

    Federal time is hard time. Name the last time somebody escaped. Name the last time somebody is going to let a Gitmo gomer out of their sight. they’re going for hard time. And that means with the usual sociopaths that are out in the yard that want to make a name for themselves. Not to mention all the Kluxers and Nazi wannabes. Yeah, put them in the Federal pen. See how long they last.

  13. ex af says:

    Read the history on unlawful combatants. FDR came up with it to justify and run his Kangaroo court to execute the German prisoners. Nobody got off except the guy who turned states evidence. they probably would have been executed anyway but it was bad law then, its bad law now.

  14. teddy996 says:

    @12- Stay in US prisons, earn US prisoners’ rights. Here, they’d be able to manipulate the civilian incarceration system to claim unfair treatment, and to demand things like group prayer, exposing regular jerkoff murderers and drug dealers (who may eventually get parole) to their rhetoric and ideals.

    Fuck that. They should be released back where they were found, and die in a purely coincidental drone strike minutes later. Barack has been above criticizm from anyone from the “peace and fairness” crowd so far about that kind of thing, so he can make that happen without losing political clout.

  15. Yat Yas 1833 says:

    @2, political peabrain; you’re an idiot. @13, ex af; that’s why you served in the air farce.

  16. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    ex af (We do not whose air force) says, “Federal time is hard time. Name the last time somebody escaped.”

    Here’s a quick and partial list from this year alone:

    August 2012 Joel Rodriguez, Leavenworth KS Federal Prison
    August 2012 Pablo Ramirez, Florence AZ Federal Prison Complex
    June 2012 Ernest Thomas Butler, NC Federal Prison
    April 2012 Victor Beltran and Eric Rivera, Littleton, CO Federal Prison
    Novemberr 2012 Frank Corder, Bastrop County, TX Federal Prison Camp
    October 2012 Craig Boudreaux, Pollock, LA Federal Prison

  17. AW1 Tim says:


    “Read the history on unlawful combatants. FDR came up with it to justify and run his Kangaroo court to execute the German prisoners.”

    The Geneva Convention Protocols were in existence long before FDR’s alleged attempts at manipulation. The third protocol/treaty, involving the treatment of POW’s was signed in 1929.

    Regardless, these terrorists are not to be considered as breaking any of our laws. They are partizans, acting outside the boundaries of lawful combat, being attached to no state, wearing no uniforms or distinctive insignia, and refusing to abide by the Geneva treaties.

    As such, we (and other state forces involved in conflict with them), are under no obligation to extend to them any of the provisions of Geneva. We can, in fact, shoot them without trial, refuse to provide medical support, and otherwise treat them as the rabid animals that they are. It would be perfectly legal and not consider a war crime were we to engage in such behaviour.

    I do believe that it is YOU who need to be doing a bit more reading.


  18. @9 When I say Al-Queda is a diminished threat, that is based on some basic facts. We have killed a ton of their leadership and degraded their capabilities severely, to a point where they are likely functionally incapable of mounting a transnational mass casualty attack on the US homeland on the scale of 9/11. I think if you do some research, you will find plenty of credible security commentators that will support that view point. As to the 2nd point there, we’ve been conducting the terror war for a decade plus. We know more about how to interrogate, about getting intel, about killing these bad guys and disrupting their plans. This is not the shell shocked America of immediate post 9/11 past. This is now the battle hardened and honed by experience USA in this fight. In the early days, we needed intel and we didn’t need international law, the conventions or anything else getting in the way. So we put the detainees at Gitmo, effectively dropping them into a legal limbo where we could have our way with them. Ten years hence, the situation is very different. Gitmo is no longer required for intel gathering in that way. Made sense in early years of conflict. Now, not so much.

    As for my comment about prison and not getting out, no, of course I’m not saying escapes don’t occur. They certainly do. But escapes from the kind of containment these jokers would be placed in does not happen very often. Just doesn’t. Thats a fact, check the stats. You think prisoners in jail today are any less motivated to get out? They are not going anywhere either. American super max and high security jails more than adequate to hold these cats. I’m betting Gitmo is a wonderful island paradise by comparison.

    Most of these guys if they are released won’t be released for a long time, probably long after they have passed their useful shelf life as jihadis. Again, they are not the Legion of Doom. A few decades in prison can take the fight out of anybody. Don’t indulge in Graham’s comic book handwringing about what they might do when/if we ever let them out. I just find that silly as an argument.

    As for your last bit about how dangerous they are or are not, its really rhetorical, you can’t measure that. I’m sure the kid who’s mom was killed by a serial killer isn’t going to care about such distinctions and comparing victimization in that way I’m not sure is really useful.

    On the politics, my POV is simple. I consider it a BS political argument to push the idea that they are too dangerous to be held in ANY prison on US soil. Ain’t NOBODY busting out of a supermax. If thats the argument, its political. I regard the argument that their presence will endanger those around them as a bit stronger, but not persuasive. I would prefer cold objective analysis of the reasons and rationales for leaving or keeping them there, rationales for one side or the other not built on that I regard as partisan politics rather than a serious security policy analysis.