Dumbest "debate" since Obama took office...
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=181746
Printed Date: 22 January 2026 at 6:56pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Dumbest "debate" since Obama took office...
Posted By: .Ryan
Subject: Dumbest "debate" since Obama took office...
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 7:38pm
|
Closing Gitmo and where to put the "detainees".....Seriously, who really thinks we couldn't securely lock these people up on one of our federal supermax prisons in such a way that they would have basically no impact on the prison, much less the community, around them? We are the best at locking people up! We have some of the sickest cult leaders and serial killers in the world locked up in our prisons, along with the other million or so prisoners of varying hardcoreedness.....I have not doubt at all we could handle these people. I mean, seriously, they're basically either Middle Eastern hilljacks with their own brand of ignorant hate and religious zeal or old men who like to send those hilljacks out to blow themselves up for their 'cause'.....Also, NO ONE IS SAYING THAT ANY OF THEM WOULD BE RELEASED INTO THE UNITED STATES.....christ...... I can understand if Congress didn't want to fund a program that hasn't been planned well and laid out before them, not that they don't do that on a fairly regular basis, but the rest of their howling is just stupid......I also understand that they are just representing the scared silly NIMBYs in their districts, but one of the jobs a leader must do sometimes is educate the people that they lead.....I don't think that people who are smart enough to make it to the highest levels of government really believe the crap they're supposedly worried about, but they need to pass down some calming common sense to their constituents so they can stop being panicked idiots by proxy..... If you haven't been following, here's a link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html?partner=rss&emc=rss - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html?partner=rss&emc=rss Thoughts? -------------  |
Replies:
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 7:54pm
| Because at Gitmo they are out of sight out of mind for people. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 7:58pm
|
I think the real issue is that it looks like President Obama made the promise that he'd close Gitmo without a real plan in mind. Not being able to say "Okay, here's what we're gonna do" left people to draw their own conclusions. Instead of giving us a blueprint, he gave us a bumper sticker. ------------- ? |
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 8:09pm
|
But that's not what they're http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/19/reid-guantanamo/ - saying..... Not to mention they passed a separate declaration from the funding bill that said, "no detainees may be held inside the United States"....I wish I could just call this stupid political crap, but it's bipartisan idiocy....
------------- |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 8:22pm
| Bipartisan idiocy covers a lot of what has happened in the last 6 months. |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:16pm
I suspect he didn't imagine it would be this hard to find a home for a handful of prisoners, and found out the hard way - my theory.
Anyway, the dumbest debate is clearly the whole dog business, but politically speaking this one is really silly.
The Daily Show mirrored ryan's sentiment well:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=228017&title=guantanamo-baywatch-the-final - http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=228017&title=guantanamo-baywatch-the-final
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Reb Cpl wrote:Posted By: IMPULS3.
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:56pm
|
Bring them to AZ, we will put them in tent city.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 10:00pm
You will put the Arab prisoners in a tent-camp in the desert? Hmm... ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 10:04pm
|
Well, most of them probably aren't used to it anymore...Plus, they'd be a lot less illogically scary in pink undies....lol...
------------- |
Posted By: IMPULS3.
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 10:04pm
Ok ok, so they might be use to the heat...... so what. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 10:35pm
| Now you know where the McRib meat comes from, and why it's not always available. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:57am
I saw that earlier. I loled @ "Their not warlocks." |
Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 2:27am
|
I always thought there was a semantics reason. If they are held captive in another country, they are detainees. If they are held captive in our country they are Prisoners of War... which is frowned upon. |
Posted By: FROG MAN
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 3:05am
|
i dunno, the debate around torture might beat it for "dumbniss"
------------- <1 meg sig = bad> |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 3:58am
God I hope that's intentional. |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 10:56am
Way to go, editor-boy...
:)
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:32pm
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 1:09pm
That's the impression I was under as well. |
Posted By: FROG MAN
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 1:42pm
the quotes weren't enough? ------------- <1 meg sig = bad> |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 6:22pm
------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: mod98commando
Date Posted: 22 May 2009 at 3:32am
|
I say we just set the prisoners loose on the streets of Newark or any other crappy area of NJ/NY at night covered in valuable-looking items and let the "locals" take care of them. It's just as good as an execution but we can easily just say "whoops, we tried to let them free but there was an accident".
------------- oreomann33: Everybody invades Poland Rofl_Mao: And everyone eats turkey Me: But only if they're hungary Mack: Yeah but hungary people go russian through their food and end up with greece on everyth |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 22 May 2009 at 4:12am
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082340/ - Escape From New York City |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 22 May 2009 at 7:08am
|
My take on the matter is that its a matter of principal more than security. You want to move international terrorist suspects to high security civilian lock-ups within the borders of the United States. The problem is, that people just don't want them in their cities or towns. These 'detainees,' many of whom were seriously dedicated to killing as many of us as possible, will now be living in 'my back yard?' I don't think anyone with a brain is too concerned with having them escape, its just the principal is pretty crappy. Now factor in that it'll cost more money to keep them here than it has abroad, because these people will need to be protected from the general prison population. That means administrative segregation, guards, the works. And who foots that bill? Not only do people need to live with the idea that someone who might have killed a family member or friend is now living just down the block, but they've got to pay for the added security measures that need to be taken to protect them, just because the people running the government is full of people who'd rather be affiliated with the willful abortion of a fetus by anyone who feels like it, than the discomfort and humiliation of someone who is an admitted killer. That isn't necessarily what I think, but I don't see what's so difficult to understand when you pull the plug on sanctimony and Obama ground worshiping for a few minutes. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 22 May 2009 at 10:52am
|
There is a word for that crappy principle: NIMBY.
I don't like NIMBYs, whether it relates to power plants or detainees. It is hypocrisy at its worst. I am disgusted by the number of people - and political leaders, no less - standing up and declaring "sure, we should detain them, just not near me," and disappointed at the lack of volunteers to house them.
This whole exchange displays, in my mind, a sad and pathetic side of the American public. Shame on all of us. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 22 May 2009 at 1:25pm
|
Reb, unless they are going to be tried by federal courts they will need to stay at military facilities such as fort levanworth or a navy brig in south carolina, the name of which I cannot remember at this time. Both places have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28alleged_terrorist%29 - experience holding detainees recently so it should not be a problem and it won't greatly add to the cost of running the military facilities.
If they were to transfer the detainees to civilian prisons they would run into a whole host of constitutional issues. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 22 May 2009 at 3:28pm
Yeah, I know, but theres a debate about putting them in civilian facilities, because places like leavenworth aren't high enough security for them. I heard that on NPR yesterday, I'll try to find the interview. ------------- ? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 22 May 2009 at 3:34pm
Ugh. That was written after a very, very long day. |
Posted By: IMPULS3.
Date Posted: 22 May 2009 at 3:42pm
Just say you were drunk. -------------
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 22 May 2009 at 3:44pm
Sorry man, but this is utterly moronic. You're saying that if I'm in favor of locking these admitted killers away, but would rather not have them in my town...that's pathetic and shameful? I think its a completely natural reaction to the situation, especially when I'd have to foot the bill for the added expenditures that will go along with domestic storage of these people who are perfectly willing to dedicate their lives to gutting myself and my family like so many wriggling fish because I don't call God by the same name as them. So I should either: A: Decide that freeing these people is a better option than locking them away or B: Start a petition to get them snugly locked away in the apartment downstairs from mine. Its gutted right now, with a little work, I think they can replace the windows with bars. Anything less than this is shameful? ------------- ? |
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 22 May 2009 at 4:01pm
|
^False Dichotomy^ Anyway, did anyone catch Obama and Cheney's speeches yesterday? Cheney's was just the same old fear mongering straw man arguments with a sprinkling of false choice and half truth, but I'm really torn on what Obama said....The tone and the thought behind it was great, I'm just not sure how I feel about bringing back the military commissions, even if they are modified, and "preventative detainment" really makes my inner civil libertarian scream....The pragmatic side of me and the idealisitic side of me are in open conflict right now, and I image the same is true of Obama, but this stuff is really sounding like Obama's rebranding of Bush's Constitution-be-damned programs.... Oh and, on where to put the bad guys, two facts: 1) We currently have 33 international terrorists locked up in our federal supermax prison system. 2) No one has ever escaped from a federal supermax. Beyond the NIMBY "principle" and any legal problems, there really aren't any good arguments against moving the Gitmo baddies here.... ------------- |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 22 May 2009 at 5:02pm
|
False dichotomy indeed. Your basement is not on the table.
What we are talking about is keeping these people in actual jails or prisons, most of which, frankly, are safer than Guantanamo Bay anyway. I see no rational reason why anybody should object to these particular prisoners in their local supermax, any more than they should object to housing McVeigh.
There are obviously emotional objections, but that is all they are.
The hypocrisy rests primarily with those who pushed for the closure of Guantanamo and now object to the placement of the prisoners. I don't see any particular hypocrisy with those would rather keep Guantamano bay open - just irrational fears.
But in either event - we routinely house people are lot more dangerous than these guys, and people who are a lot more apt to attempt (and succeed at) an escape. There is less chance of them escaping from a US-based prison than from Guantanamo Bay, and any concern about them being housed "on US soil" is fundamentally emotional and irrational.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 22 May 2009 at 5:10pm
|
Okay, I'll read a little closer before I jump off the stick next time. I agree, people pushing to close Guantanamo Bay, but aren't willing to have the prisoners housed domestically are morons. ------------- ? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 22 May 2009 at 5:28pm
|
PP got to the point I was going to make, which was: We already house domestic terrorists, members of crime families, serial killers, and even foreign terrorists in our super-max prison facilities. There is no way that an ADX Florence-style facility is not more equipped to handle suspected terrorists than Guantanamo Bay. We already house convicted terrorists there without incident. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 22 May 2009 at 5:57pm
|
I don't know if I mentioned it or not, I might have hinted to it- the points I'm trying to make aren't necessarily MY views, I frankly don't give a damn, they're not going to change a policy based on what I have to say about it. There aren't any super max prisons in my area, so even if they DO put them in civilian areas, they're not going to be camping out here, I AM a fan of setting up a detention center at the tip of the Aleutian Islands for them somewhere, but the cold would make them uncomfortable and would therefore be inhumane....isn't that why they're closing Guantanamo in the first place? Anyway.... What about the costs of housing them domestically? We're talking about several hundred detainees right? As I mentioned, the costs of enhanced security measures, not only for the public in the area but for the detainees themselves....will be substantial I'm sure. Who's going to pay for it? Not only we are adding a few hundred international terrorists to said system, but we're going to increase the cost of having them within our borders. I don't honestly have a grasp on why they're closing Guantanamo in the first place, rather than revamping the system there. From what I gather, it was a feel good promise made by a hopeful campaign, the prison was vilified because of its affiliation with the previous administration, and all Obama's shills had to do was say that over and over, and the seed was planted that it was a horrible place that had to be sponged from existence. To do that would right some of the wrongs of the Bush administration who will forever be held accountable for the screw ups of this, or any subsequent democratic administrations, not to mention most of the evils in the world and the reason that the ice on Mars is melting. But I digress. ------------- ? |