- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Messages
- 28,721
- Reaction score
- 6,738
- Location
- Redneck Riviera
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
WASHINGTON – Taking an important step on the thorny path to closing the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the White House plans to announce Tuesday that the government will acquire an underutilized state prison in rural Illinois to be the new home for a limited number of terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo.
Administration officials as well as Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn will make an official announcement at the White House.
Officials from both the White House and Durbin's office confirmed that President Barack Obama had directed the government to acquire Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Ill., a sleepy town near the Mississippi River about 150 miles from Chicago. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting Tuesday's announcement.
AP sources: Ill. prison to get Gitmo detainees - Yahoo! News
Is it just me, or did anyone else get the impression that closing Gitmo did NOT equate to transferring prisoners held there to U.S. prisons, without charging them, without submitting them to a trial, and without a conviction.
How, exactly, is this an improvement?
AP sources: Ill. prison to get Gitmo detainees - Yahoo! News
Is it just me, or did anyone else get the impression that closing Gitmo did NOT equate to transferring prisoners held there to U.S. prisons, without charging them, without submitting them to a trial, and without a conviction.
How, exactly, is this an improvement?
\We're the only fools on the block, the only ones insane enough to take these enemies of our nation and plant them right in the middle of the US 150 miles from Chicago.
\
They're our prisoners, so it's only natural that we house them in the US.
AP sources: Ill. prison to get Gitmo detainees - Yahoo! News
Is it just me, or did anyone else get the impression that closing Gitmo did NOT equate to transferring prisoners held there to U.S. prisons, without charging them, without submitting them to a trial, and without a conviction.
How, exactly, is this an improvement?
Why not just keep them in Gitmo? What difference does it make?
It makes no practical, rational or logical difference.Why not just keep them in Gitmo? What difference does it make?
Because I don't believe in having US troops stationed on foreign soil. Gitmo should be shut down and turned over to the Cubans. Likewise all US bases worldwide should also be shutdown and the troops brought back home.
\
They're our prisoners, so it's only natural that we house them in the US.
Because I don't believe in having US troops stationed on foreign soil. Gitmo should be shut down and turned over to the Cubans. Likewise all US bases worldwide should also be shutdown and the troops brought back home.
Likewise all US bases worldwide should also be shutdown and the troops brought back home.
Really, how long has it been....this "it's only natural?" If so "natural" it must have precedence. Enemy combatants captured abroad and 'housed in the US?'
"Only natural", huh?:rofl
More surrender?
Do you understand how strategically important Gitmo is?
Really, how long has it been....this "it's only natural?" If so "natural" it must have precedence. Enemy combatants captured abroad and 'housed in the US?'
"Only natural", huh?:rofl
We did it in WWII.
Do you have any articles that back this up?
j-mac
Of course it's strategic if you engage in a policy of foreign interventionism. Then it becomes abundantly clear how vital it is to have US troops stationed all over the globe. It's the only way we can keep the world under our thumb.
\
They're our prisoners, so it's only natural that we house them in the US.
Ok so no is your answer.
j-mac
Ok so no is your answer.
j-mac
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?