The article would benefit from a definition or explanation about who the authors are counting (and not counting) as a "terrorist." I imagine there is surely more than one valid definition and that the journalists and editors had conversations about this when researching the article—why not let the rest of us in on the secret? The inclusion of a definition seems all the more given the the looseness with which "terrorist" is thrown around in American political discourse.
2
"The number of convicted terrorists who are not American citizens continues to rise." Let us never forget this admission as we look at our nation's refusal to better vet those applying for visitor visas, fiancé visas, refugee status, and as we look the other way at those who pour across our border unvetted at all.
As for Guantanamo, why not close it simply because we've already got 443 terrorists stateside? Obama's assertion that keeping it open is a recruitment tool belies his lack of concern about the tens of thousands of innocent people his policies have killed overseas in 7+ years. The Guardian cites that he has killed close to 1000 Yemeni children in 2015 alone, as well as 6500+ adults. Sure, close Guantanamo, Mr. President, and have your Mission Accomplished moment. Build that legacy. But don't for a second believe that your wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen, as well as putting boots on the ground again in Iraq and Afghanistan, won't create the very terrorists that you say the prison's closure will avert. We don't.
As for Guantanamo, why not close it simply because we've already got 443 terrorists stateside? Obama's assertion that keeping it open is a recruitment tool belies his lack of concern about the tens of thousands of innocent people his policies have killed overseas in 7+ years. The Guardian cites that he has killed close to 1000 Yemeni children in 2015 alone, as well as 6500+ adults. Sure, close Guantanamo, Mr. President, and have your Mission Accomplished moment. Build that legacy. But don't for a second believe that your wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen, as well as putting boots on the ground again in Iraq and Afghanistan, won't create the very terrorists that you say the prison's closure will avert. We don't.
So how many college educations can be paid for instead of placating the republicans opposition to anything Pres Obama was elected to do?
I can think of one thing that would be worth it to me. Mitch McConnell and Co. should be doing time there as traitors.
I can think of one thing that would be worth it to me. Mitch McConnell and Co. should be doing time there as traitors.
1
The American Justice system handles terrorists smoothly and without disruption.They are convicted and imprisoned without fanfare The collective Guantanamo issue is more Republican opposition to anything Obama proposes.Republicans simply can't transcend their own racism.Mitch McConnell is the face of politically applied racism and dysfunction.Has their ever been a more impotent Senate majority leader than McConnell?
2
It remains incomprehensible that in modern and civilized times, one country uses a foreign sovereign land for the purpose of being used as a private prison. Guantanamo is Cuban territory that once came under US jurisdiction by means of a dubious "lease" agreement in 1901, then intended to be used as a naval base, following the Spanish-American War and the subsequent Independence of Cuba.
Having converted this piece of a foreign country into a prison fortress, and then for us to claim that certain individuals judged to be a dangerous treat be sent and housed there indefinitely, lacks not only civic conscience or sensible policy, but also a bit of morality.
Note that the yearly payment made for the "lease" of the Guantanamo Base, is consistently refused and returned by the Cuban Government.
Having converted this piece of a foreign country into a prison fortress, and then for us to claim that certain individuals judged to be a dangerous treat be sent and housed there indefinitely, lacks not only civic conscience or sensible policy, but also a bit of morality.
Note that the yearly payment made for the "lease" of the Guantanamo Base, is consistently refused and returned by the Cuban Government.
2
Mail and telephone calls are restricted.
When I consider all the unwanted deluge of junk I get in the mail everyday as well as the constant disruptive and annoying unwanted phone calls asking for money or selling something, prison is beginning to sound better every day. Based on this, no one can possibly say we Americans are inhumane. As a matter of fact, considering what people elsewhere are fleeing from, for many our prisons probably look more like a safe refuge rather than a horrible dungeon.
Keeping Gitmo open is probably only a pretense for not having to return the land back to Cuba, its rightful owner.
When I consider all the unwanted deluge of junk I get in the mail everyday as well as the constant disruptive and annoying unwanted phone calls asking for money or selling something, prison is beginning to sound better every day. Based on this, no one can possibly say we Americans are inhumane. As a matter of fact, considering what people elsewhere are fleeing from, for many our prisons probably look more like a safe refuge rather than a horrible dungeon.
Keeping Gitmo open is probably only a pretense for not having to return the land back to Cuba, its rightful owner.
1
This article carefully obscures the difference between "terrorists" held in Federal Prisons, and inmates of Guantanamo. The former have been convicted of crimes committed on US soil. The latter have not. Their status is that of prisoners of war. It is highly doubtful that any of them could be successfully tried in US courts using accepted rules of evidence. Unless Obama contrives to release them, in which case they will most likely return to their former vocation—killing people— they will remain in custody.
4
how many home grown murderers and rapists etc escape from supermax prisons on us soil ?
not many, i think
no reason to think these few remaining people will be able to either
not many, i think
no reason to think these few remaining people will be able to either
2
Regardless of where they're being held, the terrorists identifying with Al Qaeda and/or ISIS have sworn fealty to a subset of a religion which has rejected the democratic republican principles upon which this country was founded in favor of a religious oligarchy.
If that's the case, what effect, if any will a few years of incarceration have on their religious imperative which elevates killing through suicide as the highest ideal?
Although many inmates haven't themselves engaged in violence or murder they are doctrinally committed to those who have which, suggests they're committed to their brothers and sisters ends in the same manner as other religious crusaders willing to transgress the norms of civilized.
I don't have a magic bullet solution, but there can be no doubt that the incarcerated convicts will pose a significant danger to life and property after their release.
If that's the case, what effect, if any will a few years of incarceration have on their religious imperative which elevates killing through suicide as the highest ideal?
Although many inmates haven't themselves engaged in violence or murder they are doctrinally committed to those who have which, suggests they're committed to their brothers and sisters ends in the same manner as other religious crusaders willing to transgress the norms of civilized.
I don't have a magic bullet solution, but there can be no doubt that the incarcerated convicts will pose a significant danger to life and property after their release.
3
Interesting data that seems to point to the logical conclusion, close GITMO. 89 more terrorists(I assume this article is referring only to Moslems and not the likes of Dylan Roof, other white supremacists, anti-semitites etc who have committed terrorism for other causes) on American soil is not likely to significantly increase the terrorist threat in the Homeland while it might significantly begin to rebuild our image abroad. But, alas, this would require us to use our intelligence, education, knowledge and experience, traits being thrown to the side of the road in our present political climate. Do not concern yourselves with the facts, rely on raw emotions. Why should intelligent, educated, informed people run the Government when we can have people who are just like us doing it. Closing GITMO may make sense to the liberal intellectuals who actually pay attention to facts and data but it's probably better to listen to those who stoke our fears and prejudices.
Close GITMO and move the prisoners to US federal facilities. This nonsense put out by the Republicans that they are a threat to our security is pure political bull. The Party of No continues to choose generate white noise, which has resulted in the rise of Trump by their political rhetoric over doing what is best for the American people. They sole aim the last 8 years has been to try and stymie the president's efforts, not help advance the cause of the American people by blocking critical appointments and key legislation. It's tyimer for the American people to wake up, broom out the obstructionists in Congress and get on with continuing to build America..
1
I think the GTMO detention facilities should be closed (GTMO as a deepwater port and base is another story, perhaps) but I also think we would be wise to separate our fundamentalist terrorists from the general prison population lest they propagate their philosophy to an already disenfranchised group.
1
Keep Guantanamo open for now but start the process of transferring the remaining prisoners to the United States that pose a potential threat to us if they are moved and then released in a foreign country. We can use the Naval Base at Guantanamo as a bargaining chip in the near future when we start pressuring the Cuban leadership to relax their iron grip on their own social activists.
No. No conditions on the return of Cuban land back to the Cubans. These Trump-like fantasies are just plain stupid!
5
The most striking thing about this graphic is not the number of prisoners, but the number of prisons. Why do we need a scattershot of federal prisons all over the US? Wouldn't it be far more economical to have just one federal penitiary in some remote location (e.g., the western desert or the swamps of Louisiana)?
But wait, economics has nothing to do with it. The prison-industrial complex is one of the ways Congressmen bring the boondoggles home. Sorta like they do with military bases, though there is far greater justification for scattering military bases hither and yon than there is for having dozens of federal prison facilities, all doing pretty much the same thing, scattered all over the country.
But the other takeaway from the graphic is that it can't be doubted that we really love locking people up.
But wait, economics has nothing to do with it. The prison-industrial complex is one of the ways Congressmen bring the boondoggles home. Sorta like they do with military bases, though there is far greater justification for scattering military bases hither and yon than there is for having dozens of federal prison facilities, all doing pretty much the same thing, scattered all over the country.
But the other takeaway from the graphic is that it can't be doubted that we really love locking people up.
3
Are you saying that terrorists shouldn't be locked up?
Other terrorists and war profiteers hide in corporate board rooms, where funds are swindled and rackets devised, all paid for by the naive population of the world who still believe the hype' of being stepped upon w/o recourse
1
The authors of this article failed to do an accurate research of convicted terrorists in custody. Had they simply looked at the New York State Department of Corrections website they would have discovered Rashid Baz, convicted of a terrorist attack in 1994 in New York City currently sitting in a cell in Clinton State prison in Dannemora, NY. Baz's crime, opening fire on a van load of Hasidic students, killing Ari Halberstam and wounding several others, was classified as an act of terrorism by the Justice Department in 2000. There are numerous other individuals in State prison systems who are classified under the National Joint Terrorism Task Force's Corrections Intelligence Initiative as terrorists.
2
Maybe the Rs want to keep Gitmo open to harass Cuba, those stinkin' rights-violatin' freedom-hatin' communists. They totally miss the irony of keeping uncharged prisoners for life in essentially a Cuban prison (run by us). I'm sure their hatred of Obama is part of it too. But no logic penetrates that cog dis shield.
4
Congress' refusal to allow the remaining prisoners to be transferred to the US was a wholly bipartisan decision when Obama took office. Can't we all be simply American on this issue? Noone wants the most heinous terrorists in a prison their backyard. Even Dems.
Far more Americans who are non-violent and/or illegal drug users or those in possession of illegal drugs are being held in American prisons than any other nation has prisoners. With a mere 5% of Earthlings America's 2.3 million prisoners constitute an historical 25% of human beings in prison. Even though blacks are only 13.2 % of Americans, by white supremacist American malice aforethought 40% of the mass incarcerated are non-violent poorly educated poor blacks.
Led by opposition from the likes of the insufferable ignorant intemperate Charles Schumer of New York and the stupid immature Marco Rubio of Florida we cannot stop wasting millions on GITMO. America has the "best" "secure" prisons on the planet. Keeping GITMO open is a recruiting tool aiding ISIS and al Qaeda with images of kidnapping, torture and indefinite detention.
Led by opposition from the likes of the insufferable ignorant intemperate Charles Schumer of New York and the stupid immature Marco Rubio of Florida we cannot stop wasting millions on GITMO. America has the "best" "secure" prisons on the planet. Keeping GITMO open is a recruiting tool aiding ISIS and al Qaeda with images of kidnapping, torture and indefinite detention.
5
It's been true fro some time that prisons in the US are full of terrorists. They wear the uniforms of guards. They terrorize the prisoners every day, and their brutalization almost always goes unpunished. Can anyone say Double Standard?
3
That wouldn't go over well here in solidly Dem California, where we hypocritically allow the Corrections Union - the largest lobbying group to buy off our elected officials - to run the show. Just goes to show that the tough on crime folks are bipartisan and that prison is big business.
Move them to GITMO
1
Close GITMO. It recruits terrorists and is land stolen from Cuba.
5
Give Guantanamo back to Cuba. The most bizarre military outpost on a supposed adversary's land arrangement in the world. None more strange than Guantanamo. It is our national shame.
2
U.S. federal prisoners should be held in mainland facilities, not in a Soviet-style gulag where "detainees", who will never have their day in court, are illegally held and tortured.
And Guantánamo should be returned to Cuba. The U.S. STOLE that property from the Cuban people long before Castro came to power.
Both of the above are HUGE national disgraces for our country.
And Guantánamo should be returned to Cuba. The U.S. STOLE that property from the Cuban people long before Castro came to power.
Both of the above are HUGE national disgraces for our country.
9
The biggest threat is not "from" terrorist prisoners in Federal pens; it is "to" the terrorist prisoners themselves. They stand a greater chance of being killed by their fellow inmates than they do of escaping and harming others.
5
Those in GITMO are not your every day domestic soil terrorists. They were captured during military operations overseas. They are POWs and are entitled to repatriation after hostilities are ended by treaty -- not before.
Until the "enemy" agrees to a permanent cease fire and a legal formal obligation to not renew hostilities, they should remain in GITMO.
Until the "enemy" agrees to a permanent cease fire and a legal formal obligation to not renew hostilities, they should remain in GITMO.
4
With all due respect, this is a fundamentally dishonest argument. Since there is no government to sign a treaty with, what you are really arguing is that we have the right to throw people into a prison without indictment, charge or trial and let them rot there until the day they die.
1
Some of them are innocent people turned-in to the US military as 'terrorists' simply because there was lots of money to made by turning-in suspects. To deny that some of these were just innocent, hapless youngsters is simply willful ignorance and now, refusal to acknowledge these poor fellows' innocence exists due to fear and guilt.
1
Joe: In case of terrorists captured during our military operations: You are correct. We can, and we do. I only wish there was a lower cost method for ensuring they never resume their activities, as have a number of those released onto foreign soil.
1
How many of these convicted Muslim "terrorists", held in maximum-security, actually killed anyone. I have no doubt that when the crimes of all the convicted Muslim "terrorists" are explained, a just person will acknowledge that if they were not Muslims, they would at least not be in maximum-security. But alas too many people are not just, and they'll shrug it off with comments like "if they can behead people then we can put them in maximum-security" , thus linking all Muslims to ISIS, a organization that US and their pet ally Saudis had a huge hand in creating.
2
Isn't the main purpose of foreign prisons to sidestep habeas corpus? Guantanamo is a shining badge of shame for America. It's continued existence is confirmation to the rest of the world that Americans have little respect for basic human rights.
11
We should close both the prison and Naval Base in Guantanamo. How would we feel if a less than friendly country had a military base in the U.S.?
7
It just proves we're the 'Empire' and can do anything we want. Steal land from Cuba? No problem. Plop down a prison and put tortured people in their forever since they can never come to trial because of the torture done to them.
Yep. We're the Empire. It's imperative we close GITMO and give the land back to Cuba.
Yep. We're the Empire. It's imperative we close GITMO and give the land back to Cuba.
3
Put's the Guantánamo Bay debate in perspective. Thanks for bring this to our attention.
3
Have these terrorists had trials? Has anyone thought about what we will do with them if or when they are released?
2
I could care less how we treat or what we do with terrorists. Many of Obama's buddies released from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield to kill Americans. Only 14 years after 9/11 and we have have NYC liberals weeping over Al Qaeda terrorists. All we need is for a few of these murderers to escape and take hostages, but even then sypmatizers like Obama and Loretta Lynch will make excuses for them.
6
Did you know that many prisoners when released from jail go and commit new crimes against Americans?
2
"Many of Obama's buddies released from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield to kill Americans."
Really? Please provide documentation. As a taxpayer you might be interested to know that" American taxpayers spent $454 million detention operations at Guantanamo Bay, which now holds 91 detainees. That's roughly $5 million per detainee." The yearly cost of holding prisoners in federal prisons, by contrast, is much smaller.
Really? Please provide documentation. As a taxpayer you might be interested to know that" American taxpayers spent $454 million detention operations at Guantanamo Bay, which now holds 91 detainees. That's roughly $5 million per detainee." The yearly cost of holding prisoners in federal prisons, by contrast, is much smaller.
7
Right, Mr. Obama is just dying to unleash floods of terrorists onto the US populace, because he sympathizes with their goals. He's a secret Muslim, don't ya know?
12
The lead on this great story: "Republican leaders have blocked the closing of the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, because they say they do not want terrorists held on United States soil."
Not since the reign of Henry Kissinger does truth have much to do with Republican politics or positions. It's truth or lies, whatever is needed at the moment to achieve greater power .
Not since the reign of Henry Kissinger does truth have much to do with Republican politics or positions. It's truth or lies, whatever is needed at the moment to achieve greater power .
6
Obstructionists all the way, irrational as it is, the excuse to keep "terrorists" in Guantanamo holds no weight, unless they want to consider a Trump idea to reinstall 'torture' not allowed in the 'homeland'. That the U.S. harbors imprisoned terrorists in the mainland in as safe, and much more economical way, seems no deterrence to die-hard ideologues, willfully ignorant, and with petty interests foreign to common sense. Guantanamo belongs to Cuba; there is no excuse for not giving it back, so their sovereignty is fully re-established. Otherwise, what is the reason for trusting and appreciating this newly acquired 'friendship'? Unless we think that imperial power and neo-colonial rule has any relevance today.
2
First of all Sabri Benkahla is no longer incarcerated. Secondly and more importantly he was tried for the same offense twice, and the prosecutor succeeded in collusion with the judge in hiding the fact that he had already been exonerated by the first jury from the second jury. This is against the fifth amendment: "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb"
So many of those 'terrorists' in prison were the victims of FBI entrapment through stings.
So many of those 'terrorists' in prison were the victims of FBI entrapment through stings.
4
While I absolutely there is no need to continue to maintain GITMO, and absolutely agree that this is about the ongoing GOP obsession to stop President Obama anytime possible - did the NY Times really need to release the names of the prisons, sketches of the buildings, along with the approximate numbers housed at each location? I know this is great journalism and the facts are important, but why not also publish the cell locations, diets, and bathroom schedules for each of the terrorists.
Sure - I sound paranoid, and know there is no way any of the terrorists will ever escape, but we should also remember that the underlying premise behind every external terrorist attack is that the attackers are prepared for suicide. Are they that crazy - that they might attempt an attack on a US Supermax prison? I hope not, but I just do not see the need to publish every minute detail, when we know that some people might just be that crazy!
Sure - I sound paranoid, and know there is no way any of the terrorists will ever escape, but we should also remember that the underlying premise behind every external terrorist attack is that the attackers are prepared for suicide. Are they that crazy - that they might attempt an attack on a US Supermax prison? I hope not, but I just do not see the need to publish every minute detail, when we know that some people might just be that crazy!
5
Paranoid perhaps, out of touch, definitely. States and the Fed all list their inmates and their locations on the internet. For the Feds, it's the Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator
Anyone who knows how to use Google Maps can already get images better than those printed here off the Internet. Welcome to the 21st century.
Anyone who knows how to use Google Maps can already get images better than those printed here off the Internet. Welcome to the 21st century.
2
I can tell you that at Gitmo North, which is what inmates in ADX, Florence, CO call it, the muslim prisoners run the show. They objected to pork being served, so BOP took pork off the menu. They call to prayer at regular times and if non-muslim prisoners disrespect them, they lose their work privileges. They cheer when a terrorist incident occurs, which really riles up the non-muslims.
No one should ever worry about terrorists breaking out of there. It's a true fortress. The BOP should just build a smaller complex on that site designed like superman and house the muslims all together. That would certainly quell the internal unrest between the terrorists and the guards and other inmates. We'd save a ton of money by closing Gitmo and could use it to secure them in an existing location.
No one should ever worry about terrorists breaking out of there. It's a true fortress. The BOP should just build a smaller complex on that site designed like superman and house the muslims all together. That would certainly quell the internal unrest between the terrorists and the guards and other inmates. We'd save a ton of money by closing Gitmo and could use it to secure them in an existing location.
1
We have American political war criminals who are living free while collecting US tax payers money and free health care for life, so what's a few terrorist?
4
How about a new article outlining the difficulty of governing a country where one of the two parties acts irrationally?
When one party in a balanced two party system divorces their actions from the mutual experience that most of us refer to as 'reality', it becomes impossible to have rational debate or bipartisan action.
Writing 'balanced' articles avoids the real problem, i.e. the apparent irrationality of the current Republican party.
I am quite sure that if Lincoln, Reagan, and Eisenhower among other Republican presidents were alive today, they would be ashamed of the farce that their party has become.
When one party in a balanced two party system divorces their actions from the mutual experience that most of us refer to as 'reality', it becomes impossible to have rational debate or bipartisan action.
Writing 'balanced' articles avoids the real problem, i.e. the apparent irrationality of the current Republican party.
I am quite sure that if Lincoln, Reagan, and Eisenhower among other Republican presidents were alive today, they would be ashamed of the farce that their party has become.
7
Why the "terrorist" label to begin with? How are these criminals any different from any other murderers? Because they claim some noble cause or religious pedigree? Or maybe because headlines with the word "terrorist" capture more attention and therefore increase the bottom lines for media outlets?
Maybe when we stop lending this degree of legitimacy by labelling them "terrorist," and realize that they are no different from any other violent felon, we can end some of these debates. It really doesn't matter what the rationale is for killing other humans - murder is murder.
On the other hand, by altering the paradigm in this manner we might leave ourselves vulnerable to scrutiny for the deaths of innocent civilians caused by American drones. That would certainly upset the current narrative, wouldn't it?
The tragedy here is that allegedly serious people who are responsible for the safety and security of millions of Americans are instead intent on playing political volleyball with these serious issues. Instead of offering any form of substantive discussion to solve problems, they have reduced another life and death issue to the question of how to score a victory in the next election.
And we keep voting them back into office.
Maybe when we stop lending this degree of legitimacy by labelling them "terrorist," and realize that they are no different from any other violent felon, we can end some of these debates. It really doesn't matter what the rationale is for killing other humans - murder is murder.
On the other hand, by altering the paradigm in this manner we might leave ourselves vulnerable to scrutiny for the deaths of innocent civilians caused by American drones. That would certainly upset the current narrative, wouldn't it?
The tragedy here is that allegedly serious people who are responsible for the safety and security of millions of Americans are instead intent on playing political volleyball with these serious issues. Instead of offering any form of substantive discussion to solve problems, they have reduced another life and death issue to the question of how to score a victory in the next election.
And we keep voting them back into office.
9
It's not just the Republicans. Democrats here in Colorado, like Governor John Hickenlooper, are trying to block the Feds from moving Guantanamo prisoners to the Florence supermax. But come on: you can't have it both ways.
Colorado was eager for the tax dollars and jobs that would come with building the new prison in CO, despite whatever security risks might come with it. To now turn around and deny the Feds the ability to use the prison they built for precisely this purpose is crazy.
Colorado was eager for the tax dollars and jobs that would come with building the new prison in CO, despite whatever security risks might come with it. To now turn around and deny the Feds the ability to use the prison they built for precisely this purpose is crazy.
16
Any more, Gitmo is just a symbol. I'd like to know what it symbolizes to its Republican defenders...
2
Pretty sure it is meant as a warning that messing with the US is a bad idea, because they hold nothing sacred in the name of revenge.
4
Republicans preach to the base and know nothing people who are the majority that vote. So, never mind the lies, they believe in Republicanism, whatever that means.
4
The rationale for the establishment and continued operation of the prison at Guantanamo was and still is flawed. It was an attempt to circumvent the fundamentals of our system of justice. In other words maximum expediency with little thought for the consequences. It has become quite apparent that this mindset is still alive and well among the NEOCONS. Further obstinence on closing this disgraceful facility serves little purpose as the flawed logic has been thoroughly exposed and debunked. The world knows; and it would seem there is global realization that continued operation of the prison harms the USA in a myriad number of ways yet the NEOCONS deny the obvious and continue their obstinance. It is shameful.
4
Your comments and the article don't distinguish enemy combatants from those who commit crimes in the US. Our legal system applies to the US and applies to US laws. It is not an international legal system and doesn't and shouldn't apply to those captured in a war.
We keep releasing prisoners from Guantanamo to other countries and find many are returning to Al Quaeda and the Taliban only to resume their fight against our soldiers and the US. I think its fair to assume the ones still in Guantanamo are the most dangerous of the ones captured. It would be terrible to release them only to have them renew their efforts of terrorism and killing. It would also be against the law to bring them to the US.
Having them tried by military tribunals and incarcerated in Guantanamo is the best solution.
We keep releasing prisoners from Guantanamo to other countries and find many are returning to Al Quaeda and the Taliban only to resume their fight against our soldiers and the US. I think its fair to assume the ones still in Guantanamo are the most dangerous of the ones captured. It would be terrible to release them only to have them renew their efforts of terrorism and killing. It would also be against the law to bring them to the US.
Having them tried by military tribunals and incarcerated in Guantanamo is the best solution.
5
Yes, Ronald, and the Geneva Conventions are supposed to apply to "those captured in a war." But Guantanamo exists in large part for the convenience of violating the Geneva Conventions.
4
"t would also be against the law to bring them to the US."
It is against the law because Republicans passed a stupid law. I agree that enemy combatants don't qualify for the same rights as US citizens, but that should not preclude imprisoning them in federal prisons.
The problem, as I see it, is that some of those imprisoned might not be convicted in a trial, due to lack of evidence. However, if they were not terrorists before, their long incarceration may have turned them into future terrorists.
It is against the law because Republicans passed a stupid law. I agree that enemy combatants don't qualify for the same rights as US citizens, but that should not preclude imprisoning them in federal prisons.
The problem, as I see it, is that some of those imprisoned might not be convicted in a trial, due to lack of evidence. However, if they were not terrorists before, their long incarceration may have turned them into future terrorists.
1
The 443 convicted terrorists I presume have had a trial of some sort or they could not be called convicted. Those still in Guantanamo have never had a trial and conservatives do not want them to have a trial for lack of evidence. They just want to keep then locked up forever guilty or not.
9
I just got a newsletter yesterday from my Republican Senator Dan Coats here in Indiana. His legislative "headline" was reining in Federal spending in order to reduce the debt. Well, Senator Coats, here's a good opportunity to do just that. Close Guantanamo and move those people here. It has to be a net savings. Stop spending the money to maintain an expensive prison facility in Cuba and bring the terrorists to already-existing facilities on the mainland. This is a no-brainer!
7
Given the enormous scale on which a significant portion of the world is trying to inflict as much damage as possible on the United States, the obvious questions to be asked include (i) why are such people doing this and (ii) what can be done to eliminate this threat? Clearly, more jails are not the answer to terrorism, anymore than they have solved the drug problem in the U. S. The logical conclusion of the present policies is eventually our prison population will dwarf the non-prison population, which will dwarf present fiscal problems with funding social security, rebuilding our infrastructure, etc. And of course, there will not be enough tax money to pay for it all and so … It is not too difficult to predict what is going to happen in this country. Preserving our view of our past with present methods will insure that the US will not prosper in the future.
Republicans are fearless warriors when it comes to carpet bombing terrorists and innocents alike. But put them within a few miles of a real terrorist who's kept in shackles inside a maximum security cell, and the fearless macho Republican turns into a panicked baby. These days we call this "leadership".
6
Great. Now the Republicans will demand they all be shipped to Gitmo, where they can be "waterboarded and a whole lot more."
2
Absolutely Francis. Cry me a river. What a shame Dems have no tears for victims.
5
A fantastic bit of journalism ruined by NYT editorial slant. If this article were "Hundreds of Convicted Terrorists Are Held in U.S. Prisons" it would be journalism. In my imagination, the authors brought this to the editors who said "what if you slip Already into the title and find a way to make this a jab against Republicans, you know, our readers like that." Just because there are terrorists held in US prisons already doesn't mean (1) it's a good thing or (2) the guantanamo terrorists should be moved to US prisons as well.
9
What about domestic terrorists? How many of them are in jail? I'd like to see a map of that.
3
How many of these "convicted terrorists" were convicted of "providing material assistance" to terrorist groups, especially Hamas and Hezbollah, and how many of them were captured on battlefields, or convicted of actual terrorist attacks within the United States? Maybe half a doen of the latter --- the vast majority of them probably were convicted of sending money to Hamas.
1
Yes, and many of them did nothing really - were convicted in ridiculous sting operations, or convicted of material support without any intent to support violence, etc. See projectsalam.org for a report about how most of these cases do not involve actual terrorism.
3
Republicans don't want to close the prison in Guantanamo because Obama wants to close it. Their concerns have nothing to do with American security. It is strictly a political tactic based on their hatred of Obama and their relentless catering to the know-nothing xenophobia of their base.
8
Republicans don't care about the facts. They just want one more thing to bloviate about. They care more about bashing Obama and the Democrats than about the security and heritage of the US.
24
This article is long overdue. The Republican obstruction has always been a hollow argument and while they are vested in the expansion of federal prisons and a permanent incarcerated class to the economic benefit of their districts, they fail to realize the tremendous contradiction that Gitmo represents to the world. The party of values and Jesus has many ironic stances, this is just one of the most egregious.
8
Republicans never let facts get in the way of their beliefs.
40
The lead paragraph of this article is fundamentally dishonest. Just this past November both the Senate and House passed bills that barred relocation of Guantanamo prisoners on U.S. soil. The vote was 91-3 in the Senate and 370-58 in the House. Yet Fairfield and Wallace blithely characterize this as a Republican issue—propaganda disguised (thinly) as journalism. And I'm guessing that Joe here is a good Democrat who also never lets facts get in the way of his beliefs.
6
"Republican leaders have blocked the closing of the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, because they say they do not want terrorists held on United States soil."
It's not that they want to keep Gitmo open. It's because by closing that blight they'd lose a sure-fire fear-mongering talking point.
It's not that they want to keep Gitmo open. It's because by closing that blight they'd lose a sure-fire fear-mongering talking point.
31
The GOP problem with closing GITMO is that President Obama wants to close it. Holding terrorist in the US has nothing to do with the reality of why the GOP has rejected the closing of Guantanamo.
45
The Republicans like the visuals and symbolism of equating "tough on terrorism" with Guantanamo. It's the kind of small-minded and shallow thinking that gave us George W and Donald T. Any idiot can see that we would save millions of dollars, improve our reputation in the world, and eliminate a recruiting tool by closing Guantanamo.
38
Please don't be disingenuous. The Republicans are blocking Obama just to block Obama. They wanted to embarrass him and prevent him from fulfilling his campaign promise to close Guantánamo.
This has nothing to do with Terrorists on US soil. It has everything to do with the Republican's unwillingness to govern in a mature manner. It also shows their total disregard for the human rights of the un-convicted prisoners that they have ensured are held in indefinite detention. Apparently the fact that this actively assists the creation and recruitment of new terrorists is also ignored by the Republicans.
The fact that Americans and foreigners will die due to the Republicans reticence is either beyond their comprehension or they simply do not care.
This has nothing to do with Terrorists on US soil. It has everything to do with the Republican's unwillingness to govern in a mature manner. It also shows their total disregard for the human rights of the un-convicted prisoners that they have ensured are held in indefinite detention. Apparently the fact that this actively assists the creation and recruitment of new terrorists is also ignored by the Republicans.
The fact that Americans and foreigners will die due to the Republicans reticence is either beyond their comprehension or they simply do not care.
50
You would probably have a different opinion if a member of your family had been killed by one of these terrorists.
You then have to watch Obama free them or send them to countries that will free them so that they can kill more Americans.
You then have to watch Obama free them or send them to countries that will free them so that they can kill more Americans.
1
This is an important point regarding the selfish, cruel mindset of the Republican party. Their relentress bullying on the rights of the society's most vulnerable members, poor women who need planned parenthood assistance, is unforgivable.
No amount of logic will dissuade these pseudo patriots from running the country into the ground.
No amount of logic will dissuade these pseudo patriots from running the country into the ground.
2
my neighbor had a family member killed by terrorists and George W. Bush "repatriated" him to the Middle East. Don't put this all on Obama.
The reason they don't want to close it is not because of any rational-analytical consideration of the evidence. It is because they gain public support from constructing an idea that they are harder on terrorism and terrorists than the Democrats. Closing it undermines that position. Why do we still think politics is made 'rationally' when so much is now known about how it is much more dominated by rhetoric and ideas? When a politician starts actually using evidecne like this in a rational way that explicitly lists the social values at stake and looks for the relevant evidence, now that would be news.
28
In the US, the terrorists have access to Constitutional protections that are unavailable to them in Guantanamo.
Although for years I assumed (incorrectly) that the Constitution applied to the actions of US officials, the rights of anybody present in the US and the US rights of US citizens wherever, that seems to not be the case.
That loophole does give the US a bit more latitude when dealing with terrorists. Given that a significant number of terrorists release from Guantanamo have returned to terror, I prefer that they be in Gitmo to their being in a US supermax that costs $100K per terrorist per year. And .. not all are in a supermax !
These are not Boy Scouts who have strayed ...
Although for years I assumed (incorrectly) that the Constitution applied to the actions of US officials, the rights of anybody present in the US and the US rights of US citizens wherever, that seems to not be the case.
That loophole does give the US a bit more latitude when dealing with terrorists. Given that a significant number of terrorists release from Guantanamo have returned to terror, I prefer that they be in Gitmo to their being in a US supermax that costs $100K per terrorist per year. And .. not all are in a supermax !
These are not Boy Scouts who have strayed ...
5
Ed, your first sentence sums up why bringing terrorists to the US is a bad idea and highlights the difference in opinion on whether the US is fighting crime or fighting a war.
"I prefer that they be in Gitmo to their being in a US supermax that costs $100K per terrorist per year."
It costs far more than that per detainee in Guantanamo. The lowest figure I've seen is $900K. The most common figure is in the range of $200 million, as high as $2.8 million.
And let's not bother to distinguish between accused terrorists and convicted terrorists. You'd rather have "a bit more latitude" to deal with accused terrorists (many in Guantanamo have never been charged because the legal case that could be made against them is so feeble) than with those actually convicted of terrorism? Constitutionality is supposed to guard against acting on suspicion that may be unfounded.
It costs far more than that per detainee in Guantanamo. The lowest figure I've seen is $900K. The most common figure is in the range of $200 million, as high as $2.8 million.
And let's not bother to distinguish between accused terrorists and convicted terrorists. You'd rather have "a bit more latitude" to deal with accused terrorists (many in Guantanamo have never been charged because the legal case that could be made against them is so feeble) than with those actually convicted of terrorism? Constitutionality is supposed to guard against acting on suspicion that may be unfounded.
9
Locking them up might make most people "feel" safer, but you only need one (and a terrorist group leader at that) to be released to do more harm. Unfortunately for us, the idea of locking up 99 potential innocents, just in case, in order to ensure the last real terrorist is locked up too, is too poor a statistic to justify Gitmo as it's simply too oft hard for government to prove definitively that guilt. Meantime, that one true terrorist could well convert those 99 innocents into real terrorists during their prison term.
If anything, we do know that the costs of keeping Gitmo are simply not justified for serving just a handful of inmates. This article serves to illustrate that point. For those that can be prosecuted, for those who are US citizens or residents, the answer is clear (housed them on US soil). But what of the foreign nationals? Sending them back to countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan is equivalent to setting them free. Can we afford to do that too?
I don't have any real answers to that. It's damn if we do, and damn if we don't. I only know that the fight against international terrorism with conventional means is not going to work, and the unconventional means (hello, Israel) are going to eat at the national psyche (for the dirty work involved).