Thursday, May 21, 2009


Both the Senate and House rejected Obama's plan to shut down Guantanamo for now. Mainly because there is no actual proposed plan as to what the hell to do with all the people we are currently detaining there. Obama made the promise during his campaign and presidency to shut it down but has been unsuccessful so far in figuring out where to put all of these people. Other countries won't take them, citizens here don't want them in their local prisons, and obviously we can't cut them loose. If only we had an offshore location that our military could run and operate like a prison for terrorists...hmmm, I just can't think of where we could do that. I got it, maybe we could open up a prison camp in Cuba and ship all of the prisoners there. Maybe we could call it (H)uantanamo Bay, obviously with a silent H.

Perhaps we should just be working to fix whatever problems there are with Guantanamo as opposed to shutting the whole thing down. I am not for treating people like animals, I believe in human rights, even for bastard terrorists, but let's get real here, this is prison, not a vacation. If you aren't willing to do the time then don't commit the crime.


  1. There is a reason why other countries won’t take them which is the same reason that we don’t want to bring them into our local prison system. Leave them there. Fix the issues so that they are treated like humans, but like you said this is prison. If the government is willing to make the statement that these people shouldn’t be free in the world than we have to backup those words and detain them ourselves.

    I have an even better idea...How about our presidential candidates stop making promises that they can’t keep. If there are problems, than promise to fix the problems...realistically.

  2. Has Justin's downline or profit changed at all due to the pyramid shaped business plan he has joined?

  3. One word...Alcatraz...lets move them from one island to another.

  4. The problem with Guantanamo isn't just the "treatment" of prisoners, but that there is no due process of the people being held there. Until recently, the government stood on the position that Guantanamo was outside the jurisdiction of US courts (and more importantly, outside the jurisdiction of the US Constitution) and therefore, anyone being held there doesn't have the right to due process that they would have, were they being detained in the US. So basically, the US doesn't have to provide any real evidence that the people being held are terrorist, enemy combatants or the like in order to hold them.

    The government was holding them as "enemy combatants" which also allowed the prisoners to be held without due process, but that argument is becoming more difficult to make because of the ousting of the Taliban in Afghanistan. It's tough to say that the people being held are enemies when the organization with which they are associated is no longer an enemy with whom we are actively at war with.

    Pakistan is currently at war with the Taliban, and are losing control of large portions of their country. Recently, the President of Pakistan was in the US begging for bombs and money to fight the Taliban. The US should force Pakistan to take on the Guatanamo prisoners in exchange for some missiles and bullets. That's my opinion anyway.

    I'm not a big fan of Guantanamo either. Don't get me wrong. I want every terrorist that is imprisoned there to leave with their arms, legs and genitals removed, but at the same time, the idea that an Afghani farmer who was picked up in a sweep and detained as an enemy combatant without any proof thereof, disgusts me. Due Process is what separates us from the terrorist and I hate the notion that it is being abandoned. As the bad ass Ben Franklin said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."