Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
House Committee Vote prohibits moving Gitmo terrorists to the US for detention.
Author Message
WoodlandsOwl Offline
Up in the Woods
*

Posts: 11,813
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #1
House Committee Vote prohibits moving Gitmo terrorists to the US for detention.
WASHINGTON — The House Armed Services Committee has dealt a blow to President Obama’s hopes to shutter the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, by unanimously approving legislation that would prohibit creating a detention center inside the United States.

The administration had asked Congress to approve about $350 million to buy and renovate a nearly empty prison in Thomson, Ill. The White House plan was to empty Guantánamo and transfer its detainees to Illinois — including 48 who would be held without trial as wartime prisoners.

But late Wednesday, the House committee unanimously approved a defense bill for 2011 that bans spending money to build or modify any facility inside the United States to house Guantánamo detainees, according to a summary of the bill.

It says the committee wants to see “a thorough and comprehensive plan that outlines the merits, costs, and risks associated with utilizing such a facility. No such plan has been presented to date. The bill prohibits the use of any funds for this purpose.”

The bill also requires Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to produce a report for Congress that “adequately justifies” any proposal for such a facility in the future, suggesting that lawmakers could reverse course.

It was already clear that the Guantánamo prison would not be closed until 2011 at the earliest. With the committee’s stance, the prospects of closing it receded still further.

Mr. Obama had declared he would close the prison within a year of taking office. The administration argues that Guantánamo is a symbol used for terrorism recruitment, so closing it would enhance national security.

But many Republicans have maintained that Guantánamo should stay open, arguing that the Thomson plan would waste money and create a national-security risk. Some libertarians also oppose institutionalizing indefinite detentions without trial on domestic soil

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/us/pol...kre39O7usw
05-21-2010 11:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


SumOfAllFears Offline
Grim Reaper of Misguided Liberal Souls
*

Posts: 18,213
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 58
I Root For: America
Location:
Post: #2
RE: House Committee Vote prohibits moving Gitmo terrorists to the US for detention.
Take that you long legged mack-daddy.
05-21-2010 01:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #3
RE: House Committee Vote prohibits moving Gitmo terrorists to the US for detention.
I wonder what the congressman from Ill. that was going to get the pork for his district did to piss off someone on the ASC?

Good move IMO....Why spend the money in the first place?
05-21-2010 05:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


smn1256 Offline
I miss Tripster
*

Posts: 28,878
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Lower taxes
Location: North Mexico
Post: #4
RE: House Committee Vote prohibits moving Gitmo terrorists to the US for detention.
(05-21-2010 05:06 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Good move IMO....Why spend the money in the first place?

I agree. But if they died on the battle field it wouldn't have cost us anything. BTW, I'm guessing that a lot of terrorists are not being taken alive because our soldiers probably "what's the use?"
05-21-2010 09:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WoodlandsOwl Offline
Up in the Woods
*

Posts: 11,813
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #5
RE: House Committee Vote prohibits moving Gitmo terrorists to the US for detention.
(05-21-2010 09:07 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  
(05-21-2010 05:06 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Good move IMO....Why spend the money in the first place?

I agree. But if they died on the battle field it wouldn't have cost us anything. BTW, I'm guessing that a lot of terrorists are not being taken alive because our soldiers probably "what's the use?"

Appeals court rules against Bagram detainees 05-stirthepot

WASHINGTON — Detainees at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their imprisonment the way detainees in Guantanamo Bay have, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The United States is holding the detainees at the military prison on Afghan territory through a cooperative arrangement with Afghanistan, three appeals court judges said in a unanimous decision turning aside the request of a Tunisian and two Yemeni prisoners.

The jurisdiction of the U.S. courts does not extend to foreigners held at Bagram in the Afghan theater of war, added the judges, who said a U.S. district judge should have thrown out the detainees’ petitions.

“While we cannot say that extending our constitutional protections to the detainees would be in any way disruptive of that relationship” with the Afghan government, “neither can we say with certainty what the reaction of the Afghan government would be,” said the opinion written by Judge David Sentelle.

The petitions to the U.S. court system by the three men sought the same right to challenge their indefinite detention that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, won in the U.S. Supreme Court.

During appeals court arguments in January, the other two appeals judges in the case, Harry Edwards and David Tatel, seemed to struggle with the problem of whether they could craft a narrowly constructed opinion that would affect only the three men and not lay the groundwork for opening up the judicial branch of government to many other detainee cases now and in the future.

Friday’s decision spelled out that issue and referred back to January’s argument.

“The court engaged in an extended dialog with counsel for the petitioners in which we repeatedly sought some limiting principle that would distinguish Bagram from any other military installation. Counsel was able to produce no such distinction,” the ruling noted.

Sentelle wrote that the three detainees “seem to be arguing that the fact of United States control of Bagram under the lease of the military base is sufficient ... we reject this extreme understanding.”

Under that interpretation, noncitizens held in any U.S. military facility in the world arguably could challenge their detention, said the appeals court opinion.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/05/ap...es_052110/
05-22-2010 01:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


RobertN Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,485
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 95
I Root For: THE NIU Huskies
Location: Wayne's World
Post: #6
RE: House Committee Vote prohibits moving Gitmo terrorists to the US for detention.
(05-21-2010 01:14 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Take that you long legged mack-daddy.
03-lmfao WTF? I hate these idiotic Republicans. Good news is it looks like the sale of the prison may go through anyway and may be used as a federal prison.
05-22-2010 02:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WoodlandsOwl Offline
Up in the Woods
*

Posts: 11,813
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #7
RE: House Committee Vote prohibits moving Gitmo terrorists to the US for detention.
(05-22-2010 02:01 AM)RobertN Wrote:  
(05-21-2010 01:14 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Take that you long legged mack-daddy.
03-lmfao WTF? I hate these idiotic Republicans. Good news is it looks like the sale of the prison may go through anyway and may be used as a federal prison.

Once again, you show that you lack the ability to read the English language you F'ing moron. The story says the House Armed Services Committee unanimously agreed to not fund a detention center for these terrorists. That means everyone on the Committee agreed you dipstick.

And by the way there are 36 Democrats on the Committee, with only 25 Republicans.

http://armedservices.house.gov/list_of_members.shtml

01-wingedeagle
05-22-2010 06:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


RobertN Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,485
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 95
I Root For: THE NIU Huskies
Location: Wayne's World
Post: #8
RE: House Committee Vote prohibits moving Gitmo terrorists to the US for detention.
(05-22-2010 06:36 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  
(05-22-2010 02:01 AM)RobertN Wrote:  
(05-21-2010 01:14 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Take that you long legged mack-daddy.
03-lmfao WTF? I hate these idiotic Republicans. Good news is it looks like the sale of the prison may go through anyway and may be used as a federal prison.

Once again, you show that you lack the ability to read the English language you F'ing moron. The story says the House Armed Services Committee unanimously agreed to not fund a detention center for these terrorists. That means everyone on the Committee agreed you dipstick.

And by the way there are 36 Democrats on the Committee, with only 25 Republicans.

http://armedservices.house.gov/list_of_members.shtml

01-wingedeagle
Funny you should say that I can't read English when you can't even do it yourself. I didn't say it would be for terrorists, it would be a FEDERAL PRISON for FEDERAL PRISONERS NOT TERRORISTS. Now back to your regualrly scheduled delusion.
05-22-2010 01:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Native Georgian Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,519
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 1024
I Root For: TULANE+GA.STATE
Location: Decatur GA
Post: #9
RE: House Committee Vote prohibits moving Gitmo terrorists to the US for detention.
(05-22-2010 01:30 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Appeals court rules against Bagram detainees

WASHINGTON — Detainees at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their imprisonment the way detainees in Guantanamo Bay have, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The United States is holding the detainees at the military prison on Afghan territory through a cooperative arrangement with Afghanistan, three appeals court judges said in a unanimous decision turning aside the request of a Tunisian and two Yemeni prisoners.
(emphasis added)

This was a wise and necessary decision by Judge Sentelle, and we should all be grateful for it.

The "unanimous"-part is actually very significant, as well, because even though Sentelle (who wrote the opinion) is conservative, the two judges who concurred (Edwards and Tatel) are liberal, so the fact that they signed off on this means there is -- practically speaking -- virtually no chance whatsoever that the full Circuit Court or the Supreme Court will reverse.

Good work, your Honor.
05-22-2010 01:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


SumOfAllFears Offline
Grim Reaper of Misguided Liberal Souls
*

Posts: 18,213
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 58
I Root For: America
Location:
Post: #10
RE: House Committee Vote prohibits moving Gitmo terrorists to the US for detention.
(05-22-2010 01:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(05-22-2010 06:36 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  
(05-22-2010 02:01 AM)RobertN Wrote:  
(05-21-2010 01:14 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Take that you long legged mack-daddy.
03-lmfao WTF? I hate these idiotic Republicans. Good news is it looks like the sale of the prison may go through anyway and may be used as a federal prison.

Once again, you show that you lack the ability to read the English language you F'ing moron. The story says the House Armed Services Committee unanimously agreed to not fund a detention center for these terrorists. That means everyone on the Committee agreed you dipstick.

And by the way there are 36 Democrats on the Committee, with only 25 Republicans.

http://armedservices.house.gov/list_of_members.shtml

01-wingedeagle
Funny you should say that I can't read English when you can't even do it yourself. I didn't say it would be for terrorists, it would be a FEDERAL PRISON for FEDERAL PRISONERS NOT TERRORISTS. Now back to your regualrly scheduled delusion.

It does not matter WHO it was for. It ain't happening. Gone, Kaput.
05-23-2010 07:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WoodlandsOwl Offline
Up in the Woods
*

Posts: 11,813
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #11
RE: House Committee Vote prohibits moving Gitmo terrorists to the US for detention.
(05-22-2010 01:35 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(05-22-2010 01:30 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Appeals court rules against Bagram detainees

WASHINGTON — Detainees at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their imprisonment the way detainees in Guantanamo Bay have, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The United States is holding the detainees at the military prison on Afghan territory through a cooperative arrangement with Afghanistan, three appeals court judges said in a unanimous decision turning aside the request of a Tunisian and two Yemeni prisoners.
(emphasis added)

This was a wise and necessary decision by Judge Sentelle, and we should all be grateful for it.

The "unanimous"-part is actually very significant, as well, because even though Sentelle (who wrote the opinion) is conservative, the two judges who concurred (Edwards and Tatel) are liberal, so the fact that they signed off on this means there is -- practically speaking -- virtually no chance whatsoever that the full Circuit Court or the Supreme Court will reverse.

Good work, your Honor.

Which means Bagram is now "Gitmo Lite". I'm sure there some buildings on the airbase where the Afghans don't have access. And as long as they have "running water" all sorts of information is being obtained.
05-23-2010 07:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RobertN Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,485
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 95
I Root For: THE NIU Huskies
Location: Wayne's World
Post: #12
RE: House Committee Vote prohibits moving Gitmo terrorists to the US for detention.
(05-23-2010 07:34 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(05-22-2010 01:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(05-22-2010 06:36 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  
(05-22-2010 02:01 AM)RobertN Wrote:  
(05-21-2010 01:14 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Take that you long legged mack-daddy.
03-lmfao WTF? I hate these idiotic Republicans. Good news is it looks like the sale of the prison may go through anyway and may be used as a federal prison.

Once again, you show that you lack the ability to read the English language you F'ing moron. The story says the House Armed Services Committee unanimously agreed to not fund a detention center for these terrorists. That means everyone on the Committee agreed you dipstick.

And by the way there are 36 Democrats on the Committee, with only 25 Republicans.

http://armedservices.house.gov/list_of_members.shtml

01-wingedeagle
Funny you should say that I can't read English when you can't even do it yourself. I didn't say it would be for terrorists, it would be a FEDERAL PRISON for FEDERAL PRISONERS NOT TERRORISTS. Now back to your regualrly scheduled delusion.

It does not matter WHO it was for. It ain't happening. Gone, Kaput.
Nope. Wrong. As usual.
05-23-2010 11:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.