Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Put joking aside . . . are you really sure they are "just in the wrong place at the wrong time?" and not innocent? I hardly consider firing a weapon at a NATO soldier 'innocent' so I do not feel any kind of smypathy for the enemy. My friend in the Rangers says that when an enemy insurgent or terrorist is captured, all they see is the most hatred in their eyes. So, if known terrorists were placed in prison next to your city would you feel safe?
Some of them, yes.
If someone you saw as an invader in your country captured you, how would you look at them?
I'm currently at work, in Larkspur Ca.; San Quentin is literally about 1 mile away from me right now. I'd be more concerned with the insane murderers escaping and coming over here than Abdula The Bomb Builder.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
True. Has the administration given any statements about why they won't put the inmates in normal high security prisons?
I havent seen anything official, but I'd assume it would be something like "we faced too much opposition from the American people, and we serve them" or some other cop out.
I'd be interested in what they would say about the contradiction between candidate obama and president obama on this (and, frankly, a number of other issues [union rights for instance]), but I'm sure they would avoid saying anything too close to honest about how realpolitks work in Washington.
Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Lets for arguments sake, one of those prisoners came from Club Gitmo, knew how to make a dirty bomb and suceeded on detonating the weapon. How would it make you feel? Abdula the bomber may be more scary than you think.
why is he more worrisome than, say, a rapist?
Not to sound cruel but "one death is a tragedy. One million is a statistic." A terrorist's primary objective is to kill as many as he can before he himself is killed or captured. He does not discriminate between man, woman or child. He takes delight in killing. He believes in the 72 virgins in Heaven. Tell me, who would you be more afraid of? What if you had to guard a guy who praised the men who slaughtered 3,000 people on 9/11?
Sadly I have to go to work. Looking forward to continuing this discussion later.
Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Not to sound cruel but "one death is a tragedy. One million is a statistic." A terrorist's primary objective is to kill as many as he can before he himself is killed or captured. He does not discriminate between man, woman or child. He takes delight in killing. He believes in the 72 virgins in Heaven. Tell me, who would you be more afraid of?
I don't see your point at all...
nobody made this argument for the 1992 WTC bombers
and if you really want, I can list the numerous other terrorism cases that America didn't feel it had to set up a special prision to deal with
my point is, prisions already do a good job of keeping dangerous people away from society. Those kept in maximum security areas, like the leaders of AB or Khalid Sheik Mohammed or Tim McVeigh are never going to get out. Thus, you have far more to fear from rapists and murderers who are held in genpop than you would from terrorists who would be in near continual lockdown.
Originally posted by Darth Truculent
What if you had to guard a guy who praised the men who slaughtered 3,000 people on 9/11?
what about guards who have to guard people who have murdered their fellow guards?
where could you possibly be going with this?
also... your scenario insinuates that these people have been found guilty of a crime, so you do agree that guantanamo inmates should have a day in court?
Originally posted by inimalist
I havent seen anything official, but I'd assume it would be something like "we faced too much opposition from the American people, and we serve them" or some other cop out.I'd be interested in what they would say about the contradiction between candidate obama and president obama on this (and, frankly, a number of other issues [union rights for instance]), but I'm sure they would avoid saying anything too close to honest about how realpolitks work in Washington.
Strictly speaking Obama did close Gitmo in 2009 like he promised to during his campaign.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-closure-dentention-facilities-guantanamo-bay-naval-base
So it's actual a contradiction between President Obama c2009 and President Obama c2011. Obama's biggest mistake seems to have been asking for $80 million when he didn't actually know what he was going to do, then for likely more political reasons he didn't keep asking for the money once he had a prison in Illinois lined up.
http://www.webcitation.org/5jPWyaCDq
Truculent, first of all, I don't even know where to begin with you. I'd maybe go to any nuclear regulatory agency and bone up on what a dirty bomb actually is and how it works. If you somehow manage to get radioactive material and you strap C4 to it, what'll happen is exactly what happens if you blow up anything else. Boom. Radioactive doesn't mean flammable. Dirty bombs are only dangerous for raising everyone within the blast radius' chances of getting cancer by 1% and for generating fear and panic among the ignorant and stupid.
As for your comments on letting loose terrorists, a majority of people at "Club Gitmo where civillians captured by warlords and turned into the US for a cash reward, many as adolescents.
In addition, I'd like to point out that we have massive networks of right wing terrorists allowed to act and caucus with laws excusing their terrorism in several state legislatures pending vote, many terrorists in current and former government positions, and terrorists heading major corporations. We've got a terrorist agent for the IRA holding hearings on radical Islam employing terrorist apologists as his experts. See any problems with that?
Originally posted by jaden101
Awesome...that means tornadoes.
lol, that looks freaking awesome....
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Truculent, first of all, I don't even know where to begin with you. I'd maybe go to any nuclear regulatory agency and bone up on what a dirty bomb actually is and how it works. If you somehow manage to get radioactive material and you strap C4 to it, what'll happen is exactly what happens if you blow up anything else. Boom. Radioactive doesn't mean flammable. Dirty bombs are only dangerous for raising everyone within the blast radius' chances of getting cancer by 1% and for generating fear and panic among the ignorant and stupid.
As for your comments on letting loose terrorists, a majority of people at "Club Gitmo where civillians captured by warlords and turned into the US for a cash reward, many as adolescents.
In addition, I'd like to point out that we have massive networks of right wing terrorists allowed to act and caucus with laws excusing their terrorism in several state legislatures pending vote, many terrorists in current and former government positions, and terrorists heading major corporations. We've got a terrorist agent for the IRA holding hearings on radical Islam employing terrorist apologists as his experts. See any problems with that?
argue with that, pinko
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Strictly speaking Obama did close Gitmo in 2009 like he promised to during his campaign.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-closure-dentention-facilities-guantanamo-bay-naval-baseSo it's actual a contradiction between President Obama c2009 and President Obama c2011. Obama's biggest mistake seems to have been asking for $80 million when he didn't actually know what he was going to do, then for likely more political reasons he didn't keep asking for the money once he had a prison in Illinois lined up.
http://www.webcitation.org/5jPWyaCDq
interesting
you think if he had waited on the funding request he could have got it through? that seems like a convienient excuse for dems, who are normally scared to look soft on "defense" issues