Home › Blogs › FlyingScot's blog ›

The New Al-Queda Recruiting Stations

Submitted by FlyingScot on Thu, 05/21/2009 - 23:34

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R- Ky) made an excellent point today in his response to the President's speech to the American people, attempting to convince us all that incarceration of Al-Queda terrorists in American prisons would be a good thing.

Obama said, in so many words, we'd all feel better about ourselves if we did this.

McConnell in his response stated that yes, we could bring the terrorists from Gitmo to our prisons, but... should we?

Integrating Gitmo detainees into the U.S. penal system would allow these terrorists to intermingle and fraternize with American convicts (many of which have hearts already full of hatred for America and its system of justice that culled them from society).

Also, it's a well known fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion in our federal prison system.

                                                           

In a very subtle way (as only McConnell can do) he states, "should we do this Mr. President... really? Is this really the best thing in order to protect the country?"

President Obama's insistence upon such a move may make liberals feel a little better about themselves, but in truth it not only gives Al-Queda the opportunity to recruit prime candidates for future terrorist acts from within our country, but it also does so at the expense of the American taxpayer.

There is something to be said not only for the incarceration, but also for Gitmo's separation and isolation. Yesterday's attempt to bomb a synagogue in New York point to the fact that Al-Queda is growing ever closer to establishing a home grown terrorist system.

Why, for God's sake Mr. President, should we help them?

 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

So who's paying for Guatanamo?

Submitted by acinphx on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 00:52.

but it also does so at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Who do you think is paying for Guantanamo?  Republicans have told us the terrorists are relaxing in the ocean breezes, while enjoying better healthcare than the average American.  Surely this GOP paradise isn't free?

The cost of Gitmo was $200 Million

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 13:39.

We'va already paid for it, and it is state of the art, built just for this type of prisoner.

 

Trifecta of wrong

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 08:11.

Integrating Gitmo detainees into the U.S. penal system would allow these terrorists to intermingle and fraternize with American convicts

Prisioners in a Supermax don't mingle with anybody.

does so at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Who do you think pays for Gitmo? The Cubans??

Yesterday's attempt to bomb a synagogue in New York point to the fact that Al-Queda is growing ever closer to establishing a home grown terrorist system.

Those guys had no contact with anyone from Gitmo, did they?

Ted Bundy didn't have contact with Jeffrey Dahmer

Submitted by Ironman on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 17:15.

Jeez, NRN, your leaps of logic are starting to look like Evel Knievel at the Caesar's Palace fountains.

Says what, we'll just house em all at the Travis County lockup.  I'm sure you'll be just fine with that.

 

I'll take the opinions of a former federal prosecutor on this

Submitted by Ironman on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 17:22.

jeeez, I thought under the new administration we were going to "listen to the experts"

I'll take the opinions of a former federal prosecutor on this

Submitted by Ironman on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 17:22.

jeeez, I thought under the new administration we were going to "listen to the experts"

In response

Submitted by FlyingScot on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 10:27.

It is not that we are not paying for Gitmo, we are. It's a matter of the fact that Gitmo is money well spent for the effort, in the light of the fact that they(the terrorists) are completely isolated there. No one can guarantee that communication  cannot be made in prison, even in isolation. At Gitmo, if there is any communication beween prisoners, it is only between themselves-they cannot influence others that may be influencable to the cause of Al-Queda. 

However, "oceans apart" can and does guarantee that fact.

In regard to the suspects of the bombings in NY yesterday, you need to read their histories of incarceration and personal sympathies toward Islamic causes,to understand the danger of bringing Gitmo detainees to American prisons.

 

how about a supermax in rural alaska

Submitted by Maleficent on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 10:38.

filled only with gitmo detainees? that would seem to solve your problem. or if you want, we could put it on one of the Aleiutian islands...

It may seem far fetched...

Submitted by FlyingScot on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 11:06.

but the Obama administration, because of its decision to close Gitmo, may have to build new prisons ( or something else) to detain special cases . He alluded to the problem yesterday in his speech.

He said:

"Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here — this is the toughest single issue that we will face. We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al-Qaida training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States." 

To which I reply: why, Mr. President, are you trying to re-invent the wheel? Why spend more money on another prison, when we have one that has served this very purpose... in Guantanamo?

not likely.

Submitted by Maleficent on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 11:10.

not when there's a town in Montana who has a fresh, virgin prison waiting for them.

However, POW's are not generally kept in prisons, are they?

Do you not see the contradiction?

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 15:04.

However, POW's are not generally kept in prisons, are they?

Right. I don't think Obama's policies add up or quite make sense. The whole get out of Gitmo thing is just a rhetorical face/image thing. The real issue is process rights of prisoners and how they are treated. And frankly, the left and international critics vastly overstated what was wrong with Gitmo.

Now that Obama is acutally keeping the other (legitimately arguable aspects) of Bush's AQ handling, honest liberals are going to have to look at this carefully and either backtrack on earlier criticism of Bush or start hammering Obama for doing more-of-the-same.

 

 

We hope not

Submitted by FlyingScot on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 13:11.

but we won't be for sure until Obama decides what he is going to do with them, and where he's going to put them. Again I say, keep them where they are. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

but it IS broke

Submitted by Maleficent on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 14:51.

in clear violation of American and international law. I don't mind if they're held as POWs...

so mal...

Submitted by FlyingScot on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 15:51.

you are for building a completely separated and isolated prison, with special laws for retention and holding? Maybe a mosque on prison grounds just to keep everyone happy?

We already have all that...it's called "Guantanimo".

These people are not under "American law", much less our system of jurisprudence. They are terrorists. Terrorists who, if the roles were reversed, wouldn't grant you "due process" they would just cut your head off and hang your decapitated body on a bridge rail.

How quickly we forget.

We have all we need in Guantanimo.

just because I'm rolling with your punches

Submitted by Maleficent on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 12:20.

doesn't mean that I agree with everything.

Yes, I know they're animals. I also know that you're an animal, too -- I remember Katrina, the Los Angeles Riots, and a few burnings of entire black towns.

Habeus corpus continues to be one of the foundational, essential features of American law.

To say that they are beasts, and therefore your conduct is excusable, is to cheer on the pigs who slaughter your grown children. "They eat us! Why shouldnt' we eat them?" [yes, I mean actual swine. they kill people on farms every year]

Very good point

Submitted by Dave Nalle on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 16:23.

Although I have opposed the use to which GITMO is being put for years, I can't disagree that the evidence suggests that our prisons are already a breeding ground for potential terrorists, and allowing these terrorists from GITMO who really are "the worst of the worst" access to them, where they will be treated by some as celebrities and role models could prove to be disastrous.

Dave

Prisioners in Supermax facilities don't mingle.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 16:42.

Prisioners in Supermax facilities don't mingle. With anyone.

supermax = torture?

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 17:51.

Do conditions at a Supermax prison constitute torture?

This isn't really a hypothetical question.  There are those who would answer in the affirmative.