It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tom Cotton: Send more prisoners to Gitmo

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Guantánamo Bay continues to be a stain on America and the constitution. While there may be disagreements on where we send those prisoners, most ATSers will agree that Guantanamo should be closed down. It is evident however that there are politicians who wish to keep Guantanamo going. The GOP's new chickenhawk on the block, Tom Cotton, reminds us there is still support for it to remain open.


Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) wrapped up a freshman GOP senator tour of the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay this week by suggesting more prisoners be sent there.

“Guantánamo Bay is a first-rate detention facility that houses some of the world’s most hardened terrorists. It’s one of our most effective counterterrorism tools," Cotton said in a statement late Friday.

"After visiting today, I remain firm in my belief that this facility should not only remain open — but that we should not shy away from increasing the number of prisoners held there," Cotton added.

Cotton, who caught flak this week for leading a group of 47 GOP senators in writing an open letter to Iran's leaders on U.S. negotiations over its nuclear program, has vocally opposed the Obama administration's push to draw down detention levels and eventually close the Guantánamo facility. It currently houses 122 prisoners, down from 242 in early 2009.

thehill.com...

So long and people continue to vote for politicians like Tom Cotton, expect little change.
edit on 22-3-2015 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Yes, we need a Democrat President, House, and Senate .. then Gitmo will be gone. Oh wait ...

As long as there is a need for it, it will remain.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Tom Cotton is a flake and a war hawk of the worst order. He is another Harvard educated tool.
He needs to get lost fast.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Ain't that funny? I never made this about Democrat Vs Republican thing. Why did you feel the need to do so? Are we so entrenched to make excuses for the Republicans? It's also a fact that it has been predominantly Republicans opposed to closing Gitmo:

2009:

The vote, which complicates Mr. Obama’s efforts to shutter the prison by his deadline of Jan. 22, 2010, was 90 to 6. Republicans voted unanimously in favor of cutting the money.

www.nytimes.com...

Jan 2015, GOP senators move to keep Gitmo open

Key Senate Republicans on Tuesday unveiled legislation that would effectively block President Barack Obama from fulfilling his pledge to close the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, before he leaves office in two years.


Read more: www.politico.com...

2010: House acts to block closing of Gitmo

Congress on Wednesday signaled it won’t close the prison at Guantanamo Bay or allow any of its suspected terrorist detainees to be transferred to the U.S., dealing what is likely the final blow to President Obama’s campaign pledge to shutter the facility in Cuba.


Read more: www.washingtontimes.com...

2014 Obama faces challenges in closing Gitmo

Shuttering the terrorism-era prison at Gitmo won't be easy, not with an incoming Republican-run Congress likely to oppose any attempts to bring some detainees to the United States.



When the Obama administration announced the transfer of four detainees to Afghanistan this month, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said it appears "the administration is more interested in emptying Guantanamo so that it can close it, rather than protecting the national security interests of the United States and the lives of Americans, including those currently deployed to Afghanistan."


Facts have a liberal bias I guess. And hey, there are those few Democrats who've opposed the closing of Gitmo as well. But the vast majority of Republicans do to, and so long as they continue to do so, there won't be a chance of closing it.

edit on 22-3-2015 by Southern Guardian because: links



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Ain't that funny? I never made this about Democrat Vs Republican thing.

The point I was making is neither side wants it closed. It doesn't matter who you vote.

With that said it serves a purpose. Which is why neither side will get rid of it, and Obama refused to after he ran on the fact he would if elected.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:27 AM
link   
Obama Regrets Not Closing Guantanamo Prison 'On The First Day'



WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said Wednesday that if he could go back and do his presidency over again, he would have immediately shut down the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"I think I would have closed Guantanamo on the first day," Obama said to applause at an event in Cleveland, Ohio.

Obama went on to say that he didn't rush to close the military prison when he first took office because there was already bipartisan agreement that it should be closed. He noted that his GOP presidential opponent Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had also called for shutting it down.

"I thought we had enough consensus where we could do it in a more deliberate fashion," Obama said. "But the politics of it got tough, and people got scared by the rhetoric around it. Once that set in, then the path of least resistance was just to leave it open, even though it's not who we are as a country and it's used by terrorists around the world to help recruit jihadists."

The prison, which has been operating at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base since 2002, is being used to detain unlawful combatants from Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries who were captured in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The U.S. has come under international scrutiny for holding prisoners there who haven't been charged, for torturing prisoners and for denying Geneva Convention protections. As of January 2015, 122 prisoners were still there -- down from a total of 779.

It's unclear how Obama thinks, in retrospect, that he could have simply shut down the prison. He had ambitious plans during his 2008 campaign to shutter Guantanamo within a year, calling it a "sad chapter in American history." But even then, military law experts weren't sure how Obama could expect to close it so quickly, given that he hadn't consulted yet with Pentagon lawyers and how politically unpopular it still is to move terror suspects into U.S. prisons.

In more recent years, the administration has been signaling the prison is here to stay, at least for the remainder of Obama's term. The president's Guantanamo Task Force concluded in 2010 that 46 detainees are "too dangerous to transfer but not feasible for prosecution," which means they're stuck in limbo. In 2013, the administration closed the State Department office tasked with planning Guantanamo's closure.

"We've had to just chip away at it year after year after year," Obama said Wednesday.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Somehow it must be Bush's fault he didn't close it.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's Bush who put Gitmo in place ... that sounds legit.



edit on 22-3-2015 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: filled out



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian



Guantánamo Bay continues to be a stain on America and the constitution. While there may be disagreements on where we send those prisoners, most ATSers will agree that Guantanamo should be closed down. It is evident however that there are politicians who wish to keep Guantanamo going.


Yeah, it's always the way huh? I think the arguable national security merits of Gitmo are outweighed by the propaganda purposes it offers Islamic extremists. Gitmo has had a similar effect on some Muslims as IS have had on us when beheading captives.

Now I know someone's gonna argue that beheadings and questionable incarceration aren't the same thing and they'd be right. At the same time, the value to propaganda could be similar. Guantanamo is seen as a reflection of the whole Unites States and not just the politicians or military. In the same way, some Islamic State psycho chopping heads off is seen as a reflection on all Muslims.

The hatred and malice that's stirred up by these respective examples fuels more hate. Isn't that something that's obvious to even children? Islamic State give all nations a rare opportunity to take the moral upper hand. Let's not lower ourselves by continuing to extract, render and incarcerate people outside of International Law.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

There we go I knew we could do it!



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I can't blame Cotton for giving his constituents what they want and voted for. More war, more destruction of the constitution, more benefits for the already well off. The rest of us are screwed because of the will of a few. Republicans are right, we are not a democracy. That was their war cry for many years, "stop communism spread democracy". Lies just roll off the lips of war hawks like candy that everyone swallows.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Gitmo won't close because the states don't want the inmates. Doesn't matter if it's federal prison, the state's don't want them. They seem to think that it will make the prison and the communities nearby terrorist targets. It's an extension of the 9/11 fear that gripped the nation. Scary terrorists would be bombing the podunk electric substation outside town but not after they poison the towns water supply. That and congress blocks every attempt to close it down.

How anyone could claim they're for the constitution and the rights it guarantees but won't close secret prisons holding people who've been charged with no crime is beyond me.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Gitmo won't close because the states don't want the inmates.

No, it actually goes quite a bit further than that. These are not US citizens tried in a US court in prison for a crime where they serve their sentence and go home. These are war criminals who can't be released until the war is over. There is a reason Gitmo must not be in the US. It deprives terrorists from using a legal system designed for American citizens against those citizens.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You might be confusing war criminal with prisoner of war. That opens up the question of when the 'war' is over. Is the war over after we leave Afghanistan even if some of the detainees were captured in different parts of the world (Bosnia, the Horn of Africa, Yemen, etc.)? Al-Qaida isn't a government and isn't represented by a nation, in 2006 though, the SCOTUS declared that gitmo detainees are protected by the Geneva Conventions. That all brings us back to the original question, when is the war over? Can the war on terror be an actual war? Can congress declare war on a concept, in this case, the concept of terror? If so, who decides what constitutes terrorism?

However, if we go with what you suggested, war criminals, then they're guaranteed through international treaties and laws that they will have a fair trial in a tribunal to face their crimes.

Do we, as a nation, have the right to capture suspected terrorists of nations we've not formally declared war against and hold them indefinitely without trial?



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Dimithae

Tom Cotton is my rep. in the Senate but I'm proud to say I didn't vote for him. Hell, I didn't vote for his opponent either for that matter but I agree 100% with your assessment. I say keep Guantanamo open and send him and about 499 of his co-workers there. And don't discriminate. Send his Republican AND Democratic cronies right along with him.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You might be confusing war criminal with prisoner of war.

No, I believe the definition for war criminal is met. These people are either explicitly or implicitly taken part in these activities ...

Forcing protected persons to serve in the forces of a hostile power
Killing hostages
Killing or punishing spies or other persons convicted of war crimes without a fair trial
Wantonly destroying cities, towns, villages, or other objects not warranted by military necessity


That opens up the question of when the 'war' is over. Is the war over after we leave Afghanistan even if some of the detainees were captured in different parts of the world (Bosnia, the Horn of Africa, Yemen, etc.)? Al-Qaida isn't a government and isn't represented by a nation, in 2006 though, the SCOTUS declared that gitmo detainees are protected by the Geneva Conventions. That all brings us back to the original question, when is the war over? Can the war on terror be an actual war? Can congress declare war on a concept, in this case, the concept of terror? If so, who decides what constitutes terrorism?

Which is exactly why we need Gitmo. The war is not over until the terrorist groups no longer threaten the US. This will most likely not happen during our lifetime.


However, if we go with what you suggested, war criminals, then they're guaranteed through international treaties and laws that they will have a fair trial in a tribunal to face their crimes.

Actually they are not. In fact Article 75 of the Geneva convention says they can be detained until the end of hostilities, which have not ended.


Do we, as a nation, have the right to capture suspected terrorists of nations we've not formally declared war against and hold them indefinitely without trial?


They lost their protection when they signed their allegiance to the State of Terrorism.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The war is not over until the terrorist groups no longer threaten the US. This will most likely not happen during our lifetime.



This terrifies me if you believe this.


Actually they are not. In fact Article 75 of the Geneva convention says they can be detained until the end of hostilities, which have not ended.



When do we declare hostilities have ended? Sometime beyond our lifetime?


They lost their protection when they signed their allegiance to the State of Terrorism.


That's just it though, who is saying anyone agreed to do anything? Do you know how many people the US has put in gitmo who didn't do anything? Four hundred and fifty, that's nearly 60% of all the people the US has imprisoned at gitmo. We tortured people until they gave us a name or names, we then put those names on a list and rounded up those people too. In some cases we gave money, $5000 for each person we captured. We did all this with top secret oversight.

It's absolutely terrifying. The US government or someone associated with us can just pick someone up and detain them without trial or charge for however long the military feels like. It's straight out of a conspiracy theory but it's real and we've been letting it happen.




top topics



 
9

log in

join