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.

 

Donald Trump ‘Fine’ With Prosecuting U.S. Citizens at Guantánamo

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I say we eliminate ISIS and have no further need to use Guantanamo as a prison for terrorists.

I don't see it as a place to house US citizens with suspected terror ties, we have witnessed how the current administration handled that conundrum in this case...

Win the war, then bring our folks home...

It would also be nice if Congress weighed in an authorized the war on ISIS... considering they have an actual declared state...

I never liked the "war on Terror" mantra... a bit too vague for me, and too easy an excuse to use at the whim of whoever may be having a bad week in the Oval Office...

.02



edit on Sat, 13 Aug 2016 20:46:38 -0500 by JacKatMtn because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
It needs to close. I think that this should be a wedge issue which is something only we the people can control. We need to vote in a Congress and a President that will make this a priority. So far this site hasn't been abusive against American citizens but there's only the will and whim of a President separating us from that. Combined with with the 2012 NDAA (dangerous provisions unchanged since) this site easily could be used as a weapon against American dissidents.

Personally, I think it shouldn't be used for foreign 'threats' either but most of you here don't give a rats ass if innocent Muslims are locked away without due process... that it's being used this way currently shouldn't make you all so happy that you neglect that it could be used against any of us.

Shut it down.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
There really shouldn't be a question regarding Guantanamo. I think all of us here have, over the last few years, have agreed that Guantanamo is a mess and it needs to be shut down. There's also never been a question to the matter of US citizens committing or suspected of committing terrorism and on charging them at Guantanamo... that it is unconstitutional and that it is illegal. Apparently the Don sees no issue with prosecuting US citizens at Guantanamo though:


During an interview on Thursday with The Miami Herald, a reporter brought up Mr. Trump’s earlier vow to keep the Guantánamo wartime prison open and “load it up with some bad dudes.” President Obama, by contrast, is pushing to close it and has refused to bring new captives there.

“Would you try to get the military commissions, the trial court there, to try U.S. citizens?” the reporter asked.

Mr. Trump responded: “Well, I know that they want to try them in our regular court systems, and I don’t like that at all. I don’t like that at all. I would say they could be tried there, that would be fine.”

www.nytimes.com...

Oh yes he wants to keep it open too. How many people here complained about the fact Guantanamo was kept open under Obama? (Even though Republicans have opposed closing it and States have refused to take on the role when Guantanamo is closed down). Guantanamo is a stain on America and it needs to be done with. I don't know how anybody can continue to justify its existence, yet it remains. There shouldn't be a question really.




I've never agreed to shut it down or think it's a stain on America.

I'm all for treating terrorists caught on American soil to be sent there.

Altho the Aleutian Islands would be better. Gitmo North for the hardcore.






posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I remember Obama saying he was going to shut it down, but then he didn't.

If Trump wins, and keeps it open, I hope he throws Obama and Hillary in there for all the treason they have committed.
Poetic justice to those two ISIS Enablers.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

So Hillary wins and throws alt right media 'journalists' into Guantanamo... still fun in your opinion?



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

The roundup efforts would be planned in a beer hall.




posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

" There really shouldn't be a question regarding Guantanamo. I think all of us here have, over the last few years, have agreed that Guantanamo is a mess and it needs to be shut down "

No , I Disagree with that . Criminals Foreign and Domestic belong in a Secure Facility , and Guantanamo happens to be just that .



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

The ironic thing is that people here pretend that they're against a police state & pretend they're pro-constitution. They even had major conspiracies about the govt using FEMA camps to lock up Americans without due process.

But the second those policies are actually being discussed against American Muslims, they support them. Suddenly it's ok to violate the constitutional rights of Americans, as long as it's the right kind of Americans being attacked.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

Amen to that. It's like watching the disgusting justifications for torture all over again.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: mOjOm

The extension was approved in 2011. She was SOS then and did not vote on congressional issues any more.
May 26 2011.


Ok. I didn't say anything about her voting or not voting for anything in 2011 so that shouldn't be a problem.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

All while lobbing authoritarian labels at us.

Every law and policy proposed/passed/implemented should be given a basic sniff test. Will I like xyz if wielded by officials I'm ideologically opposed to?
edit on 8/13/2016 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Kali74

The ironic thing is that people here pretend that they're against a police state & pretend they're pro-constitution. They even had major conspiracies about the govt using FEMA camps to lock up Americans without due process.

But the second those policies are actually being discussed against American Muslims, they support them. Suddenly it's ok to violate the constitutional rights of Americans, as long as it's the right kind of Americans being attacked.


The only people I have ever heard who feel the way you are specifying is the Obama administration. Obama signed off on being able to kill American citizens without any due process if they are considered enemy combatants, to which they very loosely applied it. But now because of all the hoopla surrounding "radicalized" Muslims your pushing it off on common citizens feeling this way? I don't think so.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

The thing about Guantanamo though is it is our country's one way of handling terrorism at their level. Terrorists, whether they be foreign or domestic, are still terrorists.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Trump has not been in office. There is nothing he could do about Guantanamo. You should be more concerned about the people who have been in charge. I didn't name names. Happy now?



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

The thing about Guantanamo though is it is our country's one way of handling terrorism at their level. Terrorists, whether they be foreign or domestic, are still terrorists.


I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "their level" but since you're defining it loosely to be "the level of terrorists" I don't think operating at that level is something for the government to officially promote doing.

It's never a good thing to promote going to a level which lowers your standing and principles. Our government should be better than that of Terrorists wouldn't you agree??



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blueracer

Trump has not been in office. There is nothing he could do about Guantanamo. You should be more concerned about the people who have been in charge. I didn't name names. Happy now?



You're still missing the point. Even is those in office wanted to do something about it now, it's too late for them. Their time is up.

What we do have is someone who might be in there next and he's saying he doesn't want to close it at all but instead keep it open for sure for the "bad dudes" and even reinstate torture again.

Worrying about the people who are almost out doesn't matter anymore. It's the next one that might go in that we need to look at.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




Our government should be better than that of Terrorists wouldn't you agree??

Yes. Which is why I have zero problem with Guantanamo. Give them a shot in our legal system? Hell no, they are terrorists.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

So it doesn't matter if it stays open as long as those in power say they want to close it? If those in power didn't close it, how can anyone complain about Trump when he's NOT in office? If Trump gets in, will people give him 8 years before judging him?



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

The ironic thing is that people here pretend that they're against a police state & pretend they're pro-constitution. They even had major conspiracies about the govt using FEMA camps to lock up Americans without due process.

But the second those policies are actually being discussed against American Muslims, they support them. Suddenly it's ok to violate the constitutional rights of Americans, as long as it's the right kind of Americans being attacked.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I suppose.

Socialists lauding the Constitution is a complete joke, too. Did you see Hillary pandering to Mormons the other day by applauding their reverence for the Constitution?

I threw up in my mouth a little.

I think it's obvious that partisan ideologues on both "sides" pick and choose the instances wherein the Constitution is important and when it isn't. Both are guilty.
edit on 8/13/16 by NthOther because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99



Yes. Which is why I have zero problem with Guantanamo. Give them a shot in our legal system? Hell no, they are terrorists.


Them and they... language that implies "the other". Only we're not even talking about the other here. We're talking about American citizens. I happen to personally feel that it is incumbent upon us to not take shortcuts and undermine our own values and ideals simply because it's convenient to do so - particularly if our best rational for doing so is that it only applies to the other. But we're not even in that particular area of nuance here. We're discussing us- US Citizens.

Maybe there are those who will still say "I don't care, a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist" which then begs the question: Exactly how do we define what a terrorist is? I'd imagine that somebody, in reply, will likely scream "RADICAL ISLAM YOU IDIOT" back at me. So, we'll start there. Americans who choose to be Muslim - they are them.

But what about the random insane Christian zealot who bombs or shoots up an abortion clinic? Terrorist?

What about the petty neighborhood drug dealer who everyone in town is sort of afraid of? Is he a terrorist?

What about people who post their opinions on social media? If I share a Bernie post am I a terrorist?

If a reporter unearths unflattering information about a politician, are they terrorists?

The man tabling these ideas has an open track record, lately, of espousing a great deal of hatred for the media, you know. It's not a stretch to imagine that he could feel terrorized by negative press.

In the end, liberty and the rule of law either cover all of us or it will eventually protect none of us.

We all have the potential to be seen by the powerful as the other.


edit on 8/13/16 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join