Show of Hands

Damn Right

The comment seems obvious, answer it

It provides a great place to hold terrorists so they cannot escape and immediately be on American soil. And since it's not on American soil we can get the information out of the terrorists much more effectively

Closing every base would mean closing every embassy too. Powerful countries like us have embassies. We'd lose power and influence resulting in other countries looking down on us and see us as a shrinking power out of its prime.

I do agree we should close some bases however. We think we're the world police.

Other Countries already do that.

Thank you. My question too.

The base as well, or just the prison?

Let them go free and terrorize us some more. Jk
I support Guantanamo Bay.

Move them to a stateside prison..

Not like it's the only military based prison.. At least 4 that I know of..

Thank you Obama for breaking your promise! I really do not want terrorist present on the mainland.

If we moved them to the US they would gain some rights by being on our soil which could cause problems with the countries they came from.

"Terrorists"? Sorry, have they been tried and convicted?

We could reopen Alcatraz,

I'm sure tourist, would pay big money to add them to the tour...

Lol

You are technically correct, I won't lie, but they were captured in the battlefield I mean if I were simply a civilian in the area I would get the hell out of there which makes it highly unlikely they are actually civilians.

No bethany we dont do that anymore

Holding an uncharged "combatant" indefinitely is absolutely unacceptable.

Mr. Obama is not following through on his promise, is he?

He hasn't delivered on quite a few things.

"Highly unlikely" isn't the burden of proof in criminal cases, unless the law has seriously changed since I took the bar exam.

How did you do it Bethany, how did you cheat on the bar exam in California?

Lol sorry, I thought of that when I read bar exam. I just watched Catch Me if You Can again.

One point goes to whoever knows what state is in the actual quote...

I see what you did there...

To my knowledge, the Geneva conventions do not say anything about holding POWs without charging them.

The Geneva Conventions declare it one of the gravest of war crimes to engage in torture. Another grave war crime? Willfully depriving someone accused of another war crime of their right to a fair trial.

If they are recognized as POWs, the US can hold them until the end of hostilities without charging them. I never said that I agreed with torturing POWs. There are better ways to extract information.

Gitmo isn't a POW camp and does not comply with the rules for detention of POWs. Further, there are no plans for eventual repatriation, a prerequisite for POW status. They aren't being held until a war ends. They are supposedly being held for crimes.

Hey do you follow A-Fly and participate that that congress. I think you would like that and you would be another smart guy in it

Nope but I will. Thanks

This name is SpeakerAFly with no spaces

Another issue we agree on, Nathan, or at least I think we do....

Ok. Following him..