|
Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: cannon_fodder on January 26, 2009, 10:59:23 am According to a Tulsa World article over the weekemd, here (http://"http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20090123_298_0_WASHIN600302"), Oklahoma congressional delegation has vowed to fight any potential transfer of war-on-terror (what's the new word we are supposed to use for it?) to Fort Sill Oklahoma.
Putting aside the debate on if Guantanamo Bay should be closed as a terrorist prison camp, because it IS going to be closed, the question is what do we do with them? Oklahoma's answer is Not In My Back Yard. We have fought hard to get military installations. OKC fought to retain the Federal Prisoner Transfer Center. We waive flags and brag about our patriotism. Why not let them be housed in Oklahoma? The security concerns are clearly not factual. No one ever escaped from Gitmo and no attacks on the facility. In fact, one would be willing to guess that there would be a good deal MORE security at Ft. Sill. Not too mention more personnel, construction, more media, more attorneys visiting... more money in Oklahoma's economy. My take: this is just whining about not wanting to close down Gitmo. It is going to happen, so why not just put up and offer to help to do whatever we can in our patriotic zeal to help our nations war effort? Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: grahambino on January 26, 2009, 11:19:29 am How dare they question the judgment of the military? Do they somehow think that our military is incapable of keeping these guys locked up on American soil?
Talk about a slap in the face to those brave men and women working to keep these guys locked up to insinuate that Ft. Sill is incapable of housing these guys. For a state so in love with private prisons and accepting dangerous felons from all over the west, this is absolutely ludicrous and maddening. They're just playing obstructionist politics and trying to sound tough. I'm curious, was Oklahoma's delegation against detaining German prisoners of war in Oklahoma during WWII? Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: guido911 on January 26, 2009, 12:37:59 pm quote: The War on Terror is now "challenges". The Gitmo detainees are now challengers. Your "take" may be correct. I say let Sheriff Joe take them in (oh wait, Joe makes his inmates wear pink underwear--that would be inhumane and/or violate the Geveva Convention or something). Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: Gaspar on January 26, 2009, 12:46:51 pm quote: Why don't we take it a step further. Why not build a special facility right here in Tulsa for Terror (or challenges) detainees. We could become the nation's specialists. Imagine the jobs, and money that would bring our state and town. The huge influx of lawyers, and reporters would buy up the nearly 6,000 unsold homes and lots in the area, and Tulsa would establish a special place in history. Why not? Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: godboko71 on January 26, 2009, 01:26:33 pm Truthfully I see no problem using our Fort/Forts (if they build more) but I am odd I guess. Seems to me if our service people can keep them locked up in other countries they can do it in our backyard to.
Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: we vs us on January 26, 2009, 01:38:16 pm Par for the course, really, for the OK delegation, who seem singularly willing to ride the national brakes in service of their own delusions of grandeur (I'm looking at you, Coburn).
The NIMBYism doesn't make much sense unless it's to be a thumb in the eye of the Administration. The prisoners aren't a danger to pretty much anybody. (At most, they're a danger to themselves, if the number of hunger strikes and attempted suicides which seem to be endemic down there at Guantanamo are any clue.) In other words, I agree with you CF. Guido, do you have some video of that whole "challenges" bit? Not that I don't believe you, but I've been googling around for that cite and can't seem to find any mention whatsoever of the Obama Admin changing the GWOT nomenclature. Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: patric on January 26, 2009, 01:46:45 pm There are not, and have not been plans to ship Gitmo prisoners to Oklahoma.
Only discussions, and speculation. Is this correct? Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: cannon_fodder on January 26, 2009, 02:50:53 pm You are correct patric. Oklahoma was listed along with Levenworth, Kansas, a facility in Tennessee and "other military installations" as possible locations. But our delegation felt the need to jump in and say NOT IN MY BACKYARD!
Gaspar - I am not advocating for Oklahoma as a military or international prison state. Please provide an objective instead of sarcastic analysis of your position if you feel it would somehow be detrimental to Oklahoma. It seems to me we are pro military, war on challengers (is that right? I'm so confused), and the general notion of doing something for our country. But all of a suddenly this is off limits. When I don't really see a negative in it. Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: rwarn17588 on January 26, 2009, 06:48:26 pm Who cares where these prisoners are housed?
The mastermind from the first World Trade Center attacks has been cooling his heels for the past 15 years at the supermax prison in Colorado. Nothing has happened there, and it's not as if residents there are b*tching about him being there. Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: dbacks fan on January 27, 2009, 08:42:04 am quote: Joe is probably looking into it right now just to get himself some more media exposure. He is in the news here at least once a week. Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: tim huntzinger on January 27, 2009, 10:01:16 am I am all for bringing them in. In fact we ought to encourage this if not for any other reason but to put the 'close Gitmo' voices in their places. Clearly we need a Constitutional Amendment to resolve the issue and I am disappointed that this has not already been done.
Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: dbacks fan on January 28, 2009, 12:45:57 pm Well no discussions of Gitmo detainees here yet, but the media w**** Sheriff Joe (http://"http://www.azcentral.com/news/traffic/lightrail/articles/2009/01/27/20090127abrk-inmatelightrail.html") just can't go a week with out being in the media.
Maybe next week he will say "Bring 'em here, I've worked for the Fed's, DEA, and I'm Americas toughest Sheriff, and if you don't believe me watch my show on Fox Reallity TV." Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: patric on February 03, 2009, 12:18:40 pm "If the option is they are there for life or you kill them or send them to Tulsa, Oklahoma, I'd say put them there for life,'' Inhofe said. "
Senator fruitloops thinks the detainees are coming to Tulsa? Were going to have to build more parking spaces now... Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: Townsend on February 03, 2009, 01:36:11 pm quote: Finally, a market for my kapsa and fatir. Stay out of my business Senator fruitloops. Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: guido911 on February 03, 2009, 02:16:16 pm quote: I do dammit. Bringing hundreds of terrorists onto American soil could encourage terrorist attacks near those facilities. Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: cannon_fodder on February 03, 2009, 02:23:29 pm Just like all the attacks on McAlsiter when McNowRottingInHell was there?
Or Sheik whomever in Kansas? Attempting to attack a US Military installation on US soil is futile. They could try, but would certainly fail and the result would be more dead terrorists. If this lures them out into the open - I see that as a positive. However, the odds of an attack in Oklahoma are just as relevant as any where else in the world. Perhaps more. Cuba certainly wouldn't discourage terrorists from landing who wanted to attack Gitmo. If it was in Europe or Asia the same. The notion of a possible attack is not changed by WHERE they are housed. The NIMBY factor might come in to play. But given security that would be in place and the location of the base (North of Lawton for anyone not in the know) - it would be as good a location as any. I doubt any terrorists will start blowing up Lawton, OKC, or Tulsa because terrorists are housed in Ft. Sill. They haven't blown anything up in Miami or anywhere else to protest Gitmo. Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: Chicken Little on February 03, 2009, 02:42:06 pm quote:Don't be a victim, man. Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: guido911 on February 03, 2009, 02:47:11 pm quote: Funny. I thought we just convicted five of the Fort Dix Six. Remember those foreign-born terrorists guys who were conspiring to attack a military installation? I guess they don't count. Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: cannon_fodder on February 03, 2009, 03:19:44 pm Did they blow anything up? No.
Is there any indication that the presence of terrorist suspects would have increased their attack? No. Their goal was to "kill as many servicemen as possible." They can accomplish that goal as easily now as if the terrorists were housed in Ft. Sill. Furthermore, an attack on the base with that goal has little or no risk to the town of Lawton let alone the State of Oklahoma. You've proven that people conspire to attack military bases. They also conspire to attack power plants, dams, air ports, locks, bridges and tall buildings. Lets start working on getting all those things away from Oklahoma so we don't get attacked. In short: you don't want to house the prisoners because you are afraid of being attacked. Who then deserves to be attacked (where should we house them)? Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: guido911 on February 03, 2009, 03:56:43 pm So in other words, the Fort Dix Six don't count because they weren't successful. Got it.I guess this guy does not count either:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/washington-terrorist-judge-2074925-cell-angeles I don't want these terrorists to step foot on any American soil. Period. I don't believe in importing dangerous killers that have no qualms about strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up in our country under any circumstances. And the idea that Oklahoma could profit from a cottage industry in housing terrorists is a little nauseating. Where should they be housed? If not Gitmo, I don't know where. Perhaps Johnson Island? Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: pmcalk on February 03, 2009, 04:39:27 pm quote: Oh, yes, because the people we incarcerate now are nothing but boyscouts & creampuffs. Of course no one wants them. No one wants Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer. But you have to put them somewhere. Really, are you more afraid of terrorists than some of the creeps we have housed now? If I lived next to a prison, I would be much more afraid of some serial rapist pedophile than I would of a terrorist. But chances are neither would escape--after all, if America knows anything, it's how to incarcerate people. Once again, Jon Stewart was dead on: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=216571&title=Guantanamo-Baywatch---The-Final-Season Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: Ed W on February 03, 2009, 07:18:10 pm Oklahoma's congressional delegation can bray all they want, but the late unpleasantness of 1861-1865 firmly established the relationship between the federal government and the several states.
Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: we vs us on February 03, 2009, 08:18:26 pm quote: Money quote: "Let's stop pretending these Guantanamo guys are supervillains. These guys are thugs and jackasses, not Magneto." Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: Hawkins on February 03, 2009, 08:20:18 pm quote: Its so embarrassing to live in Oklahoma because of this guy (I like Oklahoma, and my family lives here-so please spare me the "move somewhere else" comments). How long is Inhofe going to be allowed to continue his rein of redneckdom? Will he ever be voted out, or are we all doomed to endure this all our lives? Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: waterboy on February 03, 2009, 08:47:34 pm yes.
Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: Conan71 on February 03, 2009, 08:53:14 pm I'd tend to agree it's no big deal housing them inland.
We still have pretty leaky borders. There's nothing to keep asshats from attacking military installations now, other than staring down, well the military. IOW, I don't think there would be any more incentive for a terrorist attack on Ft. Sill if they were housing prisoners than there is now. How do we know they aren't already? Afterall I DID see four black helicopters flying over west Tulsa yesterday at lunch time. That's all the proof I need. [:P] Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: patric on February 03, 2009, 10:51:54 pm quote: That's where some FBI shadows tried to recruit some minority hotheads to take on the government, and flashed some cash to spur them on before getting them to commit to the deed on tape. When the FBI has to invent terrorist attacks and find people to play the roles, you pretty much get the idea the "war on terror" is a farce. Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: Red Arrow on February 03, 2009, 11:16:15 pm quote: Embarrassing is in the eye of the beholder. I opted not to move to MA during their tech bubble in part because I couldn't stand the idea of living in a state that repeatedly elected a Kennedy. Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: cannon_fodder on February 04, 2009, 08:21:30 am Tim, I agree with Inhofe to some extent about trying not to legitimize the prisoners. But we have a Catch 22 (we took them, their countries don't want them back, military tribunals where they don't get to see the evidence against them are a fraud). So lets leave that discussion to another thread.
What we know is that Gitmo is closing and the prisoners must be moved. No foreign country will take them. The only reason NOT to put them in Oklahoma is a fear of attacks on the military installation. Which would exist no matter where we house them and frankly, that's WHY we are housing them at a military installation. I'd much prefer a concentrated attack on a military installation than an attack on civilian centers anyway. +1 on the Magnito line . Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: cannon_fodder on February 05, 2009, 08:53:21 am What's Mercan?
Are you talking about the Canadian Financial firm? I didn't think we were talking with Canada about having some private group house prisoners in Canada. Please clarify. Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: dbacks fan on February 05, 2009, 09:14:35 am quote: Dang those pesky Canucks![}:)] Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: Cats Cats Cats on February 05, 2009, 09:41:00 am "I would be much more afraid of some serial rapist pedophile than I would of a terrorist."
You are forgetting that there are only a handful that have even been found guilty of anything. So it should be "I would be much more afraid of some serial rapist pedophile than I would of a ACCUSED terrorist." We have already had to let quite a few prisoners go. You know how a bunch got there right? We paid warlords in Afghanistan $ per person they brought in. So the first step is pull in anybody that has pissed you off the last 10 years and sell them to the Americans. Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: sgrizzle on February 05, 2009, 10:10:17 am They're not terrorists now, they're challengers.
Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: cannon_fodder on February 05, 2009, 10:35:57 am quote: And we all know what happens to Challengers (http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050709/050609_columbia_hmed_6p.hmedium.jpg) Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: Breadburner on February 05, 2009, 08:23:24 pm Maybe they can have an "accident" on the way here...
Title: Gitmo detainees to Oklahoma Post by: guido911 on February 06, 2009, 06:45:25 pm quote: Wow, way to find that line and pole vault right over it! |