I always look at polls of any kind with a bit of skepticism, but found this to be interesting as the impression was given this was a popular issue for the President...

"Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to closing the detention center for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and moving some of the detainees to prisons on U.S. soil, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...01-gitmo_N.htm

I really don't like using Guantanamo as a long-term detention center, but like many others, I can't think of a viable option.

One of the advantages of Guantanamo is that it's location makes it almost totally unaccessible to a terrorist attack of any kind. Bringing and keepng any of the terrorism detainees in the US brings with it a host of security problems far beyond just housing and guarding.

There are several disadvantages, including the fact that Department of Defense - never intended to be a long-term detainee manager - is stuck with the job.

There just is no good alternative. So, Guantanamo is the default solution.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

I really don't like using Guantanamo as a long-term detention center, but like many others, I can't think of a viable option.

One of the advantages of Guantanamo is that it's location makes it almost totally unaccessible to a terrorist attack of any kind. Bringing and keepng any of the terrorism detainees in the US brings with it a host of security problems far beyond just housing and guarding.

There are several disadvantages, including the fact that Department of Defense - never intended to be a long-term detainee manager - is stuck with the job.

There just is no good alternative. So, Guantanamo is the default solution.

I understand what you are saying. The previous administration wanted to shut it down a number of years ago....but it was POTRAYED as an huge popular position by this current President

I say....have all the guards and other people who are not prisoners...evacuate immediately...then drop a bomb on it. OK...only kidding...but we are at war ..aren't we?

Keedy

There appear to be legitimate foreign policy reasons why both the former and the current Presidents wanted to close Guantanamo Bay prison. The advantages were probably much the same as lead to the bulldozing of Abu Ghraib prison a couple of years ago.

But neither President, particularly Obama, anticipated the continued irrationality of the U.S. Congress on the issue. Abu Ghraib was no problem. None of those held there would have to come to the U.S. But what were they thinking when they were all agreeing that Guantanamo should be closed? Where were the detainees to go? Obviously, they have to be incarcerated somewhere.

As illogical as the argument is over Gitmo, it doesn't even rise to the top fifty problems facing the President. Maybe they can just quietly close it up and transfer all those they want to keep imprisoned, along with all the nuclear waste we have lying around, to Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

Nah, that would be too logical...and Harry Reid would bury the idea in some Senate committee.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

There appear to be legitimate foreign policy reasons why both the former and the current Presidents wanted to close Guantanamo Bay prison. The advantages were probably much the same as lead to the bulldozing of Abu Ghraib prison a couple of years ago.

But neither President, particularly Obama, anticipated the continued irrationality of the U.S. Congress on the issue. Abu Ghraib was no problem. None of those held there would have to come to the U.S. But what were they thinking when they were all agreeing that Guantanamo should be closed? Where were the detainees to go? Obviously, they have to be incarcerated somewhere.

As illogical as the argument is over Gitmo, it doesn't even rise to the top fifty problems facing the President. Maybe they can just quietly close it up and transfer all those they want to keep imprisoned, along with all the nuclear waste we have lying around, to Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

Nah, that would be too logical...and Harry Reid would bury the idea in some Senate committee.

VK - Love your response - it sums up why we cannot create a realistic solution to detaining these terrorists/enemy combatants/innocents/prisoners of war.

We first have to decide how to classify them and then proceed to a reasoned, if not logical solution. If they are, as President Obama named then in a recent speech, Prisoners of War, then GITMO fulfills all the qualifications of a POW camp, except for the seperatopm pf Officers and Enlisted. We will then have to identify a neutral power to whom we can release those that we choose to let go. We cannot repatriate them to their home countries, who under the terms of the Geneva Convention are at war with us.

I appreciate the bind the Obama administration is in. There are no neutral powers, we cannot release them back to attack us again, nor can we bring them to trial in the US justice system - the Geneva Conventions require a military court. First and foremost, no one wants them on American soil. GITMO is probably the best solution.

Maybe there is a issue with the cost to operate GITMO. We are funding it and the Military isnt free!! Well ok they are payed with Tax Payers money, but then they are taxed again. Nothing like doubled taxed monies!!! Here is alittle article on the GITMO deal..


http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...mo_policy.html