What about the guys who weren't picked up on a battle field, and weren't fighting the US/weren't terrorists? They gotta rot too? Why do they have to be in Gitmo and not here in the US? What is he afraid of?
And when he does negotiate with terrorist, it doesn't count since his administration doesn't think they're terrorist. Even though other government agencies have them classified as terrorist.
If they're convicted I have no issue with them being detained, but I believe due process is an important aspect to a free society.
You would feel better if we just let all of the detainees at GITMO go free? This is a serious question. Because I, in all honesty, would just assume torture them then burn them in cages.
Ok. So, no to your last point. As to your first, I think that it completely depends on our case for having there. Not being privy to that information, I don't have a strong opinion.
He comes across as a grandstanding [Penis], to me. I don't see why the fact that there have been other terrorist attacks preclude the idea that the GITMO camps can be effective recruitment tools for gaining new members of these organizations, in addition to the other issues related within this thread. The way he pedantically asks the questions like the guy was an 8 year old being scolded was ridiculous, but not surprising. We seem to get a lot of ******* freshmen members of Congress who act in this manner. In any event, all of the terrorist attacks he listed have various motivations, purposes, etc. and don't necessarily mean anything in regards to GITMO. And, just to show that I'm not just being partisan on this deal, here's another example of an ******* in Congress wasting time grandstanding in one of these committees. It's an epidemic with these drunk with power types. [video=youtube;keIP_mxeDrg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keIP_mxeDrg[/video]
