| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | lmorovan (12)
04/25/2008 | Guantanamo is a military facility. Whatever the military need to perform their duties and serve our country must be supported. No military needs, bases, funding and administration should ever be used as political issue. The military are to serve the Nation, not a political party. BTW, Presidents, senators and congressmen are elected and when their time expires, are replaced. Military is for life. Thank God we don't stick our nose and impose elections even there. We either stand with, for and behind our Armed Forces and the Commander in Chief or we become a liability to them and to the Sovereignty of our Nation.
(2 voted this helpful, 5 funny and 0 agree) |
 | luridlloyd (9)
11/25/2006 | The reason Gitmo cost so much is that much of it was built with No-Bid contracts by Kellog,Brown, & Root. Cheney pork. The prison is on forign soil so many U.S. laws don't apply. Bring the treatment of the prisoners under the rule of law. It'll buy a lot of good will around the world. We need that.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Randyman (103)
06/16/2005 | Without a clear alternative as to where the prisoners would go, I couldn't say for sure. And if they were being sent elsewhere, than what is the point? Personally I just can't see letting everyone else dictate our business to us.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Redoedo (39)
06/16/2005 | And send them where? Kansas? Oklahoma? Hey, maybe New York City. That sounds like the smart thing to do. I'm sure the prisoners can abuse the Koran there as well. Why abandon a facility that, as abichara points out, cost millions to construct? The procedure is what needs to be reviewed and changed, not the facility.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | magellan (153)
06/16/2005 |  The argument, of course, for closing Gitmo is not to let a swarm of suspected terrorists back into the public. If Gitmo were closed, its detainees would obviously go somewhere else. It is to perform a symbolic action that says that we are a country governed by rule of law, and one that listens to the feedback of our allies. Our practices of holding detainees indefinitely, without charge, without access to a lawyer, has drawn the ire of our staunchest ally, The United Kingdom, among others. The argument goes that shutting down Gitmo would remove a major piece of propaganda that is being used by our enemies to discredit our cause. For example, how can we be serious about spreading liberty when we operate a detention camp beyond the law? Personally, I'm not too big on symbolic acts. I'm all for establishing clear guidelines for the treatment of POWs, as well as honoring our previous commitments and military tradition in this regard, but I'm not sure that closing Gitmo is going to help anything. What is really needed is some leadership on the subject of the treatment of detainees from the Bush Administration. But I'll spare you all another rant on this subject.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | abichara (60)
06/16/2005 | The facility itself cost over $100 million to build. What's the point of closing it when we're going to send the prisoners somewhere else. That would be like sweeping a problem under the rug. This isn't going to reduce terrorism in any way. What we have to do is establish protocalls for dealing for non-national combantants like terrorist detainees, something which the government hasn't been too keen on establishing. Closing Gitmo won't solve the underlying problems creating terrorism at the end of the day.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | numbah16tdhaha (147)
06/16/2005 | Bad Idea. Keep the turds there.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | EschewObfuscation (61)
06/16/2005 | Very important issue. You who favor this, do you have a plan to retain the prisoners? Or should we just turn them loose on the US and other target countries/peoples? Are you sure they've been sufficiently rehabilitated? Me? No, I favor continuing Gitmo, exactly as it is now, until the people holding these savages deem it's ok to transport them somewhere else or detain them differently.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| 1-8 OF 8 | View All |
