Argument: US prisons are capable of handling Guantanamo detainees
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Suzanne Nossel, Senior Fellow at the Security and Peace Institute. "10 Reasons to Close Guantanamo". Democracy Arsenal. June 12, 2005 - "Because military prisons elsewhere in the U.S. can handle those inmates that are not repatriated – One of the reasons originally given for housing the Afghan detainees at Guantanamo was that this was a particularly violent and rebellion-prone group , as evidenced by the ferociousness of the Taliban's fighting during the war. But there's little sign that as an inmate population, the Guantanamo detainees pose any particular challenge with which a mainline military prison could not cope. Other enemy combatants like Jose Padilla have been held on U.S. soil without incident."
"9/11 Families Outraged by Obama Call to Suspend Guantanamo War Crimes Trials". Fox News. January 21, 2009 - Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said he would take the detainees in his own district, which lies just a few miles from the field near Shanksville, Pa., where United Flight 93 crashed after it was hijacked by terrorists on Sept. 11, killing all 44 people aboard.
"Sure, I'd take them. They're no more dangerous in my district than in Guantanamo," Murtha said, calling the Guantanamo prison a "sore in the United States' moral standards."
"There's no reason not to put them in prisons in the United States and handle them the way they would handle any other prisoners."
"Leading article: President Obama must end the scandal of Guantanamo". The Independent. November 12, 2008 - Maximum security prisons on the US mainland are at least as secure as Guantanamo, and it is absurd to suggest that the terrorists' presence on American soil would endanger the ordinary population.