Donald Trump ‘Fine’ With Prosecuting U.S. Citizens at Guantánamo

There really shouldn't be a question regarding Guantanamo. I think all of us here have, over the last few years, have agreed that Guantanamo is a mess and it needs to be shut down. There's also never been a question to the matter of US citizens committing or suspected of committing terrorism and on charging them at Guantanamo... that it is unconstitutional and that it is illegal. Apparently the Don sees no issue with prosecuting US citizens at Guantanamo though:

During an interview on Thursday with The Miami Herald, a reporter brought up Mr. Trump’s earlier vow to keep the Guantánamo wartime prison open and “load it up with some bad dudes.” President Obama, by contrast, is pushing to close it and has refused to bring new captives there.

“Would you try to get the military commissions, the trial court there, to try U.S. citizens?” the reporter asked.

Mr. Trump responded: “Well, I know that they want to try them in our regular court systems, and I don’t like that at all. I don’t like that at all. I would say they could be tried there, that would be fine.”

www.nytimes.com...

Oh yes he wants to keep it open too. How many people here complained about the fact Guantanamo was kept open under Obama? (Even though Republicans have opposed closing it and States have refused to take on the role when Guantanamo is closed down). Guantanamo is a stain on America and it needs to be done with. I don't know how anybody can continue to justify its existence, yet it remains. There shouldn't be a question really.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Trump is not even in office. Obama is and it is still open.

What a joke, as if Obama actually gives a crap about closing Guantanamo? At least the people Trump puts in there will actually belong there. Might be a good spot for Hilldog after she gets taken down on corruption, murder, lying to congress, etc. charges.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I have always thought that GITMO should stay open. We could prosecute any and all terrorists there.

But that's just my opinion.

originally posted by: Blueracer
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Trump is not even in office. Obama is and it is still open.

Doesn't matter if Trump is not in office. He intends to keep it open and try citizens there. Should Trump be given a pass for this? This is what he intends to do.

Second of all, the reason why Guantanamo is still open:

Closing Guantanamo would require the President to find a home for the approximately 100 detainees still there. Even if the President can transfer the less dangerous detainees to other countries under somewhat lenient congressional rules, he faces an absolute ban on bringing the other fifty or so more dangerous ones to the United States. Congress could in theory lift the ban and appropriate the money needed to retrofit a high-security prison in the United States. The chances of this happening before the President leaves office are zero, no matter what the President proposes.

time.com...

Further:

Even if the President accepts the constitutional argument, he still faces obstacles. He has only a year to find and prepare a U.S. prison to house the detainees. This is not a long time, especially since Congress has barred him from spending funds to do so, which presents additional legal challenges.

The President can power through all of these obstacles if he is determined and acts fast. With the swirl of his pen he could simply order subordinates today to begin the process of transferring the detainees to the United States in defiance of laws he has complied with for years. It is unclear whether a court would adjudicate such a brazen move, and even if it did, any judicial ruling would come too late to prevent it.

time.com...

He needs congress to back him up on the matter. There is strong resistance in particular by Republicans to move the remaining detainees to the States. At least Obama has made it clear his intention is to close it down, even if you may argue he hasn't. Trump on the other hand has made it clear he wishes to keep it open, and we're talking about the 2016 elections. Obama is out by January.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

The way I see it, actions speak louder than words. You should be more outraged with Obama because he actually could have done something about it but hasn't.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Playing Hillary's, er, I mean the devil's advocate here. We are entering a time when rampant sedition via foreign terrorist instigators is becoming a potential reality. Every time one of these nutbar fanatics kills a whack of people, it pushes society closer to enacting draconian measures. How do you try a military combatant in a normal court of law for sedition or treason, US citizen or not? These are war crimes by terrorists.

I can't see using civilian courts, but Guantanamo should still be closed. So I guess again Trump didn't think of the simple alternative, close Guantanamo and sort out a military court on the US mainland. If they are going to abuse and torture people it should be closer to home and in clear sight so the citizens can say enough is enough, rather than out of sight out of mind.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: Blueracer

You see this is the problem here. This is a thread about Trump's policy position on Guantánamo. It's not about Obama. Whether you insist Obama is guilty of keeping it open is besides the fact. He's out in afew months. We're going to either end up with Hillary or Trump. Trump has made it clear he intends to keep it open and try US citizens there.

Are you fine with Trumps position? Should it be kept open?

I know I know. Obama bad. Obama is a big bad man. Lovely.

Do you support Trump's position? And if not, do you intend to be just as vocal against Trump as you are against Obama if he gets in?

a reply to: Blueracer

You should be more outraged with Obama because he actually could have done something about it but hasn't

Further to this I've linked you a source and made it clear why Obama has been unable to close Gauntanamo to date. You clearly glanced over it and continued with complaining about Obama, on a thread about Trumps policy position.

Please continue.

There is a need for a secure centre for keeping the nutjobs in. Obviously anything close to torture should stop.
UNLESS of course there is another 9-11 type event, and in that case the gloves need to come off again.

Hey there's a dual-use possibility here.........
I say keep it open, and make it the automatic staging point for all Muslims wanting to enter the US.
And keep 'em there until they have memorised the 10 Amendments, converted to Christianity, or decide they want to go home.

Seems fair.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Yes, that is the problem. You seem to be more hung up on words instead of action. Obama is out in a few months but he has been in office for nearly 8 years. Trump has had nothing to do with keeping it open. Obama has.

Please continue with your Trump hate.

Keep it open for terrorist and political prisoners like Hillary and Hastert. Keep them out of our court system. Anybody that gets sentenced there gets automatic 20 years. This would create a real deterrence to consider attacking us externally, internally, deviant child sexual acts or lying under oath like Clapper and Hillary.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I have always thought that GITMO should stay open. We could prosecute any and all terrorists there.

But that's just my opinion.

Are you fine with removing Constitutional protections for people accused of a crime? That's what you're doing when you're talking about prosecuting terrorism there.

What happens when the government charges you with terrorism, and says that because of the charge the Constitution doesn't apply?

I wonder how hillary feels about gitmo? I guess we could look and see how she voted on extending the patriot act.
what trump is proposing is already legal under the patriot act.

you can`t try terrorist in a civilian court for the simply reason that the means for gathering the evidence against them is classified and would never be divulged in a civilian court trial,resulting in the evidence being inadmissible.

a reply to: Blueracer

Yes, that is the problem.

No. The real problem here is that, on a thread about GOP nominee Donald Trump and his position of keeping Guantánamo open, you've continued to try and steer this to Obama. It's called derailing. It of addressing the OP you hope to distract people away from it.

This isn't about Obama. Obama is not running in the 2016 presidential elections. Trump is.

I've responded to your argument about Obama keeping Gauntanamo open with a source and a reason. You've completed ignored this clearly showing you don't really care about facts. Obama bad!

I've asked you on whether Trump should be given a pass on this matter, you've refused to answer this.

If you want to go complain and whine about Obama, go make another thread.

They have to have POWs, how can they justify waging war without POWs?

A war on terror has to have terrs...

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Second of all, the reason why Guantanamo is still

I think Obama has given up on closing it. He moved as many people out as he could, and simply abandoned it in order to spend his political capital elsewhere.

Since he can't use any funds to retrofit American prisons, if he were serious about this he would simply play a game of chicken with Congress and move the prisoners to less secure facilities, this is within the realm of Executive powers. If Congress isn't happy with that decision, they can allocate funds for a new prison.

originally posted by: LifeMode
Keep it open for terrorist and political prisoners like Hillary and Hastert. Keep them out of our court system. Anybody that gets sentenced there gets automatic 20 years. This would create a real deterrence to consider attacking us externally, internally, deviant child sexual acts or lying under oath like Clapper and Hillary.

Would it? These extremists LOVE to go to harsh prisons, it makes them go down as martyr's. The bad guys wear Guantanamo as a symbol of pride that they're suffering and will be rewarded in heaven for it.

Then you have the guys who aren't as strong willed. Harsh treatment just makes those types of people more desperate to do anything in their power to not be taken alive.

originally posted by: Tardacus
I wonder how hillary feels about gitmo? I guess we could look and see how she voted on extending the patriot act.
what trump is proposing is already legal under the patriot act.

you can`t try terrorist in a civilian court for the simply reason that the means for gathering the evidence against them is classified and would never be divulged in a civilian court trial,resulting in the evidence being inadmissible.

Then maybe we should talk about repealing the Patriot Act. Rand Paul came real close. That document makes a mockery out of everything our nation stands for, and even the very people who authored it have said it was horribly misinterpreted and misused.

originally posted by: Moley
I say keep it open, and make it the automatic staging point for all Muslims wanting to enter the US.
And keep 'em there until they have memorised the 10 Amendments, converted to Christianity, or decide they want to go home.

Seems fair.

Wow!!!

You think there might be a problem when the memorize the first Amendment where it says "Freedom of Religion" while at the same time being forced to convert to Christianity???

Maybe you should memorize the first 10 Amendments.

a reply to: Aazadan

Should Constitutional rights be extended to individuals not US citizens?

originally posted by: Tardacus
I wonder how hillary feels about gitmo?

I actually looked this up. She supports closing it:

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that she backed President Obama’s effort to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center

www.washingtontimes.com...

I guess we could look and see how she voted on extending the patriot act.
what trump is proposing is already legal under the patriot act.

I'm not sure I think Hillary voted for the Patriot Act, unsure if she supports extending it. There are no sources.

you can`t try terrorist in a civilian court for the simply reason that the means for gathering the evidence against them is classified and would never be divulged in a civilian court trial,resulting in the evidence being inadmissible.

Good point Tardacus. I've never looked at it this way. I'll actually look into this further. I still believe even accused terrorists should be allowed a fair and reasonable trial. I don't believe Gauntanamo is the answer to this at all. It's a messy situation I tell you that but there needs to be a better solution.