Close Guantanamo, Reopen Alcatraz?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by guzhogi, Sep 22, 2011.

  1. guzhogi macrumors 68030

    guzhogi

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Location:
    Wherever my feet take me…
    #1
    There was talk a while back about closing down Alcatraz and moving the prisoners to the US. Why not reopen Alcatraz? Just a thought.
     
  2. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #2
    Yeah good idea. Take all the terrorists and stick them in San Francisco! Perfect!
     
  3. tigres macrumors 68040

    tigres

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Location:
    Land of the Free-Waiting for Term Limits
  4. barkomatic macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #4
    I think one of the reasons those prisoners are in a Cuban base is because we are allowed to treat them differently so long as they are not on U.S. soil. Alcatraz will never re-open--island prisons are extremely expensive to maintain.
     
  5. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #5
    Why don't we just execute them ? Sure.Some might actually be innocent but what's a few innocent lives when we need justice ?


    /sarcasm
     
  6. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #6
    The other thing you could do is give them access to a legitimate trial.
     
  7. Daffodil macrumors 6502

    Daffodil

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Location:
    In a sunny state of mind
    #7
    You say that like it's a bad thing..? :rolleyes: ;)
     
  8. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #8
    Isn't it a museum now? Or some kind of tourist trap? It's been a while since I was last there...as a tourist. The prison was closed down before my time. I may be old, but I ain't THAT old.;)
     
  9. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #9
    Exactly. The legal construct is that because the prisoners are not on US soil they are not protected from harsh treatment, interrogations, and can be tried by military tribunal—although this process was altered by Hamdan.

    However, prisoners won't be moved to Alcatraz any time soon. When the Obama administration attempted to move prisoners to secure facilities in Thomson, Illinois there was a massive collective freakout —*apparently the terror suspects are Lex Luthor and are only moments away from breaking out and wreaking havoc on unsuspecting midwesterners.
     
  10. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #10
    Alcatraz would need far to much work to be worth it, wasn't it closed in the first place because the up keep was getting too expensive.
     
  11. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #11
    They're in the U.S. It's a U.S. military base, our government has had control of that land - paid rent and everything - since the Spanish-American war.

    I lived on that base for 3 1/2 years. Nothing about it - nothing - imparts the feeling that you're on foreign soil. All American laws apply there.

    They're on that base because they're regarded as military prisoners. Alcatraz is (was) a civilian prison.
     
  12. MacHamster68, Sep 22, 2011
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2011

    MacHamster68 macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #12
    Quantanamo is so handy for the USA , its not on US territory and therfor does not fall under US Law.
    The USA used and still use Qantanamo as a prison for captives in the so called "War on Terror." to be incarcerated in wire cages.and tortured like the guards please The Defense Department labeled them"unlawful combatants," not"prisoners of war," in order to disregard rights guaranteed to POWs by the Geneva Conventions.
    and that would not be possible in Alcatraz , because Alcatraz is to my knowlege if they have not moved it in the bay of San Fransisco just about mile offshore and would fall under US Law and torture is not allowed under US law ...officially at least
     
  13. Teh Don Ditty macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #13
    Maybe because Alcatraz is falling apart and ceased being a prison in the '60s because the salt water was (is) eating away at the concrete.
     
  14. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #14
    I agree absolutely, but the Justice Department originally disagreed with the sentiment.

    Did you have a 'mirror'? (Everything I knew about Gitmo was from "A Few Good Men")
     
  15. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #15
    I'm kind of torn between making references to that terrible movie with Sean Connery and the roller coaster underneath Alcatraz for no apparent reason and making a J. J. Abrams joke.

    I think the fact that giving these people a legitimate trial in accordance with US law and the basic American values and principles that underwrote the Declaration of Independence (or, tossing them to the wind if there is no likelihood they can be convicted in such a trial) is so far from being on the table is a great example of how our two party system is no longer serving its purpose. The debate on this topic seems to inevitably come straight out of a George Orwell novel....
     
  16. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #16
    That movie, while mostly representative of life there, did add some points for dramatic effect. Most notably, while we all knew about "the fence," nobody was nearly as afraid of it as they were in the movie. That overwhelming sense of tension/fear/whatever wasn't there. I saw kids crossing the fence quite often, with no effect at all.

    But the majority of the fenceline is indeed patrolled by Marines, even though they were far more personable than the ones portrayed in the movie. :cool:
     
  17. Teh Don Ditty macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #17
    That movie would be called, "The Rock" :D

    Your post is spot on. It's down right scary about there.
     
  18. guzhogi thread starter macrumors 68030

    guzhogi

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Location:
    Wherever my feet take me…
    #18
    Didn't think it would work anyways. Just thought that due to Alcatraz's notoriety as having housed some high profile criminals would've been fun. However, many good points were put up: too expensive, plus, you'd then have to follow American laws. Darn laws, always getting in the way of treating people like ****. :p
     
  19. thefnshow macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    #19
    the fact is Guantanamo bay works...there were terrorists before Guantanamo bay,there's terrorists while Guantanamo bay is here and there will be terrorists after Guantanamo bay closes...get over it
     
  20. Mac.World macrumors 68000

    Mac.World

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2011
    Location:
    In front of uranus
    #20
    Wrong. Let me ask you one question. If Gitmo is not U.S. Territory, then how do you imagine the US military governs and controls the base? The entire base is under a perpetual lease from the Cuban government and has been since 1903. This means it falls under Federal and military control and as such all federal and military laws apply.

    And as for your claim of guards torturing 'prisoners', have you been there? Have you seen it with your own eyes? Or are you spouting off nonsensical propoganda you read on the internet? I have been there. Not once did I see a guard assault a detainee. I however, did see detainees assault guards. You might like the 'cocktails' these dirtbags like to throw.
     
  21. AIP5 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    #21
    I'm actually kind of confused by this. If the US is leasing land from Cuba, isn't that land technically US soil for the time of the lease?

    For example, the US helped Panama build the Panama Canal. As a result, they had the lease to that canal for a good few decades. Senator John McCain was born on that strip of land. But, because the US was leasing that land from Panama, he is claimed to have been born "inside" US soil.

    So, I'm genuinely confused about why the land the US leased in Cuba isn't counted as part of American soil.
     
  22. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #22
    Well the Justice Dept at one point was a W Administration puppet.

    I'm really amused by the people who are appalled at the idea of putting terrorists into a Stateside max security prison. It's like they think the Ts have super powers and when they assuredly escape will immediately run to the nearest mall and blow it up.

    I don't think Alcatraz is a viable location. You'd probably have to knock it down and start over.
     
  23. CHAOS STEP macrumors 6502

    CHAOS STEP

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Location:
    playing tiddlywinks with Kim Jong-un
    #23
    How does it 'work' then? If you're saying that it works as a black hole to hold people in limbo you might have a point, you might also have a point if you say that it works to generate more 'terrorists'.

    Why do you think that they are being held at Gitmo then? Why can't they be held elsewhere?

    Detaining someone for years on end with no trail is torture, and it runs against everything that America likes to say it stands for.

    If you were detained as such, you would be throwing you poo at the guards soon enough.
     
  24. thefnshow macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    #24
    terrorists were generated before gitmo was even around that's a poor justification for closing it down...it's so bad that terrorists gain on average 20lbs while they're there and they don't want to be sent back to their country...horrible
     
  25. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #25
    The legal theory to the contrary was one of the services provided by John Yoo while serving in the Bush Justice Department. It was selected as a detention center because the base falls under no US Federal Court district, whereas all Pacific bases, for instance, fall under the 9th Circuit. It is Cuban soil, as dictated in the treaty establishing the base, which leaves "ultimate sovereignty" with Cuba. Of course Cuba doesn't want us there, but the treaty also does not permit them to terminate it unilaterally. In effect, we are there because Castro cannot handle the repercussions of any attempt to drive us out. The theory was that Guantanamo was thus under the de facto administrative control of the Executive Branch, outside the reach of Congress or the Courts. The law applies to Americans there because they are Americans. For all others, it isn't so clear. There was precedent in the form of GTMO's use to detain refugees from Cuba and Haiti before they could reach Florida. It was America enough to hold them, but not America enough for them to claim refugee status. The same logic was to be used to keep detained Afghans from appealing their cases to US courts.

    Yoo probably knew this theory was ultimately untenable, but probably also knew, as it turned out, that it would take years for the Supreme Court to rule otherwise. By that time the prison was established, and the problem of what to do with its occupants fully entrenched. For this and other legal maneuvering to enable torture and indefinite detention in contravention of international law and treaty obligations, Yoo, along with five other Bush legal advisors, are the subject of an ongoing international war crimes investigation in Spain that began in 2009.
     

Share This Page