Comments:White House considers sending Guantanamo Bay prisoners to Illinois

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

And where is this money coming from? It seems that O'Bama is no different than Bush. He spends money we don't have and that is not his. Let him and his wife put up some of their own money to finance his nonsense. 14:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)14:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)14:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)24.127.251.58 (talk)

This is a great story i think Mr. Obama should do this if they are "acting up".

Anya

So we put billions into Gitmo and decided for PC reasons we don't want to have the terrorist there anymore since the World is offended about it. --KDP3 (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to be awakward, but that place contains no convicted terrorists, unless you count one or two of those military tribunal things as legit trials (to be fair, that driver dude would likely get convicted anyway, he basically confessed). Perhaps the States should prove they're terrorists. Some fair trials, and most of the world would shut up about the place. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What I'm worried about this. Is all the legal problems. From the waterboarding to being arrested without a warrant. I want to see them get their day in court but not in NY or dragging the 9/11 families into it. We should just let it be in Gitmo.--KDP3 (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Guantanamo lost its credibility; I doubt a lot of people would accept results there. The dangerous ones would get life anyways. The families wouldn't need to testify; cruel as it sounds, what they say is actually irrelelvant unless they want to put in a statement at sentencing. A related point: Some of the 9/11 ones are/were facing a war crimes trial, dunno what happened about that. War crimes... So, by default if they are guilty of such then their mates can legally hit military targets? Someone didn't think that through. The main point is, they'll knock at most a decade off the sentences for the torture, detention without trial etc. The kind of sentence a convicted terrorist gets in the States, that's nothing. They still got 50+ years. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama's political motives

Illinois voters won't hold this against Obama when he runs for reelection in 2012, but other states might. He made a wise political decision here. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

so what the tall's building is there its most likely not the most important so suck it up