May 22nd, 2009
04:00 PM ET

Is housing Gitmo detainees in U.S. prisons a problem for you?


File photo of the super maximum security federal prison in Colorado. The fortress-like super-prison is dubbed “Alcatraz of the Rockies,” and houses several terror convicts. “Supermax” is tightly controlled, technologically advanced, and designed to be impossible to escape. (PHOTO CREDIT: BOB DAEMMRICH/AFP/Getty Images)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Obama says some terror suspects from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility will be sent to U.S. prisons.

Despite opposition from Congress, the president is moving forward with his plan to close Gitmo by next January. He insists that he won't authorize freeing any detainees who would endanger the American people, but says some of these suspects will be tried in U.S. courts and held in super-maximum security U.S. prisons. The president says other detainees could be tried by military commissions and sent to other countries.

Congress has dealt President Obama a big blow by blocking funds to close Gitmo until he comes up with a detailed plan on what to do with the 240 detainees held there. Majority Whip Senator Dick Durbin is one of the few who voted against blocking the 80 million dollars. He says the U.S. can safely house these terror suspects just like we are already housing 348 convicted terrorists in U.S. prisons.

Durbin says Guantanamo has become a symbol and an organizing tool for terrorists; and it's not helping us win friends in the war on terror. He points out that we can't exactly ask our allies to take in these detainees when we're not willing to do the same.

Nonetheless Republicans continue to argue that the president's plan could endanger Americans. Former Vice President Dick Cheney says that President Obama's reversal of Bush-era detainee policies is "recklessness cloaked in righteousness" that will make the U.S. less safe.

Here’s my question to you: Do you have a problem with housing Gitmo detainees in U.S. prisons?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Terri from San Luis Obispo, California writes:
Jack, Instead of sending the convicted detainees to places like the "Alcatraz of the Rockies" - reopen the real Alcatraz. Let the inmates do repair work and clean the place up. Provide 3 squares a day (doesn't have to be gourmet) and necessary medical care. No bypass surgeries or kidney transplants, etc… No TVs and no air conditioning. Give them plenty of time to think about what America's freedom from terror means to us.

Ralph from Chicago writes:
Give Guantanamo back to Cuba and leave the detainees there. Castro gave us his detainees a few years ago when he cleaned out his jails; now it’s our turn.

Lance from Ridgecrest, California writes:
Yes, I am completely against this plan. This is all we need: trained terrorists housed with career criminals so they can pass on their warped view of the world and the country to malcontents... Couple this with the obvious instant engagement of the ACLU to release these terrorists into the public because we are ignoring their rights, and the country WILL pay a huge price for this stupidity.

Bill from Phoenix writes:
I’m surprised that we don’t see the current game here. The administration will return lesser-known detainees to their countries of origin and then ship the ones for whom release would be politically unsustainable to U.S. federal facilities, with the full knowledge that this will result in their release based on subsequent court orders. If they could have been detained in the U.S., that would have been the original disposition. Gitmo was chosen because it was outside the scope of all national legal systems.

Peter from Stockbridge, Georgia writes:
No, I don't have a problem with it. What I have a problem with is the gullibility of so many Americans that allows them to be ruled by the politics of irrational, illogical fear. Scare tactics are truly the only arrow left in the Republicans' quiver, but it continues to be extremely effective with some segments of our population.

D.M. writes:
I don't have a problem with them living in one of those Super Max Prisons. You don't think they'd "radicalize" the fine folks living there, do you?

Filed under: Guantanamo Bay • prisons
soundoff (300 Responses)
  1. Cheryl

    NO! We don't have a problem with Charles Manson or the Unibomber. We didn't have a problem with Jeffrey Daumer. Why do Congresspeople keep coming on TV shrieking that the prisoners are going to be released on the streets of America? The average American seems to be so much smarter than the average Congressperson and media. Obama has to continually give speeches to calm them down.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:38 pm |
  2. Jack - Lancaster, OH


    Not a problem unless they go to California and they are released by Arnold in order to save the State.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:39 pm |
  3. Kenny from Georgia

    Sure bring them. I gave them 2 weeks to live in our jail cells.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:42 pm |
  4. Karen

    Housing detainees in U.S. prisons is not a problem for me. May be for the detainees themselves. Remember what happened to the imprisoned mass murderer Jeffrey Dahmer?

    Buford, GA

    May 22, 2009 at 12:47 pm |
  5. Donna Wisconsin

    NO! Gates and Tom Ridge both say Gitmo should be closed and Cheney is wrong, wrong, wrong! If the majority of Americans thought diferently then Obama would not be President. The Bush Administration has a poor approval rating as it should. Our maximum security prisons already have terrorists in them. Com on! Our prisons are very safe and we need to get these men tried and move on. The world is watching.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:47 pm |
  6. Greg in Cabot Arkansas

    Makes perfect sense to me, put them in the recreation yard with some of our worst criminals. Let them stand face to face with our most violent offenders and I’ll bet they will wish they were back at GITMO where life was not that bad. I have every confidence that our criminals can whupp any criminal from the Middle East.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:48 pm |
  7. David in Natchez

    No problem, I would rather see them in U.S. prisons than our own soldiers for crimes committed under duress of war.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:56 pm |
  8. Mike Kalb

    Yes, I would have a problem with housing detainees in U.S. prisons! Keep them as far away from me as possible. Gitmo seems to be working well. Not broken, don't fix it!

    Oneida, IL

    May 22, 2009 at 12:56 pm |
  9. Cmore

    No it wouldn't

    May 22, 2009 at 1:00 pm |
  10. claire

    U.S. prisons are already a breeding ground for conversions to radical islam – the latest terror arrests in new york are further proof of that. so what harm is throwing one or two more radical muslims into the mix?

    May 22, 2009 at 1:01 pm |
  11. Joe Kent Island, MD


    I have no problem with the prisoners being tried and imprisoned within the United States according to the laws of our country. Prison camps of WWII were wrong then, and now. Americans demanded the camp closed in the last election, now its up to congress to act.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:04 pm |
  12. Donna, from Michigan

    I would not want Gitmo detainees in U.S. prisons. For those who do, I wonder if they would like to live next door to the prison that house them. Futhermore, I do not think the United States should spend more money so that these prisoners can have cable TV and all the other benifits that American crimals have.
    I say keep Gitmo open until the detainees become to old to harm anyone.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:11 pm |
  13. Jenna

    Do you have a problem with housing Gitmo detainees in U.S. prisons?

    Not a problem for me and I don't really understand why it is a problem for others.

    Roseville CA

    May 22, 2009 at 1:11 pm |
  14. Ken Brown

    I think we should do with them (those found to actually have been participating in fighting against US Troops) exactly what we would do with any other POW. That's what they are and all they are. The Bush administration attached this special classification of terrorist to them as some justification for treating them differently. The fact is, they were captured on the battlefield and there are rule established for handling POW's. We should follow them. If we find that we actually have someone in custody, directly connected to 911, I wouldn't have a problem with treating them differently but to sweep up a vast number of people and lock them away simply for being near the fight, as we did, does not justify us not following the rules. We may not be certain who's an insurgent and who's not but that's our fault for acting without thinking.

    Ken Brown
    St. Louis, Missouri

    May 22, 2009 at 1:13 pm |
  15. Carmen Woolford from Pt. Orchard, WA

    Why shouldn't prisoners of the US be housed in the US? Do we send our evil serial killers to prisons outside of the US? Did we send Manson to some tropical French prison island? And where did Bundy end up? Let's get real. Why do so many Americans think terrorists are even more evil than our homegrown serial killers? Remember, keep your friends close but your enemies even closer. On American soil we can keep a much better eye on these terrorists.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:13 pm |
  16. Dave, Brooklyn, NY

    This is not a real problem so long as none of those detained can benefit from the venue. If they were actually captured on the battlefield as genuine enemy combatants, that is people who were armed and killing American soldiers, they should not be able to be tried under the same laws as US citizens are when they are captured on US soil. If that can not be arranged and would not be tried under military tribunal statutes, then forget the whole thing – keep them at Gitmo. Otherwise I don't care what jail they rot in.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:14 pm |

    Yes it is- we have enough negative influancesin our prisons without have these terrorists negatively influence the normal prison population in a"terroristic" sort of way. What happens the the inluencees once they are released?

    May 22, 2009 at 1:15 pm |
  18. Peter Ratigan

    Just rename Gitmo to something else and the issue may go away ! Call it the "SuperMax seal tight facility !"

    May 22, 2009 at 1:18 pm |
  19. Ron Temecula

    Hi Jack:

    I think they should be housed at the US military prison in Ft. Levenworth, Kansas. And be kept out of the general population. I think state prisons would pose a high security risk to the country.

    Ron Temecula, CA

    May 22, 2009 at 1:19 pm |
  20. Gloria

    Not at all! Our Federal maximum security prisons have not had any escapes. Better we house the Gitmo people WHERE TORTUREOUS PRACTICES ARE NOT ALLOWED than practice any more RENDITION...Rendition is just as bad as torturing prisioners ourselves. It is just a way of hiding our cruelty behind another country's skirts. Chicken, unethical and WRONG.

    Reston, Virginia

    May 22, 2009 at 1:20 pm |
  21. Lizz

    It is appalling to me that we all complain when danger come before us and blame anyone for not doing anything about it, and yet we refuse to
    do our part to contribute on the solution like refusing to accept the prisoner from Gitmo on out backyard. Don't you trust your countrymen to bring this people to justice? Isn't that what we are looking for?

    May 22, 2009 at 1:24 pm |
  22. David Alexandria, VA

    Yes - who gets them? We had one lousy terrorist on trial here in Alexandria and it tied up traffic miserably. We all worried that some of his sleeper friends would try to break him out or nuke the Masonic Tower.

    Further, if they get on US soild, they are one step closer to getting constitutional rights. These are evil, evil people and I don;t want them on our soil under any circumstances.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:25 pm |
  23. Kevin in Dallas, TX

    The problem with housing gitmo detainees in a U.S. prison is that you're sentencing them to death. I seriously think the American inmates would kill them.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:26 pm |
  24. Rebecca in SC

    From the time that prisoners were taken to Guantanamo Bay, it was certain that the United States would ulitimately be responsible for dealing with them. Acts have consequences, and the consequence of our allowing the Bush administration to set up the prison is that we will have to bring some of the prisoners to the USA. The "Not in my back yard" people want to duck this responsibility, but the United States of America should always face up to its responsibilities. Also, the notion that our maximum security prisons can't deal with the prisoners is silly.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:26 pm |
  25. James

    Jack I dont think keeping them in US is prisons is a problem .However I do think they should be kept in solitary confinement while on our soil to avoid spreading thier radical views amongst other prisoners.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:27 pm |
  26. Tony from Torrington

    It's a problem for me because it's a political move, not a national security move, and it will cost us taxpayers more on top of the colossal spending spree going on in that insame asylum called Washington, DC.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:27 pm |
  27. Karl from SF, CA

    No, and it’s time to get past the fear mongering that has plagued this topic. The savings in maintaining these people, alone, would have to be astounding. I doubt we buy anything in Cuba, so everything they need is flown in at added expense. It’s time to get these people adjudicated and either in prison for life or sent back to their home country. They are no more dangerous than any other terrorist we have in federal max-prisons, and we have many. They are not going to be set loose on the streets, folks, get real. It’s time to close the books on the Bush-Cheney dictatorship and move on.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:29 pm |
  28. John

    Jack, there are 33 terrorists including Richard Reid and 9/11 terrorist Zacarias Moussouii ALREADY in the supermax prison in Colorado.

    There are hundreds of OTHER convicted terrorists in maximum security prisons around the country.

    I'm not concerned in the least about having convicted criminals housed in U.S. supermax or maximum security prisons.

    I -AM- concerned about these Republicans–including vice President Cheney–who would use fear and ignorance to exploit this topic for political purposes. It's insulting to those who work to keep our prisons secure–and its an insult to the intelligence of the American people.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:29 pm |
  29. James

    Jack I dont think keeping them in the US prisons is a problem .However I do think they should be kept in solitary confinement while on our soil to avoid spreading their radical views amongst the prison population- Queens New York.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:29 pm |
  30. Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

    Not a problem for me. I lived a mile from medium security prison for 10 years and there was never a problem. A maximum security is not only hard to get out of but just as hard to get in.
    If you are worried about an organized attack to free them it becomes difficult when there are only a dozen of them in 20 different prisons scattered across the country.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:34 pm |
  31. Ken In Pinon Hills, California

    No problem with that, in fact build a brand new federal prison in Crawford,Texas. named after George W. Bush. One can imagine a large welcome sign blinking brightly in neon, high over the main entrance to the facility, "Bring Em On"
    That's about as dumb as Gitmo.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:37 pm |
  32. Cathy from Houston

    No. The people who run our prisons are very capable individuals and, if you think about it, it is rather insulting for the Republicans to imply that they are not up to the job of handling the Gitmo detainees.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:37 pm |
  33. Nancy, Grand Ledge, MI

    I'm not afraid of them escaping. There's a prison in Montana that's begging for them. My worry is that a judge could order some of them released on some technicality. I'm sure they didn't receive miranda rights. Habeas corpus is another cause for concern. In reality, they are more similar to prisoners of war than criminals. Treat them as such, and abide by the Geneva Convention.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:38 pm |
  34. Tina Tx

    No. I want to know for sure that the ones who are still being detained are really guilty. I would hate to think that after all these years they have been held on trumped up charges.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:38 pm |
  35. Brad Mahoney

    Absolutely not. We're supposed to be the "Land of the free and the home of the brave." We can imprison the likes of Manson and McVeigh and we can imprison these hacks. Grow a spine America. Either we believe in the process of law or we degrade into an unethical criminal state – like the one we voted out in November...

    May 22, 2009 at 1:39 pm |
  36. Dan W.

    No problem at all. Super Max 'em. Put the ones you can charge under current laws we have and put 'em on trial. The ones who can't be tried we must find or make new legal status for keeping them in prison. I'm not a fan of holding people, ANY people, without some sort of due process but I understand these people can't be let go. This isn't like other war time situations with POW's and agreed upon rules and conventions to (hopefully) govern those who have been captured and their captors. This situation required new laws to go along with a new kind of war. We have amazing legal minds in America. They should be able to come up with a fair and just way to deal with this problem.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:39 pm |
  37. Denny from Tacoma, WA

    Not at all. It would show that we are actually more humane than what the facility at Guantanamo Bay represents. If we want to really succeed in improving our status with the rest of the world we really do need to shut Guantanamo Bay down period. It would also show the rest of the world that our President really does have the backing of the American people in accomplishing this task.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:40 pm |
  38. Jim Maxwell

    NO!!! If they are on American soil, and escape, we will recapture them. If they escape from Guantanamo, guess what, they will find friends in Cuba. If we imprison them in Arab countries and they escape, guess what, they will find friends in 5 minutes. If they are imprisoned in Europe, the chances are they will have friendlier courts than those in the US. And above all, every person has a right to be tried in a fair court of law. Without that, we do not know how many of the 240 prisoners are actually guilty of anything. We have only been told they are guilty by the Bush administration.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:40 pm |
  39. Lou Lento

    If we are not capable of securely incarcerating prisoners of any kind
    in our security prisons, then we as a nation are not capable of protecting
    ourselves at all, against anything, or any body. That tells me that the previous administration has not been able to make this nation safer at any level.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:41 pm |
  40. Bizz, Quarryville, Pennsylvania

    Jack I do not understand what the problem is housing terrorist in super Max prisons here in the United States? We already have terrorist in our prisons along with other people that committed some very bad things. The republicans are trying to find things that they can hang their hat on. They keep trying to make a mountain out of a mold hill. They should show more concerned about the prisoners in California jails that will be walking the streets because of budget cuts. These ex cons could easily come to Pennsylvania where I live. That scares me a lot more than a terrorist in a super Max prison.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:43 pm |
  41. Katiec Pekin, IL

    Absolutely not. Are the republicans saying our prisons are incapable of handling terrorists? Probably what they are worried about is that more information will be exposed about their support of torture.
    Gosh, if there have been attacks on GITMO I must have missed it.
    The republicans, as usual, are blowing smoke.
    Am so sick of them, Jack.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
  42. Gina

    I have no problem housing Gitmo detainees in US prisons. We house dangerous criminals there now. I wish Dick Cheyney would find his way back to that bunker he hid in for 8 years. His negative comments and constant fear tactic annalysis on every move the Obama administration considers is beyond "starting to get annoying".


    May 22, 2009 at 1:49 pm |
  43. Margret Emerson

    plan and simple no, we have had Charles Manson and his group of terrorists in prison for years

    May 22, 2009 at 1:50 pm |
  44. Nena in MS

    I agree with Durbin in that we cannot ask allies to house these terrorists because we won't. This is a cowardly act and is not winning us friends, to the contrary in fact. I don't want them here...but we have no choice. To conclude my remarks...I am just extremely grateful that we have them behind bars!

    May 22, 2009 at 1:50 pm |
  45. Frank from Peterborough

    Terrorists have one objective that is to strike fear into the Nation they target disrupting that Country's and it's citizens way of life.

    The Republican party uses fear as a means to get elected and keep citizens from focusing on their inept political platform and policies.

    Personally I would prefer rational thinking in that U.S. prisons currently house over 300 convicted terrorists so they won't have any problem with those others who get sentenced by the Judicial System for the crimes they have proven were perpetrated upon America.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:51 pm |
  46. William A. Ruzin

    Yes, this would be a huge problem for all of us. President Obama promises that none of the most dangerous Gitmo detainees ever be released if brought into US maximum security prisons. The problem with that is that the Judicial Branch of our government, if it becomes involved ( and it most certainly will, once these guys get attorneys) will trump any promises made by the Executive Branch. No one, not even the President, can predict what the courts will do once very clever lawyers start casting doubt on the sometimes thin evidence used to hold these folks. VP Cheney was very correct in his assesment of this issue.

    Weeki Wachee, FL

    May 22, 2009 at 1:55 pm |
  47. Jane (Minnesota)

    I only have a problem with it if a person is put in prison who isn't guilty of a crime. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty in this country??? For heaven sake if we operate by the "They might be dangerous" argument, then we really should lock up every person that has a restraining order issued against them because they might be dangerous. I think those people have historically proven to be more dangerous.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:56 pm |
  48. Mark in OKC

    Yes, I do! And anyone who has any sense should have a problem with it too!

    May 22, 2009 at 1:58 pm |
  49. Timothy in Texas


    If convicted drug lords and gang leaders can still not only run their operations from American prisons but grow their numbers, imagine what some of these Guantanamo prisoners would be capable of. Putting these people within earshot of the many mentally unstable people in the U.S. prison system will only serve to grow more home-based terrorists. That is why the FBI wants them kept in Cuba. I agree with the FBI, not President Chamberlain...errr...Obama.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:01 pm |
  50. John Webster, Aldergrove BC Canada

    Not one Jack. Keeping the detainees in Gitmo is a poke in the Cubans’ eye and a source of propaganda for the Islamic terrorists. If they’re to kept at all, why not on the home soil, the act is the question not the where. To house prisoners abroad speaks of illegitimacy and nefarious intentions and to house them on US soil would show resolution and soundness of the cases against them. And that irrelevant, hypocrite, has been Cheney must be speaking to himself about ‘recklessness cloaked in righteousness’ on this subject.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:01 pm |
  51. Joe CE

    The US took these people prisoner, Do we expect other countries to house our prisoners? – absurd. This is the same kind of twister thinking as those who believe totture to be a good thing. Torture in un-American cannot be relied on for credible result and even if it could, it is etically & morally reprehesible. We need to start taking resposibility for our actions. We hirer warriors – sending them to figth wars that we are exempt from. WE take prisioners and want to keek them out of the US. SICK.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:02 pm |
  52. Sandi , Oklahoma

    I don't have a problem with incarcerating terrorists here. We have prisoners safely put away here that probably make these guys look like wimps.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:03 pm |
  53. Marie Ontario

    There shouldn't be any problem Jack as all Americans have to do is wrap their houses in Saran Wrap as suggested by Tom Ridge of the Republican Party and all will be okay.

    The fact is the Republican's stating that Obama has endanger everyone by legislating gas mileage being increased by Auto Companies will endanger Americans because they will be driving smaller vehicles makes as much sense as their objections over keeping criminals in high security prisons.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:06 pm |
  54. Mike – Denver, CO

    I have no problem with moving them here to a SuperMax, but have a plan to do it. "We the people" are tired of handing out funds to concepts, we want solid plans and accountability.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:07 pm |
  55. Joanne from Medina

    Former Vice -President Cheney is usijng the same scare tactics used to get us into the Iraq war. There is no reason to believe the detainees can't be secured in US prisons or that somehow we are going to be less safe than we are now. Remember how we were scared into believing Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?and we followed like sheep into a horrible,devastating war. Cheney, in my opinion, has no credibility on national security issues. He has "cried wolf" too many times.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:09 pm |
  56. Greg Ontario

    No..because if they break out they can be shot on site as the terrorists they are. Why not get down to it Jack, it's really about the money. You offer some state the right amount of money and they say take them in a second.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:10 pm |
  57. Chad from Los Angeles, CA

    As long as they are extradicted to somewhere else when some US appeal or legal loophole determines they should be freed.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:13 pm |
  58. Louise Richardson

    No. If they are kept in appropriately high security prisons, what's the problem? These are not cartoon villains with super powers, they are just people who may or may not be guilty of the crimes they were arrested for. This notion the Republicans seem to have that these "foreign combatants" don't deserve American jurisprudence flies in the face of the principles this country was founded on. If they are found "not guilty", they should be returned to their own countries. If they are found "guilty" they should be imprisoned as need be.

    Austin, Texas

    May 22, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
  59. Michael

    Jack, what really troubles me is the ramping up of fear. Wolf Blitzer should be ashamed of the way he teased this story before a commercial break around 6p.m. eastern time yesterday. "Will Gitmo detainees be lining up in your back yard" is no way for a responsible news organization to present a story.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:15 pm |
  60. Mark, Bradenton, FL

    No our prisons are very safe. Jack the reason why they do not want them here is because they would have a right be officially charged and to get legal representation. That would embarass our criminals sitting in Congress since there would be not much evidence on these inmates. More torture stories would surface as well.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:16 pm |
  61. Tim in Texas

    "Recklessness cloaked in righteousness" is a great phase that could be used to describe a lot of things – for example, going to war in Iraq or Cheney's current torture tour. Let's think about who has said that keeping Gitmo open is dangerous to us because it is a recruitment tool for people who want to kill us – Jim Jones, Bob Gates, Chuck Hagel, John McCain, George Bush, all five former Secrataries of State, and the person we elected as our Commander in Chief. Please bring them here, and yes my "backyard" would be just fine.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:17 pm |
  62. Michael and Diane Phoenix AZ

    Absolutely not. We have some lovely locations for them...check out some of the state and federal prisons that are located in the desert areas, miles from civilization. If anyone remembers or reads history, we had thousands of German prisoners of war here during the Second World War.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:17 pm |
  63. Melissa

    I think they should be kept separate from other prisoners, but no, its not a problem to me. We have mass murderers, rapists, and sadists in US prisons, why would terrorists be any different?

    Whats the difference between housing Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols and foreign terrorists other than the country they're from? Though McVeigh has been executed, Nichols is still alive but in prison for life.

    Its no different.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:18 pm |
  64. Craig

    We are at war, and recent history shows that alienating people in the world plays a big role in defeat. Contrary to the former vice president's assertions, what the last administration was doing was leading our country to defeat and possible holocaust. As President Obama has said it is American values and respect for fair treatment and human dignity that impresses most people in the world, and gives us allies what is in reality a world war against terrorists. Closing GITMO just as soon as possible is essential.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:19 pm |
  65. Ryan, Galesburg, IL

    No, not at all, Jack. What's a problem is the Republican's insistence on burying our nations morals and money at Guatanamo Bay. The fear-mongering was voted out last November, along with their party.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:20 pm |
  66. george

    People are just plain silly. They listen too much from people like Dick Cheney, and live in fear. It must be a terrible way to live. We already keep some of the most terrible people in the world, and they are our own home grown criminals. Our own home grown criminals are much more dangerous. Be honest now, how long do you think one of the drtainees would last in San Quinton?

    May 22, 2009 at 2:21 pm |
  67. Alex in Wisconsin

    It doesn't matter if they are in a super max prison in NY or Guantanamo Bay. If housing Guantanamo Bay detainees is a danger to Americans, than I want the same people who oppose the move to lobby congress to move all murderers, other criminals with life sentences and members of American terrorist groups to Guantanamo Bay. Then maybe there will be some logic and credence to the "keeping Americans safe by keeping them there" argument

    May 22, 2009 at 2:21 pm |
  68. Kim W

    I have no problem with housing some in our supermax prisons. We can't very well expect our allies to take some prisoners in if we don't do the same. The republicans our going to yell opposition no matter what decison Pres. Obama make.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:22 pm |
  69. Helena, Clearwater, FL

    No. There is no difference between them and all of the other sadists, serial killers, torturers, rapists and other serious criminals already in out prisons. The only way I would differentiate is to keep them separate so they can't push their beliefs on other prisoners.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:22 pm |
  70. Ellen

    The only way I would not have a problem would be if the prison were located in Washington, D.C. Otherwise, they are fine where they are!

    May 22, 2009 at 2:24 pm |
  71. Kim W

    I have no problem housing some of the Gitmo prisoner in our supermax prisons. We an't very expect our allies to take them in if we won't do the same.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:24 pm |
  72. Deanna R from Fayetteville NC

    No, housing Gitmo prisoners in the US is not something I have a problem with.

    Not only will they not escape a supermax prison, their presence in US prisons will create jobs since more people will have to guard and care for them. If I were near a supermax prison I would say bring them here so that I can get a job too.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:25 pm |
  73. charlesfenderson

    Charles from San Diego...
    I dont have any problem at all with the Gitmo detainees in our prisons, however I do believe it will be the detainees who will have a problem. Lets not forget that Americans are in our prisons and are probably awaiting these terrorists to come so they can do some jailhouse rock torturing themselves. After all, some of our supermax prisons have family and friends who were affected by 9/11 and would love to at least, Waterboard!

    May 22, 2009 at 2:26 pm |
  74. Diane/Allentown PA

    Well obviously we haven't had a problem so far. It was fine for the Bush Administration to move them to facilities in the US, and now according to Sir Dick, we're in danger? Seriously?

    Cheney's turning into the old pop pop nobody wants at a dinner because he drops his teeth on his plate and farts.

    He needs to settle down somewhere, away from the rest of us.......

    May 22, 2009 at 2:27 pm |
  75. Chuck

    I have no problem with it whatsoever.
    In fact if they want to put it in my backyard, that's just fine with me too.
    But I would prefer that they ship all of these fear mongering nay saying
    idiots someplace else.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:30 pm |
  76. Jean B

    Absolutely it is a problem ! Gitmo is a perfect place for these less than animals ! We'll have major problems and terrorists will come into the Country to try and get them out of prison.
    Look at NY yesterday – the home grown ones are already a major problem.
    Jean B

    May 22, 2009 at 2:32 pm |
  77. Donna Colorado Springs,Co

    No, it's not a problem. The Super Max prison in Florence,Co. is not that far from Colorado Springs where we live, and I have always felt safe living here. The only problem we have right now is bed availability. All but one is occupied, and some shifting of prisoners and personnel or building a separate unit would have to happen to accomodate the prisoners. Any maximum security in this country could safely house any of the detainees and I really don't understand why everyone is whining about it. The Republicans are once again playing the terrorist card and trying to scare people......how pathetic!

    May 22, 2009 at 2:32 pm |
  78. Tom Mytoocents Fort Lauderdale Florida


    I'm always in favor of a plan versus going off half cocked. Otherwise War prisoners may be eligible for tarp money when they cross the border. I say have a plan and then read it and then vote on it. Put all your ducks in a row......

    May 22, 2009 at 2:33 pm |
  79. Kirven Dunham

    Jack, WY has a super max prison that hold some of the most dangerous people in the world. This will be ideal for this process.

    The main reason the Bush crime family do not want this done is because they know that several of those people did not do anything wrong. Think about it. A person held for 7 plus years without being charge with a crime and not being able to prove his case is not guilty.


    May 22, 2009 at 2:34 pm |
  80. Al, Lawrence KS

    News Flash...we currently have terrorists in our maximum security prisons. According to Cheney (and whatever voices he hears in his head) we should all be running for our lives, screaming in fear. Sorry Dick, that fear mongering stuff just doesn't work anymore.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:34 pm |
  81. Raj

    I was wondering when will you ask this appropriate question. This is America's war and hence America's prisoners. You don't expect any other country to house them. I am surprised why Cuba has not complained so far since they are the one's technically housing them.Logistically we have mastered the art of incarcerating the baddest of the baddest for life. What's the beef? Not only I don't have a problem housing them, I believe it's our responsibility to step up to the plate and show leadership to the world.
    Then and then the rest of the world may pay heed to our point of view.


    May 22, 2009 at 2:35 pm |
  82. Ray in Nashville

    I have no problem with it. The U. S. houses thousands of violent individuals in our prisons already, what will locking up another 240 do to us? Will it cause the terrorists to hate us? They already do. Will it cause the terrorists to plot attacks? They already are. Although there are Democrats who are against this idea, the issues is basically a GOP issue, so I have an idea, let's send them hunting with Dick Cheney. He still wants to be relevant.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:36 pm |
  83. Karen in CA

    No, Jack. I've had Charles Manson down the road in my back yard at San Quentin for years now, and he's never gotten loose. Now there's one scary dude. I'm more scared by Obama's plan to find legal justification for indefinite preventative detention than I am by having a terrorist at San Quentin.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:38 pm |
  84. don (in naples, florida)

    not for me, i am not in one. however, it may be a problem for the guards if/when the other cell mates might want to show some patriotism by knocking these guys off.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:38 pm |
  85. Samir from Florida

    Not at all. They are all humans and furthermore, almost all of them have not even had a trial. They had no chance to even try to prove thier innocence. I'm absolutly disgusted by our legal system. In our state of paranoia, we've turn from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent (if we feel like giving you a chance).

    May 22, 2009 at 2:38 pm |
  86. Annie, Atlanta

    No. Just keep them away from the Richard Ramirez and Charlie Manson types. Most of them could then become really dangerous.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:39 pm |
  87. Jason, Knoxville

    Yes, these are not U.S. citizens. They are enemy combatants. That means they do not deserve the same rights as U.S. citizens....they gave those rights away when they decided to try to attack our country.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:39 pm |
  88. Rick Medina,OH

    Not at all, Jack.

    Someone tell me the last time anyone escaped from a Federal Super-Max prison. I think the answer is NEVER. The smart play is to repatriate those where it makes sense, and place the remainder in segregated areas in Super-Max prisons. The count is way down - from 750 to 241. It makes a lot of sense to alleviate the expense of maintaining a separate prison. The land probably has a better use.

    Rick, OH

    May 22, 2009 at 2:40 pm |
  89. Chuck Smith / Brownstown, MI

    Not at all.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:41 pm |
  90. Chris D., NYC

    Hey Jack,

    No I have no problem w/ giving these terrorist a dose of America's brand of justice....in a super max prison for the rest of their unrepenting lives!!!! Lock em up, and throw away the key!!

    May 22, 2009 at 2:43 pm |
  91. Charlie in Belen, New Mexico

    I have no problem with holding "Gitmo " detainees in maxium security prisons in the United States. I DO have a problem with the fear mongers who equate this relocation with "turning these rabid dogs loose on the streets of small town America." Personaly, I feel safer from "terrorist" than I do from the "police state" mentality of the Bush / Cheney administration.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:45 pm |
  92. J. Weidenbach, NYC

    No, I do not have a problem with imprisoning detainees and/or criminals whom we have captured and are responsible for on US American soil. At least our guards are unlikely to take bribes to set terrorists free at home. Does Japan, France, Germany, Australia, etc. ask us to take their prisoners? How absurd we look to the rest of the world. If we want the world to think we have a justice system, we better start acting like we do. I won't comment on Cheney because it wouldn't be pretty, Jack.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:45 pm |
  93. Ralph Spyer chicago Il

    Give Guantanamo back to Cuba and leave the detainees their. Castro gave us his detainees a few years ago when he clean out his jails now it our turn .

    May 22, 2009 at 2:46 pm |
  94. lynn

    No, Are these so called terrorist superterrorists or what,I don't see why this is even an issue. They are playing politics again but this time the people are wide awake to the game playing. Are these terrorist badder than our terrorists.

    What are these politicians afraid of other than some of their voters. If any thing the terrorists should be afraid to go to our prisons with all of the nuts we have incarcerated. You all in the media just keep playing it up as though this is really,really, hard its not hard for the ones they can't place just change the rules like the republicans have been doing for years and years.

    Evidently, the congressmen and senators can receive some type of kickback or benefit otherwise they would be all on board because as we all know they aren't for WE THE PEOPLE. They are for their friends,family and neighbors in other countries as well as ours. However, if WE THE PEOPLE need something or state what we want on any situation the answer is always NO! Unless a republican says it seeing that you all in the media are afraid of the republicans....

    May 22, 2009 at 2:48 pm |
  95. Ron from SF

    This entire debate is absurd. If we house them in a Supermax, they aren't going anywhere. Also, there's an empty prison in Montana and the town it's in, is actively pursuing housing 100 of these terrorists. Like me, they'd rather have terrorists in their local jail, than sexual predators.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:52 pm |
  96. Bill in Michigan

    How is housing the prisoners at one maximum security facility vs. another increasing the danger to Americans? As of right now, Gitmo is, and has been, a symbol of american arrogance and abuse of power. Removing that symbol could only do us good. If you think about it, the arguement against moving them is really kind of short sighted and laden with manipulative fear. Sound familiar?

    May 22, 2009 at 2:53 pm |
  97. Will from San Jose

    The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world. We have 2.3 million people in prisons in this country. 1 in 100 American adults are currently behind bars. If there is one thing we really know how to do, it's lock people up.

    This whole debate is hype, political posturing, and misinformation. If the media focused on challenging the politicians from both sides with the actual facts of our prison system instead of allowing the sound bites to frame the discussion, this debate would already be over.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:53 pm |
  98. Harold from Anchorage,AK

    Not at all, Jack. We've dozens of uninhabited islands in our Aleutian Chain they'd be welcome to;some of which have natural central heating(active volcanos).
    They could Jihad to their hearts' content while dodging lava.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:55 pm |
  99. troy brown

    All this fuss if bringing Guantanamo detainees to us soil puzzles me.I dont think the American people realize how far our technology has advanced.These days our government agencies are planting transmitters in peoples heads and linking them to super computers using satellites.They can keep track of,and get all the information they want about individuals by listning to their conversations as well as reading their minds.Thereforethe question of whether our government should move war criminals to us prisons should not be an issue. Troy Brown, Lovell Wyoming

    May 22, 2009 at 2:55 pm |
  100. Pablo in Tejas

    Give us a break. We have plenty of high security places to put the Gitmo detainees. Leavenworth for a start. I favor Leavenworth first because their goof ball Senator needs a civics lesson about who runs the country and second because our military personnel could have easy access to the prisoners for study.
    Shoot, there is even a max security jail in a small Montana town that has more than 100 beds available and would be glad of the revenue generated. What with every other Montanan owning a deer rifle I don't see any of the detainees getting very far even if they did manage to escape. Montana would be my second choice.
    Third would be W's house over in Dallas. He created the Gitmo mess in the first place so I think he should help clear it up.

    Arlington Texas

    May 22, 2009 at 2:56 pm |
  101. Jasmine in Germany

    Not housing Gitmo detainees in U.S. prisons endangers Americans, Jack. I wish folks would stop reacting to "fear", look at the big picture, and heed the words of our wise President.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:57 pm |
  102. Larry, Ohio

    Jack,as long as these murderers and thugs are locked up,I really don't care where they are detained,how about Devil's Island or Death Valley!

    May 22, 2009 at 2:59 pm |
  103. Bill Grange

    I'm surprised that we don't see the current game here. The administration will return lesser known detainees to their countries of origen and then ship the ones for whom return/release would be politically unsustainable, like KSM, to U.S. Federal facilities, with the full knowledge that this will result in their release based on susequent court orders. If they could have been detained in the U.S., that would have been the original disposition. Gitmo was chosen because it was outside the scope of all national legal systems. If it had been possible to prosecute these thugs in the first place, that would have been the original disposition. This isn't really a political issue in the U.S., but it was used that way and now, there's a lot of learning going on in the administration.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:05 pm |
  104. Patty.D. Bristol, Pa.

    Dear Jack, No. Housing detainees here doesn't concern me. The sad fact is, we have the most imprisoned people in the world. Our SuperMax Prisons would serve just fine. The Republicans are using this to scare the American people. But then again, when isn't the GOP trying to scare us?

    May 22, 2009 at 3:05 pm |
  105. Dee, Colorado

    Not at all. Our supermax prisons are probably more secure than Guantanamo and have been successful at keeping our home-grown terrorists off the streets. Personally, I am more afraid of the home-grown variety that can maneuver easily within society before creating chaos..

    May 22, 2009 at 3:05 pm |
  106. Daniel Indiana

    I have no problem what so ever. We have had some extremely dangerous criminals imprisoned in American prisons over the years. We may have failed in rehabilitating prisoners, but we haven't failed in housing them securely. This is just more fear mongering from the right. As I've heard, fourteen percent have gone back to fighting America. That's a very good percent, when a much higher percentage of prisoners return to crime in America, proving the failure percentage of America's rehabilitation of prisoners. But then, merely housing prisoners like they do and letting them do as they wish isn't working to rehabilitate them. How mamy former POWs have returned to fighting the enemy after they returned to America? Or is there a gentleman's agreement that POWs won't fight again?

    May 22, 2009 at 3:08 pm |
  107. marlene

    Jack, This is no problem. There are already two states who have officials that have said it would house these prisoners. Sen. Levin, Michigan and the town in Montana (whose mayor and city officials have offered). I'll bet other high unemployment areas would be willing, if just asked. We currently have hundreds of terrorists in United States prisons, what's a few more? Marlene in Mich

    May 22, 2009 at 3:12 pm |
  108. Bill Grange

    I’m surprised that we don’t see the current game here. The administration will return lesser known detainees to their countries of origen and then ship the ones for whom return/release would be politically unsustainable, like KSM, to U.S. Federal facilities, with the full knowledge that this will result in their release based on susequent court orders. If they could have been detained in the U.S., that would have been the original disposition. Gitmo was chosen because it was outside the scope of all national legal systems. If it had been possible to prosecute these thugs in the first place, that would have already happened. This isn’t really a political issue in the U.S., but it was used that way and now, there’s a lot of learning going on in the administration.
    Phoenix, AZ

    May 22, 2009 at 3:12 pm |
  109. MIchael

    No. I don't know what part of "we are already housing terrorists here" that people don't understand. We are holding terrorists now and I don;t see why that will change if we hold more. It makes no sense to me Jack.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:14 pm |
  110. Diane, Barneveld, NY

    I have no problem. I haven't heard of any of the terrorists already in prison escaping and if our prisons can't hold them, what makes Gitmo any different? Besides, they are not terrorists until its been proven they are. Someone being mad at his neighbor and getting 5k from the US for saying his neighbor is a terrorist doesn't mean squat. I have a few people to turn in if our government will pay me 5k a pop.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:14 pm |
  111. Jay in Texas

    Of course not. Dick Cheney, the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress are just using the same old Fear Campaign that has worked so well for the Bush Administration in the past. If Cheney had his way, all these prisoners would be executed so they couldn't testify against him in his upcoming trial for torture and other war crimes.
    Brownwood, Texas

    May 22, 2009 at 3:15 pm |
  112. JS

    In the UK during world war 2, we had German prisoners who had flown bombing raids on us etc, and infiltrated England. They were in camps around us, no-one ever was afraid of them, in fact some of them actually asked to stay in our area after the war.
    an aunt, who was matron a a ladies land army hostel actually had some released to work in the farm, when they left and returned to Germany they wrote to her thanking her for the kind and humane treatment.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:18 pm |
  113. Chuck in warren, Ohio

    Jack: I don't see any problem with sharring all the finer things of US prison life with all these detainees. A Super Max sell will hold them untill they go to meet their maker.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:18 pm |
  114. David in San Diego

    Not at all. Gitmo is an international public relations disaster and a horrific reminder to all of the excessive zeal of the Bush years–and yes, our reputation among nations does matter to our national security. Only the "Bush was right" idiots like Cheney could argue that US Federal prisons are not suitable for housing these detainees until we can process them through the court system.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:19 pm |
  115. Pugas-AZ

    Let's get the politics out of it and house them in this country. What's another 240 convicts in the total prison population . They are probably no more of a threat than a great number of domestic felons. But we should get the trials going so we can either convict them or get them out of the country.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:19 pm |
  116. ken jefferson city mo

    Jack, no I don't have a problem with detainees being over here in our
    prisons for one thing we house terrorists now and for another if we can handle our dangerous people why not them, and it will improve
    our standing in the world.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:23 pm |
  117. lou

    I like the idea of housing them in military prisons. They are prisoners of our war on terror, so that is where they belong. As much as Cheney loves his military, he can't possibly believe the military doesn't have what it takes to contain their own prisoners.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:25 pm |
  118. Jackie

    No. At least we can keep an eye on them here.
    Chester, VA.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:28 pm |
  119. William

    As I see it no I see no problem housing Gitmo detainees in our prisons because they would be sent to the most max prisons in this country and they will be with people who did crime. Gitmo has made us look bad over the years and time that we close it. People need to stop being scary and let President Obama do what is right.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:29 pm |
  120. Lance Schumacher

    Yes, I am completely against this plan. This is all we need, trained terrorists housed with career criminals so they can pass on their warped view of the world and the country to malcontents. Can you even begin to imagine the potential danger of a mix like this. Talk about insanity, this is a prime example of the failure to think a situation through to its logical end. I believe we would be setting up a training ground for home grown terrorists. Couple this with the obvious instant engagement of the ACLU to release these terrorists into the public because we are ignoring their rights, and the country WILL pay a huge price for this stupidity.
    Lance, ridgecrest, Ca

    May 22, 2009 at 3:30 pm |
  121. dTerri


    Instead of sending the convicted detainees to places like the "Alcatraz of the Rockies" - reopen the real Alcatraz.

    Let the inmates do repair work and clean the place up. Provide 3 squares a day (doesn't have to be gourmet) and NECESSARY medical care. No bypass surgeries or kidney transplants, etc. There are too many law-abiding Americans not getting these needed medical treatments while we pay for inmates to be "fixed up."

    No TV's and no air conditioning. Give them plenty of time to think about what America's freedom from terror means to us.

    San Luis Obispo, CA

    May 22, 2009 at 3:30 pm |
  122. Beauregard

    Yes, I have multiple problems with it. Gitmo is on an island all by itself if sympathizers of terrorists decide to infiltrate it or the terrorists decide to attempt an escape. Remember a prison called Alcatraz that was suppose to be inescapable? Well it wasn't. Moving these terrorists to America is asking for trouble. Their friends and allies will come for them and when they do then any innocent Americans will be in their path. You have to move these people to and from court and that adds another escape risk. Why not try them on charges while they are at Gitmo and once tried dispose of them the way the court rules. These are not J-walkers or speeders they are terrorists and they are bent on fulfilling their mission to kill Americans. I don't see the point in making it any easier for them to accomplish their objective. Rehabilitation is out of the question.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:30 pm |
  123. JR

    Hello Jack, I do not understand why anyone would be afraid of having these terrorists locked up here in the U.S. We already have terrorists locked up here and NONE have ever escaped. I am insulted by the fear-mongering of some who want us to believe terrorists could become citizens or released to the public. Even if any did escape they would have about 300 million people, including myself who would want to settle the score. I say bring them on. I originally thought Gitmo was opened to PROTECT those cowards from us! When did we become so frightened?

    May 22, 2009 at 3:30 pm |
  124. Bernard Clark

    We have war criminals 'out and about' all throughout America; we can handle anyone! Bring on the terrorists; bring them on!

    May 22, 2009 at 3:34 pm |
  125. Julie, Houston, TX

    Is housing Gitmo detainees in U.S. prisons a problem for you?

    No, I have no problem whatsoever with Gitmo detainees in the U.S. prison system. No one has escaped from one of our Federal maximum security prisons yet – I'm sure they'd be adequate to incarcerate those from Guantanamo.

    Those claiming it's an issue have little faith in our prison system and the professionals working in them – or they're just fear mongerers. (I believe it's the later.)

    To be honest – I live in Texas, and I'm more concerned with the Mexican drug gangs than I am about incarcerated "terrorists".

    Houston, TX

    May 22, 2009 at 3:36 pm |
  126. Rob

    No I don't. A maximum security prison on US soil should be more than equipped and capable to hold these terrorists and suspected terrorists. What message do we send to the world if we lack the courage of our convictions to execute due process and treat these people different than any other prisoner? Under what circumstances do we give the prisoners any advantage or cause a disadvantage to the US by putting them in a prison where they are the minority of the population?

    May 22, 2009 at 3:36 pm |
  127. Judy from Canada

    The US prisions would probably be Paridice compared to Prisions in the countries where these peoplecome from. If an American, Brit, or Canadian were inprisioned over there. Would they be treated as well as Gitmo???

    May 22, 2009 at 3:37 pm |
  128. Jason, Knoxville

    Yes, these are not U.S. citizens. They are enemy combatants. That means they do not deserve the same rights as U.S. citizens….they gave those rights away when they decided to try to attack our country.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:37 pm |
  129. Karen Ducote

    No Jack, We live in a society where we supposed to prosecute criminals,all criminals,for any and every crime they commit. Our jusitice system is pretty good considering other countries. If we can`t prosecute and make sure those in Gitmo who are guilty serve their time,and if our country can`t handle putting those criminals behind bars,what country can? We might have been safe from terrorists after 911,but were we safe from ourselves?
    Myrtle Beach

    May 22, 2009 at 3:37 pm |
  130. Barry - Albany, NY


    No, and I really don't have a problem with the Constitution or the Geneva Convention either. Despite the fear from the mongrels, we are already holding terrorists, domestic and Jihadist alike, at taxpayer expense quite securly for decades.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:38 pm |
  131. Terry from North Carolina

    Close Gitmo and send all the prisoners to the desert in Nevada, Arizona or New Mexico.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:38 pm |
  132. Simpliticus

    Wasn't prison building one of the biggest industries this country can look at in its budding recent years of social development? How is it that with this legacy and plenty of prison space, this country cannot find the means or better yet the audacious and brazen intent with which to house these supposed potential lock-ups? What is the difference between men who have killed in the United States and are housed in prisons with men who have killed or would have liked to have killed American troops outside of the United States? Seems to me to be one and the same and with plenty of prison space to go around, perhaps in my back yard is not so difficult to swallow after all!

    May 22, 2009 at 3:39 pm |
  133. Jennifer in Winnipeg

    Jack, these people in Gitmo are 'detainees'. They have not been charged with any particular crime. They are being detained because they 'may' have knowledge of terrorist activity against the U.S.A. In order for them to be transferred to U.S. prison facilities, they would have to be 'charged' with a specific crime, at which time they would be entitled to legal representation, which would give them the same rights as any U.S. citizen when it comes to the law. Now that's scary. I think Mr. Obama should change the rule of law at Gitmo to ensure that 'torture' is abolished and then keep the detainees right where they are. It seems to me that changing the rules at Gitmo, would be a lot smarter than endangering U.S. citizens by transferring these nasty types to U.S. prisons.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:39 pm |
  134. Lynn, Columbia, Mo..

    No, I have a problem with not housing US war criminals in our prisons. By the way, neither have been convicted yet.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
  135. J Atlanta

    It's a problem for me in that it was yet another poor decision by the Bush administration that we now have to contend with. We obviously will be paying a high price for the Supreme Court's decision to elect Bush for years to come.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
  136. Lauren

    Jack – I'm so glad you asked.

    At first I was against bringing detainees into U.S. prisons. Now, I am fully behind the notion. Here's the reasons why:

    1. They will be in true isolation and will not be able to communicate with coconspirators. Supermax prisons are in complete isolation for 23 hours in a day. There has been more evidence to show that detainees have plotted more in Gitmo than when they were free.

    2. We can try them under U.S. laws. In Gitmo, we cannot try detainees under the full laws of the U.S. This way, we will be able to serve justice in our terms.

    3. Gitmo has indeed become a negative symbol for torture at the hands of the U.S. I and many others believe that detaining them in U.S. prisons in isolation will not be torturing and will prevent and communications. We must not torture and we must repair our positive world relations.

    4. Closing Gitmo will save tremendously on costs.

    Jack, the U.S. can absolutely bring detainees to our supermax prisons and this will be much more effective.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:43 pm |
  137. Andrew from Oregon

    I don't see any problem. They would get put into maximum security, where no one has ever escaped from. And if they get moved to the US, taxpayers will get jobs instead of the military.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:44 pm |
  138. Laurel

    As long as they're held securely until tried, I don't care where. Terrorists from abroad can meet with terrorists here and intimidate each other in the prison yards. Perhaps they'll learn about each other's cultures and develop a bit of empathy, which would be good for everyone. Multicultural day in the prison yard. Wouldn't that be nice?

    May 22, 2009 at 3:44 pm |
  139. roger dowdle lockhart, tx

    Just put them all in the same wing, in individual cells with minimal rec .time (individually, with no contact with others, no mail, no outside communication, except possibly supervised visits with their lawyers, (so no info can be passed), and there should be no problem.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:45 pm |
  140. Jon-Colorado Springs, CO

    The courts are not going to allow Quantanamo and unlawful detention to continue so we have to find another comprehensive strategy to deal with these dangerous detainees. If there not escaping from the make shift set up in Cuba there is no way they will escape a US prison. If we can isolate their connections to the outside world in Gitmo then we can isolate them here. Were Americans, no one can do it better. Right?

    May 22, 2009 at 3:46 pm |
  141. Cori

    This is a shared global responsibility. As long as other countries follow suit, then I have no problem.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:46 pm |
  142. Ray Lawson from Danville, VA

    Yes I do have a big problem with that.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:47 pm |
  143. T in the Big D-Dallas TX

    I do not get all the hoopla surrounding this. As usual, the GOP is stirring up fear. Aren't they already under US control in Gitmo? Seems that the supermax prisons are more than likey secure than Gitmo anyway. Personally, I'd send them to Alaska or Arizona...for obvious reasons.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:47 pm |
  144. moe highland village tx

    Send them to Rikers Island prison ...general population...and everything else will work out ...

    May 22, 2009 at 3:48 pm |
  145. Cindi

    No, Jack. I live near SuperMax in Colorado and we have never had any problem with any of the heinous characters that are current'y incarcerated there. Why does Congress insist on perpetuating the myth that these inmates will be part of the local community????

    Westcliffe, CO

    May 22, 2009 at 3:48 pm |
  146. Audrey Glover West Point Ga.

    I have no problem housing Gitmo detainess in U.S. prisons and I will tell you why.Super-maximum security prisons already house348 convicted terrorists in the U.S along with other hard core murderers and the likes of those who have committed outrageous crimes. Are not super security prisons erected for super criminals from which no one has ever escaped? Let us not let the Republicans and those Democrats who are are opossed put fear where reality and logic should be taking priority. Just another detterent that Congress does as not to get their jobs done in an intelligent way.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:48 pm |
  147. Zack Canton michigan

    they are made for a reason, to hold people who commit crimes, are people afraid of them escaping? thats not going to happen, no need to be paranoid everybody, so no its not a problem to me, and it shouldn't be to anybody, it doesn't cost more money, or hurt a thing, it might actual save some money! witch we badly need.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:49 pm |
  148. Rich

    I am a republican and honestly, I do not have a problem with the "idea" putting them in prison in the U.S. But with that being said, I also question WHY close it at all. The idea that leaving it open makes us "less" safe, or increases terrorism,. or is a "stain" on America is just plain boloney. Personally, I can't imagine a better place to put them then where they are now. However, Obama really painted himself in the corner on this one, but if they don't get it done by the end of this year, its not going to happen..... 2010 is an election year.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:49 pm |
  149. bobwhite, Ks

    No problem for me! But many of us common folks, the voters, have already forgotten "Yes we can." All these recent years of fear-mongering by the GOP have taken a tremendous toll on our ability to function as a society. The US can function, now, only as a no-bid, secret corporate business that exploits us. We have lost our ability to innovate, create, farm, manufacture and build. We can't even create non-exploitive wind farms, here, because all the infrastructure is built overseas. Everything is done for us by other third-world societies. Now, we want them to take our prisoners because we are afraid (risks) to do it ourselves.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:49 pm |
  150. ANGIE IN PA

    No Jack we have Many Dangerous Criminals In Our Prisons Now maybe some that are even Worse then the detainees!

    May 22, 2009 at 3:50 pm |
  151. Jim G in NorCal

    No, and I'm frankly tired of Cheney and his ilk using fear to try and score political points. It went on for eight years, it continued yesterday and I'm frankly sick of it. Americans don't scare that easily.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:53 pm |
  152. Julie

    If our maximum security prisons cannot handle the terrorist suspects from Gitmo, how are we protected from the murderers that are housed there? It is just illogical to think that we cannot house those individuals in our most secure prisons. The argument is that they will convert others to their way of thinking. Can anyone say "SOLITARY CONFINEMENT?

    May 22, 2009 at 3:54 pm |
  153. Steven

    let them stay in our max pins. Then they may actually wish they stayed in their. I do expect to see allot more hostel fighting toward the Gitmo's orphans once inundated with the American population. Their will need to be more regulations to watch these new groups and who they meet and who they turn….. There are many aspect people are not thinking of and it may be another costly lesson.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:55 pm |
  154. Ed in FW


    There is not problem with housing some here. We have never had a single excape from a Fed SuperMax prison. This is another play on our fears by the bankrupt party of NO.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:56 pm |
  155. Rick

    Gitmo must be closed, as it is a source of hatred from abroad.

    I suggest using eminent domain and build a maximum security prison on Dick Cheney's ranch in Wyoming.

    Rick, Toronto

    May 22, 2009 at 3:57 pm |
  156. Roy - Chicago

    Jack, perhaps the GOP is confusing the two hour finale of 'Prison Break' with the actual prison in Guantanamo!
    I see no issue with trying the prisoners under our own U.S. systems and housing them in U.S. prisons.....it has worked for a few million other people just fine!

    May 22, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
  157. Lynne Parker in N. Augusta, SC

    I just have one question: what have they been convicted of?

    May 22, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
  158. Jet, Montana

    The detainees from Gitmo as you call it, will be eaten alive by the really bad dudes that are in the super max type places. Bikers and gang bangers of all kinds. These country folk from Afghanistan and where ever have never seen people as big or as mean. Finger eaters, mother rapers you name it. Charley Manson types in every cell salivating and foaming at the mouth waiting for their chance at one of the terrorists. I feel sorry for the terrorists in a way. They will become the new sport in the prisons, hunting season on the terrorists. And they do not have a chance. Hell ever the guards will be hunting them.

    May 22, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
  159. Vinnie Vino


    Not at all, I don't plan on meeting any of them here or there...

    Central Islip, NY

    May 22, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
  160. zago

    This is silly to see president, senators and former public servants bickering over something so lame. A jail is a jail even in Heaven. The rest of the world sits back and laughing at this silly argument: America cannot find a way to house roughly 200 men. Give them to me and half of the money spending on them. I will take care them, and trust me, they won't constitute any danger for America and the rest of the world.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:01 pm |
  161. Matt from Toronto, Canada

    You Americans took it upon yourselves to arrest them, now they are your responsibility and YOU have to deal with them. Put them in your prisons, start rehabilitation programs similar to Saudi Arabia or Sweden. They're yours to deal with. You can't just snatch these people up from fighting against your invasion forces and then just keep them locked up in Cuba with no plan on what to do with them after you grab them and throw them on a plane.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:03 pm |
  162. Bryan from Georgia


    Why do people have the notion that these detainee's are going to move in next door and crack open a beer on their deck? I don't understand why people don't think that our prison system couldn't handle these detainee's. By the way – are these detainee's really any worse than some of the serial killers (and worse than that) that are in our prison system right now?

    This is just another bunch of hysteria that the Republicans are trying real hard to drum up again! I hope that the American Public isn't stupid enough to fall for that again!!!

    May 22, 2009 at 4:04 pm |
  163. Tony-Kentucky


    What's the big deal? Congress keeps acting like there aren't high risk detainees in American Prisons right now! Keeping them here isn't the problem, its the fact that if we keep them here then we have to actually regard the Constitution!

    May 22, 2009 at 4:05 pm |
  164. Star Auburn Ohio

    we should be more worried about the ports of our country and what is being brought in that is not inspected. Lord know's what is in the other 95% that they do not scan. they could be getting the stuff in the country and waiting for another attack in 2011

    May 22, 2009 at 4:05 pm |
  165. RAY

    No. Jack I live in the Mexico and American border town of El Paso Tx. With all the drug wars here , should I be afraid of that? Now ask me again if I am afraid of someone in chains and a 5×9 cell?

    El Paso Tx.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:05 pm |
  166. Alan

    I think that Obama should go through with closing Gitmo, since he promised it during his campaign. I understand where the Senate Dems are coming from blocking the money, and I agree that Obama needs to have a plan of what to do with the current detainees. However, it seems to me Obama is smart enough to do this on its own. At least Congress is attempting to do its job of Checks and Balances on the Executive Branch.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:06 pm |
  167. Ann from Charleston S.C.

    I have no problem with housing Gitmo detainees in U.S. prisons. Why should I? No one has ever escaped from a maximum security prison. They need to be kept somewhere. We need to clean up our act so we can regain our standing among our allies and we also need to stop acting like we are afraid of the terrorists.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
  168. Liz, Windsor, Ontario, Canada

    I don't see any problem in housing Gitmo-detainees in "super-max" U.S. prisons; after all, over 30 terrorists are already housed there, and there are absolutely no problems whatsoever. Guantanamo Bay MUST be closed, hopefully by January, 2010, and this would be the best way to ensure ALL detainees that should remain in jail stay there.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:08 pm |
  169. Lou from Rapid City, SD

    Absolutely not! Put them in maximum security prisons from whicb no one has ever escaped. We would actually be more secure and safe with them in max prisons than leaving them in Gitmo.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:09 pm |
  170. Marilyn Smith

    It's no problem for me. I have confidence in Obama's intelligent way of handling problems and this is no exception.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
  171. Kelby, In Houston Texas

    No, it is not a problem and I wonder why our elected officials think that there is a problem. I believe that there fear is irrational.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:11 pm |
  172. Joan Southern Illinois

    No It's fine with me. In prison, they are not going to hurt anyone.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  173. douglas gengler

    jack this is a huge problem.... when george brought them on american soil (which gitmo is) he never thought about what to do when the wars ended and that is why he handed this mess off to our new president. what would G.W. have done with them if both wars had ended 2 years ago. anyone with a better answer step up.

    douglas knoxville arkansas

    May 22, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  174. Charmaine

    Put them in the power prisons here–at least we KNOW where they are at that point.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  175. JB

    Jack, add one more to the number of respondents who are not concerned with Gitmo detainees going to US prisons.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  176. Zoe Deol

    As a Michigan resident, I would have no problem with having GitMo detainees transferred to our prisons. As a matter of fact, just release them on the east side of Detroit and see how far they get!

    May 22, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  177. Ray Callahan

    Bring them here. They violated US and we should deal with the mess we created. Get them a fair trial and lets move on. Enough all ready.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  178. Floyd (Meridian, MS)

    I want to know what's so wrong with bringing the Guantanamo inmates into America. They'll be in a supermax high-security prison, people.. it's not like they'll be living in your subdivision and playing with your kids.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  179. Kerry Florida

    What kind of silly question is that? We have been housing murders, serial killers, rapists, and we have over 300 terrorists convicted and sentenced in our US prisons now...What would the fear-mongoring Republicans have to say about that, "send all violent criminals out of the country."

    Only the weak-minded and stupid Americans would agree with them...It's petty and dumb to be against bringing criminals into our system which by the way no-one has ever escaped our maximum security prisons unlike the 500 Bush and Cheney let go...

    May 22, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  180. Collin S. in Glenwood Springs, CO

    No Jack, they are already here, Moussoui and Reid are right here in Colorado, and it has never been a problem. This is nothing but more Republican Smoke and Mirrors. I'd worry more about the serial killers (Ted Bundys and Jeffery Dahlmers) in our penal system.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  181. Michael

    How could someone be concerned about an alleged terror suspect in their backyard but not a murderer or rapist? This is another non issue forced upon us by republicans when what matters are fair trials and fair due process, not to mention that whole failing economy thing.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  182. Lynne Schumal

    Gitmo detainees should go to a supermax prison. They do not mingle with the general population at a prison like that. So, there is no threat of 'influence' of extremism.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  183. ray

    we have the facilities to house these people whats the problem

    May 22, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  184. V Wood

    Yes I have a big problem with it. What if one would get off on a technicality with one of our ultra liberal judges with empathy?

    May 22, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  185. Linda M

    Not at all concerned! Bring 'em on! Let's show them what a Federal super-max prision is all about! Lock them up there and throw away the key - just like we did with Charlie Manson!

    May 22, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  186. Jared

    we just had 4 terror suspects arrested, detianed and brought to US courts in NY , a terror plot stopped by the FBI with out using enhanced entorrogation either, Republicans need to stop the feer mongering politics

    May 22, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  187. Joel from Northern Virginia

    Jack, let's lock them up in our supermax prisons and throw away the key. If these prisons are safe enough for our worst killers they will be safe enough for these foreign terrorists.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  188. Zach

    Not a problem. We house some of the most dangerous people in my state.....Colorado. Not a single person has escaped one of our Federal prisons and I don't see it happening. Canyon City is a escapees' worst nightmare. Deep, dark canyons with little support to live more than a few days...at that.

    Bring em here to Colorado. We'll make sure they never see the light of day ever again. Just like Richard Reed and Ed Kazinzky. Both SuperMax prisoners. Lock em up, I don't have issue with it.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  189. Debra Hasan

    The gitmo detainees are pretty similar to the ceo on wallstreet. They should go to prison also. Go Barack

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  190. Stefan- Hayward, CA

    Of course not. We here in America have maximum security prisons. They aren't going anywhere. When many people supported President Obama's decision to close Gitmo where did they think they prisoners would go? President Obama is doing the right thing!

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  191. Eric VanSickle, Cedar Falls, Iowa

    Jack, I agree with you about the supermax prisons. In fact, there is one prison that may be turned into a supermax in Montana that sits empty right now. The mayor of that town told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann two days ago on "Countdown" that his town are willing, ready and able to take the GITMO detainees, up to 100 of them, and it will produce jobs. That's right, Jack. Bringing the GITMO detainees to domestic prisons won't hurt us, as they'll be locked away, but with a bit of dignity, but we Americans will reap the benefits of additional jobs! In this economy, how can we not afford to not close GITMO?

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  192. Kathleen Clair

    I have no problem with a supermax prison in the U.S. housing the Gitmo detainees. What does scare me are the terrorists roaming freely around the U.S. now plotting against us.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  193. Diane Dagenais Turbide

    Hi Jack,

    Indeed, I also heard on the news about the number going up for D. Cheney. I also heard on the same news that it is normal to get a small boost from ex officials coming back but in the end that boost is temporary and certainly not sustainable just like his stand on torture is not sustainable!

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  194. Julia Ruedas

    No, I think we should have them here in the US. Keep your friends close and your Enemies closer...

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  195. simon

    Any locality that accepted federal funds to build a max-security prison should not be allowed to refuse to take terrorists as prisoners. Shut the prisons down if they won't accept the prisoners that are sent there - that should stop the blustering comments from their representatives in Congress.

    upstate new york

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  196. danielle

    I do not have a problem bringing terrorist here to serve time in jail and have actual trials,, Cheney is still trying to scare everyone, cant someone please make him go away, and take Limbaugh with him, I f we can handle the likes of Charles manson and others we can handle a few guys wearing flip flops.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  197. Justin W

    If Terrorists hate America, Why would We Bring Them Here?

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  198. Bob Ploehn

    No problem here. I have a problem with the Chicken Littles in Congress who say these detainees will infect our federal prisons with revolution, riot and religion (Muslim). Take those politicians back to Fantasy Island where they belong.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  199. Rocky (Kentucky)

    NO !!!!! stuff 'm and cuff 'm and throw away the key, please, lets move on !!!!!

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  200. Annoymous, from Ohio

    Jack, I find it utterly ridiculous that state representatives are scared of housing these detainees. It's important for America to realize that these people are suspected terrorists, and have no more of a chance of "breaking out" of prison as average Joe who lives in America. These people don't have super powers, they are humans. Our states have excellent high security prisons, and I say there is no reason not to make use of them.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  201. Jared

    This absolutely does not concern me at all. Gitmo is just like a U.S. prison, but outside the U.S. It's just more money for the country to keep a prision running outside the country just to call it a "detainee holder." Oh brother. Plus, it is less likely that extreme tactics will be used inside the U.S.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  202. rick may

    not a problem for me. the gitmo terrorists are criminals, right? that's what prisons are for.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  203. Steve Wunderley

    Are these terrorist suspects supermen? Are the U.S. prisons so leaky that these guys are just going to walk out? I'd rather have these guys in a prison near me than Charles Manson and his wannabes. This is just another Republican temper tantrum trying to make people forget just how God-awful the 8 years of the Bush Administration was.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  204. Daniel

    If the Democrats that cried for the closing of Gitmo are the same democrats that wont house the detainees in their state(in super max prisons) then maybe the democrats should stop whining about one or the other. This is what they wanted, they just dont like the consequences of this decision.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  205. Bobby, London Ontario

    With the famous and dangerous criminals still alive in prison, I feel confident these terrorists will not be a problem. The only problem I see with sending these extremists to prison is the beatings they'll receive from other inmates. They won't influence others in the prison, they won't be alive that long.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  206. Hunter

    Go ahead, a prison is a prison. Only difference is less torture.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  207. matt.benzor san bernardino,ca

    "NO" they could even build one in my backyard maybe I"ll get a job there.This backyard claim by the republicans is what they been doing to the american public for last 8 years its fearmongering by the powermongers

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  208. Rick from Portland

    Jack, it seems like the perfect solution to me. If it was good enough for the Unabomber, Terry Nichols, Gotti, and all the other most dangerous Americans who ever lived, why not use them for terrorists? Opposition to this idea is simply NIMBY hysteria gone wild, fear mongers whipping up the public. If I have chosen to live in a community which houses a SuperMax facility, do I seriously feel less safe because now there are a few more bad apples in the escape-proof barrel? What are all of these people who oppose this so afraid of? And more importantly, if they don't support this idea, what would they suggest instead?

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  209. Steve

    It doesn't bother me if they are moved to prisons on our soil. In fact, I kind of like the idea of building a new maximum security prison near Crawford, TX.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  210. Ken Sprague, Sr.

    Why crowd prisons. A more fitting placement is Cheney's basement.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  211. Brad

    Of course moving them to Supermax isn't an issue for me. This NIMBY talking point that the Republicans are pushing in is idiotic at best and fear mongering at worst.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  212. Phillip

    Incarceration is something that America excels at. We normally fight to extradite terrorists to this country so we can put them in our prisons.

    The successful fear mongering campaign on this "issue" is amazing. It's an incredibly stupid thing to argue about, but everyone seems to be buying into the ridiculous premise that these terrorists are supermen that can escape supermax prisons and wreak havok in the US.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  213. Sigrid Wyly

    From what I've seen on 'Lockup', prisoners in Supermax facilities get one hour a day out of their isolation cells to spend alone in a concrete playpen. This would probably make recruiting new terrorists a bit of a challenge. Let's send them to Hardin and get on with our lives.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  214. Andy, San Francisco

    This is ridiculous. Democrats have complained about Gitmo for years. Now the President is doing what they all want, and they're trying to stop him. What do they want to do with the prisoners? They act like we'll be releasing these guys onto the streets with a thousand bucks cash and maps of all our government buildings. President Obama summed it up best when he pointed out that no one has ever escaped from one of our maximum security prisons.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  215. Jim Schroeder

    No, and all prisoners should be sent back to their respective countries if not found guilty.Most of these are the best prisoners money could buy, not that they have done anything.If you we want to keep Gitmo open, then do so, and send our congressman there so they cannot do any more damage to this country.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  216. Elizabeth Watkins

    No, it's not a problem for me. And I don't think any accused terrorists will influence the prison population. On the contrary, unless they are sequestered from the population, I think they will be in great danger from the other inmates. Nevertheless, I support bringing these detainees to the US and giving them proper legal recourse.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  217. Jerome Stonebraker

    No problem at all. Get them out of Guantanamo and close that place down.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  218. J. Fraser

    Absolutely not! This fear mongering has got to stop but the bigger question is: Why is the new media hanging on to every word from a man who ;is no longer in power (thank god) and who's only agenda is to undermine the President. It's disgusting

    May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  219. Damon in Salisbury, NC

    Jack, The better question might be;

    "How do our current prisoners feel about having a terrorist cellie?"

    They're the only ones who have any risk from bringing them here.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  220. Vi Wilkes

    Hello Jack,

    I have every confidence that our maximum security prisons can house terrorists. I also believe as human beings, terrorists have the right to fair trials on their guilt or innocence. How can we set an example for the world when our ethics on human rights are in question. I am ashamed of what we have done in GITMO.

    Vi Wilkes
    Chicago, IL

    May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  221. Josh from Chicago

    The people who say no to terrorist in their back yard are just cowards. Who will answer the country's call to service. No state want's the country's trust?

    May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  222. Abel P. Ochoa, McAllen, TX 78501

    Do you have a problem with housing Gitmo detainees in U.S. prisons? Of course not, Jack. We come from the land of the free and the home of the brave. Americans will never be scared or afraid when we have guns at home.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  223. Rita Jones

    Cannot possibly see how housing these terrorists in our supermax prisons could be any problem at all since they already contain terrorists with no difficulties.
    Some comment we would have taxpayers supporting them in these prisons.....who do they think is paying to keep Gitmo (an extremely bad blemish on the US) open?

    May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  224. Suzie

    Gitmo needs to go and all that is associated with it. This place is feeding the ill will felt by many around the world about our double standards. We need to stick to our Constitutional Law and the standards of the US Military Code. Keeping them in Super Prisons is safe. We aren't going to just turn them loose. Whether they are tried by military or other Gitmo needs to go.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  225. Andrew - San Marcos, Ca

    I have no problem with it at all, seeing as most of these "detainees" haven't been charged with a crime. Most were rival farmers and leaders picked up by Pakistani and Afghan warlords for bounties paid by the US. Give them a fair trial and if they are guilty, house them in our SuperMax prisons where nobody has ever escaped.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  226. nancy miller-houck

    a simple NO. Leave Obama alone and let him do his work without all this bluster. But isn't this all for the media so that they can have a xontroversy..after all they try to put on the two most devisive figures on every show and it is getting worse..If Obama has to focus on all this how can he run the country.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  227. Phil

    Mr. Cafferty,
    That's what these prisons are for. Those who would attempt to threaten our country and our citizens must be punished according to our laws. These detainees are no more than thugs and criminals that have no respect for human life. They wear the label of Terrorist with pride and attitude; the price for that in our country is imprisonment. Lock them up and throw away the key...in our country where we know we can contain them.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  228. Diane Dagenais Turbide


    I'm sure glad you are asking this question since it means people have to answer if they have confidence in the work done over the years by all security officials! I would assume YES!

    May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  229. Eric - Columbus, Ohio

    Absolutely not. I'm more concerned with some of the american's we have in prison today. It's not like there going to a county jail or city jail. There going to a Federal High Security Prison. I say go one step further and close the base as well. The Bay of Pig days are over.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  230. Morgan

    I've got no problem with bringing them to the US, though as terrorists aren't most of them guilty of bombing civillian targets therefore guilty of murder. Instead of housing them at $125k a year lets give them the trials they want convict them and then execute the ones found guilty. They get their day in court and we don't have to live with them next door, the rest we can drop off where ever we got them from.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  231. Ashley Battle

    Two things. First, no problems in housing then in SuperMax prisons (State or Federal) during trial or imprisoning them there after conviction. Second, their lives would be more prone to forfeit in the general population of any US prison, it is more likely they would need to be kept in protective isolation, which is how I would prefer to keep them locked up, anyway.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  232. Ed Tant in Athens, GA

    Nota problem for me, Jack. After all, there are two things this country does well: Sending people into space and putting people in jail. Don't believe the myth of country club prisons. I haven't seen any Wall Street brokers trying to pole vault over the walls into Attica or San Quentin.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  233. John, Fort Collins, CO

    I see no problem placing all the Gitmo detainees in U.S. prisons. They should all be officially declared prisoners of war and held without trial until the War on Terror is over. This would be no different than the way German, Italian, and Japanese POW's were treated during World War II.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  234. mary jane Barenbaum

    Just put them in a max prison, closed Gitmo and get on with the real issues of this country. Health care reform which the Blues are already trying to kill, and energy issues that will make new lasting jobs.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  235. and one

    Maximum prison is maximum prison. What does GITMO have that any other max security prison doesn't? Let them spend a few years with Compton's most notorious.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  236. Chris Jones

    Yes it is a HUGE problem. If we take them and for whatever reason they are not tried (intelligence issues for instance) and they are released and their home countries refuse to take them back, then they are here to stay. They can apply for all rights that we Americans have, green cards etc. These are people who were committed to destroying us. They will also try to influence others in our society, to follow them and their terrorist ideals.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  237. Mike in Quebec

    You know GITMO was/is terrible for the US since it shows to the rest of the world that America doesn't want to deal with it' own problems on its on soil but rather on a communist countries soil. Gitmo should be closed and the land given to Cuba.

    As for the terrorists a Max security prison in the US is just fine..... what is wrong with people? It's not as if they were sent to a MAX prison in... wherever that they are going to plan anything any different than they are actually doing at GITMO. HUMAN RIGHTS. It's something the US has lost since 2001.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  238. Marv

    I have NO problem housing detainees here in the US. The idea that it makes us less safe is absurd. The mere fact we have them detained at all, no matter the location, makes us less safe. If having them detained encourages or provokes another attack, it matters very little where their actual location is – inside or outside the country. The critics are flat out wrong on this one.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  239. MGrant, TN

    Thank you Jack for asking the common sense question. I have no problem with closing Guantanamo, nor with imprisoning terrorists in federal maximum security prisons. Before yesterday I was somewhat in the middle on these issues, then I heard logic and reason from a president who is a Constitutional lawyer contrasted with fear mongering and name calling from a man who got every issue related to the Iraq war wrong. Didn't the country vote to get rid of this guy in November.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  240. john O

    No, it appears to be the most sensible thing to do. We have a prison in montana that can house all of them where they can be properly handled.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  241. Charlie

    Jack I absolutely do not have a proble with it. Holding them in the U.S. does not mean letting them walk loose on the streets. They will be locked up like every other prisoner and everything will be fine. You could keep them in my home town of Billings, MT for all I care as long as they are behind bars.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  242. Debbie, Florida

    Of course not, Jack. In fact, I think we should build a supermax prison in Dick Cheney's backyard. They way we kill two birds with one stone. We take responsibility for the Gitmo problem and Cheney's fear level remains at code red.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  243. mary polleys

    YES, I have a problem with housing these people in U.S. prisons. They are already in a maximum security place. Leave them there. Do NOT spend millions more creating another place within the U.S. Obama was elected because of his personality, not because of ill-advised ideas like this.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  244. Diane Dimond

    You are completely missing the point, Jack. Will they ever escape from a supermax prison? No....but they will spread their form of hate to every disenfranchised inmate in the prison. While the ex-Gitmo guy will never see the light of day the prisoners he preaches his anti-american message to likely will get out some day.
    the four Muslim converts just arrested in New York for trying to blow up synagogues and shoot military planes out of the sky were recruited in prison. Wake up, Jack.

    Diane , Nyack, New York

    May 22, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  245. Ben

    No problem with putting detainees in supermax...Close Gitmo...My only disagreement is not giving them an independent judicial review, not a jury trial..just an independent judicial review to validate the continued detention.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  246. M White

    Truthfully I'm amazed that the Congress would block this, do they really expect that they can just leave these men at Guantánamo?
    At some point in time there will be normalized relations between the US and Cuba and then the lease of Gitmo will be up.
    Also these are prisoners of the United States! No place else is going to take them!! Man up Congress and just deal with it

    May 22, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  247. Josh from Chicago

    Gitomo is nothing more than drift wood and chicken wire. Our supermax prision will do just fine.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  248. Gene Loza

    I have been in maximum security prisons, I have seen them from the inside. Including medium security prisons. They are safe and secure enough to securely house the detainees. The problem as I have seen it for years is NOT whether or not they are incapable of escaping. The problem to me seem s to be more that other terrorists would find reason to now make that prison, that city or any other city in the continental U.S. a target for more terrorism. KEPP the detainees in Gitmo!! Keep them away from the the U.S. or other countries. Nothing has happened there, i.e. terrorism, it is working, let them be sentenced and for time to wear on, 3- 4 more years and then release them to their homes if they have earned it.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  249. Mary

    I certainly do feel uncomfortable placing the terrorists in the US. I think Gitmo is a perfect place for them! Don't close it.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  250. Will

    Of course it's not a problem. It's constitutional because most would likely receive a fair trial and it's unlikely any terrrorists would not be found guilty because of the overwhelming evidence against them. It makes us look like cowards if we can't keep our own prisoners on our own soil. Housing them on an island we have no diplomatic relations with is just another symbol of imperialism. Gitmo has remained a recruiting tool for terrorists ever since "enhanced interrogation techniques," and the President recognizes the moral reasons to close it.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  251. Dennis


    The problem is not the terrorists in prison; the problem is the terrorists released into our general population. What about the two dozen or so Chineses that a Federal judge has ruled must be released into the USA. Or, what about those released because of a 'technicallity' at trial. Nobody has said that all the GITMO folks are going to be in prison.

    Old Hickory, TN

    May 22, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  252. Nancy, Tennessee

    Detainees in a prison are not the problem. Released detainees on American streets is a major concern. I doubt that whenever these detainees get their day in court that they will be sentenced to life without parole. When we release them, who is going to watch them so that they don't preceed to carry out whatever terrorist plot that landed them in jail in the first place. Many of the terrorists have no concern for life, not even their own.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  253. Tim

    The problem as I see it is that the Muslims have been recuiting and converting blacks and gangs in prisons for years. Does anyone remember Casius Clay? Look at the characters in New York City bombing Jewish Temples the other day. Since when do Black people have a problem with Jews?

    Why do we want to bring these people into the midst of people who want to hurt society and let them recuit?

    The transportation of these prisoners is not the problem.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  254. Rob in Alberta

    As the biggest and greatest jailers in the world the US should have no problem housing these untried detainees. It is a shame that politics is getting in the way of doing the right thing to take the world view of the US closer to its former glory under the leadership of Obama.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  255. Marc J. Yacht

    Gitmo must close, it is an embarrasment and signifies Buch era tactics that may well result in inditements of Bush officials, right up to the top.
    We are completely capable of housing criminals, terrorists, POWS, and drunks within our own prison system. The right of due process is a fundemental right in our system of justice. Obama is right, the nay-sayers are the naysayers. We are where we are currently because of them.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  256. Mick

    Exporting all our problems to the rest of the world makes us appear lazy and inconsiderate. We created this problem, we need to have our noses rubbed in it until we clean it up. Bring them here.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  257. bonnie hires

    Hi jack...yes, I do have a big problem with housing terrorists with US criminals....what if we find out later that it is unconstitutional, or other countries feel that we cannot detain war criminals this way..then where would they go....their own countries don't want them..keep GITMO open indefinitely and stop worrying about what other nations think...obviously, they don't want to fix the problem...they just want to criticize the US; what else is new....why don't we just let them all lose in Cuba and let Castro take care of them...we can just shut it down, and cut off the food and electric and faciiities...by the way, Cheney did NOT "Mumble" as you say

    May 22, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  258. Barbin

    No prob bringing Gitmo detainees here. Gov. Schwarzenegger said he was going to sell Alcatraz. We could employ Californians by putting the detainees there. Or, build a federal prison in southwest Virginia for the detainees and bring jobs to that area.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  259. Gene in Florida

    Lock 'em up! I worked for Illinois Dept of Corrections. There is a brand new max. (not super max) security prision without hardly any prisoners at Thompson, Illinois. The State built it and didn't have the money to run it. Move all the detainees to the Thompson facility with no other inmates. Let the feds pick up the tab. Illinois needs the money and so does the little community that bet the farm on an un-used or under-used prison.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  260. Jen

    I'm okay with them coming into the US. If we can't house them here then I guess we really weren't safe for the past 7 years under Bush. I'm probably more afraid of a "convicted" serial killer then a "suspected" terrorist.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  261. Paul

    Hey Jack..
    Considering the US houses more inmates per-capita than any other country in the world, I'd say we should be experts at it. Perhaps Dick Cheney would suggest we buy more duct tape and plastic sheeting and wrap up the SuperMax Prison these "detainees" will be held at for a little more security. Thanks

    May 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  262. David

    I do not understand why people have such a problem with this, we build prisons in order to house violent individuals. If Darth Vader has such a problem with this he can put them into one of his man sized safes in his house. Trust me, nothing will be able to get out of it and he can use them as target practice when he runs out of friends...

    May 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  263. Carl Wake

    I have no problem with sending the detainess to SuperMAX prisons at all. Bush was always touting that "We are a Nation of Laws" yet he chose to disregard many of those laws when it comes to Gitmo. The least we can do now is get back on track with regard to the law and close Gitmo, and try these detainees in accordance with the law, and place them in SuperMAX facilites.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  264. Melinda in San Diego

    Short answer: no I don't have a problem housing the terrorists. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer, right?

    Long answer: I think that when Government Officials state that the terrorists are too dangerous to house in the USA, we are telling Alqueda that we do not have the technology or capacity to properly detain their militia. It tells the world that our resources are inferior to Alqueda's foot soldiers.

    The other reason we should house the most dangerous criminals in the US is because we have shown the world that when we do it in dark tunnels on foreign soil, our military result to terrorizing the prisoners. We need checks and balances; otherwise we are no better than "the enemy."

    Thanks Jack! Keep doing a great job!

    May 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  265. Benjamin Steubing

    While many may argue that closing GITMO may be a bad idea they have no idea how wrong thay have to be. These men and women are dubbed "Terrorists" because of their association with radical groups, but how does that make them any more dangerous than a gangster who ends up shooting his girlfriend and going to prison for it. While they may or may not be dangerous people they are no more dangerous than any of the people in our prisons.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  266. Steven

    No not at all. It will not effect our everyday life's if they where in prison's here. We have the worst of the worst in our prison's right now, what is the difference if we where to take our terror suspects that WE captured and place them in our prison's? After all, we did capture them. My only problem is that I believe that they do not deserve the rights of USA citizens, But they are human and I guess that they deserve rights to.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  267. Bill, California

    Obama thinks in principle, not in practicality. If these guys get here and are tried in liberal courts such as the Califonia 9th, the evidence could be thrown out and they could be released among us.

    Even if sent home, many will return to jihad.

    Guantanamo is working fine -leave it alone.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  268. brian phillips

    I have no problem with housing prisoners here in our prisons. I think that is what they are for. As for the other prisoners of war, they get detained as all prisoners of war. You get released when the war is over. Keep up the good work Jack. Keep Wolf on the straight and narrow. Brian

    May 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  269. wang

    actually there's no problem, here are some things should come in mind.
    This terrorist can easily organized their plans of terrorizing the US. Visitors are allowed their messages and plans can be easily send to their colleagues and can develop a plans. Too early to judge will see after 4 years if there are no terrorists attacks happnd in the US soil.

    But closing gitmo without plan for the prisoners is just stupid...

    May 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  270. Justin

    Why would I care? We already have the craziest of the crazies here behind bars. What we should be concerned about is why why Cheney is not behind bars. All of this yapping from the right is just a diversion to keep the attention off the last administration.

    Los Angeles

    May 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  271. Jonathan from Atlanta

    I have absolutely no problems with housing detainees at supermax prisons. They would not have access to other prisoners, so I have no worries about "radicalizing" the population. There has never been an escape from a supermax, so I'm not worried about them entering the general US population. I do wonder, has anyone who's complained about "paying for them to live in our prisons" done a serious cost comparison with keeping them offshore? We may even save money, not to mention the goodwill that we'd get from closing a prison camp that's off of US soil.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  272. Chris

    As a federal correctional officer, I don't have a problem with the inmates from GITMO coming here, however, someone should do a little homework on this issue first. The current Admin/Max at Florence is full. There is no room for anymore inmates at this facility and it is the only one of its kind. It takes a minimum of four years to build a facility such as this – that is if we have the money. We barely get funded enough money to run the prisons we currently have and its just a matter of time before something dire happens to those of us who work with these very dangerous inmates. Don't forget us staff!!!

    May 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  273. Patricia

    No problem whatsoever. Some ask, would you like to live next door to a prison that houses these people? Personally, I wouldn't want to live next door to any PRISON. The prisons are there, I don't have to live there. What a stupid arguement.

    We house some pretty vicious characters in our prisons, and they are homegrown. A few terrorists shouldn't be any problem. They can't escape from these max prisons.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  274. Eric

    If these people are charged and convicted of crimes against the United States, then why would we send them to another country for imprisonment? I believe that it is hypocritical of us to have our enemies sent off site. Would we accept prisoners from Romania or Bulgaria or France? It is our own responsibility to charge, convict, sentence and imprison them on our soil.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  275. Regan

    I have no problem housing detainees in the U.S. I trust our government to watch and guard these threatening persons more than a foreign ally. What is the difference between a killer, a rapist, and a murderer? They are all threats and want to hurt people, American or not. The term "Terrorist" is used by Republicans to make them much more horrible than a serial murderer. Cheney is the real terrorist with his off the wall, medieval policies. Lock up the terrorists and put them under our watch and I'll feel safer than sending them to an out of date prison in Spain or Saudi Arabia. Super Max prisons didn't get their name because they had better amenities.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  276. Ian Perry

    I have absolutely no problem with bringing the Gitmo detainees to the United States. If our supermax prisons are capable enough to hold the worst murderers and rapists in our country, how come our prison system would suddenly collapse when faced with locking up Gitmo Terrorists? How often do murderers escape from supermax prisons? Do the terrorists have a secret escape plan up their sleeve that they are waiting to utilize only once they are on American soil? If they could escape, wouldn't they have escaped from Gitmo? cmon!

    May 22, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  277. yemi

    I wonder why there's so much fuss about President Obama keeping Gitmo occupants in super Prisons accross the the country. I have never heard of an escape of any inmate in one of these prisons, hence keeping them under lock and key in one of these facilities is pretty safe, i believe.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  278. j obrien, missouri

    Absolutely not. We already have terrorists in prison in the U.S. If any of these detainees are found not guilty, they are not citizens of the U.S. and would be turned over to INS for return to their country, right? I see no possibility of these detainees running around in our cities. I'm so tired of folks in the government now or who have been in the government in the past trying to scare the life out of me. Stop it already.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  279. Julianne H

    At the heart of this discussion, we have to recognize that we broke international laws in addition to many of our own. If we are to regain our credibility in the world's eyes, we need to accept responsibility. I don't know if we are talking about terrorists who are a direct threat to us, or innocent people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but we MUST make this determination by trying these people in a proper court and be done with it. We have a federal prison in my home town of Tallahassee, FL. It is not a "super-max" facility as far as I know, but I have no problem with having some of these prisoners moved to my back yard.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  280. Don

    A "supermax" can hold even a "super terrorist"... while it might help our image in the civilized world, it is naive to say that by closing GITMO helps squelch terrror recruiting. Do you think terrorist recruiters suddenly say "hey they closed Gitmo so those USA guys aren't so bad anymore"? No. They will convince recruits that the "brothers" locked away in the basements of supermax prisons are still being tortured. Released prisoners who want to go back and join the fight will spread the word they were abused. So I don't buy that part of the argument that it helps our cause.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  281. Dawn, Portland OR

    There is an empty prison just a stone's throw from my house. The county built it, then couldn't afford to staff it, so it is just sitting there gathering dust. If it brings much-needed good jobs to the area, I say go right ahead, put them in my backyard.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  282. Keith McKay

    No, I do not, and the reason this is such a hot political issue is that the former Republican administration is trying to keep the better more livable prison cells for themselves. And if Gitmo is empty they might be required to take residence there.
    Sorry, I have still dilutions that there really is justice in America.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  283. Bill McGuire

    Bring them here. Try them, convict them or set them free.
    The American tradition and the reason so many have died to defend our freedom rests in our ability to Internationalize human rights.
    The republican party is again making us less safe by showing that our ideals are nothing but propaganda.
    Dick Chaney is a disgrace to our ideals

    May 22, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  284. Chris

    I don't have a problem with us housing detainees in maximum security prisons, despite the fact we seem to have trouble containing our own criminals–are you listening Dick Cheney?

    May 22, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  285. Timm in Georgia

    Don't have a problem with it.This is much to do about nothing. America boasts the worst criminals in the world and the best prisons in the world, surely we can hold a few third world, second rate ideologues in them. I do have some concerns about closing Gitmo because where would we put the really dangerous criminals like Cheney and Rove?

    May 22, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  286. Gary Wagner

    We should leave them @ Gitmo Jack, and have Dick Cheney pay for it.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  287. Joe Cammarano

    If we can't house the terrorists in our super-max prisons, then we have no right to try to be world leaders. The Republicans are trying to throw any stumbling block they can at the new Administration. Perhaps Cheney would be for housing the terrorists here if the prisons were turned over to Halliburton.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  288. Rick

    No not at all, but then again, I know superman was fiction. These detainees cannot knock down concrete walls or bend steel bars with their bare hands. Nobody has every escaped from a super max prison. Dick Cheney maybe selling fear, but I aint buying.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  289. Suzy

    Jack, they can have a whole prison for themselves in Montana. The advantage to that would be they could not recruit other prisoners to their cause. The community would like to have them for jobs it would provide.
    Sounds like a win,win situation.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  290. Darrell Francis

    Bring them on,it's the only way we're going to clean up that mess down in Gitmo.Every one deserves a trial,that's the american way.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  291. Virginia from Iowa

    No, I don't have a problem with housing the detainees in U.S. super max prisons, as long as steps are taken to make sure some civil liberities group can't find a way to get the sprung.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  292. Farrell Sacramento, CA

    Not at all! Every prison guard in this country should be outraged at Cheney's claim that they are not able to properly guard these additional detainees when we already have hundreds like them serving out their sentences in various locations at this moment.

    The republicans just don't seem to get it, the country has grown up and the politics of fear no longer works.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  293. Don (Ontario)

    NO! What do you think a prison is for? Supposedly they are all bad guys on the inside. What difference does it make what kind of bad guy.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  294. Bob

    No. Turns out we are already housing 33 international terrorist in the United States. Many of them are in a federal prison in Florence, CO. This is just the usual Republic blather about nothing, while more Americans lose their jobs, homes and health insurance. The Republicans don't have ideas so they criticize the President.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  295. Catherine

    No, Jack, it will make me feel MORE secure because at least we will know where they are and have control over them; if sent overseas we lose track of them, or host countries do, and many eventually reappear in terrorist camps. Its plain common sense for us to control our enemies by keeping them under our own lock s and keys.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  296. Drew, Milwaukee

    No problem whatsoever. However, we should worry about any insecurity stemming from incarcerating these people on US soil AFTER we address the illigality of holding them indeffinitely without trial or appeal. we are currently fighting to defend a constitution that we only selectively apply.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  297. Anthony ukazu

    No,they are prisoners and a prisoner is a prisoner no matter where he is kept.Infact,they should be scattered all over the world so they wont have access to organise but when they are kept together,they have access to organise and have power.Mind you this is global figth against terrorism.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
  298. Karen in Waterford

    I have no problem housing Gitmo detainees here in the US. In fact I'm all for refurbishing and reopening Alcatraz just for them. We could also reopen Eastern State Pen for them. I'm sure that we could accommodate them somewhere.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
  299. T. Hougen

    I live in Colorado and I say bring 'em on.

    I guess when it comes to our responsibility for the detainees we arrested(?) (or just illegally abducted?) I personally am not a nay-saying Republican't or a scared-y Democat.

    OUR supermax prisons can hold the worst. When did America become so flinchy?

    May 22, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
  300. Missy

    On the Gitmo issue. I for one do not want these people brought into our prisions. . I don't want them in our country to start with.

    Change the name of Gitmo and establish a new way of dealing with them that is acceptable to all. But don't bring them here.


    Hudson, Florida

    May 22, 2009 at 4:28 pm |