I know I am stupid, but what is the difference between keeping these prisoner in Montana and keeping them at Gitmo?
Either way they are imprisoned. Does anyone think that changing their location will make Amnesty International any happier.
Right now the prisoners are in a beautiful location with great climate, Montana gets colder than a witches breast. ( Or Hillarys if that makes a better point)The Jihadi's wont like that.
The reason the United States is catching hell for keeping these people is the fact that we are keeping them. Holding them without benefit of trial.. Not where we are holding them. Amnesty International will be on our ass for holding them in Montana a week after they are moved. Amnesty International wants these people freed, but even they dont want them in their country. Prison guards , Montanan's dont know what they are askling for as these Muslims throw feces and urine at them, spit on them.
Gitmo has been built and trained in cooking their food and kissing their Muslim butts, and is the best place for them. Bringing them to this country doesnt change the basic reason they are imprisoned, it doesnt change the basic reason we are catching hell for having them. It doesnt change anything but their location and it wont work to quiet International terrorist lovers.
If we are going to give them all a trial , fine do it from right where they are Gitmo. If found guilty how does bringing them to a prison in the United States change their imprisoned status. Leave them at Gitmo. Compared to prisons in the US, Gitmo is a vacation spot.