Thu May 2, 2013, 10:32 AM

Recursion (56,343 posts)

What should a country do with a prisoner it has itself radicalized?

I'm thinking obviously of the prisoners in GITMO that we can't find a country to take in.

Grant for the sake of argument that we're talking about prisoners who were entirely free from wrongdoing when we shipped them to prison (this was the case for some of them)

Grant for the sake of argument that they now are angry enough at the US to help advance terrorist plans against us or countries deemed too close to us.

What do you do at that point? Pericles told the Athenians that "this empire was wrong to grasp, but dangerous to let go of"; what do you say about that argument?

11 replies, 910 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

11 replies	Author	Time	Post
What should a country do with a prisoner it has itself radicalized? (Original post)	Recursion	May 2013	OP
What does America do with with the people	G_j	May 2013	#1
Well we sure don't have a good answer for that, either (nt)	Recursion	May 2013	#2
that's what I was thinking	G_j	May 2013	#3
Let 'em out. Then just sit back and wait.	Robb	May 2013	#5
Isn't Glenn Beck building a compound somewhere?	Recursion	May 2013	#7
It's too bad Whedon's Dollhouse closed up.	randome	May 2013	#8
Well, there is an upcoming Mars mission, I hear.	randome	May 2013	#4
We had to shop around the Uighurs to like 20 countries	Recursion	May 2013	#6
Send them back to their country of origin.	FarCenter	May 2013	#9
In most cases they won't take them, or US law forbides us from returning them	Recursion	May 2013	#10
Send them back anyway	FarCenter	May 2013	#11

Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu May 2, 2013, 10:37 AM

G_j (40,193 posts)

1. What does America do with with the people

it releases from its criminal factories? (the federal prison system)

Reply to this post

Response to G_j (Reply #1)

Thu May 2, 2013, 10:37 AM

Recursion (56,343 posts)

2. Well we sure don't have a good answer for that, either (nt)

Reply to this post

Response to Recursion (Reply #2)

Thu May 2, 2013, 10:40 AM

G_j (40,193 posts)

3. that's what I was thinking

I know the Rs in particular will never go for the Gitmo prisoners being taken in here in the US.

Reply to this post

Response to G_j (Reply #1)

Thu May 2, 2013, 10:44 AM

Robb (39,665 posts)

5. Let 'em out. Then just sit back and wait.

Because with a deliberately high recidivism rate, business will always be booming.

I figure that's the plan with Gitmo, too.

Reply to this post

Response to Robb (Reply #5)

Thu May 2, 2013, 10:48 AM

Recursion (56,343 posts)

7. Isn't Glenn Beck building a compound somewhere?

An idea just struck me...

Reply to this post

Response to Recursion (Reply #7)

Thu May 2, 2013, 10:51 AM

randome (34,845 posts)

8. It's too bad Whedon's Dollhouse closed up.

We could mind-wipe them then imprint them all with Glenn Beck's personality.

"I am Glenn Beck."
"No, I am."

Eventually even Glenn Beck would doubt his own Beck-ninity.

(Um, guess I shouldn't be cracking jokes about this. I'll stop now.)

Reply to this post

Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu May 2, 2013, 10:43 AM

randome (34,845 posts)

4. Well, there is an upcoming Mars mission, I hear.

Seriously, I don't know the answer. We need desperately to close Gitmo and stop force-feeding people.

OTOH, if they are desperate enough to go on hunger strikes, maybe we should repatriate them and ask their governments to keep an eye on them for us.

And then hope for the best.

Reply to this post

Response to randome (Reply #4)

Thu May 2, 2013, 10:45 AM

Recursion (56,343 posts)

6. We had to shop around the Uighurs to like 20 countries

I forget who eventually took them but it took Secretary Clinton threatening to cut off all of their aid if they didn't take them. And those are people that pretty much everybody agrees were innocent going in.

Reply to this post

Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu May 2, 2013, 10:52 AM

FarCenter (19,429 posts)

9. Send them back to their country of origin.

Reply to this post

Response to FarCenter (Reply #9)

Thu May 2, 2013, 10:55 AM

Recursion (56,343 posts)

10. In most cases they won't take them, or US law forbides us from returning them

Many come from countries we can't legally return them to because we have a reasonable suspicion that the regime would torture or kill them.

Others come from countries where that isn't the case, but those countries have stated they will refuse to let them back in.

It is, in a word, FUBAR.

Reply to this post

Response to Recursion (Reply #10)

Thu May 2, 2013, 11:00 AM

FarCenter (19,429 posts)

11. Send them back anyway

Many come from countries we can't legally return them to because we have a reasonable suspicion that the regime would torture or kill them.

Change the law. What their country does to their citizens is not our problem.

Others come from countries where that isn't the case, but those countries have stated they will refuse to let them back in.

Put prisoner in capsule, attach parachute, put capsule and parachute in drone, and drop off prisoner over country of origin.

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)