ABC, CBS and NBC all led Wednesday night with the Senate's overwhelming 90 to 6 bi-partisan vote to withhold funding for the closing of Guantanamo and block any detainees from being moved to the U.S., but ABC anchor Charles Gibson was uniquely flummoxed: “What's the problem here?...We have terrorists in U.S. prisons, so why not the guys from Guantanamo?”
Gibson alluded, in setting up his question to George Stephanopoulos, to Jake Tapper's reference to how “several convicted terrorists are currently in U.S. 'super-max' facilities, including shoe bomber Richard Reid,” and how Dianne Feinstein (one of the six Senators on Obama's side) argued “there is ample evidence that the United States can, and in fact does, hold dangerous convicts securely and without incident.”
But in being confused about the reasoning of the vast majority, Gibson overlooked how Tapper had already answered his question: “FBI Director Robert Mueller today said putting these detainees in U.S. prisons could be dangerous.” Viewers then heard from Mueller: “There is a potential for radicalization in a number of ways, whether it be for gang activity, for terrorist groups, for other extremists.”
Audio: MP3 (10 seconds)
Nonetheless, Gibson wondered on the May 20 World News: “What's the problem here? We have, as Jake mentioned and Senator Feinstein said on the Senate floor, we have terrorists in U.S. prisons, so why not the guys from Guantanamo?”
Stephanopoulos answered with the obvious:
Well, Charlie, I think this is one of the ultimate NIMBY issues. You're right on that point. On the other hand, the Senators have not yet seen a plan and you've got the FBI Director out there saying he's not sure it's going to be safe, either. Senate sources I've talked to today and the administration believe there is a chance they're going to get the Senate to agree to have some detainees come into prisons later this year once the plan by the President is released, but there is no way they're going to approve release of prisoners in the United States.Gibson then filled-in his naive viewers: “When you say it's a NIMBY problem, you mean not in my back yard. No member of Congress wants these guys transferred to prisons in their districts.”
Maybe Gibson was just trying to prompt an explanation for the opposition, but I'd bet that resistance to having terrorists housed in domestic prisons was already pretty obvious to most.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
→ Gibson
May 20, 2009 - 20:29 ET by Cool ArrowGibson also went to teleprompter school and skipped out on impromptu.
He'll never rise to the level of Geraldo, and that's not very high.
"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi
Because Gibson is a professional....
May 20, 2009 - 20:43 ET by superconHe always remains neutral and never interjects himself or his personal views into a story.
“What's the problem here?...We have terrorists in U.S. prisons, so why not the guys from Guantanamo?”
Hey Janet Napolitano...I'm proud to be a Right-winger.
→ He's a professional
May 20, 2009 - 20:44 ET by Cool ArrowAnd so is Heidi Fleiss.
"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi
Just another useless...umm,
May 20, 2009 - 20:45 ET by RowaneJust another useless...umm, useful idiot
I think the obvious
May 20, 2009 - 20:51 ET by BKeyserI think the obvious solution for so many reasons, is to drop them off in Sanctuary Cities.
BK... ROFL! That should have
May 20, 2009 - 21:16 ET by bigtimerBK...
ROFL!
That should have been a spew alert...I mean that...in so many ways.
Your plan works for me.
Maybe a whole bunch of somebodies will finally wake up and smell the roses...
Oh wait...it may be too late by then.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Housing for terrorists
May 20, 2009 - 22:14 ET by NonanonIf the detainees in Gitmo truly are as harmless as Obama says they are, why not house them in the White House and O can hang out with them? After all, he does have a history of hanging around with similar types of beings.
Just read the news, pal.
May 20, 2009 - 22:29 ET by mattmJust read the news, pal.
Disinterested media
May 20, 2009 - 22:45 ET by KC MulvilleSo, where does it say that we have to explain ourselves to a talking head news anchor? Who plainly has an agenda here?
Yes, it is obvious.
May 20, 2009 - 22:46 ET by JWFWe have people that plot, plan, and oftentimes carry out their attacks on foreign soil. It is difficult to collect evidence to try them in court here. If convicted in a military court and then housed here, they will have a right to access lawyers for a redress of their convictions. Like mafia members and the blind shiek, prisoners in jail can still plot, plan, and run their organisations.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Oy!
May 21, 2009 - 00:04 ET by mizflame98You know it's bad when Charles Gibson sounds like Jesse "the mullet" Ventura.
I feel the urge to perform a self-lobotomy again.
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
Samuel Adams
I'll give Gibson two good reasons why not...
May 20, 2009 - 23:48 ET by Tailgunner1. Al
2. Qaeda.
What happens when an AQ sleeper cell takes a school full of children hostage, like they did in Beslan, and start shooting a kid in the back of the head every hour until all the detainees are released?
You want to take that risk with your kids, Gibson, go right ahead, but you have no right to expect the rest of America to put their kids' lives at risk.
Suppose we do try them in US criminal courts? Are you prepared to put the entire jury in the Witness Protection Program?
All al-Qaeda needs to do is to videotape the kidnapping and beheading of two or three jurors and you'll never again be able to assemble a jury or get a guilty verdict against another terror suspect.
And that's assuming you can even get an indictment after the five or six pro bono red diaper ACLU ambulance chasers representing each AQ suspect get done filing a dozen different evidence suppression and dismissal motions.
Now I'm not Tom Clancy or anything like that, but if this old fat guy can put together a couple of foreseeable scenarios illustrating the consequences of bringing terror suspects into the US, then Gibson should be able to rub his two remaining brain cells together and do the same.
NOLO PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
Don't forget.
May 21, 2009 - 00:09 ET by mizflame98Our prisons will make excellent recruiting grounds.
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
Samuel Adams
Damn right they will...
May 21, 2009 - 00:23 ET by TailgunnerGreat point.
Hell, the Nation of Islam has been radicalizing prisoners for decades.
AQ detainees would be rock stars to these guys.
And with 200-plus of them, plus about 600 treasonous ACLU Lynne Stewart clones running messages for them, there's no way to isolate them from general population or outside sleeper cells.
Very, very bad idea.
NOLO PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
Tg and others...exactly
May 21, 2009 - 00:46 ET by bigtimerTg and others...exactly right...I know this for a fact from my cousin who has been behind prison bars for more than half his life now... plus what I have read myself over the years ...yet the msm keeps playing this down, and they have for years...lock down for months is nothing to take lightly...and the race/religious wars that go on inside those walls will continue, recruitment has been going on inside the prisons since Malcolm X....
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
They wouldn't want to be
May 21, 2009 - 01:25 ET by RR GOPThey wouldn't want to be anywher near these thugs. That's not the point. The point is that they are there because of George Bush. And, well, that's pretty much it.
If George Bush had mandated that all children received a new HIV vaccination, they'd advocate having their arms cut off.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
Appeasement Always Works
May 21, 2009 - 10:58 ET by ZuccoZoid"I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were
necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more... As commander-in-chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility
for keeping this country safe, and I reject the assertion that these
are the most effective means of interrogation. What’s more, they
undermine the rule of law... They serve as
a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies
to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America... In short, they did not advance our
war and counter-terrorism efforts – they undermined them, and that is
why I ended them once and for all."
Read more: "President Obama: U.S. 'went off course' fighting terror - Mike Allen - POLITICO.com" - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22804.html#ixzz0G9j1IoQL&A
Ask the Russians if "appeasement" works, if they're worried that HARSHLY dealing with enemy killers is the wrong way to go; give 'em korans and prayer mats (oh and be sure to wear gloves so you don't "spoil" that sacred instructional manual).
We live in a truly upside-down country: tax protestors, conservatives and vets are potential security threats, but active, bloodthirsty jihadists must be treated kindly, lest we make them "mad" against us... even school bullies figure this out: the less they have to fear the meaner they get - but beat the cr@p out of them and they ain't so tough anymore.
Here's why:
May 21, 2009 - 11:20 ET by CobraMan"We have terrorists in U.S. prisons, so why not the guys from Guantanamo?"
Here's why, US military prisoners can not be held in civilian prisons as they have not, I repeat, have not been convicted in a civilian court. If those prisoners were to be relocated to civilian prisons, the courts would order them to be released from detention until the government CHARGED them with a civilian crime. As those prisoners were captured overseas, those prisoners could not be charged with any civilian crime as the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution states that : "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
A good defense attorney would argue that none of the detainee's committed a crime in ANY federal district, therefor any charges leveled against them would be unenforceable. As the courts would be forced to agree with them, those "detainees" would have to be released into the civilian populations in which ever State they were transfered.
In other words, if Obama tried to "relocate" those detainees here to America, the only outcome would be the release of those terrorists into the general civilian population. I highly doubt Obama really wants to be the President who ORDERED the release of a hundred terrorists onto America's soil. His order to close Gitmo was not thought out and was, in my opinion, just a gesture to appease his left-wing base.
Now that he's actually aware of the consequences of that order, he, and the rest of the Democrats, have decided that this was a VERY foolish, misconceived idea with terrible ramifications for both Obama and the rest of the democrats who supported this stupid idea. Since Obama can't be viewed as making a mistake of this order, the Democrats are covering for him by agreeing to legislation that would "prevent" Obama from closing Gitmo over his "objections," objections he really doesn't have any more but is afraid to admit as not to anger his left-wing base any further than he already has.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Gipson
May 21, 2009 - 12:25 ET by Lu KingI'm okay with the terrorist at gitmo move to the U.S......as long as they live next door to Gipson, curic, pelosi, reid, murtha, and other like-minded people on the liberal side.
Re New Prison
May 21, 2009 - 15:38 ET by slickwillie2001Yea, I want a new prison built on Nantucket Island, or Martha's Vineyard, or in the Hamptons at a minimum.
Charlie Gibson seems as confused about the difficulty of
May 21, 2009 - 23:07 ET by Rush Fanrelocating terrorist to the U.S. as he was about the Bush Doctrine.
He reminds me a little bit of Joe Biden. Neither seem to have a grasp of the facts.
-------------------------------------------------------------
“Nobody believes what the mainstream media says now anyway. Except the uneducated, the illiterate, and the uninformed -- which, sadly, is a fairly large number” ~ Rush Limbaugh
Lefty America-hating enemy supporters like Charles Gibson...
May 21, 2009 - 23:16 ET by R D Helm...would just love for the GITMO terrorists to be brought here, just so the ACLU can get them released here in America.
Up yours, traitor Charlie.
-Dave