PDA

View Full Version : US tax payers footing the $750,000 bill for new soccer field for Gitmo prisoners



pwaldo
02-29-2012, 03:17 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2108244/Guantanamo-prisoners-treated-750-000-revamped-soccer-pitch-courtesy-taxpayer.html


Staying at Guantanamo Bay was never meant to be a five-star experience, but inmates are being treated by the taxpayer to a $750,000 soccer pitch.

The U.S. military has nearly completed a new recreation yard with the field at Camp 6, where more than 80 per cent of the 171 prisoners are held.

The detention camp in Cuba will soon have a walking trail and exercise equipment, but fences will still block the view of the nearby Caribbean Sea.

Military officials say that giving inmates plenty of time outdoors reduces behavioural issues inside and limits interaction with guards.

The inmates were missing their matches of what most of them call ‘football’, rather than ‘soccer’, and the pitch should give a morale boost.

duane1969
02-29-2012, 08:16 PM
Why do they need a morale boost? Isn't the goal to convince them to reveal information? Breaking them should be the goal, not exercising them.

pwaldo
03-03-2012, 09:15 PM
A better question would be why build a new field when Obama is going to close down Gitmo? Or did everyone forget that doing so was one of his campaign promises?

We supposedly don't have money to build new baseball fields in the inner city but we can build new soccer fields so some people who are terrorists can have a morale boost.

shrewsbury
03-03-2012, 09:28 PM
A better question would be why build a new field when Obama is going to close down Gitmo? Or did everyone forget that doing so was one of his campaign promises?

We supposedly don't have money to build new baseball fields in the inner city but we can build new soccer fields so some people who are terrorists can have a morale boost.

:thumb:

cbuskstwar
03-03-2012, 09:34 PM
A better question would be why build a new field when Obama is going to close down Gitmo? Or did everyone forget that doing so was one of his campaign promises?


Another Oblama lie

angel0430
03-05-2012, 09:06 AM
This is one of the dumbest ideas and the biggest waste of money. Really???

pwaldo
03-11-2012, 08:30 PM
This is one of the dumbest ideas and the biggest waste of money. Really???

Apparently because they kept the exact total below $750,000 it didn't have to be approved by Congress....how convenient that the total just comes up a hair short under what it needs to be for there to be a discussion about if it should be made or not. Now it will just get swept under the rug with the taxpayer footing the bill.

lloydr04
03-11-2012, 08:34 PM
hey does anyone know what the averages out to cost a person on average? just wondering

tylermckinzie
03-11-2012, 10:11 PM
A better question would be why build a new field when Obama is going to close down Gitmo? Or did everyone forget that doing so was one of his campaign promises?

We supposedly don't have money to build new baseball fields in the inner city but we can build new soccer fields so some people who are terrorists can have a morale boost.

Non-partisan speaking here, but the failure to close Guantanamo has not been Obama's failure. Congress blocked it due to legal proceedings concerns with the prisoners. People don't want the prisoners on US soil to be tried in U.S. courts. This is a classic example of both sides saying "no" and neither having a solution to contribute, but both sides continue to blame the other over the roadblock.

shrewsbury
03-11-2012, 11:00 PM
Non-partisan speaking here, but the failure to close Guantanamo has not been Obama's failure. Congress blocked it due to legal proceedings concerns with the prisoners. People don't want the prisoners on US soil to be tried in U.S. courts. This is a classic example of both sides saying "no" and neither having a solution to contribute, but both sides continue to blame the other over the roadblock.

it's always someone else's fault when he does not do what he says, but always his total accomplishment when he does.

and just for the record, his other promise was to unite the parties, so perhaps if he would have even tried to do that, congress would not block him at every turn.

tylermckinzie
03-12-2012, 12:13 AM
it's always someone else's fault when he does not do what he says, but always his total accomplishment when he does.

and just for the record, his other promise was to unite the parties, so perhaps if he would have even tried to do that, congress would not block him at every turn.

Oh, I completely agree with you that some people will never give him any blame for anything and every bit of credit when he does the littlest thing. However, for every one of those people there is someone on the opposite side.

That is why you don't find my posts excusing him on a lot of the issues. When people quit getting their news from their one preferential source and instead read into each one it actually becomes somewhat easy sometimes to find which side is more to blame. Although I have no doubt there are people out there who can find websites stating otherwise as fact, I'm confident in my opinion on this one, as it is one that thoroughly intrigued me (from the legal side, not really from the political side).

And to say you can unite Washington, well, let's just say that one is right up there with $2.50 gas- a generalization to garner votes and momentum with absolutely no basis of being true.

mrveggieman
03-12-2012, 08:19 AM
Non-partisan speaking here, but the failure to close Guantanamo has not been Obama's failure. Congress blocked it due to legal proceedings concerns with the prisoners. People don't want the prisoners on US soil to be tried in U.S. courts. This is a classic example of both sides saying "no" and neither having a solution to contribute, but both sides continue to blame the other over the roadblock.


Non-partisin speaking? On P&R. I have never heard such a thing. :sign0020:

pwaldo
03-12-2012, 03:34 PM
Non-partisan speaking here, but the failure to close Guantanamo has not been Obama's failure. Congress blocked it due to legal proceedings concerns with the prisoners. People don't want the prisoners on US soil to be tried in U.S. courts. This is a classic example of both sides saying "no" and neither having a solution to contribute, but both sides continue to blame the other over the roadblock.

Yes Congress did block it....but there was a Democrat controlled Congress for 2 years so why couldn't he get it done with his own party? I mean is it really a roadblock if you were stopped by your own party? No it was just probably a bad idea to begin with.

Though I understand what you are saying and agree with it 100% because I think him saying to close it was short sighted and showed that he was either just saying that to get elected or he had no clue how the real world works.

You can't even get a new dump built in a town because nobody wants to be near it or have it on their land so they sure as heck aren't going to want to be near terrorists. It is really an issue that should have been vetted in the campaign instead of wasting time with a predictable outcome while he was President.

tylermckinzie
03-12-2012, 04:59 PM
Yes Congress did block it....but there was a Democrat controlled Congress for 2 years so why couldn't he get it done with his own party? I mean is it really a roadblock if you were stopped by your own party? No it was just probably a bad idea to begin with.

Though I understand what you are saying and agree with it 100% because I think him saying to close it was short sighted and showed that he was either just saying that to get elected or he had no clue how the real world works.

You can't even get a new dump built in a town because nobody wants to be near it or have it on their land so they sure as heck aren't going to want to be near terrorists. It is really an issue that should have been vetted in the campaign instead of wasting time with a predictable outcome while he was President.

pwaldo-

since you are one of the fewer and fewer reasonable people on here that I do find nodding in agreement with sometimes, I wonder your opinion on the closing of Guantanamo. To me, the idea of closing a money-burning institution off shore and transferring to a supermax in Illinois certainly makes financial sense. I agree there are some safety concerns but being realistic, what concerns aren't there with murderers and the such already in the place? I feel the non-closing of the base has more to do with hiding some of its secrets and a continuing financial windfall to all those involved (you don't think those people at the Bay and those contractors who helped pay for it aren't benefitting enormously from its existence?) Removing Obama, campaign slogans, and defense bills from the discussion, what do you truly think?

pwaldo
03-12-2012, 07:21 PM
pwaldo-

since you are one of the fewer and fewer reasonable people on here that I do find nodding in agreement with sometimes, I wonder your opinion on the closing of Guantanamo. To me, the idea of closing a money-burning institution off shore and transferring to a supermax in Illinois certainly makes financial sense. I agree there are some safety concerns but being realistic, what concerns aren't there with murderers and the such already in the place? I feel the non-closing of the base has more to do with hiding some of its secrets and a continuing financial windfall to all those involved (you don't think those people at the Bay and those contractors who helped pay for it aren't benefitting enormously from its existence?) Removing Obama, campaign slogans, and defense bills from the discussion, what do you truly think?

I don't really have an issue if it is closed or not. There really isn't a solution here since there really is no endgame to the people in the prison. The war on terror won't end and they won't admit they are terrorists so they are basically just held their indefinitely.

We still haven't had the Fort Hood shooter trail so it would take FOREVER to get trials for them and they would probably lawyer up to try and avoid prison time.

Generally I'd be all for the more cost effective measure but all it would take is one person to escape or a prison riot to start and the whole thing would be a political disaster. At this point it will probably never close anytime in the future because Republicans won't do it and even though Obama would be safe in a second term to do whatever he wants (if he has enough Democratic support) they won't touch it because it would hurt the Democrats in the 2016 election.

Since we still aren't out of Afghanistan (and we should be) I would just hope they stop wasting money on Gitmo by building things like a soccer field and just slowly work on eventually shutting it down. But we can't even close US bases that we have in friendly nations so I doubt the military budget will be cut unless somebody like Ron Paul gets elected because Republicans won't be fiscally responsible on it for some reason and Democrats seem to eventually cave on every issue even when they control everything so I won't be holding my breath on it.