United States lawmakers offer bills to counter Obama Guantanamo plan

But part of my message to the American people here is we’re already holding a bunch of really unsafe terrorists here in the United States, because we threw the book at them and there have been no incidents. Other South Carolina lawmakers expressed their opinions about President Obama’s plans to close Guantanamo Bay. The plan would bring between 30 and 60 detainees who are deemed too risky to release to a prison somewhere on USA soil.

An approval of the plan would also mean that Congress has to change a law that now forbids the nation from spending any money on bringing prisoners into mainland U.S. So this is something on which Congress would have to act to lift those barriers in order for the White House to do what the president wants.

My Republican colleagues should drop their opposition to every proposal put forward by President Obama and listen to America’s military and national security leaders.

EWING: He was talking about the post-9/11, George W. Bush approach to counterterrorism and national security.

The plan does not specify where in the US detainees would go.

Obama said on Tuesday that ending Guantanamo would move the USA past what he called a troubled era of wartime behavior. “Not only could the President’s plan cost almost half a billion dollars, but it makes us less safe”. “And frequently we have little to offer them in return, except the continued goodwill of the United States”. I’ve voted to close the prison, but I believe military detainees should be held in military prisons. “I strongly oppose the President’s plan and will continue fighting to stop it”.

The Barack Obama administration provided a blueprint to Congress in regards to the details and costs involved with closing the prison.

The AP reports 91 detainees are still at Guantanamo Bay and 35 of those are scheduled to be transferred out by this summer. “It is viewed as a stain on our broader record of upholding the highest standards of rule of law”. But that does not mean he will not need bipartisan support for his plan, and risks turning it into a divisive campaign issue for the current crop of presidential candidates.