What comes after Gitmo?
posted at 12:54 pm on April 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
All three presidential candidates agree on one policy change after the Bush administration makes its exit in 2009: close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. However, all three have another common quality in the new policy, which is that they don’t explain how to do it. Bringing the terrorists to American territory may mean releasing them here, unless Congress wants to allow indeterminate detention without trial in the US:
A wave of change appears headed toward the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with all three major presidential candidates vowing to abolish the military prison.
And somewhat surprisingly, closing the camp and moving the prisoners to the United States may be the easy part, said U.S. officials, former administration aides and legal experts.
But nobody has yet found a way through the legal thicket in the way. Especially vexing are scores of foreign detainees: Officials lack evidence to prosecute, but warn against setting them free. …
Under current law regarding Guantanamo prisoners, those 135 have a limited right to ask a judge to examine the review board’s findings but no broad rights to challenge their detention in federal court.
Limits on rights are specific to Guantanamo, however, legal experts said. If they are moved to U.S. territory, they will be entitled to broader rights to challenge their detention, the experts said.
Because there is little evidence against them that could be used in a U.S. court, government officials fear that a federal judge could order them freed. “Then you would have 100-plus future sleeper-cell members unleashed in Kansas,” for instance, said the midlevel official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity. “That is what the government is trying to prevent.”
This has always been the hidden problem behind the rhetoric. Closing Gitmo takes no effort at all, but that’s only the beginning — and it reveals that the real issue has never been Guantanamo Bay at all. The real issue, one all three presidential candidates have avoided, is whether we release known terrorists and allow them the opportunity to attack us again.
In closing Gitmo, we have two choices. One would be to ship the detainees to another detention facility outside of the US, which would only be a geographical change. It would win us nothing in terms of international approval, and would likely be much less secure than Gitmo. The second choice would be to bring the detainees to the US and either use the civilian courts or get Congress to approve indeterminate detention without trial inside the US — essentially recognizing the danger the terrorists pose and treating them like we treat them now at Gitmo, using military tribunals instead of courts. Again, this would only be a change in location, and hardly a salutary one at that for Americans.
Moving detainees back to the US forces us back into the law-enforcement model again. It gives terrorists access to a civil justice system that has never been applied to America’s enemies at a time of war. It would force the courts to treat soldiers as policemen and terrorists captured in battles and in faraway lands the same as bank robbers — with Miranda rights that almost certainly did not get read to them at their capture. The information we have on them that identifies their dangerous nature would not be admissible in civilian courts, because at war we use methods that operate outside those restrictions — just as we have during our entire national history.
In other words, closing Gitmo has little point unless the purpose is to free the terrorists to strike us again. It’s unfortunate that the only consensus to be found among the remaining presidential candidates is that policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Ron Kuby and colleauges will think of something.
RobCon on April 14, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Put Murtha in charge of a commission of setting up Okinawa as the new Gitmo.
jgapinoy on April 14, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Build a new prison in Arizona, “The John McCain Memorial Detention Center” and send them all there.
Zorro on April 14, 2008 at 1:01 PM
I’m all for closing Gitmo and bringing the detainees to American soil. You know, as long as they’re contained to 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington DC 20003.
amerpundit on April 14, 2008 at 1:02 PM
The big problem with this is that it almost forces us into a take-no-prisoners position.
flipflop on April 14, 2008 at 1:02 PM
How ’bout we fly ‘em all to Alcatraz … in a B-52 … in the bomb bay … and ‘accidentally’ open the bay doors. We’ll see if our bombers can hit Alcatraz with ‘em. What the heck, half of ‘em wanted to be human bombs anyway!
Tony737 on April 14, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Not necessarily. They still aren’t US citizens, and they still weren’t uniformed combatants. It just moves their location to a maximum security facility at Leavenworth (probably). I’ll bet the traffic from NGO types slows dramatically when the US is no longer flying them to balmy Cuba.
funky chicken on April 14, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Field tribunals and immediate executions.
No need for Gitmos.
profitsbeard on April 14, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Barry will give them a new suit and 50 bucks and send them out the door.
peacenprosperity on April 14, 2008 at 1:06 PM
The AF base (Kadena) on Okinawa is really nice. The Marines, however, call their base “the rock” or at least they used to.
Really, build them a shiny new Supermaxx in Leavenworth. Jobs for Kansans, boring trips for anti-American “activists.” win-win.
funky chicken on April 14, 2008 at 1:08 PM
That’s the only way Murtha would know how to roll.
eeyore on April 14, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Not to mention the detainees that are simply hanging out at Gitmo because they’ll get mutilated if they get sent back home.
Seixon on April 14, 2008 at 1:08 PM
McCain better explain his position on this. Hillary and Obama are clear: they don’t care. The terrorists won’t attack them or their families because they have SS protection. Us Kansans? We’re expendable. Much like the rural Pennsylvanians…so what if a few of us rednecked, racist, illiterate gun-toting churchgoers die…we don’t vote democrat. No one expects Hillary or Obama to care about us over the poor wittle tewowists…McCain, though, he’s going to HAVE to explain this one.
JustTruth101 on April 14, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Obama is the only POTUS candidate who would work to let these bastards just walk free, IMHO. Even Hillary wouldn’t go that far….I do really think the Obamassiah might.
funky chicken on April 14, 2008 at 1:11 PM
I believe Greg Gutfeld had the solution quite some time ago…have Hollywood Celebrity types adopt them…poor Mahmoud, nowhere to go and no one to care for him, Barbra Streisand has 1,000,000 sq ft to spare, for the price of a mere SBUX a day she can care for a GitMo detainee…
ocbrat on April 14, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Liberals: bad premise.
McCain: accepts bad premise.
RushBaby on April 14, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Third option: Compromise and give them a ride half-way back home. No need to stop the plane, just open the back cargo doors and let them out.
Actually semi-serious. If someone is too dangerous to let free then you either have to assure that they can never leave their confinement or eliminate them. It’s very hard (and very expensive) to isolate someone.
KCSteve on April 14, 2008 at 1:12 PM
I forgot about “the conscience of the Senate.” They might wind up in West Virginia. That’s OK too, really. I’m pretty sure the West Virginia locals would know how to handle one of these fellows if he managed to escape the prison.
funky chicken on April 14, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Not unless someone forces him to address it. He certainly isn’t going to bring it up.
a capella on April 14, 2008 at 1:14 PM
3rd option:
Send them to Iraq or Afghanistan detention facilities, under the control of those governments.
Not saying it’s a great solution, but if Gitmo is to be closed, I sure as hell don’t want them clogging our courts.
krakatoa on April 14, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Obama = They join his “church” and become “Christians”.
Hillary = They go free and send her cash
McCain = They go to a military prison on US soil and cost millions to defend and provide for.
Hening on April 14, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Immediate execution.
Without it we’re setting ourselves up for the mother of all hostage taking scenarios (e.g. Islamists taking over a school and demanding these guys all be released wherever they end up).
BowHuntingTexas on April 14, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Here’s the solution:
Military tribunal: Are you a terrorist?
Terrorist #1: Yes
Military tribunal: Do you want to murder Americans?
Terrorist #1: Yes.
Lethal injection, next. Proceed until all terrorists have been executed for their crimes, for which they will all admit to for the glory of Allah.
Richard Romano on April 14, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Sir, I am humbled by the genius of your suggestion.
ErikTheRed on April 14, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Gitmo II: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut
Duh.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 14, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Rushbaby, C’mon, did you read the whole thing? Written in Jan, 2006?
McCain comes from a military background. Being married to military, I can tell you that military officers hold a very dim view of torture as an interrogation method. Even, yes, silly stuff (that was my view; you would have been shocked to hear my husband’s) like Abu Ghraib that wasn’t torture at all.
Why? Two reasons right off hand:
1. It’s the damn CIA idiots who “torture” folks for information, and that info is often worthless.
2. It’s the military people in the field who suffer because of the propaganda that something like Abu Ghraib and the idiocy over GITMO cause. It makes their jobs much harder. You move the prisoners to Leavenworth, let the ICRC see them any time they want, and the protests just lose cache real fast, which provides Al Jazeera fewer propaganda pictures, etc.
Levin’s third point about the FISA thing is more troubling, but McCain will still be better than Obama or Hillary on that, and I would hope that he reconsidered that stance or Levin was overstating McCain’s position, or some combo of the two.
funky chicken on April 14, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Exactly! I cannot for the life of me understand why it is our government (especially the left) continue to view and prosecute the GWOT as a “police action” instead of what it really is, A WAR!
This is exactly what the moonbats espouse all the time that the evil Bushitler and Darth Cheney are taking away our rights (e.g., habeas corpus and Miranda rights) and they point to the Gitmo detainees as “proof.”
First of all the detainees are NOT American citizens protected under US Miranda rights and secondly the detainees are considered illegal enemy combatants (they don’t wear uniforms or fight under the flag, etc. of a recognized nation) and are therefore not protected under habeas corpus.
Further proof our government and some citizens (especially the left and the moonbats) are in denial that we are in fact in a WAR and the GWOT is by no means a “police action.”
As long as those in power and the moonbats on the left continue to prosecute and view the GWOT as a police action the longer the war will be drawn out leading to more of our brave men and women in uniform will be killed and the higher the odds are we will be attacked again!
Enough already, lets fight the GWOT with as much (if not more) conviction as our nation had during WWII!
Liberty or Death on April 14, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Hening–which is what is happening now, except for it is costing us even more to keep them in gitmo.
funky chicken on April 14, 2008 at 1:34 PM
How about Area 1002 which consists of about 1.5 million “pristine” acres in ANWR.
There would be a certain irony.
there it is on April 14, 2008 at 1:35 PM
What comes next is Military Tribunals, Executions and what comes later does not honestly matter!
old trooper on April 14, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Put them in a Hotel Six…and turn their lights OUT for them…
soulsirkus on April 14, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Brrrrrrr. The greenies would be happy though, because we’d be feeding the polar bears? LOL
funky chicken on April 14, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Build a new Gitmo on the Texas border with Mexico, call it The Allahmo.
BL@KBIRD on April 14, 2008 at 1:41 PM
You are O.K. with probable release of terrorists because of insufficient evidence in civilian courts? The military folks are also O.K. with that as a result of Gitmo shutdown because it makes their jobs easier? Do tell.
a capella on April 14, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Now that’s funny.
Hening on April 14, 2008 at 1:54 PM
a capella, there is NO logical link from moving them to US soil and suddenly having their status change to being tried in the civilian court system. If that was going to happen, where we pay to house the terrorists really doesn’t matter.
It’s just two separate issues, and I hate to see conservatives fetishize gitmo.
funky chicken on April 14, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Hooray! Coming soon to a jail near you in “bitter” small town America: Jihadists lusting to behead infidels. You think you are “bitter” now: just wait until you get to taxed out the ying yang for the Jihadists endless appeals and captive audiences in the jails for prime recruiting, but you also get to get reamed because all three of these politicians are gonna make you PAY for the cow flatulence hoax as well….
Branch Rickey on April 14, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Simple: none of them were in uniform; nor supporting a known state in a rtime of war; are definitively a threat for the rest of their natural lives. Line them up and execute the lot. Put them in a cemetary there, then close Gitmo.
Or try them all by military tribunal before shutting down. Give their lawyers 60 days to deal with the evidence, then carry out sentences on the spot. Any ‘innocents’ would be returned to the government of their crime (and we would not ask to return them we would). Shoot the guilty. Close Gitmo.
michaelo on April 14, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Brrrrrrr. The greenies would be happy though, because we’d be feeding the polar bears – funky
HAHAHA! Now THAT’S funny! :-)
And thanks Erik!
Tony737 on April 14, 2008 at 2:02 PM
This kind of idiocy makes my blood boil but I will not be the LEAST bit suprised if it comes to pass.
That’s all I can say without entering a profanity laced tyrade.
Geronimo on April 14, 2008 at 2:03 PM
It seems to me that McCain and perhaps even Hilary should be smart enough to figure out the problems with closing Gitmo. I suppose they both just care too much what the European elite think. We should just give up caring what the European elite think. A few more terrorist attacks and maybe the populace will wake up to the suicide course the elites have taken them on.
thuja on April 14, 2008 at 2:04 PM
You want to test that theory? Really?
RushBaby on April 14, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Chip ‘em, track ‘em, note where they go and who they meet, and target accordingly.
cthulhu on April 14, 2008 at 2:08 PM
I think we could just open the gates and say “thanks for staying, now get out”.
Kinda tough to trouble us again when in davy jones locker…
Sinner on April 14, 2008 at 2:11 PM
I’m thinking Gitmo 2: Terrorist Boogaloo.
ReubenJCogburn on April 14, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Hilton.
Indy Conservative on April 14, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Proper use of terrorists.
Corsair on April 14, 2008 at 2:15 PM
+1 Better yet, kill them in the battle/s.
Entelechy on April 14, 2008 at 2:16 PM
You have stats on that?
What about the cost of human life?
That those most dangerous captured in battle are contained at Gitmo and don’t have access to other Americans, i.e. prison staff, other prisoners who are not fundamentalist islamists saves money than cash. They are TERRORISTS! Yeah, let’s let em loose on US soil; bet bin Laden called that one too – paper tiger….
Branch Rickey on April 14, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Who’s advocating torture? Nobody I know. Who’s trying to define it down? The guy you defend; Pavlov would be proud. More from the same column:
RushBaby on April 14, 2008 at 2:27 PM
The guards in the military prison in Leavenworth are US Marines. I believe they can handle this problem. One of my friends from way back did a tour as a guard there. They aren’t terribly nice to the inmates on the mil side. Really, gitmo costs us more. We have to fly/ship food there. The mil guards are away from their families. We have to keep medical personnel there. It’s a headache in lots of ways.
Where did we house the Nazis we captured on our soil during WWII? I know it was fewer, but we didn’t send them to Cuba, at least I don’t think we did.
McCain isn’t gonna had these charming fellows their walking papers and green cards. Obama? All bets are off, IMHO.
funky chicken on April 14, 2008 at 2:31 PM
oops!
Branch Rickey on April 14, 2008 at 2:31 PM
eye roll….that phrase was already used by every ACLU lawyer, how did it end up in the NY Times?
I’m neither in favor of closing gitmo or opposed. I just don’t think the sky will fall if the inmates are moved to a secure CONUS location, and again, hate to see conservatives fetishize gitmo.
funky chicken on April 14, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Reopen Alcatraz.
Spolitics on April 14, 2008 at 2:34 PM
If we could microchip them and send them back to their countries of origin, hey, I’m sorta OK with that, except that a pres. Obama won’t authorize the Predator/Reaper to fire upon their meeting places.
The important issue is defeating the democrats. Where we imprison scum doesn’t concern me all that much. They are our “guests” for life from what I can see, so we may as well make it as easy to house them as possible. Keeping them forever in a tiny enclave that is logistically challenging to maintain is more work than they deserve.
funky chicken on April 14, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Execute them. All of them.
pabarge on April 14, 2008 at 2:38 PM
OK let me come at it from a different angle. I oppose ceding any point to the libs. It has nothing to do some romance with GTMO. It has do do with swatting the camel’s nose away from my dadgum tent.
RushBaby on April 14, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Didn’t Clint Eastwood dig his way out of Alcatraz with a spoon? LOL but yeah, that would be OK too.
funky chicken on April 14, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Yeah, I know a previous guard at Gitmo and 2 marines stationed at Leavenworth. Gitmo Guard NEVER moaned and complained about your assertions
Instead he was darn proud of the job they were doing and they aren’t the only military personnel away from their families.
2 Marine Guards at Leavenworth (massive complex with tons of different operations going on there) laughed at the THOUGHT of having the terrorists there. As the one said, “They are probably have McVeigh type dreams of getting into Leavenworth.”
Your rose colored glasses about McShame are as destructive as the Obamaites vision of their empty suit politician, imho.
Branch Rickey on April 14, 2008 at 2:43 PM
USDB-Fort Leavenworth + 5 calls to prayer a day = ?
captivated_dem on April 14, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Yeah, but if they’re freed or break out, at least they’d be in SF.
Actually… if we had to let them go free, couldn’t we release them in Guam, or up in Alaskan wilderness.
Spolitics on April 14, 2008 at 2:44 PM
No, the important issue is saving our republic, IMAO!
Branch Rickey on April 14, 2008 at 2:45 PM
So, we repatriate them to the country where they where captured in the first place.
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Iraq
and let the foriegn fighters take their chances with the justice system of those countries.
I suspect they’ll ask to stay at Club Gitmo.
I R A Darth Aggie on April 14, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Rushbaby, eh, don’t let the libs goad you/us into knee jerk refutations of something. Really, we should do what makes the most sense for us, liberals be damned.
Let them bring their silly protests to Kansas, kind of like they brought them to the area outside of Bush’s ranch for a summer. It’s just not that glamorous, and doesn’t make for such good TV as wailing about gitmo.
I don’t think Karzai, Maliki, or (brain fart) Musharraf’s successor will take them, is the problem. We’re stuck with em. I’d be happy to give them the China treatment (single bullet, base of skull) but that’s just a fantasy. If we’re going to be stuck with them for life, like I said, we should make it as easy and cheap as possible for ourselves.
funky chicken on April 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM
There is much more potential for waste of money and manpower if they step foot on our soil. I just don’t think you are acknowledging the consequences that the Ed’s post (reread it), not to mention the Supreme Court, warned about. If your concerns are financial and logistical, you should consider who benefits here:
1. Lawyers who will flood the administration and the military with suits on behalf of
2. illegal enemy combatants;
3. Leftist/Pacifist politicians both here and abroad who will invent a bonanza of new opportunities to propagandize this country’s foreign and domestic policies, all on behalf of
4. illegal enemy combatants.
RushBaby on April 14, 2008 at 3:15 PM
My point is, they are already doing all that stuff. Why would moving their location change anything?
I just don’t see where A leads automatically to B, unless we have a President Obama with Koh and his ilk appointed to SCOTUS.
funky chicken on April 14, 2008 at 3:20 PM
gotta go….
funky chicken on April 14, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Not with the standing they would sudddenly have conferred upon them.
Discussion appreciated. Have a great afternoon/evening.
RushBaby on April 14, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Release them where they were caught: on a battlefield in Afghanistan. Better yet, Iraq.
Kafir on April 14, 2008 at 3:40 PM
McCain’s a war hero. He’ll make the right choice. Have you ever been held in a prison camp. What do you know? Damn chickenhawks making a mess of things again.
/
Angry Dumbo on April 14, 2008 at 4:12 PM
I do not have a link, but I read some time ago that McCain supported putting them in Leavenworth and putting them on trial under the law for military tribunals passed in 2006 for just such people. But sooner or later something has to be done with them. Maybe the Bush administration will find a solution before the election and save the candidates the trouble.
Terrye on April 14, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Release them in an Iraqi desert, with a C130 gunship circling overhead. Problem solved!
trs on April 14, 2008 at 4:27 PM
I know a former German Naval POW from WWII and he was held in a POW camp here in Arizona (middle of Phoenix) that is currently a National Guard Station.
The reason (IMHO) we don’t house them here in the US is because of the left/moonbat insistence on treating the GWOT as a police action and not a war, e.g., insisting the US provide habeas corpus, Miranda rights, and civilian trials as if the detainees are US citizens and are being denied their “rights.”
Bottom line is as long as the left/moonbats insist on labeling the GWOT as a “police action” and not a war and as long as they see the detainees as civilians and not what they truly are (illegal enemy combatants) the detainees should stay in Gitmo and not be brought here to stand trial in a civilian court where they would more than likely be released to do harm to us or our military again.
Liberty or Death on April 14, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Where did we house the Nazis we captured on our soil during WWII? I know it was fewer, but we didn’t send them to Cuba, at least I don’t think we did.
We didn’t. Emphasis above mine, BTW, as that’s the key.
Not for very long, anyway. Since they where captured in civilian garb, they were spies, and treated as such.
FDR gave them a nice military tribunal, then hung ‘em high. That’s what you do with spies, you hang ‘em. No appeals, no review, no oversight.
I R A Darth Aggie on April 14, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Closing Gitmo merely reconfigures and exacerbates the problem. America’s enemies will claim the Gitmo prisoners are being abused physically and legally where ever they are imprisoned. Giving in to this orchestrated propaganda campaign funded by the terrorist sponsors in the Middle East encourages them to continue it.
Tantor on April 14, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Apparently one good thing did come out of Gitmo, poetry. Connie Shultz just published a column about it. The link is
Here.
BK on April 14, 2008 at 6:49 PM
Excellent plan. This is where most of them were caught.
However the ones we got from other countries could be a problem.
Squid Shark on April 14, 2008 at 8:13 PM
No one in GTMO was caught on us soil if we did catch them there they would be in the civilian system.
These are folks caught on the battlefield or turned over to us by other countries.
Squid Shark on April 14, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Kafir on April 14, 2008 at 3:40 PM
From South Park….”Its coming right for us” (insert your personal favorite gunfire report) NEXT!!!!!
dmann on April 14, 2008 at 8:51 PM
Comment pages: