Bush to close Gitmo?
posted at 9:00 am on July 3, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
With Boumediene rendering foreign detention moot, the usefulness of the prison at Guantanamo Bay appears to have outlived its legal usefulness. Both presidential candidates have declared their intention to close Gitmo rapidly, which makes its fate clear in any case. Why not shut it down now? That’s the question that President Bush has begun considering, according to ABC News:
President Bush will soon decide whether to close Guantanamo Bay as a prison for al-Qaeda suspects, sources tell ABC News. High-level discussions among top advisers have escalated in the past week, with the most senior administration officials in continuous talks about the future of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay–and how it will be dramatically changed and/or closed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling that gave detainees there access to federal courts.
Sources have confirmed that President Bush is expected to be briefed on these pressing GTMO issues–and may reach a decision on the future of the naval base as a prison for al Qaeda suspects–before he leaves for the G8 on Saturday. An announcement, however, is not expected before he leaves the country.
High-level administration officials say the Court’s decision dramatically changes the legal landscape–and raises questions about whether the government has solid evidence to present to federal judges to justify ongoing detentions.
This could become Congress’ nightmare soon. If Bush decides to close Gitmo, the US will have to decide what to do with the 260 or so detainees currently held in the facility. Unless all of them get freed or returned to their native governments for prosecution, the US will have to find a new facility to hold them, and the Bush administration is most likely to put that burden on Congress after the years of heavy criticism Bush received for Gitmo.
None of the options look very palatable. The detainees that remain have all been determined to be dangerous through military tribunal reviews. Either they will have to receive trials in American courts with American civil legal standards in play — which would almost certainly wind up failing, given the circumstances of their detention, or Congress will have to establish a different standard that the Supreme Court would probably reject, as they did in Boumediene. The other options are rendition or release.
Bush has his hands tied now. Without any recognition of the military tribunals, there is no reason to hold these prisoners abroad. If we have to apply law-enforcement standards such as Miranda rights to foreign terrorists captured abroad by military or intel personnel, we can’t bring them to the US just to see them get released in our cities. Rendition looks like the most promising option, but that would almost certainly result in torture once the detainees return to places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Closing Gitmo was always going to be the easy part.
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: 1 2 Next »
too bad bush doesn’t have the guts to stand up to supreme court
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 9:02 AM
Just release the prisoners……. in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean
ToddonCapeCod on July 3, 2008 at 9:11 AM
There was a spoof email going around years ago about having your own captured terrorist kept under house arrest — but at *your* house. It was aimed pretty squarely at Gitmo critics.
Anybody got a link, or still have a copy?
Purple Fury on July 3, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Yes we can, have to even. Now they have a right to request bail. You can’t give them access to civilian courts, but not give them access to civilian courts. Again, I recommend San Francisco.
Beagle on July 3, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Now that we’re approaching hurricane season, the best thing now would be for the inmates to tragically perish during one. I hear they blow like hell down there.
dhimwit on July 3, 2008 at 9:22 AM
I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that the entire reason we did GTMO was to house these terrorists in humane conditions, by Americans and in an above-board manner, and still have a place to interrogate and detain them. The Democrats and the liberals turned that plan on its head. So fine. Dump the burden on the liberals to figure out what to do with them, and when they can’t come up with a better idea, quietly disappear them to Egypt and Saudi Arabia so Mubarak and the boys can go to work (anyone hear the sounds of knuckles cracking?).
Outlander on July 3, 2008 at 9:23 AM
The closure is coming one way or the other.
GTMO has been more trouble than it is worth from the beginning.
Squid Shark on July 3, 2008 at 9:26 AM
They have no such rights.
Squid Shark on July 3, 2008 at 9:27 AM
GTMO does very well during hurricanes. No one would buy it.
Squid Shark on July 3, 2008 at 9:28 AM
Feel free to prove that with something other than a mere assertion.
Beagle on July 3, 2008 at 9:29 AM
yeah we should have just shot them after we got everything we could out of them, by ANY means necessary.
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 9:29 AM
No one knows what habeas and due process rights they have.
Per Kennedy’s opinion, the courts will determine that.
So, to say they have a right to request bail is neither right or wrong at this time. It’s to be determined.
SteveMG on July 3, 2008 at 9:30 AM
As a recovering ex-attorney, I have no love for our legal system, so I write this with mixed feelings.
Bush screwed up right at the beginning: our civil laws are structured for criminals, and our military laws are structured for fighting wars against nations, not against terrorist organizations.
Way back, after 9/11, Bush had a unified world, high public approval ratings and a GOP controlled Congress.
There was never a better time to draft a new set of laws for dealing with enemy combatants.
I’ll agree with many here: the Geneva convention shouldn’t apply because there is no foreign nation state to negotiate with, there are no prisoners, only hostages, on the other side. Most of them aren’t U.S. citizens, and the acts involved weren’t on our soil, so our criminal law shouldn’t apply.
I submit that if Bush had crafted a process for objectively evaluating guilt or innocence of prisoners, the federal courts would have deferred to the executive, particularly in a time of war. These are conservative judges who are strongly inclined to do exactly that.
But he didn’t so we have a separation of powers issue. He’s President Bush, not King Bush, and there have to be checks on each branch’s power.
Part of Gitmo’s problem was that there was and is no clear way to resolve a prisoner’s status, and keeping someone locked up indefinitely sounds more like Stalin’s Russia than the U.S. I want this nation to be.
When Bush can’t get even strong conservative judges to go along with the process, you know the process is horribly screwed up.
And, really, it’s not that tough to set up a process with a modicum of objectivity, but when you look at the process that’s in place, you can’t even pretend it’s objective. It’s more like Lewis Carroll’s Queen of Hearts. The prisoner can’t see the evidence, the deciding tribunal is in the chain of command of the authority running the prison. That’s like the cop who makes the arrest having the authority to demote or fire the judge trying the case. May as well have a lynch mob.
Gitmo didn’t need to be a problem, but there wasn’t a plan, and Bush (Cheney really) blew off Congress entirely and in so doing threw away their best opportunity to set a just and moral standard.
Outlander, I’ll concede that Gitmo is humane, but it isn’t just.
This is a failure of leadership.
olddeadmeat on July 3, 2008 at 9:32 AM
If he does this, a camera should go into Gitmo and be all over the news showing the foot baths they installed and marks on the wall that point toward Mecca.
Would this undercut the war crimes the left plan on charging him for?
jp on July 3, 2008 at 9:33 AM
That’s more accurate, but it’s safe to assume it will be nearly impossible to deny them ordinary rights granted every day in American courts. Otherwise Gitmo would be happily churning out decisions in tribunals.
Beagle on July 3, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Neither Boudemine nor Hamdi finds that they have any rights to bail. They only have right to challenge their detention. Bail is not a right to anyone who meets conditions for denial, which each of these folks certainly does.
Squid Shark on July 3, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Send half of them to the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, and the other half to John Edward’s compound and Al Gore’s mega-mansion….The Dhimmi-Libs have been crying how bad the Islamic Terrorists have had it, let them put up the members of that “peaceful” religion in their own homes if they are so innocent…Maybe Fauxbama can bring a few out on the campaign trail with him….Medea Benjamin from Code Pink ought to take a few in as well…If Gitmo is closed, this nation is the largest collection of idiots on the planet. I hope I’m wrong.
adamsmith on July 3, 2008 at 9:35 AM
If they were caught on the battlefield, I agree. We should have treated them like irregulars.
Squid Shark on July 3, 2008 at 9:35 AM
I suggest putting them on a plane back to Afghanistan. My only concern would be that, with the military being heavily used these days, the plane’s mechanical systems might not be the best. I do hope the pilot would have a parachute in case the engines fail while over the middle of the Atlantic. . .
rbj on July 3, 2008 at 9:36 AM
they did, and they explicitly banned the courts from interfering…but the courts grabbed the power anyway..and no one will stand up to them and ignore their ruling.
we’re not a democracy, just a judicial oligarchy.
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 9:36 AM
I’m shocked!
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 9:37 AM
Well said, GTMO was done with no real plan. Now the Supreme Court has made the decision for him.
Squid Shark on July 3, 2008 at 9:37 AM
BRING THEM TO CALIFORNIA! We have done the most complaining about GITMO detainees.
Let’s bring those American hating, suiciders here to SAN FRANCISCO. I’m sure Nancy Pelosi will NOT have an issue with that. IN FACT, let’s let them OUT ON BAIL in San Francisco.
originalpechanga on July 3, 2008 at 9:39 AM
right4life:
What process for dealing with prisoners did Congress create?
Executive orders and the UCMJ don’t stretch that far.
olddeadmeat on July 3, 2008 at 9:39 AM
We should have treated them like terrorists. Or, how about the way the terrorists treated their captured prisoners?
Off with their heads.
fogw on July 3, 2008 at 9:42 AM
congress did pass a detainee act, that explicity put it outside of the court’s jurisdiction.
didn’t matter our black-robed jack-booted masters at the supreme court ignored that, and any other, restriction on their power..
link
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 9:42 AM
the supreme usurped the power, and our elected reps don’t have the guts to stand up to them.
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 9:43 AM
So many fans of Lewis Carroll around….
olddeadmeat on July 3, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Squid Shark,
You’re assuming everyone is a flight risk or danger to society. More importantly, you’re assuming that can be proven in civilian court. Given the difficulties with evidence and national security, I wouldn’t assume anything. That’s for courts to decide, preferably near the federal Ninth Circuit.
Beagle on July 3, 2008 at 9:45 AM
Not to mention, what to do with Gitmo itself. There is no real military mission there anymore other than the detainees so do we hang onto it because we can or do we leave entirely.
highhopes on July 3, 2008 at 9:46 AM
This isn’t a fairy tale.
fogw on July 3, 2008 at 9:46 AM
That the Ninth Circuit is an entire continent, diagonally, from my present location is merely coincidental, or not.
Beagle on July 3, 2008 at 9:48 AM
congress also passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which explicitly removed jurisdiction from the courts…
the courts ignored it….checks and balances…NOT they dont’ exist….for the supreme fascists.
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 9:55 AM
That would take some soldiers with them. It could also take an innocent man or men with it. Not worth it.
MadisonConservative on July 3, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Well, the Bush Administration based its decisions on prior rulings and precedent. It’s easy to second guess them now.
To argue that they should have crafted a new set of laws with Congress’s input (which they belatedly did) still ignores the fact that it’s pretty clear that the Court – or the five person majority – still would have not found them sufficient.
It seems to me that no matter what the political branches had done that the Courts still would have wanted to have their say in the detention process. And once that camel’s nose gets inside the courtroom (to mangle the metaphor), who knows what will happen?
SteveMG on July 3, 2008 at 9:56 AM
How about an Adopt-a-detainee program in which Gitmo-bashing lawmakers each take a prisoner home? In fact, guys with big houses like Rockefeller, Silky Edwards and Moneybags Pelosi could take several.
whitetop on July 3, 2008 at 9:59 AM
They have a right to appeal their detention in civilian court. And the courts will decide – per Kennedy’s ruling – what due process rights – procedural or substantive – they have.
And due process rights can include all of the rights that US civilians have.
I think it’s extremely unlikely – well, it won’t happen period – that they’ll be given bail rights. But the point is that the courts have that power to give them such rights if the court (or a court) decides otherwise.
In effect, the courts will take over the detention policy of these inmates/detainees.
SteveMG on July 3, 2008 at 10:00 AM
fogw, see my previous post vis a vis the Queen of Hearts…
right4life said:
Conceded – done way back in 2006, kinda like setting rules for the game in the 3rd quarter, yes?
The SC found that the petitioners had met their burden of establishing that Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 failed to provide an adequate substitute for habeas corpus.
And Congress’ response: the MCA
And what a great process, under the MCA:
1- The Commissions can still hear and consider “hearsay evidence”.
2- Suspects would still be restricted from attempting to refute, or indeed even learning about, evidence against them that was classified as secret. Who decides what is secret? Why, the folks bringing the charges? Even the hearsay is classified.
Kind of a pointless trial, isn’t it. Sort of like a Cardassian enigma tail, where everyone is guilty of something, but the challenge is figuring out who is guilty of what.
Still sounds more like Russia to me.
Show me how an innocent man who gets swept up by accident (say he’s a hummous delivery guy who grew up next door to one of the terrorists arrives to deliver food just before U.S. troops break down the door) can exonerate himself? He has a link to one of the terrorists, he’s there when the troops arrive.
“Oh, he’s a delivery guy, that’s a great cover for a spy.”
“Lock him up.” or, in the spirit of lynch mobs everywhere:
“Off with his head.”
olddeadmeat on July 3, 2008 at 10:03 AM
that was the second one, after the supreme fascists ruled against the first one, which removed jurisdiction from the courts.
point is the court usurped power. and our reps did nothing about it, except bend over.
the courts will give whatever rights they want to these scum, since courts invent ‘rights’ out of thin air, since they are the ultimate authority in this country.
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Let’s phrase the question this way:
Does anyone know what due process rights that we have as citizens that the Court ruled the detainees don’t have?
It seems to me that Kennedy ruled that the Courts will work it, i.e., their rights, out.
And that can mean they have all of the rights that US citizens have or just habeas appeals of their detention. And everything in between.
SteveMG on July 3, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Tough bananas — let the rotten leftist lawyers worry about this after their clients had the white glove treatment in Gitmo, they can get the sos pad treatment in their home countries. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR LEFTISTS!!
Richard Romano on July 3, 2008 at 10:15 AM
SteveMG:
You ask a good question. My answer is I don’t know.
Really, when you get down to it, our court system is an attempt to have a process where a man can protect himself against the power of gov’t.
Presumption of innocence
Right to a lawyer
Habeas corpus
and still prosecutors can easily get 90%+ conviction rates.
and still people can get the death penalty until they are exonerated by DNA evidence.
You could easily argue our protections for citizens aren’t protection enough.
I think they are pretty good, and gut level, it bugs me to give terrorists the same level of protection, but the alternative is a kangaroo court, which really pointless and morally corrosive.
olddeadmeat on July 3, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Yes, point conceded. Somebody mentioned a plane crash mid atlantic….
dhimwit on July 3, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Hard cheese. That’s not the fault of the President and he doesn’t bear the responsibility for it. He was pressed to this point by feckless Democrats and a Constitution-free SCOTUS decision. Every single mishapy that happens to these detainees in their home country is on them.
These Islamists want to play big boy games. Sucks to be them. They could have decided not to try to kill Americans in the first place.
Jimmie on July 3, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Put them in chains, march them into congress, hand Pelosi the keys, and say “Here, you wanted to have your say, take care of it”…then go fishing.
right2bright on July 3, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Exchange 20 Gitmo rats per 1 US prisoner or body in terrorist’s hands. But we will turn over the exchanged prisoners by matching the condition of the US detainee. Since they have killed all their prisoners, we should kill them. OR says that the most stable negotiation strategy is Tit for Tat.
To keep the nut-roots from going ballistic, a timed release poison combined with some rfid sensors would do just fine.
Winning wars = killing the enemy.
NaCly dog on July 3, 2008 at 10:29 AM
You cannot effectively try terrorists in federal courts because of two main reasons: (i) they will use the trial for propaganda purposes (like the “20th hijacker”) and (ii) you run into a significant “graymail” problem where the government cannot present the evidence against the terrorists, as required by the 6th Amendment in a normal trial, without compromising national security and putting lives at risk.
You say that Bush should have gone to Congress regarding the detentions. Maybe so, but the fact is that we did this hastily after we went into Afghanistan, and then held these guys for two years until a plan could be worked up. The best they could come up with was the 2005 act which, as you later noted, got shot down. Furthermore, as with other national security legislation, it became so politicized that Bush had good reason to be reticient about going to Congress.
The biggest failure of leadership on Bush’s part was assuming the good faith of the Democrats and the courts to allow him the opportunity to do the right and humane thing for these terrorists. In retrospect, the wisest course was probably to quietly disappear these guys — and you can rest assured that all future administrations, Democrat or Republican, will do precisely that.
A true victory for human rights!
Outlander on July 3, 2008 at 10:33 AM
I think they are pretty good, and gut level, it bugs me to give terrorists the same level of protection, but the alternative is a kangaroo court, which really pointless and morally corrosive.
olddeadmeat on July 3, 2008 at 10:15 AM
These “people” aren’t stealing cookies and getting away with it. They are vicious savages who murdered nearly 3000 innocents back on 9/11 and would be thrilled to murder 3 million more American citizens without blinking an eye.
We have long sinced crossed the line where we need to be concerned over being morally corrosive when it comes to dealing with an enemy who has vowed to destroy America and will do so in a bloothirsty manner with no conscience and no regrets.
Do we really need another terrorist strike of epic proportions to remind us who we are dealing with …… and how we should deal with them?
In a courtroom? Simply laughable.
fogw on July 3, 2008 at 10:37 AM
So were the German combatants that were caught in the U.S. during WW2 illegally executed?
Johan Klaus on July 3, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Send all of the detainees back to their home countries, so that they will find out what is real torture.
Johan Klaus on July 3, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Johan:
Germany – nation – Geneva convention – doesn’t apply here. I’d have to bone up on that situation to even know if I agree or disagree.
fogw, Outlander, you’re right – terrorists are evil bad people who deserve their fingernails ripped out, bleach poured in their eyes while listening to their own screaming as a blowtorch is applied to their genitals.
But the question I put to you is this:
are we Huns or Americans?
This isn’t about who they are, it’s about who we are.
Until we have a mindray that lets us tell the sheep from the goats, a judicial process is all we have to work with.
Throw that away, and we’re not Americans anymore. May as well be Salem witch hunters.
olddeadmeat on July 3, 2008 at 10:47 AM
the ‘detainees’ had plenty of rights before the supreme court overruled our elected representatives.
to say that they were ‘mistreated’ or held illegally is ludicrous, especially since many of the ones released have been killed on the battlefield, or captured again, attacking americans.
we should treat them like we did the germans we captured in WWII in NJ….summary execution.
they are not soldiers, they are spies, saboteurs.
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 10:50 AM
so you have no problems with the supreme court having ultimate authority in this country?
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 10:51 AM
In your world, here’s America’s tombstone, sometime in the future ……
Here lies America,
her citizens are all dead now,
but let it be written,
they were really nice to their enemies.
Most of us are still true Americans. Some of us have turned into wussy Americans.
fogw on July 3, 2008 at 10:55 AM
I would love too see your proof that every person at GTMO is a terrorist or was involved in 9/11.
I am sure the U.S. Govt would like to see it since they dont have that data on each one of them.
Squid Shark on July 3, 2008 at 10:58 AM
and where do these ‘detainees’ get released TO by the courts?
most of their home countries don’t want them. so I guess they’ll be released to a neighborhood near you!!
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Oh boy, here somes the true american argument.
Its like the “true conservatives” with the added implication of treason!
Innovative
Squid Shark on July 3, 2008 at 10:59 AM
I HIGHLY doubt that.
Squid Shark on July 3, 2008 at 11:00 AM
where do they get released to then?
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 11:00 AM
right,
They will be deported whether their home countries want them or not.
Squid Shark on July 3, 2008 at 11:01 AM
and how do you do that?
link
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I say that the only way to avoid more legaloid problems is to release all of the Gitmo prisoners in a country where we can be sure there will be no torture.
Antarctica.
(Are penguins halal?)
profitsbeard on July 3, 2008 at 11:04 AM
My suggestion as to a new facility for holding them remains a shipping container at the bottom of the Atlantic. But somehow I suspect that notion wouldn’t garner majority support on the Supreme Court.
Blacklake on July 3, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Oh goody. Another crybaby worried about the rights of the poor wittle terrorists.
Cry me a river.
fogw on July 3, 2008 at 11:05 AM
I would release them right by Justice Kennedy’s house…and tell them if they get in trouble, to go to that house for help!!
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 11:06 AM
too quick…drop them off in the middle of the ocean, at night, WITH a life vest…to prolong it…
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Alternatively, maybe the government could use its powers of eminent domain to procure land adjacent to the properties of David Souter or John Paul Stevens to build a new domestic holding facility.
Blacklake on July 3, 2008 at 11:07 AM
I can feel the hate from your posts from here.
I hate them just as much, but I WILL NOT LET HATE GUIDE MY SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG.
We have a court system as a check on our emotional extremes.
In WW2, most Americans feared and hated Japanese American citizens because of where they came from. Our court system rolled over in a time of war and let the administration do it.
Did that make it right to lock them all up and take away all they had?
In 1942, fogw, right4life, would you have locked them up? I am ashamed to say I very well could have. I may very well have let my fear or hate be the deciding factor.
Hate breeds hate. Letting hate decide our actions only fuels the fire, makes the war that much harder to end, and feeds more people to the flames.
olddeadmeat on July 3, 2008 at 11:10 AM
you must be a good liberal…can you libs evolve some new lines?
no, we have a court system that has usurped unaccountable power in this country.
those were citizens, they people are not. but you have to fudge the facts as part of the ‘narrative’
no I wouldn’t have, because they were citizens
so congress decides upon something, and that is hateful but when the supreme courts usurps power, and gives us guidance from on high, its correct because the court knows all, sees all, IS ALL!
why bother having a president and congress?
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 11:13 AM
olddeadmeat-
Somebody you’re worrying a whole bunch about wants to cut your head off and laugh into the hole.
Oooo, scary.
Hate is quite natural and healthy when someone murders 3,000 of your neighbors.
Hate does not breed anything but: correcting their homicidal behavior permanently.
Then your can stop hating.
And get back to the work of Civilization, which the Jihad is only a bloody speed bump toward.
profitsbeard on July 3, 2008 at 11:17 AM
I’m assuming that was intended as satire. Obviously, you understand the difference between innocent US citizens and captured foreign terrorists.
Blacklake on July 3, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Comparing the terrorists of today to our enemy combatants in WWII only puts your ignorance on display. The enemy combatants of WWII came from soveriegn nations, and were tried and convicted under the rules of the Geneva Convention.
You seem to have a problem with people hating other people. It’s a natural instinct. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, we hated them. When the Nazis invaded the rest of Europe and murdered millions of Jews, we hated them. We weren’t driven to destroy our enemies by caring about their feelings or trying to understand their motives. We won because we hated them, what they did, what they stood for, and that kind of motivation brought satisfying results.
Sometimes hate is good. It is the mother of self-preservation.
fogw on July 3, 2008 at 11:22 AM
alleged terrorists, some are definately terroist scumbags we should have shot after interrogation. Others we have pulled from other countries or they have been turned over by bounty hunters. these are the ones we can not be sure of.
Squid Shark on July 3, 2008 at 11:23 AM
right4life:
Liberal?
now, let’s not get into ad hominem here.
I know exactly what I am:
A hate-filled SOB struggling to live up to Christian ideals. I am supposed to love and forgive those humans and I don’t think I quite have made it to that point yet.
Personally, I have no problem with our nation shooting them in head. Heck, if my gov’t asked me to do it and gave me legal authorization, I’d pay for the plane ticket to Gitmo tomorrow and even offer to pay for the bullets.
But I want to be SURE. I don’t want any innocent blood on my hands, and the Bush administration has played this so fast and loose.
That’s exactly why we have a court system, and in case no one has noticed, the Supremes generally follow trends in the nation, they don’t change them and when they try they usually fail.
And, as I mentioned before, lots of good conservatives out there agree with me, it just so happens that some of them Bush 2 or Bush 1 or Reagan put on the bench.
The process in place now doesn’t give an innocent man a chance to free himself.
Does that sit well with you?
olddeadmeat on July 3, 2008 at 11:26 AM
We don’t want the inmates; their own countries don’t want them. Nobody wants them. Adherents of their amiable faith never tire of telling us how much they like being dead; perhaps we should heed their wishes.
Meanwhile this is not our private psychodrama. We do have to get along with the other nations around the world, many of whom aren’t as squeamish as we are, and they are expecting us to make the problem disappear permanently. If we do so with finesse, we will gain great respect in their cold and heartless eyes. It comes down to concocting the best story and sticking to it with good eye contact and aplomb.
dhimwit on July 3, 2008 at 11:27 AM
House em in the Supreme Court Building.
dalec on July 3, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Screw it, freaking SCREW IT ALL!
Let there be another 9/11 and let there be more people that die, more then the 3000.
I have freaking had it concerning people who have NO common sense to do anything other then eat, crap sleep and whine!
And as all hell breaks loose, I am going to be one of those people who has their weapons to defend theirs and God help them if they try to do anything. I sure as hell am tired of helping these morons. Let the Berkley idiots rule and see what happens! I bet you that they will go to all of us Military and retired and ask for help.
Ugh this is so damn frustrating.
upinak on July 3, 2008 at 11:31 AM
if you’re not a liberal, this sure is a liberal talking point. They have been given more rights than they should have. They had Geneva protection, when they do not fall under the convention….and now the supreme fascists have given the same rights as US citizens.
you see this really troubles me. congress specifically took away jurisdiction from the courts, and the courts said, NO, we are the SUPREME POWER OF THE LAND…and the other 2 branches just bend over…
ah yes it does, they are called military tribunals…now many of these people will be released for fear of compromising intelligence, and getting our sources killed.
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 11:33 AM
You’re missing my point. The military has the right to shoot unlawful combatants on sight. Since many of these guys had valuable intelligence, we chose to grab them and interrogate them instead. We would be foolish not to. Now the question is what to do with them. I think we could treat them like POWs to the extent that we should be able to hold them until after hostilities have ceased in Afghanistan.
What we’re talking about here is the “right” of these people to challenge their status as unlawful combatants. Doing that via a habeas proceeding is awful because it’s just going to allow them to make a mockery of our justice system and expose us to graymail problems.
At bottom, GTMO and the military commissions process constituted a good faith attempt to strike a balance between giving these guys fair hearings to determine their unlawful combatant status and protecting national security. The liberals’ blind hatred of Bush led to Boumediene.
Bush and the administration now have no choice but to either release all of them or render them to other countries. We cannot afford to have a phalanx of high-priced NY and DC lawyers with enormous chips on their shoulders streaming into district courts with ten thousand habeas petitions.
So what lesson did the Bush Administration (and any future administration) learn from this? Don’t try to do the right thing, because it’ll blow up in your face. Do the easy thing instead: ship them to Egypt so Mubarak can work them over for you on the sly.
Outlander on July 3, 2008 at 11:35 AM
yes they do, they could, as Jackson did, ignore the supreme fascist ruling.
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 11:36 AM
The military commission process would not have happened without Hamdi.
Squid Shark on July 3, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Are you one of the hippies that complains that life is suppose to be this way or that way?
You do realize that life isn’t suppose to be this easy. War is common, Anger is inevitable, Pride is wounded and yet here we are trying to be the Politically Correct Country! Well, FYI to you old timer…. I am tired of PC. I am tired of the anti this and that movement of anyone who doesn’t want to fight for anything anymore.
If you don’t like it, that isn’t my problem! Move to Canada, Mexico, Columbia, oh hell Europe! I will even help you move.
If you don’t like what is going on at GTMO, so what! War isn’t pretty but at least we aren’t killing them. We aren’t chopping of THEIR heads, or taking them off the Streets and killing them! We aren’t using them for propaganda to our GODS! We aren’t doing anything but detaining them.
If that isn’t good enough for you and you want to treat everyone like an American… then I highly suggest you go over seas and check out the rest of the world. Because your an American, sure as hell doesn’t mean you are going to be liked.
upinak on July 3, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Squid Shark on July 3, 2008 at 11:39 AM
not exactly:
link
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM
With all due respect, olddeadmeat, I think your question as to whether we are Americans or Huns is irrelevant here. Locking up 260 irregular combatants indefinitely does not and cannot make us Huns. Sending them off to other countries to be tortured or even executing them outright would not make us Huns, either. In fact, we as Americans are many millions of wanton and indiscriminate rapes, pillagings and murders away from being even remotely comparable to Huns. Or Soviets. Or Nazis. Or any of the other popular false analogies. Let’s be honest with ourselves, here. The point is, we as a society could not reach that level if we tried. The very fact that there is even an argument over it should be a clear indication of that.
Let’s talk plainly, here, and leave aside all of the clever hyperbole that’s being thrown around. This is a war. It does not matter whether we want to call it a war, what matters is that the jihadists consider it a war, and are bent on fighting it as such. Wars are won when one side loses its will to continue fighting. History has taught us this, if nothing else.
The real question of our time, and the one no one seems to want to face, is…what will be necessary to break our current enemies’ will to fight?
That is, and should be, a profoundly sobering question. Particularly since I don’t believe any of our current elected leaders, or most of our populace for that matter, have the backbone to face it.
Cylor on July 3, 2008 at 11:44 AM
right4life cited this example as evidence all people held at Gitmo aren’t terrorists. If we were paying a bounty for terrorists and bounty hunters exploited the opportunity to make a buck, or they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, are they to be treated equally with those captured fighting against us? If some of these guys are actually against the present Chinese government, rather than us, should we send them back to the tender embrace of the Chinese government after having identified them as opposition?
a capella on July 3, 2008 at 11:53 AM
fogw said:
“Sometimes hate is good. It is the mother of self-preservation.”
I am a poor christian at best, but I don’t know any Christian anywhere who can say “hate is ever good”
Are you suggesting that morality has no place in war?
All these ad hominem attacks and “why don’t we just let the terrorists win” ignore the issue that some of these guys at Gitmo didn’t have useful intelligence and have done nothing to merit status as unlawful combatants BUT THEY HAVE NO WAY TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR INNOCENCE in the process we were using.
Did you look at the tribunal procedures I referenced? Calling those a just process is putting Robert Mugabe and every other tinpot dictator out there moral equivalence with us. By bending down to that level we are saying that morally, sometimes kangaroo courts are OK.
NOPE. They aren’t. Not ever.
Cylor, I love your reply. you are right, as Stalin would say, we have tragedies, not statistics. But doesn’t the direction matter? Are we taking steps in following our moral ideals or in changing them? Just what road are we paving with all good intention?
Cylor points directly at the more important question – breaking will to fight?
My submissions (and I look forward to others’ perspectives):
1- This is a war of cultures not of nations.
2- You don’t defeat cultures by killing its adherents.
3- You defeat cultures by changing its adherents to follow your own culture.
4- Here is precisely where Gitmo become a problem for us – it allowed our opponents to paint us as hypocrites, that we don’t really stand for liberty and equal treatment under the law, but that we are no better than them morally. The legal issue is less important than the moral, and I think the courts would go along with a process that could be perceived as being just.
right4life and others may disagree, but I cannot see how tribunals as structured, could be perceived by any objective person as just.
Trying to justify that process in fact only strengthens our enemies.
They win if they can drag us down to their level. We will win when we elevate them up to ours, which means treating even Osama bin Laden with justice, regardless of what we would really like to do to him.
olddeadmeat on July 3, 2008 at 12:13 PM
At this stage I think it’s safe to assume that the Pentagon has a good idea of who the people it’s still holding are. If some of them aren’t a threat, then so be it, but I would strongly urge erring on the side of caution. However, I personally would draw no meaningful distinction between Islamists opposed to infidel China and Islamists opposed to infidel America. The problem is Islamism, not its target du jour. Both American and Chinese civilization (despite the numerous flaws I find in the latter) are vastly preferable to the designs of Islam.
Blacklake on July 3, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Turn them over to the Israeli Intelligence.
maverick muse on July 3, 2008 at 12:22 PM
“The problem is Islamism, not its target du jour.”
+1
maverick muse on July 3, 2008 at 12:24 PM
They had due process: imprisoned until the end of hostilities. Imprisonment reviewed by military tribunal.
The five justices who felt this wasn’t enough should all be impeached.
Geneva Convention protections are the right of legitimate POWs. US Constitutional protections are the right of American citizens. The detainees at GITMO have the right to none of those.
Troll Feeder on July 3, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Helloooooooo. Anybody in there? Look up the definition of sometimes. Don’t put words in my mouth. Sometimes and ever good aren’t even in the same zip code.
No, and I dare you to find where I so much as suggested so.
When the Japanese and Germans captured prisoners they were known to torture and execute them. When Americans captured Japanese and Germans we treated them humanely. There’s your morality in times of war. Uh, just so we’re clear, it was our side that exhibited Christian-like values.
fogw on July 3, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Actually, no, the jihadists themselves have never once said they can or will win by dragging us down to their level. Unless there are some new AQ policy changes I’m not aware of, their definition of victory is all of us being dead.
Personally, I’d like to see us doing everything in our power to guarantee that our children will be alive to question the morality of how we won this, rather than the alternative. Because I’m really afraid it’s going to come down to that kind of a choice, and I don’t see anyone even thinking in those terms who might conceivably be in a position to make it.
Cylor on July 3, 2008 at 12:51 PM
fogw:
Let me be clearer, since apparently I wasn’t before: HATE IS NEVER GOOD. Not in any circumstance. Not ever as a guide to behavior. That is what “ever” means. It excludes even “sometimes.”
Cylor:
You are correct, partially, in the jihadist definition of victory is all of us dead, or, converting to their way of thinking. Islam explicitly encourages forcible conversion of unbelievers.
How would you defeat an culture that is so destructive?
The only other alternative to what I suggested earlier that I have ever been able to come up with is genocide. Not particularly palatable, but it is possible. I hope no one here prefers that as a final solution.
You said:
“I’d like to see us doing everything in our power to guarantee that our children will be alive to question the morality of how we won this, rather than the alternative.”
Yes, but then by using survival as the moral trump card leaves even greater extremes wide open.
Example: as an interrogation technique, I propose this one.
When we capture a prisoner, we locate and detain all of his relatives, we then parade them before him, and promise him that:
1- we will bring the worst child molesters in our prisons to rape his children before his very eyes, we will feed his parents to wild hogs (aka Hannibal for all you movie buffs out there) and everyone who lives in his village with be exterminated with chemical weapons.
Now, we shouldn’t do that, but why not? If survival is our guide, then this is a much more effective interrogation technique. We could even turn him around and send him back to infiltrate al-Q for us.
I am looking for guidance here. Al-Q aren’t PoWs under the Geneva convention, they aren’t citizens. So what’s the standard we should apply to define the rules to create an appropriate judicial process to treat them?
I have seen lots of anger on this board, been called names, but I am looking for reasoned discourse on this. If we are going to exclude them from our court system and from the Geneva convention, then can anyone spell out the basis for how we treat the enemy?
Awaiting all replies, your servant, ODM
olddeadmeat on July 3, 2008 at 1:14 PM
simple, just like we treated the german spies in WWII
they were quickly tried and executed.
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 1:27 PM
I like the way you think!
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 1:28 PM
right4life said:
“they were quickly tried and executed.”
Don’t have a problem with that either, but it should be a fair trial or there is no point to it. You can have fair tribunals, but from all I have seen if an innocent man ever was released from Gitmo (Have those tribunals ever come back with “not guilty”) it would be blind luck or because an officer’s common sense overrode the process. The process, as constructed, is not built to produce anything but a guilty verdict.
olddeadmeat on July 3, 2008 at 1:39 PM
When hate is good. An example.
Your a soldier on the battlefield. Looking through the sights on your weapon you see the enemy, you also see he is preparing an all out assault on your position.
You don’t know this enemy personally, his family, how many children he has, or if he was a good parent. What you know by his uniform or his posturing, is that he is indeed the enemy and he is set on killing YOU. What you also know is this same collective enemy only last week slit the throat of your best friend while he lay sleeping in his tent.
He is in your sights. Do you pull the trigger or not? If you have mustered enough hatred for the enemy, you take him out in an instant. If you’re all wishy-washy about your Christian teachings about turning the other cheek or obeying the Ten Commandments, you can just sit there, do the morally right thing, and have your own head blown off. That’s how you lose wars.
Part of the indoctrination into the military involves igniting our primieval hatred so that the soldier doesn’t hesitate, doesn’t take time to judge himself, and automatically squeezes the trigger to live another day. That’s how you win wars. If you feel otherwise, keep away from military service because your inability to hate and kill the enemy will only end up killing your comrades in arms.
Without hate, good cannot triumph over evil.
fogw on July 3, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Are you kidding? How many stories have been posted on HotAir about evidently guilty prisoners who’ve been released from Gitmo, only to return to the battlefield?
Cylor on July 3, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »