Bush to close Gitmo?
posted at 9:00 am on July 3, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
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: « Previous 1 2
Release the prisoners, (according to my dad they are completely innocent), to the Halls of Congress while in session. Maybe they will help us get rid of the career politicians who are selling us out.
Christine on July 3, 2008 at 1:55 PM
I have to ask.
Does anyone agree with fogw?
I fundamentally and wholeheartedly disagree that hate is needed to do anything.
It may be that we are using the term in 2 different ways. To me, hating is an active desire to do harm to someone regardless of anything else.
I don’t have to hate someone to shoot them in self-defense or in defense of others, or in the cause of a just war, and believe I will shoot someone when it is the right thing to do.
What hate does lead to is killing people when there is no other reason to do.
Let me be clear. To me, hating is a sin, it’s an act that is by definition evil. Hate is what the Nazis grew in their propaganda. Hate is the KKK’s weapon of choice. Hate is what Al-Q relies on to recruit suicide bombers. Hate says the other guy isn’t human, he’s a cockroach, you can do anything you want to him and it’s OK.
Is that what we want to be?
olddeadmeat on July 3, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Cylor:
references? I could easily have missed some, and I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, as some who knew me of old can attest.
In any event, thoughts as to the rest of my argument?
olddeadmeat on July 3, 2008 at 2:04 PM
that is demonstrably false, since we have released people from CLUB GITMO, some of whom have returned the favor by attacking us again.
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 2:09 PM
link
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Cylor:
OK, have dug up a few references, and yes some released have returned as bombings. An old question applies – should we convict the innocent or release the guilty? Your thoughts?
Also, is it possible that several years of detention without cause might breed hatred enough in a man’s breast to join Al-Q? Just wondering.
But specifically, I was referring to the tribunal process, which not many have gone thru yet. The Pentagon has released some before facing such a process. My point is that the process as constructed (under duress – the Bush administration had to be dragged to this point, by John McCain, among others) still has real problems as a credible tribunal.
olddeadmeat on July 3, 2008 at 2:15 PM
right4life:
see above
I repeat – has the tribunal returned a not guilty?
Moreover, even if the Pentagon is releasing people before going to a tribunal, that doesn’t make it a just process.
Are they releasing because of political pressure when they should have been detained?
Well, gee, maybe with a just process, it’s a lot easier to resist political pressure, isn’t it?
olddeadmeat on July 3, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Is it possible that Al-Q bringing down the WTC and killing thousands of innocent people pushing paper at their jobs might have bred enough hatred to stick them in Guitmo for a thousand years without a trial?
fogw on July 3, 2008 at 2:23 PM
the tribunal hasn’t had a chance, thanks to the supreme fascists.
well who says that using the US courts is a just process?? just because the courts say so? please. Using this logic, then being a citizen of the US is meaningless, since all people of the entire world have the same rigths as US citizens…and you have not commented upon the usurpation of power by this court, which is just as frightening as what these terrorists have done.
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Who cares if the tribunal has returned a not guilty? If they just wanted to railroad people why turn so many lose? The bombers from the first WTC attack were found guilty as hell in a court of law, but that does not mean the process was flawed. Saying the system is not working because the accused are found guilty is ridiculous.
I think that there is a certain justice in dumping this back in the laps of Congress. After all, Bush has had the responsibility thus far. Let some of these back seat drivers take the wheel. Let them come up with a viable alternative.
Terrye on July 3, 2008 at 3:41 PM
And besides, even civil courts make mistakes sometimes. We hear about that all the time. It could well be that these men would have a better chance at a fair trial with a military tribunal than with a jury. After all, who would be their peers? Couldn’t they always claim that any American court would be prejudiced against them? Do you think that any terrorist sees a civil court as any more just than a military tribunal?
Terrye on July 3, 2008 at 3:44 PM
you forget that Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Ginzurg, and that old fart whose name I forget, have god-like powers…they are not like mortal men, they give us mere mortal pronouncements from on high…
we are blessed to have their wisdom to guide us!!!
Thankfully they run the country…Praise Kennedy!!
right4life on July 3, 2008 at 3:56 PM
So, capturing them on the battlefield fighting our troops, counts as nothing? And how about the German combatants that were hanged in the U.S. during W2 after judgement by a tribunal?
Johan Klaus on July 3, 2008 at 4:39 PM
olddeadmeat,
I understand your concern, but justice is a tad too malleable these days to be the standard. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes all absolutes unachievable. So we do the best we can. Justice for whom is the first question.
The military tribunals can be the fairest process for our civilization and the truly innocent. F. Lee Bailey gave a talk once noting that an innocent person has a much better fate under the UCMJ, as opposed to civilian trials. Just think of all the correct Article 15 and Captain’s Mast cases over the years.
We can do scientific tests on nitrate deposition, store fingerprints and GPS data, and use OR databases to increase the probability of nailing the right guy. There will always be some error. I would like to bias the error to protect our civilization.
In a larger scene, I like the idea of terrorists or want-to-be terrorists having an immediate reaction of “It’s suicide to attack Americans, and does’t help my cause at all.” Make it a reflex action to deter future non-state evil.
NaCly dog on July 3, 2008 at 5:57 PM
This does not describe all of the GTMO detainees.
Squid Shark on July 3, 2008 at 6:51 PM
That’s the point I was trying to get at. But again, nobody in our elected government seems willing to even think along those lines.
Cylor on July 4, 2008 at 5:44 AM
I always like their store slogan.
Terrorizing less?
Git Mo!
pc on July 4, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Bush has to shut down Guantanamo or it’ll become a Socialist Museum for Mistreatment. Guaranteed. No way you leave that artifact to exploit. Raze it.
pc on July 4, 2008 at 2:33 PM
I love how finally trying them for horrible crimes they have committed is an option not even worth mentioning.
It was a mistake to read one of Ed’s commentaries. I’ll now return to the mode of ignoring them altogether.
freevillage on July 4, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Again, they should have been shot on the spot, like the Geneve convention allows.
Johan Klaus on July 4, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Let your party campaign for that.
freevillage on July 5, 2008 at 12:14 AM
We have a policy in place to try them for crimes. But the liberal justices on the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, found rights not mentioned in the Laws of War, the UCMJ, and the Geneva Convention. So we can’t try them as planned.
It took a lot longer to get a procedure because of Democratic and left-wing support for the terrorists (excuse me-you say innocent victims). Do not impugn those trying to solve problem when you are deliberately making the problem-solvers job much harder.
If you would stop reinforcing failure, the US of A can be just and fair.
Look up show trial in the USSR for contrast.
NaCly dog on July 5, 2008 at 12:27 AM
No campaign needed. It is the law that your party is constantly qouting.
Johan Klaus on July 5, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2