Redstate

Seriously, while it's obvious that Erick is being facetious but this sort of inflammatory post (a) fails to persuade anyone, (b) sets up an obvious straw man argument that ignores the fact that there are lots of serious policy options about what to do about the detainees, and (c) lowers the overall quality of the debate.

There are many constructive ways to debate the issue over what to do about the detainees which serve this sites mission of promoting republicanism rather than making its proponents look silly.  This isn't it.

Between this post and the deport all Muslims one earlier, this site is ghastly. There needs to be better quality control on the front page. This is terrible.

Sure, this post might be inappropriate, and I am sure plenty of people will bring that up. The fact of the matter is, however, that this is a fairly thought-provoking topic. US Senators, the media, Amnesty International - a whole lot of people in this country (and elsewhere around the world, but more importantly in this country) believe that the prison at Guantanamo Bay ought to be closed.

They don't think that's irrational at all, despite the fact that Guantanamo Bay is the best place for these accused terrorists to be. I wonder what the other alternatives are, according to the anti-GTMO people. Where would they have these accused terrorists?

Some argue that these people ought to be brought to the United States where they can be immediately charged and prosecuted. If they cannot be charged or prosecuted, they should be let go. In other words, we are back to the Clinton-era system of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue rather than a military issue. Again, if we were to do that, we would be failing to understand the true nature of this battle. Our enemies do not wish to commit crimes against us, they wish to completely destroy us. This is not petty theft, ladies and gentlemen.

Others are more candid with their real feelings about what ought to be done with the prisoners at GTMO. They just think these people ought to be let go. After all, the United States caught them, and the United States is nearly always wrong - especially in terms of foreign policy and the War on Terror. So, in that sense, those who argue this position are either anti-American and wish for the terrorists at Camp X-Ray to do us harm, or they really believe these prisoners are all completely innocent.

The point of all this is simple: I don't see why it is considered reasonable by the mainstream media and many politicians in this country to talk about shutting down the prison in Guantanamo Bay, either bringing all the prisoners from there to the United States and either charging them or releasing them, or shutting the prison down and releasing everyone who is imprisoned there outright.

These are both, in my opinion, very foolish suggestions. They are ignorant of history, and they are ignorant of the new reality which we have to face in a changing world. I consider it to be an irrational proposal to suggest killing everyone who is incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay - equally irrational to several other proposals made and celebrated in the mainstream of media and political opinion.

I disagree that the post is inappropriate.  Thorley et al might not like the way I wrote about the subject, but there is a legitimate point in there.  If we close Gitmo, what do we do?  Why can Senators and the media so casually suggest we close Gitmo without a serious examination of the alternatives -- one of which I did not mention is sending these people to other countries where they will no doubt be treated worse than they are currently being treated.  That, to Biden and company, should be worse than leaving Gitmo open.

between Little Green Footballs and Redstate, and the usual content of Little Green Footballs came out...

hopefully that's been fixed.

I am far less confident than the poster that all the people we have at Gitmo are "sworn enemies of the United States. They will do what they can to kill us if (and when) they are released."

Indeed the fact that we have released people strongly suggests that some of the people should never have been there in the first place.

It is unclear to me how sworn enemies who will do what they can to kill us can morph into terrorists who "were no longer a threat."  It seems more likely to me that some of the releases are simply an admission of error.

Tom

There are serious ways to discuss the issue which are going on both in Washington and the blogosphere particularly the serious issue of what sort of legal guidelines/oversight will be involved in determining who we keep and who we release or send elsewhere.  

Inflammatory sensationalism adds nothing substantive to that debate.  The poor judgment in writing the post was compound by the folly of the author in posting it on the front page rather than as a diary entry as other founders/editors have done.

There is nothing wrong with illustrating absurdity with absurdity. That's what this post does.

Why not put all the prisoner's in the states of the senators who are protesting. Maybe a minumum security facilty. Ask the folks of the Democrat Senator's state how they feel about that.

Returning to the regularly scheduled conversation, why doesn't Bush or Rumsfeld give a high profile public speech and detail who is being held and why. Lay it all out for the folks. I will bet that will cut the noise.

discussing the alternatives is better than the juvenile position of "close it...we're better than this" but, man, that headline.  Someone posted a diary a while back about putting some careful consideration into headlines since they tend to show up on Google News searches.  Between this one and the earlier one on Schiavo I'm sweating bullets.  The articles themselves might highlight some great debate material but it's hard to get past the initial screeching cynicism.

about the basic alternatives here, and the inadequacy of those alternatives, once we move beyond the congenital need of some to carp at Whatever Bush Does, is the point.  We could transfer responsibility for the struggle against terror to law enforcement and the courts, which will entail Euro-style mewling over root causes and the xenophobia of the masses which leads to Muslim alienation which lead to terror which....  Or we could let them go, which seems to be a tacit claim that everything the US has done since 9/11 is unjust, which entails that there was some legitimate grievance that led to 9/11, which will entail... more root causes discourses.... which entail the claim that we had it coming.  And all of that simply follows from the inability of the left to detach the war from its political objectives felt to be thwarted by the WOT; there cannot really be a necessity for the war - the war is merely an excuse not to give them what they want, which things are coextensive with Reason Itself.  

It's not reasonable, but it is foolish, probably even a little malevolent; but that's the left circa 2005.

First, we have a FAIR tribunal.  Emphasis on fair.  If they were, in fact, swept up by mistake, and we don't have clear evidence of their associations, turn them loose.  But plant a GPS chip in them first, so we know where they are.

And if we do have the goods on them, take them out and shoot them.

They are illegal combatants (Francs Tireurs) hiding among a civilian population, and as such are fair game for execution by all the Geneva Conventions to which we are a party.

There.  That was easy.  And effective.  And none of them we shoot will show up shooting at anyone again.  Some of the ones we turn loose will, but I'd prefer we have some evidence before shooting them.

They are playing for keeps, and so should we.  They knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

Some people can be very sensitive.  Sure, the headline inflames.  How about this headline:  "Gitmo closed:  All prisoners returned to their homelands."

Or, how about this headline "Former Gitmo Prisoner Blows Himself Up at Mall of the Americas -- Sneaked Over Border from Canada."

The title is absolutely inflammatory.  It is absolutely not my position.  But, despite the disgruntled at the snarkiness of the piece, let's not run from the litigimate issues.

Do we close Gitmo?  If so, do we send all the prisoners home?  Do we keep them there in perpetuity?

The fact is that there are no good answers.  Keeping them in perpetuity seems as wrong to me as killing them all -- though sending them all home is more preferable than killing them all.

... for the innocent "detainees" who have been released have subsequently been recaptured on the battlefield. But what the hey ...

I guess I'm the only economist in the room, so I suppose it's up to me to point out that the humans will respond to the incentives.

Using some combination of lawyers and pointy sticks, we can make the taking of prisoners sufficiently onerous that no NCO out there in the field is going to want to have anything to do with "prisoners."

Prisoners are just too much hassle. Better to have the radio fail and be unable to call off the air strike than to have anybody come out of that building alive. He was waving a what? I can't hear you. Boom.

Let's not get so concerned about what happans at Gitmo that the whole Central Command decides not to ever do that again.

As for the ones that are there now, the answer is obvious. Let them go. That's right: open the front door and let 'em walk right out.

It's Castro's problem.

The left keeps demanding we treat these "people" in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Military tribunals and execution for the ones who are convicted.

I think I have figured out why there has not been another attack on the United States homeland. It isn't because our security is so much better, or our intelligence is staying ahead of them.

No, the reason is quite simple. Why should Al Queda expend the time, money and effort, and risk capture and possible death? Why should they do this when their accomplices in the press and the US Congress are doing the job for them at no risk to themselves.

Ignorant Senators and other anti-American bigots who lack perspective or reading comprehension or historical literacy will not understand what you are saying, and will misinterpret what you are saying as  still more proof of how the VRWC/religious right/conservatives are wanting to kill all those poor innocent illegally held people in Cuba...er not Cuba but Gitmo. Except for the food, and the medical care, and the couseling, and the excercise, and the safety from the police of the nations they are wanted in, Gitmo is obviously the worst thing since the crucifixion....wait we can't say that it is religious.....it is the worst thing since Hitler thought Jews would like cmaps in Poland.

Obviously.

My apologies for reusing this argument in another diary.

All I can do is plead that I am incensed by the turpitude of the left and the press and some number of my own party. Senator Durbin's remarks, added to the ongoing river of vile, despicable accusations about the actions of our troops, law enforcement and intelligence services, will eventually have the desired effect on the morale of the troops. There will come a day when one or more soldiers dies because they let this get to them and they lost concentration of the mission.

I submit that in his heart of hearts Senator Durbin and his colleagues on the left could not possibly care less about these terrorists. The entire brouhaha has nothing to do with the detainees and their supposed rights, their treatment or the condition of their incarceration.

It has everything to do with the opportunity to score some cheap points on the President and the administration regardless of the cost. It has everything to do with getting a few minutes of time on TV or a few lines of self-serving ink in the press. It begins on November 8, 2000 and it continues unabated, escalating by the day.

It will get worse, and it will cost lives, it is inevitable.

This isn't even close to being intelligent, insightful, or having any redeaming qualities. It's just racist. Way to go in making those Nazi comparisons now seem appropriate. I hate those comparisons as they close off any rational discouse, but when you write about killing all the Arab in a detention facility, how can you possibly defend yourself from them?

This story tries to hide these racist comments in some form of hyperbolic argument in order to show the absurdity of another argument, but it only constructs a false choise between three options when in reality there are far more.

It's stomach turning.

Racist? I think you are reading something into this that isn't there.

Your post makes no sense.

...It's stomach turning.

No, what is stomach turning are the flood of crocodile tears and phoney concern from people like Durbin. What is stomach turning is the abuse being heaped on the men and women who every day risk their lives for our safety.

While I applaud your use of numerous polysyllabic words to call me an insensitive bigot, you have failed to grasp the point -- hence the need for a subtitle.

Dry your tears my little lefty automaton.  There was no hate in that post, only in your comment.

...There are many constructive ways to debate the issue...

So when are the likes of Senator Durbin, the New York Times, et al going to take your advise and start instead of throwing manure on the troops.

Not just the Arabs.  How is that racial?

Oh, because all of the "enemy combatants" happen to be Arabs?

Actually, I doubt they are all Arabs.  Maybe Moslem, but not Arab.

I don't think Nazism or racism is in anyway connected to this post.

... that I am not as clever as you so I missed it.

How about I present one.  We could hold them as prisoners of war with all the protections that are afforded to those captured in war time.  Assuming we are giving them those protections anyway, this shouldn't be too difficult.  As long as the war on terror continues, we hold them.

The real problem is the indefinite nature and the lack of legal standing that these prisoners present.  If you want to keep holding them, what laws or rules do you suggest we follow?

The article makes a valid point.

Since the goals of a radical islamist is to kill  or convert the rest of us, how can we just let them go free to continue their violence and mayhem?  The only legitimate issue is whether a particular individual is a radical islamist.  If they are, then they are an enemy combatant.

Also, what's with the racist, racist, racist talk?

We are talking about a radical sect of a "religion".  

are you the little pot stirrer tonight, or what?

I don't see the problem with this post. Clearly it's being satirical and carrying a line of argument to it's conclusion, if over-simplistically.

If you close Gitmo, where do they go? Free? Some of them are guilty. Will they be sent somewhere else where they'll be tortured or mistreated? How will that help anything? Why is Guantanamo Bay somehow being portrayed as the only location on Earth where this could happen? It's like saying: "A nuclear reactor is dumping radioactive material into the river! Let's move it upstream!" No!  

The problem -- from the perspective of this liberal, at least -- isn't Camp X-ray, it's the lack of oversight or accountability. I can't believe that some of my fellow liberals are missing that point and calling for another base to be constructed and Gitmo to be closed. How much would that cost? We've already GOT a base! And what good would that do? None!

The US gov't needs to have permanent and independent observers there to monitor actions taken by government employees on behalf of the American people and make sure they aren't in violation of the Geneva conventions.

Though a little bit of authentic resolve on behalf of the gov't to find out who's in there who shouldn't be in there would be nice. And, you know, a definition of the terms to which "enemy combatants" are sentenced would be great too. As well as a list of who's in there and why that doesn't have to be culled from the results of a FOIA request. But I digress...

Don't close it, monitor it.

You fail to understand. Anything that someone says that the left does not agree with is racist. They still think it is the ultimate argument stopper. Simple enough.

The holding them till the war is over, which might be a very long time.  As for the laws and rules under which we are holding them, I saw we use the same ones we are currently using that just happen to be convenient political clubs for the Democrats to use against the President, despite the implications of abandoning those rules to give these terrorists due process rights they do not deserve and are not entitled to beyond those they already have.

The Dems would have us treat these terrorists as criminals.  They are not criminals.  They are our enemy, something a criminal is generally not.

I'm not the one that writing about the systematic execution of a captive relgious group as if it were the second best option.

You dismiss turning them free as not worth thinking about, but play with the idea of just executing them all. Why not the other way around?

crack me up!!!!  Where do you get this stuff?

"As for the ones that are there now, the answer is obvious. Let them go. That's right: open the front door and let 'em walk right out.

It's Castro's problem."

If they are our enemy, then we should charge them as such.  They are prisoners of war... by definition in fact.  Except we have decided not to follow those rules.  That's the President's choice.  But he should be prepared for the calls to treat them as prisoners of war.  No one is calling for the mass exodus and freeing of these prisoners (if that is incorrect, please link for me).  So why is that straw man being thrown out?  The question is about legal recognition and how our law and international law (including the Geneva Convention) applies to these prisoners of war.

There might be a couple Persians in there. Maybe even an Egyptian or a European. However 98% are probably Arab.

Erick's post is about as close to the Nazi comparison as you can come without being the same thing.

...The US gov't needs to have permanent and independent observers there to monitor actions taken by government employees on behalf of the American people and make sure they aren't in violation of the Geneva conventions...

Or we could start by having Americans, Senators, Congressmen, newspaper editors, etc., presume that their fellow citizens in the US military and the administration are not heinous human right violators, baby killers, torturers and war criminals. We could start by having these Americans presume that their fellow citizens are honorable, responsible people that will exercise the same standards of conduct that they themselves would use.

If we did this then we could tell Amnesia International that they are off their rockers. But there are no cheap political points in that so forget it.

...It's Castro's problem.

You don't live in South Florida do you :-)

detainees at Guantanamo except that the administration says they are bad people.  Considering the people they have chosen to try initially, the reluctance to even give them the modicum of due process that the Supreme Court ordered, the initial blanket and dubious assertion that Geneva did not apply, the circumstances of the apprehension of many of the captures in Afghanistan, I doubt that many are nearly as bad as the administration makes them out to be.   As for the proof that they must be bad because some have been picked up again, well two years in Gitmo would make me pretty pissed at the U.S. too.

The Geneva Convention defines what constitutes a POW and these guys don't fit the definition. The left wants us to follow the Convention then fine. Lets follow it. They are not POWs and are not entitled to the protects of the Convention.

. . . a whole bunch of criminals who found their way to Florida?

I disagree with your tarring of Amnesty International. They've been crucial -- in the past and present -- in fighting to free prisoners of conscience, something that I think we can all get behind. I understand you disagree with their most recent public declarations against your Party's administration, but coming up with epithets (Amnesia International) because of what you percieve as a transgression of political neutrality isn't appropriate. Binary judgements aren't useful.

Reagan said "trust, but verify." right? And I'm not going to presume anything after Abu Ghraib. Americans are not immune from the temptation to commit monstrous acts while in a consequence-free environment. Psychosis and lynch-mob mentality knows no borders, and presumptions of civility during a time of war are misplaced.

The Marielitos -- thus the Mariel reference in Nick's post.

...public declarations against your Party's administration

Excuse me, but on the assumption that you are a US resident, our country and the behavior of our fellow citizens was tarred by AI, not my Party's administration. AI stopped having value when they decided to join the hate-America-first club.

If you have any respect for human rights you cannot possibly seriously believe that the actions at Gitmo or even Abu Grahib are in any way even remotely comparable to the actions of the North Koreans, the Saudis, the Janjaweed militia in Darfur, ad nauseum. Labeling Gitmo a gulag risks reducing Bergen-Belsen to the level of a fraternity prank.

Biden did call, last week, for the camp to be closed down and "those we have reason to keep, keep."

Fine, great. Thing is, that's precisely what Gitmo is all about.

That's why 248 have been released to date since the camp was opened after 9/11. And 248 is more than 30% of the total number of detainees who have gone through Gitmo.

So seem like the process Biden advocates is exactly what happens anyhow.  Then toss in that of the 248 released, at minimum 10 and possibly up to 30 of those we released -- all of whom signed a pledge to not return to anti-U.S. violence as a matter of course in being released -- have, in fact, returned to anti-U.S. violence, one after admitting lying to our troops for two years about his identity.

Thing is, there really is no international precedent for this camp. They're not under Geneva unless we decide to award them that status, they're not guilty of "crimes" like knocking off the 7-eleven, they're enemy combatants or men we have legitimate reason -- at least at first -- to suspect are committed enemies who wish our annihilation. So how do we handle them?

We figure out, as best we can, who they are, if they have intelligence that can help us, if they will fight against us upon release, and whether or not we need to continue to hold them.

If they turn out to never have been threats, release them. We have. If they turn out to have been a threat, but we believe they are not now, release them. We have (to our own detriment at least a dozen times). If they turn out to be either still a threat, or still have actionable intelligence, hold onto them while the war in which they could be involved is raging. I see no reason to bow to international pressure or Biden's tears or Durbin's/Dodd's/Pelosi's/Martinez'/Khan's/etc. pressure and shut down an effective, humane camp.

The only straw man I see is the image of Gitmo-as-gulag being perpetuated in the media, built by a fallacious report from Amnesty and terror suspects whom we know are trained to allege torture when captured.

if the Administration would demonstrate some good faith and at least show some interest in actually demonstrating it is serious about treating detainees humanely.  So far it has obstructed independent investigations, kept blame at the lowest levels possible, produced documents that seem to find ways to define torture and inhumane treatment out of existence.  

How about a clear and unequivocal statement that established military regulations on interrogation are the only acceptable interrogation techniques?  That one small step would help a whole lot.  Or an immediate stop to extraordinary rendition?  Or charge Jose Padilla with a crime or at least put him in a regular jail and give him the same access to a lawyer and family that any other federal prisoner gets?

Because they are part of a transnational group and not a nation? Is that all? So now Saddam Hussein is getting better treatment than some kid who goes to Afghanistan to support NGOs that support terrorism.

And yes,  we have dangerous terrorists at GITMO..Erick, you know how well I realize that. But we also have people in there that, although they did  take arms up against the US, were nothing more than foot soldiers. Why are we not affording them the same status we do to other "enemy combatants"?

...to adopt a few of the saints detained unjustly at Gitmo and I'll be the first to advocate for their release...

First, yes, since they didn't play by the rules of Geneva, and did not represent a government co-signator, they have no claim to the Geneva Coventions.  Even at that, their treatment, while the duration may exceed Geneva allowances, is far humane than most would expect even under Geneva standards.

Second, when we realize we've detained someone who should not have been detained, we release them.  That's why more than 30% of all those who have been held there have been released since it opened.

jjayson the lefty automaton....... The article sucked - it has nothing to do with left/right leanings of the political spectrum.

cam

Well, it's clear that the partisan nature of the AI report had a lot to do with the reaction out of certain sectors. I still think it's reactionary and reflexive to toss out AI's decades of service to the world because of current politicization.

I don't think Gitmo remotely compares to those instances of human rights abuses and genocide. I disagree with the phrase "the gulag of our times." Why did you think I thought otherwise?

And Amnesty International continues to have value. Beside the report on Gitmo they're dealing with abuses in Nepal, Libya, Iran, Burundi, etc. Are these efforts --  the marshalling of millions of volunteer letter writers and $$$ contributors -- worthless because they plonked down a stupid report? I don't think so, and I fail to see how that point could be argued.

This whole Gitmo thing reminds me of an old Bob Newhart routine where he is doing the coin toss at the start of the Revolutionary War. The rebels win the toss so the British have to wear red coats and march in straight lines, the rebels get to hide behind trees and run away.

The goal post just keeps moving around on the field and occasionally off the field just for good measure. Nothing George Bush says or does will demonstrate "good faith" because this isn't about Gitmo or detainees or anything else real. It's about George Bush and his 'illegitmate' presidency.

...about the anti-Bush aspect.

and I find it's better to not argue with rotwang, just make snarky comments to him. it's all he's really deserving of.

How pitiful. So they were rounded up and detained based on their religion? Not because they would love to spend ten minutes sawing off your head while you were still very much alive?

I say ship them all to Durbin and Biden's districts / states and let them deal with the flack from constituents.

Name one abuse of any kind anywhere that AI ever slowed down, much less stopped. The only reason that they choose to hammer the US is because we are the only people humane enough to give a crap.

Please.

nothing to do with Bush's "illegitimate" presidency.  It does have a lot to do with him ignoring the rule of law and not giving the detainees at Guantanamo even the most minimal due process or opportunity to plead their cases.  They are enemy combatants simply because the president says they are.

If you think Gitmo is "torture" and "inhumane", you are well on your way to helping even more words become meaningless. Kind of like "racist" and "bigot" and "fascist" and "abuse" and "feminism" etc etc etc etc etc.

How about you set up a few cots in your living room and help the poor fellows out? Deal? Maybe do a work release in your community? How about it?

...Because they are part of a transnational group and not a nation? Is that all?...

Well for a starter, yes.

The left tried very hard to get the "guerrilla warfare" methods favored by their friends in the so-called "national liberation" movements protected but were unsuccessful. The 1977 Protocol I to the Geneva Convention covered "irregular forces" but the US never signed it so we are not bound by it.

To qualify as a POW, the Geneva Convention requires that soldiers function under a regular command structure, wear recognizable uniforms, carry their arms openly and operate under the laws of war --- none of which are true of Al Queda, Taliban, etc.. Among other things they must not do is the intentional targeting of non-combatants, clearly a favorite tactic of Al Queda.

The coalition forces treated Iraqi soldiers during the Iraq War were POWs because they met these requirements and because they were signatories to the Convention, despite how they treated captured airmen during Gulf War I.

Further, do you seriously believe that if an American, British, Australian etc., soldier were captured by al Zarqawi (sp?) that they would be accorded their rights under the Geneva Convention?

The tin foil is on the antennae and the black helicopters are hovering.

No wonder you guys lose elections. Next thing you know, you'll be naming Howard Dean chairman of the DNC...

Well, that simply isn't true about the US being the only people humane enough to care. Just. No, that isn't true and I doubt veyr many are so nationalistic as to ascribe "humane" to themselves and themselves only. Here are some examples of abuses stopped or stemmed by AI:

"If there's lots of pressure, like from Amnesty International, we might pass [the political prisoners] on to a judge. But if there's no pressure, then they're dead." Former torturer, El Salvador.

"When the first two hundred letters came the guards gave me back my clothes. Then the next two hundred letters came and the prison director came to see me. When the next pile of letters arrived, the director got in touch with his superior. The letters kept coming and coming: three thousand of them. The President was informed. The letters still kept arriving and the President called the prison and told them to let me go." Letter from a former prisoner of conscience from the Dominican Republic.

"When I was in charge of investigating disappearances, I would be obliged by my superiors to investigate any case if we received even a single letter from Amnesty International supporters about the case." Carlos Escobar Pineda, former lawyer and prosecutor from Peru.

After an Amnesty campaign on Brazil, the President pledged that: "We cannot and will not again be a country cited as violent in reports by Amnesty International."

And those are just a few examples. You can easily find others with a Google search. Please remember that my point, however, was mainly the idea that in lieu of shutting Gitmo down it needs to be monitored by an independent organization (not AI).

...I still think it's reactionary and reflexive to toss out AI's decades of service to the world because of current politicization.

I never said that they never did anything useful. Unlike the left I do not believe in revisionist history. Their past is their past and we should all proud of what they were able to accomplish.

But it is exactly because to their noble, and in some cases even heroic, effort in the past that their "current politicization" is so offensive. They are trading on their record to engage in cheap theatrics and histrionic distortions to cater to their leftist supporters.

... of NOT POWs don't you understand.

Under the Geneva Convention that the left like to harp on so much they are illegal combatants and are not entitled to the protections of the Convention. Granting them POW status makes them the moral and functional equivilent of US, UK, French, German, etc., troops.

I'll say one thing, you stirred up a hornets nest :-)

The level of ignorance implied un your pov makes me wonder if you work for Sen. Durbin?

Saudi Arabia? China? Rwanda? Burundi? Libya? Hussein's Iraq? Iran? Nepal?

Peru, Brazil and the Dominican Republic are very nice examples, but hardly represent any broad influence or international respect. (I could venture a guess to what happened to the poor fellow after he went before the judge in El Salvador).

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't like the idea of the USA being "guilty unless monitoring proves innocence", no matter who does the monitoring. And I think the over-reaction to AI proves our humanity. I will give you the point that is is not exclusive.

You're right, you never said that. Sorry. I guess my point was that -- aside from their ill-advised foray into moral relativism and hyperbole -- they continue to do the very things that you feel we should all be "proud of," and so they're still quite worthwhile as an organization.

I said those were only a few examples of successes. They are currently working on cases in the countries you listed, and worked on Hussein's Iraq.

I don't like the idea of the USA being guilty until proved innocent either. But past actions during the War on Terror, and the propaganda value of unchecked abuses against Muslims, make me feel that monitoring (by a US-based independent agency) would be useful and good for morale. More useful than closing Gitmo, anyway.

The fact that they have chosen to issue a clearly, and to some extent self-admitted, hyperbolic report that is not supported by fact has now poisoned anything they say.

The leaders of Saudi Arabia for example are not stupid. They know we are not the bad guys AI painted us out to be. Presuming for the moment that they actually cared about what AI says about them, they now have an out --- 'Well, AI admitted that their "report" about Gitmo was exaggerated so why should anyone listen to them about us.'

Oh come on!

...But past actions during the War on Terror, and the propaganda value of unchecked abuses against Muslims...

I am increasingly of the opinion that they should be treated as spies. (scroll down to spies, or search for "spies")
-bro

AI might soon learn what happens when you sacrifice long-term credibility in order to get a short-term boost in web hits and fundraising.

You are aware that Afghanis are not Arabs, right? Utilizing a "lumpenmuslim" mindset when arguing your points really hurts your ability to call others out on their racism.

may be another example of this syndrome. "I've done good things in the past so don't pay any attention to my misbehavior today."

. . .what would those "good things" that the UN has done in the past be again? ;)

Erick, that this needs to be discussed since some politicians and media advocate shutting down Gitmo.  I just cringed when I saw the title.  Perhaps I was just overly sensitive having it come so quickly after seeing the Schiavo(Still Dead) thread but I'm glad you added to it.  It softens the blow to potential driveby visitors while detracting nothing from the article.  

I wasn't going to comment on this but since you asked.  We don't do anything.  What better way to give the proverbial finger to the detractors?  The ICRC has had access to the camp and what have they found?  Loud music.  Temperature stress.  Doctors telling the guards/interrogators what individuals fear.  THA HORROR!!  Honestly, as Kos would say, well, you know.  We do nothing.  Outwardly.  While continuing to review everything.  As you rightly point out there is no viable alternative to keeping the base open.  So crack down on rules violations, tell the DCI to get his act together, continue to process detainees through the tribunal system, and keep whistling.  You know as well as I do that the constant harping on the administration will continue regardless of what they do or say.  

If we have enough evidence to hold these people, lets put them on trial. If they've committed crimes against the US, then couldn't they be tried in a civilian court?

Make the process relatively open so we can show that our society is principalled enough to give due process even to our sworn enemies. And once they're convicted, they can go into the general prison population, never to be heard from again.

For the prisoners who were captured erroneously and there is not enough evidence against them, they can be set free.

For prisoners captured in direct combat with the US but without overwhelming evidence regarding terroristic activities can be moved to a more conventional POW camp. They can remain imprisoned but in a more open circumstance which should reduce the negative propaganda.

And after this process is complete, Gitmo can be closed and we can get rid of a huge PR black eye which really undermines our efforts.

I'll start by saying that I have no problem with "outrageous" subject lines.  What I do have a problem with is the Gitmo defenders tendency to revoke the humanity of those held there.  They are people, not "people".  

Since the President has invoked the Universal Declaration on several occasions I feel safe in quoting it:

-Art. 7 "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."

-Art. 10 "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him."

I'll admit there are plenty out there whose opinion of Gitmo is shaped purely by their dislike of the President, but that doesn't make legitimate criticisms disappear.  My objection, one repeated throughout the comments, is the lack of any transparent mechanism for these tribunals.  

Also, do you see the contradiction in your argument that the people housed there are, by way of the WOT, subject to Geneva (and thus not subject to norms for civil justice) but simultaneously illegal combatants?  We declared war on people, entered foreign territory with the intent of killing or capturing them, then decided they don't have the right to fight back.

Oh, and the left makes the absurd demand that we follow Geneva because, last I checked, we are OBLIGATED to do so.  

Mostly Pashtuns, but I'm not aware than many of them are there. Whenever I read a story about some fighter from Afghanistan, he always seem to be an Arab.

If you put the Gitmo guys on trial, there's a good chance many of them would be set free.  It's hardly as if even a military court can convict every last man behind bars without some serious work or complete disregard for due process.  And every man set free gets put up as the poster boy for "the innocent Afgani" by the left.

You can't exactly shoot them all, either.  Aside from being a gross violation of the Geneva Convention - something we admittedly haven't been holding tight to from the start - and a public relations suicide attempt, its a bit inconsistant.  We didn't round up all the German soldiers and execute them after WWII, nor did we off Vietcong fighters we'd taken into custody once we were through with them.  It'd just be... weird.

That said, Gitmo is an eyesore at this point.  I don't see why they haven't closed it yet - or at least made strides towards closing it.  Of course, the litmus test will be in '06.  We'll see whether people actually respond to this sort of thing or if its all media hype.

What does either quoted article have to do with those held at Guantanamo Bay, though?

Those held there are not criminals.  They are illegal combatants: soldiers fighting against us that do not observe the rules of war.  They aren't criminals accused of a crime, so they aren't entitled to hearings even under what you cite.

What unlawful discrimination is being made here?  They aren't held for any reason other than having been illegal fighters against us in Afghanistan.  Contrary to the implications of the left, we're not just rounding up Arabs in the streets and tossing them into jail.

And as for your last paragraphs, where did anyone claim that they were illegal combatants merely because they fought back?  They're illegal because they don't follow the legal conditions for getting protection under the Geneva Convention.  That's all it means; it doesn't make them criminals.  It just means that becuase they didn't wear uniforms, openly carry arms, and all that, that they don't get the protections that POWs get under the treaty.  Under the treaty we could have just shot them, but we're better than that.

Leave it to the left to criticize us for doing the decent thing...

 bring up an important question to me.

 If being an 'enemy combatant' means you're not guilty of a crime under Geneva, aren't they still guilty of a crime? And aren't those guilty of a crime still entitled under our laws to a fair trial?

 And yes, I know there are legal loopholes to everything. That's not a position I take very seriously from folks purporting to be part of a party that recently took legal loopholes when it came to criminals to be suspect.

 Quite frankly, if you've had someone in your power for two years, and you can't come up with enough to charge them with anything and you can't come up with compelling evidence that they should never be released, chances are you've got the wrong man.

Do you not understand the difference between CRIMINALS and PRISONERS?

The fact that they aren't legal prisoners under the GC doesn't make them less of a prisoner.  They're still prisoners of war, but just not entitled to what the GC might have offered them.

We hold them until the war is over.  That's the way war works.

 then charge them.

 If they're prisoners, then give them the rights we give other prisoners.

 Somewhere, someone promoted the idea that our showing higher morals than our enemies was weakness to be exploited. I do not believe that.

 We've had two years or more with many of these detainees. We should put them on trial of some kind. If we can't, then we should let them go - the same as we would do with our criminals. By acting with standards less than the high ones we have promoted ourselves as having, we open ourselves to charges of hypocrisy.

believe America to have better or higher morals than an Al-Zarqawi?

 Then why not act like it?

We do treat them as prisoners.  We treat them very well as prisoners, in fact.

We give them every right they are entitled to under the law.

They just don't have very many of those rights, becuase they forfeited a claim to Geneva Convention protection when they broke the rules of war.

We have no reason not to interrogate them, therefore.

 you think that the law is a shield or a club.

In war, against enemy soliders, you bet it's a club.

If we're going around shielding our enemies, that's pretty self defeating.

I agree. Listen: we say terrorism is a military matter. We say we're in a war against terrorism (which is a misnomer itself..you can't be at war against a tactic, but I digress). We say, more correctly, that we're in a war against terrorists . Usama bin Ladin has declared war against us.

I understand the arguments as to why the Geneva Convention doesn't apply here. It's not as though al-Qaida has joined the UN. But unless we apply the Geneva Convention to these prisoners, we should not treat this as a military matter. Not cannot, but should not.

The alternative is dealing with terrorism as a criminal matter. This is how, for example, we dealt with 93 WTC conspirators Ramzi Yusif and the Blind Sheikh. I strongly believe that the military action is the best way to combat terrorism, at least in the short run, but what we are doing is wrong. No, I KNOW the prisoners there aren't being tortured. Know, not just think. They're being treated well, and we have a lot of very bad guys in there. But, what this is is morally wrong. It's equivalent to my argument against the death penalty. Wrong, not illegal.

What happens if the backlash is bad or the courts rule against us? We have to let the bastards go, and trust me, that hasn't worked out well with most of the ones we've let go. We should have been doing this in the correct way from the start.

And yes, I believe they are just this waffling category of "enemy combatants" just because the Bush Administration says so. That's the point: it's not just tinfoil hat wearing liberals that strongly put this on the shoulders of the President.

and walk into buildings to kill a lot of innocent people.

At this juncture it is in our best interest to keep these men as prisoners.  

they will be released. That's just a fact. There is aboslutely no precedent whatsoever in modern history for holding POWs indefinitely. The ancient and medieval precedents to the contrary (like the Athenian army tossed into the mines of Syracuse and left to rot there or the surrendered Christian army murdered en masse by the Sultan Bajazet) are not things that any sane person should want to revive.

They may hate us, they may want to kill us, but so what? Defeated Nazis, defeated Japanese and defeated Confederates felt the same way. we still let them go (and some of the defeated Confederates did create a pretty serious terrorism problem afterward). At least these people will be half way around the world and given that we will have their fingerprints and the like we could turn them awqay at the border should they ever try to reenter the US.

They SHOULD remain prisoners. But not as "enemy combatants".

At least these people will be half way around the world and given that we will have their fingerprints and the like we could turn them awqay at the border should they ever try to reenter the US.

..that is, if our terrorism watch systems actually work...

Autralians before I gave it to the UN, the UN just slapped their name on it.

In the case of the Nazis and Japanese, enemy soldiers were kept in POW prisons until the war ended.  And there was an end to the war.  Our war with radical islam may never end, or may not end in our lifetime.

Many of the POWs held in Gitmo (maybe most) were taken into custody in Afghanastan and most, I think, were foreign fighters.  That is, they traveled from other countries to be a part of the Taleban or Al Queda.  Individuals so motivated cannot be let go.

In all of this it would have been helpful if the USA after 911 declared war against radical islam.  It would have helped on POW and immigration issues.

I'd be lying if I said that was not part of my intention.  The fact of the matter is whether you like the title of the post or not or liked the substance of the post or not, this comment thread has been a better discussion of what should or should not be done than what the Democrats are doing in Senate hearings.

The problem the Senate Dems have is that they are caught up on symbols.  "Gitmo" the physical place is not bad.  "Gitmo" the symbol of American human rights abuse is.  Well, the government needs to be dealing with the physical and stop crying about the symbolic.

Perzackly. Turnabout is fair play. Besides, why should Putin have all the fun? Castro needs some Islamofascist wackos too.

not to claim that torture and inhumane treatment is rampant at Gitmo. I am concerned that torture and inhumane treatment may have occurred at Gitmo, but so far all we have seen is smoke but no fire.  That is why I think a truly independent investigation of the entire system is vital.

I am sure torture and inhumane treatment have occurred in other parts of the detention system, especially in the secret locations and Afghanistan, and that contrary to the president's protestations, we use extraordinary rendition knowing full well that the rendered parties will be tortured.  In at least three instances there is publically available documentary evidence of detainees (two in Afghanistan and one at Abu Ghraib) being beaten to death in conjunction with interrogation.  I call that torture, you can call it whatever you want.  

My primarily objections to Gitmo are procedural.  By creating an entirely new class of combatant ("enemy combatant") and placing them entirely outside the reach of the Geneva Conventions I think the president abused his power.  Geneva provides that when there is a question as to the status of a combatant captured on the battlefield that a "competent tribunal" decide their status.  By declaring that all Taliban and Al Qaeda were enemy combatants and not covered by the Geneva Conventions at all the Administration threw out the requirement for individual tribunals.  Now in the case of Al Qaeda fighters there may be an arguement that they were never entitled to any of the protections offered by Geneva, but for the Taliban, the argument just doesn't hold water.  As horrible as the Taliban was, it had a claim to being the legitimate government of Afghanistan (it was even recognized by our good friend Pakistan) and therefore its fighters should have at least been given the presumption that they were legitimate soldiers and entitled to POW status (and released once the war with Afghanistan was over).  

Also, many of the "terrorists" captured in Afghanistan were not captured by the U.S. on the battlefield but were turned over to the U.S. by the Northern Alliance.  The U.S. was paying a bounty on Al Qaeda members so the status of many of these detainees is questionable at best.

Enemy combatant is not an new class, it is recognized by the Hague and Geneva Conventions.

The Taliban were not clearly covered. The legitimate government of Afghanistan was the government that succeeded Najibullah, Pakistan's actions notwithstanding.

Even had the Taliban been the legitimate successor government, the fact is that the Taliban soldiers did not meet the three tests required by the Hague and Geneva Conventions for de facto classification as prisoners of war rather than illegal combatants: 1)wearing identifiable uniforms, 2) carrying weapons openly, and 3) responding through an identifiable chain of command to the national leadership.

Tribunals have been held for 100% of the prisoners at Guantanamo and are held on a daily basis at detention facilities in Iraq.

If we're working within the rules of war that we've set, including the designations long recognized for war, why not treat this as a military matter? It's like saying, well, you've got all the ingredients for apple pie, but unless you can top it off with vanilla bean ice cream -- with real beans -- you shouldn't make it.

Sorta begs the question, y'know?

You slip from the President's designation of "enemy combatants" (not a term used in Geneva) to the correct term "illegal combatants".

I didn't say the Taliban were "clearly" covered, I said they had a claim.  That is the point of the individual tribunals.

Of course the time for the tribunals was when the Taliban fighters were captured, not two years later after the Supreme Court forced the Administration's hand.

The point of the tribunals is to address the three issues you lay out.  Obviously the Taliban fighters were not wearing identifiable uniforms but neither were many of our own allies in Afghanistan, or for that matter were some of our own soldiers who were working with the Northern Alliance.

It is still open to debate whether the tribunals held at Guantanamo meet the requirements of the the tribunals required by Geneva.  But of course since Geneva doesn't apply (because the President says so), it is still an open question whether the tribunals being held satisfy the requirements set out by the Supreme Court a year ago.

1. An enemy whose preferred tactic is to kill civilians, preferably American civilians
   
   
2. An enemy who kills THEIR prisoners in a way that is barbaric beyond comprehension (take a look at some of the videos - I have)
   
   
3. Enemy prisoners who may have information that could prevent 1) and 2)

     I would say that 1) and 2) put the enemy outside the reach of the Geneva Conventions - not the President. These are not just regular guys in the wrong place at the wrong time - remember that only 19 of them wreaked the havoc of September 11. They are not going to lay down their arms and return to their farms if we release them, as legitimate soldiers would. THEY have defined their current status, not the United States.

     To argue over procedure in the face of these facts is lame, and a thinly veiled attempt to dent the President and the military for political purposes. Any "investigation" would reek similarly, and be used by Democrats for political purposes (just like the 9/11 Commission). Your problem is that any shred of objectivity on the left is long gone, which in and of itself makes any investigation in which the left is involved a charade.

    Again, despite your best efforts, we are not the bad guys. We did not want this, and we did not start it. Right now I trust the US to do the right thing, and will forgive a misstep here and there.

one encounters such a combination if invincible ignorance.

All combatants are "enemy" combatants. You are pretty dishonestly trying to create a situation where you can say we have invented a class of combatant that doesn't exist. Not true. All "enemy" combatants are either legal or illegal. Illegal combatants are covered by the Hague and Geneva Conventions but not protected by them.

I didn't say the Taliban were "clearly" covered, I said they had a claim.

Right. And I have a claim to be king of France. No they don't have a claim which is what the president said. They didn't fight on behalf of a recognized government nor did they adhere to the rules laid out in the HGC.

Of course the time for the tribunals was when the Taliban fighters were captured, not two years later after the Supreme Court forced the Administration's hand.

That is your opinion and not a particulary good one. There is no time limit specified for examining the status of persons captured on the battlefield.

or for that matter were some of our own soldiers who were working with the Northern Alliance.

Not true. The SF troops operating with the Northern Alliance adhered to this provision. The HGC states that the uniform can be as simple as an armband but it must be distinguishable.

it is still an open question whether the tribunals being held satisfy the requirements set out by the Supreme Court a year ago.

A lot of things are open questions to you that doesn't mean they are to anyone else.

or did I miss the sawing off of heads at Gitmo and the deliberate targeting of civilians by our forces?

But to rehash:

complaints at Gitmo: moistened Korans and wilted lettuce (both of which are paid for by US taxpayers)

complaints at al Zarqawi's holding cells: hmm... we've not heard any, perhaps because those they capture are summarily excuted, paraded in front of a camera before being sawed in two, or held for a long time incommunicado sans Bible, sans running water or the other amenities of life afforded (at US taxpayer expense) to the detainees at Gitmo.

Again, we do operate by a higher moral standard than Zarqawi. To say otherwise is colossally ignorant.

..."not nice people."

"enemy combatants" is the title decided upon to classify those who do not fit any previous definition of "people taken in hostile military situations"... they're not properly POWs, they're not criminals, they're something else, and it's not good.

So for expediency sake, the administration coined the term "enemy combatants" to classify this new strain of enemy.

Change the title, they're still prisoners who should be held.

comment, because it is not meant to be.  I am being serious here.

The base issue that makes the left so upset about this is distrust of this administration.  The perception on the left is that this is the least open and most secretive administration since at least the Nixon Administration.  This secretiveness predates 9/11 (the whole energy policy episode).  But it has certainly gotten even more secretive since 9/11.

So my might-be-confused-as-snarky comment is this:  Aren't Republicans and the right wing supposed to distrust big government and concentration of power?  Doesn't it concern you in the least that an American citizen can be arrested at O'Hare airport and held for over three years now with no charges and almost no access to a lawyer?  Or that any government can claim the right to arrest anyone, anywhere in the world and hold them indefinitely incommunicado, with no access to lawyers, no charges, or absolutely no rights at all?

"Well, the government needs to be dealing with the physical and stop crying about the symbolic."

And that, Erick, is exactly what the Dems just don't get.  Calls to shut down Gitmo confuse the two and reduce everything America does in its own self-defense to the level of "symbols" and PR gambits.

They seem to forget THERE'S A WAR ON and our enemy doesn't deal in mere symbols, they actually do saw off heads, plow through crowds of children in their explosive-laden cars, disguise themselves as policemen and detonate hidden explosives in crowded areas, execute anyone who works to improve Iraq whether or not they actually worked with Americans, etc...  No mere symbols, those.

A JDAM is not a symbol, interrogation is not a symbol, an FA-18 is not a symbol, an M-16 is not a symbol, the USS Ronald Reagan is not a symbol, these are hard and real parts of American might and foreign policy. Will our Dem brethren who cry over a few bruised egos at Gitmo next call for those things to be decommissioned and melted down because a few people in sandy parts of the world complain their house was damaged and their Koran got wet when we exerted our influence abroad? Let them. It'll be one more sign of the death of the once-great Democrat Party.

used the designation of "enemy combatant" to remove them from the protection of Geneva, not me.

Right. And I have a claim to be king of France.

When you get a Sovereign nation to recognize your claim you can raise an army and claim POW status when your attempt to take over Paris is put down.  The Taliban did have a legitimate claim to being the government of Afghanistan.  They were recognized by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, all good friends of ours in the war on terror.  Although it was a tenuous claim, it was a legitimate claim.

There is no time limit specified for examining the status of persons captured on the battlefield.

This is true, but until their status is determined they are to be protected by the "Third Convention [as a POW] and this Protocol [I] until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Not true. The SF troops operating with the Northern Alliance adhered to this provision. The HGC states that the uniform can be as simple as an armband but it must be distinguishable

Unless you were there you are probably basing your belief on the same pictures I saw, and I sure couldn't make out any distinguishable indentifiers, but granted a picture is not that good evidence.  But the Northern Alliance was a ragtag bunch.

A lot of things are open questions to you that doesn't mean they are to anyone else.

Pretending I'm the only one concerned about these things doesn't make it so.

I don't know, I'm not that old :-)

I think you have finally said what those of us on the right have been saying: this has nothing to do with the terrorists, detention, "torture", etc. Is is all about the "illegitimate" presidency of George Bush. The left has not gotten past November 2000 and has been flailing around trying to create excuses to attack the administration.

All of the high-sounding cr*p about POWs, the Geneva Convention, etc., is just that, cr*p. Little Dickie Durbin and the rest of the "I Hate George Bush" crowd, including some posting impassioned defenses of the terrorists' "rights" here, could not care less about Abu Whatzishame and his buddies. Durbin is not a stupid man, in his heart of hearts he knows the detainees are not being mistreated. But his politics overwhelm his good sense and he no longer cares about the truth or the impact of his words. Bash George Bush is the order of the day.

It isn't a matter of "...enough evidence to hold these people..."

First, IF (IF IF IF IF IF IF --- did I make that clear enough) they were POWs then they could be held, without further action or discussion, until the end of hostilities.

Second, since the are illegal combatants, as defined by the Geneva Convention, we can hold them until hell freezes over. Or we can give them a military tribunal and, if found to satisfy the military's criteria, shot.

This isn't breaking and entering or sticking up a Seven-11. These aren't 'gang bangers' or a group of rowdy college students after a basketball game. This is war, the civil courts have no role in this process.

1. Under Geneva they are NOT POWs;
   
   
2. Under the Geneva Convention POWs can be, and are, held until the end of hostilties.

• Aren't Republicans and the right wing supposed to distrust big government and concentration of power?

  Yes.

• Doesn't it concern you in the least that an American citizen can be arrested at O'Hare airport and held for over three years now with no charges...

  Yes, there is great concern over that. Many conservatives are strongly opposed to the Patriot Act, the FBI's "carnivore" system, Hank Asher's "Matrix," and all that stuff.

• Or that any government can claim the right to arrest anyone, anywhere in the world and hold them indefinitely incommunicado...

  Frightening, indeed.

This is what we congenital conservatives refer to as a "tradeoff." On one side of the tradeoff we have these various rights (to due process and so on) and on the other side we have this right to go on breathing. We observe that in the short term, one or the other of these is going to have be compromised, due to the existence of some really weird crazy guys.

We look at this tradeoff, and we decide that not having to jump to our deaths from a burning building is of higher value to us than certain other protections that we have long enjoyed. Given that we must make a choice, we choose protection from death at the hands of weird crazy people over protection from unjust stays in the pokey at the hands of overzealous law enforcement types.

I can see why congenital liberals would have a problem with this. It's not that they value life any less than we do, it's that they don't understand why we feel this need to choose between two conflicting policies. Why not just have a policy that catches the bad guys before they can blow things up, but without curtailing anyone's rights to privacy, due process, etc.

To the congenital liberal, constructing such a policy is easy. We simply put the two conflicting sides of the tradeoff into one of Schrödinger's magic boxes, close the lid, and — presto — a policy which does two conflicting things at the same time.

To the congenital liberal, the congenital conservative is an idiot for not seeing this. He must secretly desire to peek in everyone's bedroom. Otherwise, why wouldn't he support a policy that avoids making the choice?

The congenital conservative, however, thinks "if we do what this guy wants, we'll lose our rights and get blown up." That's because the congenital conservative does not believe that Schrödinger's cat exists in this dimension. There is no such thing, in the real world, as the policy that both catches the bad guys before they blow things up, and preserves the rights of all Americans, as we knew them before all these weird crazy guys showed up chanting "Death to America!"

So this is why we tolerate a certain abridgement of our freedoms. Unlike you, we do generally trust the LEOs to not overdo things too badly, even though we know they will inevitably make some mistakes. We consider this the price of not getting blown up.

This is also, by the way, why we support whatever it takes to democratize the Middle East. We are not going to get our rights back until the weird crazy guys stop being weird and crazy. It looks to us like they are going to stay that way until they have something else to do with their lives, which isn't going to happen until the despots and the royal families are gone from the scene.

So this for us is a huge, long-term undertaking, made necessary by our desire to not have to undergo undertaking ourselves.

We know that you would like to replace our policy with one of Schrödinger's magic cats, so our goal is to defeat you at the polls repeatedly until we can get this job done. Your cats are harmful enough when they try to instill self-sufficiency in people while simultaneously providing for all of their needs. When it comes to crazy murderers though, we just can't afford to let you play in our reality with your magic cats.

The problem with Gitmo could be easily solved.  The bad publicity seems to fall into two categories: (1) whether we have a legitimate claim to hold the prisoners, and (2) whether we are treating those prisoners in a humane manner.

For the prisoners that we have an interest in keeping, we could provide more information on why we want keep them.  If we think they are dangerous, we should say so and say why.  Those that we think are guilty of crimes should be charged with crimes and have access to a fair and nuetral court.  Those that we are holding as POWs should be treated as such, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, even if we aren't required to treat them that way.

As for humane treatment, we could enlist the help of a nuetral, reputable, third-party like the Red Cross or the Red Crescent to provide ongoing monitoring of the prison.  Most of the current accusations concerning prisoner treatment are just one person's word against another.  Hopefully a third party would help diffuse the bad publicity and help prevent future problems.  

... sort of like what's already happening.

"They are illegal combatants: soldiers fighting against us that do not observe the rules of war."

Except that the Geneva Convention explicitly says that your opponent violating the Convention does not give you the right to ignore your obligation, it simply makes them liable to charges of war crimes.  You cannot shoot ANYBODY in war unless they pose a threat to you or offer strategic advantage.  

Geneva also specifically says that they must face trial under the same UCMJ rules which we would apply to a US soldier charged with the same offense, not some non-transparent special procedure cooked up by DoD.

Also, which condition under Geneva did they violate?  Not wearing a uniform isn't a violation of Geneva (though wearing the Red Cross or your opponents uniforms are), so long as you are under an organized command structure.  And last time I checked all 130k troops plus the thousands of security personnel, in Iraq openly carry arms.

As to the quotes, it was 3 am so it may take me a while to remember why I thought they were relevent.

Although I always thought magic mushrooms were as much of a downfall for the libs as their magic boxes...

...In at least three instances there is publically available documentary evidence of detainees (two in Afghanistan and one at Abu Ghraib) being beaten to death in conjunction with interrogation.  I call that torture, you can call it whatever you want...

If the perpetrators were military personnel then I'd call it murder, or at best, manslaugther, under the definitions in the UCMJ. If the perpetrators were FBI or CIA or contractos then I'd call it murder under the terms of the relevent federal statute.

For both the military personnel an investigation is in order. I'm not up on hte details but I think you'll find that it has occured and the people involved have been, or soon will be, charged. If convicted they will be punished. 20+ years at hard labor at Ft. Levenworth means exactly that, 20+ years at hard labor.

The reason there were war crimes trials at the end of WW II was that the Japanese and the Germans did not consider what their personnel did to be wrong and thus they were not investigated, charged and tried by their national authorities. That is totally unlike the situation with the United States.

And by the way just for the record, the "rampant, systemic abuse approved at the highest levels of the US government" that is depicted in the Abu Grahib photos occured on one shift on one day. It did not occur the day before, it did not occur the day after. One day. The actions of a couple of morons coupled with the p*ss-poor leadership skills of the commanding officer.  

And can we please stop using the Shroedinger box to describe anything but concepts of quantum mechanics.  Using quantum concepts to explain anything beyond the subatomic level is always dangerous.

But I see it this way.  Democracy is a package deal.  You can't sell "Democracy" piecemeal.  And maybe I'm being old-fashioned but I think one of the cornerstones of the Democracy is the rule of law.  So if we are trying to sell Democracy but then turn around and say "well, if you have to, you can hold people without trial and incommunicado, kidnap them, render them to countries that will torture them, because in the end the greater good of promoting Democracy will be served", then at best we are sending a mixed message.

And yes, I realize we are in a very difficult situation with international terrorists.  I am not asking for full due process rights and constitutional protections.  What I am asking for is some kind of process and openess and oversight.  Not just an assurance from the President that we are treating everybody humanely and everybody we have detained is a bad person.

I would add that just because liberal leaders are not worthy of trust, you shouldn't apply that to conservative leaders.

Right now, security wins over political correctness, at least on the right. Democrats and Bill Clinton had their chance to deal with this problem in the 90's, and on 9/11 we saw the fruits of their labor.

I AM concerned about the things you mention, but I am MORE concerned about my children getting killed by the very people the left is so worried about. We will lie comfortably under the blanket of security that George Bush and the US military has provided tonight. Please don't pretend that the left's concern for human rights and the Geneva Conventions and blah blah blah is anything other than hatred of him.

This is not the 60's. George Bush is not Richard Nixon. Iraq is not Vietnam, and these detainees did not fight in World War I. The situation has changed, and libs better come to terms with that, or come to terms with being the minority party forever.

...Not just an assurance from the President that we are treating everybody humanely and everybody we have detained is a bad person.

And why not? He is the duly elected President of the United States. He stood before us in January and placed his hand on the Bible and swore before the people of the United States and Almighty God that he would preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He is your fellow citizen.

The troops, law enforcement and intelligence personnel that protect us take a similar oath to the Constitution, not to the president. They are your fellow citizens also. They are each and every one someone's husband or wife, brother or sister, son or daughter. Unlike other countries our troops oath is to protect the Constitution, no matter the price they must pay. They are prepared each and every day of their lives to lay down that life to protect you and me. Frankly, I think that means we give them the edge over someone working for AI or the ACLU or the New York Times. Call me old fashioned but I'm prepared to assume that these people exercise the same honesty, responsbility and integrity that I would in their place.

Since most of the detainees were picked up in Afghanistan, how about moving them back there to be held for as long as needed? They were combatants for an enemy government and were captured. Since there's still a war going on in Afghanistan, there's a perfectly good Geneva-worthy explanation for why they're not allowed out again.

This wouldn't have become such a big deal if the Administration hadn't made it clear that they were using Guantanamo precisely because it was outside of any legal jurisdiction. When you do stuff like that you're just asking for a public relations fight that you really don't need.

Only 4 of Gitmo's 520 detainees have been charged with a crime. To say these people are "terrorists" or are "sworn enemies of the United States" is irrational.  Where's the justice?  What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty?'

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/061605Z.shtml

what your definition of torture is.

So far no one has been charged with a homicide offense in the Abu Ghraib incident (that was CIA or CIA contractors who were apparently responsible).  In the Afghanistan instance the most serious charge so far has been involuntary manslaughter.  As for hard labor at Ft. Leavenworth, I don't know what your vision of Leavenworth is, but they ain't breaking rocks out there anymore.  If by hard labor you mean doing laundry or repairing government vehicles, then I guess it is hard labor.

Where's the understanding? What happened to "reading comprehension"? Why can't Ben post here any more?

that if John Kerry had won the election and had kept the same policies in place, because he is a liberal he would have been not worthy of trust and all the questions I have raised would be perfectly legitimate?

But that because George Bush is a conservative, he is completely trustworthy, and that anyone who raises questions about the conduct of this war or the way he conducts it is questioning his integrity and commitment to his oath to defend the Constitution (eventhough members of congress who are questioning him take similar oaths)?

Unless of course he was innocent, but got a little angry over being tied up naked in the fetal position for days on end in a 100 degree room until he began pulling his own hair out.  I bet if we did that to alot of innocent Muslims we might find them later on the battlefield.

These guys didn't get picked up by the Otumwa Iowa PD after knocking over a local Seven-11.

These are illegal combatants, as defined in the Geneva Convention, taken on the field of battle in a war. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply, this is a a war not an episode of "Law and Order." This is a real honest to God war, not a TV show. The good guys don't get up and appear in the next episode.

I will admit that this is unlike any war we have ever fought before but that does not make it any less a war. These people want to kill you and your family, me and my family, and they don't care what it takes to accomplish it. They will shoot at our soldiers on the battlefield or they will walk into a shopping mall and blow themselves up. They don't really care, we are all their enemies.

They want to do this not because they want our land or our coal mines or our 'purple mountains majesty.' They want to do this because you and I are not Muslim. They want to do this to other Muslims because they are "not Muslim enough" for their liking.

It's going to be a long hard shlog Ben, much longer, and in some ways much harder, than what our parents went through in WW II. Don't go wobbley now, there is a lot more to come.

Unless of course you'd like to give up. In that case there are airplanes leaving for Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc., every day. Do give some thought to your kids before you go however. And by the way, life ain't as comfortable there.

Oh, for God's sake. Put them all on a couple of jumbo jets, headed to Afghanistan. While over the Atlantic, the jets loose altitude. The crews bail out, the jets explode in midair. End of problem.

The president used the designation of "enemy combatant" to remove them from the protection of Geneva, not me.

Not true. It is your terminology, not the president's.

THE PRESIDENT: I have -- the question is about the detainees in Guantanamo Bay. I had a very interesting meeting this morning with my national security team. We're discussing all the legal ramifications of how we -- what we -- how we characterize the actions at Guantanamo Bay. A couple of things we agree on. One, they will not be treated as prisoners of war. They're illegal combatants. Secondly, they will be treated humanely.

The Taliban did have a legitimate claim to being the government of Afghanistan.  They were recognized by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, all good friends of ours in the war on terror.  Although it was a tenuous claim, it was a legitimate claim.

Specious nonsense. We didn't recognize the Taliban. And you listed 100% of all other nations that recognized them. The claim was legitimate only in the sense that they may have legitimately made an otherwise illegitimate claim.

This is true, but until their status is determined they are to be protected by the "Third Convention [as a POW] and this Protocol [I] until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

This has been done. The people at Guantanamo were treated in accordance with the HGC, and even those having been ruled illegal combatants are still being treated in accordance with HGC. So what's your beef.

Unless you were there you are probably basing your belief on the same pictures I saw, and I sure couldn't make out any distinguishable indentifiers, but granted a picture is not that good evidence.  But the Northern Alliance was a ragtag bunch.

Or, there is another alternative. It's called reading. The issue of how we would maintain HGC coverage of the SF troops with the Northern Alliance was heavily covered in October/Novemeber 2001.

Pretending I'm the only one concerned about these things doesn't make it so.

No one is pretending you are the only one. There are plenty of moonbats wailing about this.

If John Kerry had won the election one of two things would have happened:

More likely he would have released them all, brought the troops home, and essentially adopted the left's forthright terrorism policy of "Boy let's hope they don't attack us again, the last time was a mess."

But let's give him the same benefit of the doubt that you folks won't give GWB -- we can afford be generous because thankfully he is not the president. If he had kept the same policies in place there would be nothing but hosannas and cheers from the left side of the aisle for "his thoughtful and humane treatment of these highly dangerous monsters."

Because it isn't about the terrorists, its about George Bush. Those on the left, Little Dickie Durbin included probably do love this country. It's just that they have let their hatred of GWB overwhelm their good judgement.

Glenn Reynolds on InstaPundit had a terrific assessment of the situtation

Really, Bush's ability to drive his opponents stark, raving bonkers is almost supernatural.

And ruin two perfectly good jumbo jets :-)

and we are

not treated as POWs until the "tribunals" determined their status.  The President already said they were not covered by the Conventions and didn't deserve POW treatment. So it wasn't done.  If it had been, interrogation would have been almost impossible and they would have all been shopping at the Marine Corps Exchange at Gitmo and sending I-pods home to their loved ones.

As to the rest.  I know we can go round and round because you will never concede that the Taliban had any claim of legitmacy at all.  And since neither of us were on the battlefield in Afghanistan we don't know if all American soldiers were wearing visible insignia, so we probably should stop debating that point.

not treated as POWs until the "tribunals" determined their status.  The President already said they were not covered by the Conventions and didn't deserve POW treatment. So it wasn't done.

Just hogwash. Usually you are merely obtuse, this crosses the line from sophistry into dishonesty.

PWs, BTW, don't get exchange priveleges.

And since neither of us were on the battlefield in Afghanistan we don't know if all American soldiers were wearing visible insignia, so we probably should stop debating that point.

There is no debate here. You are trying to cover up you lack of familiarity with the issue by claiming that there was no coverage. Tommy Franks talked about this at least two press conferences.

were treated as POWs until their individual cases were heard?  Because as I recall, the President made a blanket statement that the Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters were enemy or illegal combatants and not entitled to Geneva Convention protections.  That is how this whole thing got started.

And you're right, POWs don't get PX privleges but they do get commissary privleges--should have said shipping boxes of couscous home.

As for what the Pentagon says about the fighting in Afghanistan, they also claimed at first that Pat Tillman was killed by enemy fire when they knew full well that it was a tragic friendly fire incident from the very beginning, so forgive me if I am skeptical about the pronouncements of Tommy Franks.

every single one of your claims has been refuted. Now you are reduced to whining over nonexistent priveleges and claiming the Army sent soldiers into battle in circumstances that would have deprived them of HGC protections.

Sorry. You are a troll.

I don't know why you rated me so low.

I made a legitimate argument that at the very least Afghan Taliban fighters had the right to at least claim POW status and were at least entitled to the "competent tribunals" under Geneva.  You seemed to concede that point and said they had already been granted the tribunal.  I then pointed out that the tribunals, even if they were adequate came two years after their capture, and that until the tribunals determine the detainees status, the Conventions require that the detainees be treated as POWs until the tribunal decides status.  This was obviously not done and you even provided the quote from the President declaring all the detainees illegal combatants and not covered by Geneva.  So where was I wrong on that point?

As to whether or not Special Forces soldiers in Afghanistan scrupulously displayed insignia, this is really a minor point.  General Franks says they always did and you believe him.  I guess I am just a lot more skeptical than you because there have been instances during the last few years that the Pentagon has flat-out lied (the Pat Tillman incident is just an example of an unnecessary, egregious and extremely clumsy lie).

I figure I gave you a 100% bonus given the fact that virtually all of your original post has been disproven and the amount of my time that you've wasted.

Two points and then I'm finished.

First, the people in question, though not covered by the HGC were treated in accordance with the HGC. This includes letters home, visits by the ICRC, etc. In fact, the troops guarding them lived in tents and subsisted on MREs until permanent cells were constructed because of the HGC requirements ("Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area."). That is what is required.

Second. You are free to call Franks or anyone you wish a liar. I am free to reward you accordingly.

Further, I think a lot of people who are worried about Gitmo want the legitimate terrorists to be tried and jailed in some way with some due process.  I don't think anyone is advocating releasing all of the detainees (ok, maybe Kucinnich or some other radical leftist, but no one serious), simply not holding them indefinitely without some sort of trial or finding of fact against them.  Some of the detainees who are not threats, however, probably should be released.

what your definition of torture is...

Let's see now.

How about the Japanese treatment of allied prisoners during WW II. Oh, sorry I forgot they didn't have to treat them well because they never signed the Geneva Convention.

How about the treatment of allied prisoners by the Gestapo and SS in WW II. And Germany was a signatory.

How about the North Vietnamese treatment of American prisoners in Vietnam. Oops, see Japan WW II above.

Oh John, let's not bring up all that ancient history nonsense, how about something more recent?

Well, then how about Saddam, and his fun loving offspring, and their treatment of political dissidents, poor performing Olympic atheletes, et al? How about stuffing people into a shredding machine --- feet first because they scream longer that way. How about gassing women and children. How about draining the Southern marshes to destroy the Marsh Arabs; oh wait, that's not torture, that's just genocide, sorry.

How about the Iranian mullahs and their treatment of political dissidents. Oh wait, we have no real "proof" that there is torture going on --- the dissidents generally don't live long enough to report it and AI and the ICRC don't get to inspect Iranian jails.

And while we are at it, lets address genocide, war crimes, and all those other charges that left likes to level at those bozos in the Bush administration and the US military (but that's OK because they support the troops.) Just so you have a frame of reference of how stupid I am, I define them this way:

War Crimes: Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Dachau, Babi Yar, Bataan, Nanking, Pol Pot/Cambodia, Darfur, et al;

Genocide: The Holcaust, Halabja Iraq, Darfur, et al;

(odd isn't it how they overlap.)

And regretably the list goes on and on because we humans have an almost unlimited capacity for beastly  behavior --- and that's an insult to beasts everywhere.

Frankly, not that it matters to you, but I am sick of the left and their posturing and charges of torture, war crimes, genocide, Koran abuse, and all the other cr*p they can cobble up to stuff in the bag. Little Dickie Durban and his associates and the leftist press are reprehensible, beneath contempt. Bin Laden may be a terrorist sh*t, but at least he's honest about what he's trying to do.

Well, since some 230+ of them have been released so far does that meet your requirement that "...Some of the detainees who are not threats, however, probably should be released."

Oh, and let's not be concerned about the ones that have been recaptured on the battlefield, it's only the troops who had to contend with them --- so far that is.

we've released 248 to date. somewhere between 12 and 35 have returned to fighting against us.

that means:

 a) more than 200 who were released were not driven to fight against us due to harsh treatment, and

 b) we are doing our best to release those who should be released.

of blasting trolls with style...

first time I've laughed out loud today

That many of those released are not attacking us says we are for the most part releasing innocent or harmless people.  It does not mean we're releasing all or even most of the innocent or harmless people there.  Nor does it mean that they were not mistreated while they were in Gitmo.

I'm not saying that your A & B are neccesarily wrong, but I am saying that the only way we will know for sure is if the process is made more transparent.  It would be foolish to have a complete faith in the federal government here, especially when they are already operating out of the realm of their normal checks and balances, and when there have already been credible allegations of abuse.

What to do with the Gitmo Boys?

Erick left out one thing that could make this thread more contentious, so I thought I could add to it.

Holding these people indefinitely is a waste of valuable human capital.  America wasn't built by wasting work effort, by just holding people in prision when there was work for them.  California has offered quite a lot of money for stem cell research, so why don't we donate them to California for Stem Cell research?  If  you think about it, they are really just post-partum embryos.  And then nobody could accuse of the Army of issuing orange jumpsuits (tantamount to torture).

[ I like Nick Danger's idea of just releasing them all.  It does have the drawback that to be fair we should really teach them some Spanish before release.  Additionally since US law forbids exports to Cuba, I don't think we could let them take any valuables with them, so that would be kind of cruel.  Using embryos for research, though, I am told, is not cruel at all.]

Has Nick been teaching you a thing or two about snark?  If I hadn't seen "Joel", I'd have sworn this was pure Nick Danger.  :)  

The goalposts have moved again. There is just no satisfying some people.

since the first hundred yards outside the Gitmo fence are a minefield.

"Hey, Abu, you can go now. Havana is that way."

Again, the Democrats had their chance in the 90's, and we saw what happened. That would have been a really good time to earn some trust and respect on this issue. If Al Gore had become President we would still be negotiating with the Taliban. "Talks Reach Critical Phase, Gore Spokesman Says"

We'll take it from here, thank you.

Remember that the left loves Castro, they think Castro's Cuba is some sort of heaven on Earth. So we release all these "Islamofascist wackos" and then the left and the NYT and Little Dickie Durbin sill start b*tching at us for screwing up Cuba.

First they're demanding that we don't torture detainees, now they're saying they want transparancy from the federal government.  I suppose next they'll want to know who we have there and how much it's costing to hold them.  Those incorrigable liberals!

God will guide them through the minefields, perhaps.  What is written cannot be changed.

and why beating someone so severely that the beating is the proximate cause of death would not fall under your definition of torture, not examples of other regimes that have tortured people.

I cited three very specific, documented examples where detainees were beaten to death while under interrogation.  You said that this is not torture.  I just want to know how you would define torture.

The president has repeatedly says that we don't torture people and that we treat detainees humanely.  This is all well and good but currently we don't know what the Administration means by terms like "torture" and "humanely".

It's like they forgot September 11 or something!

Oh, wait, you weren't serious. Sort of like the Left in general.

I just wish I could be sure whether it was tongue in cheek or good policy after all.

If you beat someone severly enough on the head to put them into PVS first, then it cannot be torture.  (see Shcindler v Schiavo of Fla)

...You said that this is not torture.  I just want to know how you would define torture.

I said they were criminal acts under the UCMJ. And they are/were investigated as such and are/will be punished accordingly.

You asked me to define torture and I chose to respond with examples of behavior that I consider torture. I offer in my defense the observation of Justice Potter Stewart on the question of obsenity: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "

In the context of governmental actions, which is the context at issue here, I would define torture as the officially authorized, systematic inflicting of pain, whether or not it is used in hopes of extracting information and/or compliance from the subject. In the context at issue, governmental action, none of the incidents thus far cited by you or Little Dickie Durbin meet my definition of torture. Actions encompassed within the examples I cited most definately do.

To summarize,

Turning up or down the A/C: NO

Pulling fingernails: YES

Playing Rap "music": NO*

Dropping subject feet first into shredder: YES

----------

* I admit to being willing to reconsider this one, it might just qualify

And can we please stop using the Shroedinger box to describe anything but concepts of quantum mechanics.

I will be happy to, if you can come up with a better term for the policies which liberals frequently propose which, on the face of them, produce two states which — in our reality — cannot be properties of the same thing at the same time.

The social program which produces self-reliant individuals while simultaneously keeping them as pets is an obvious example, but there are many of these. Affirmative Action is the amazing policy which discriminates in favor of persons of the X persuasion while simultanously treating everyone equally. Feminist dogma tells us that women are equal in every way, and are also privileged Brahmins, simultaneously.

We really, truly, do not understand how you come up with these things without having your heads explode. And yet you do it all the time, so it must be easy for you, and you must not see anything weird about it.

It so happens that the tale of Schrödinger's cat (which need not involve quantum mechanics... it's just a thought experiment) describes this state perfectly. Here is a cat that is in an indeterminate state of deadness and aliveness; it is neither, and it is both. And it cannot really exist in the world that we humans call home. Where we live, the cat has to either be dead or alive. Just as social policy has to either produce self-reliant individuals, or provide for all of these individuals' needs. Nothing in this world can do both at the same time. And yet liberals insist that we all pretend it can, just as they insist that we all pretend that Affirmative Action does not produce 'quota hires' while simultaneously hiring people to meet a quota.

Other than referring to these things simply as "crazy liberal ideas," I am at a loss for how to describe them except as being analogous to Schrödinger cat (which has the advantage of being a defined term that people can look up on Wikipedia).

When you provide me with a better term, I will consider using it. All I ask is that it encapsulate the idea of people insisting on the reality of things that exhibit two conflicting states simultaneously.

Under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, of which we are a signatory, and were a major proponent, torture is defined as

1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. emphasis mine

Notice it does not require the official authorization, just that the person is acting in their official capacity.  It puts the onus on the individual, not the institution.  So to say that it is not torture because the perpetrators were not following orders is rather an interesting argument.

At least three Talibanis or Iraqis or some combination of them are dead.

If it was done by a soldier then that soldier is going to be punished under the UCMJ.  No not for murder unless the soldier was off duty, because his duty was to lay hands on the now deceased without torturing him.  If he died then somebody made a mistake, and some pfc is going to spend a couple of lonely years and lose his GI bill.

If it was done by the CIA then nothing is going to happen.  There are no CIA agents in the field, and even if there were, we wouldn't talk about it publically, and even if we did, we wouldn't talk about a specific case.  

Everybody in Guantanamo is in military custody.  Their lives are not as bad as they were in Afghanistan and not as good as they would be if they had been soldiers or criminals in Europe.  Tough.  Hot offices, cold offices, no toilets, one room, loud obnoxious music, mean people, barking dogs-- get over yourself: that is life in the suburbs, with a bad job.  [Try to use the restroom at a store in the northeast-- nobody can.]  They get showers later, they eat most days.  Nothing that happens to them is severe.

I wish I had your life, so that I could be shocked by such trite bullshit.

Public trials of illegal combatants aren't viable in many cases due to security issues.

I guess that puts me in my place! There is probably only one or two authorities more trustworthy than the one and only United Nations --- the ACLU and AI perhaps?

So I suppose you can rationalize the difference between "official authorization" and "the consent or acquiescense ... person acting in an offical capacity?"

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin in your universe?

torture.  And by the way one of the men beaten to death in Afghanistan was nothing more than a poor innocent taxi driver who was turned over to the Americans by the warlord actually responsible for the bombing they were investigating to deflect the investigation away from him.  Every one admits it was the man was completely innocent.

And it was not his duty to lay hands on a restrained prisoner.

You seem to indicate that the CIA should be allowed to do whatever is "necessary", does this include torturing and killing suspects?  As long as we don't know about it our conscience is clear?

it was not his duty to lay hands on a restrained prisoner

Who?  It wasn't whose duty?

You just happen to have a copy of the SOP in force for that area?  How do you move a restrained prisoner from one chair or room to another?  Somebody has to lay hands on him.

The innocent taxi driver who was beaten to death was innocent and everybody knows it?  

Then why did they beat him?

and who did it?

and when and where?

and was he beaten before he was in custody?

and did he die directly from the beating or do Afghanis die younger?

and did Metz or Franks or Ryan or Pace or Hersch announce this?

The CIA is allowed to kill people.  I am awfully sure there is presidential national security finding on file somewhere that lays that out including what statute that falls under.

War is a life and death struggle, and I want the US Army to kill and not be killed, everything else falls below that overseas.

1) I doubt that many are nearly as bad as the administration makes them out to be.   2) As for the proof that they must be bad because some have been picked up again, well two years in Gitmo would make me pretty pissed at the U.S. too.

I got two things from this response.

1. The Bush Administration makes terrorists look like bad people, when in fact they are really not that bad.  People who torture and kill innocent civilians are really not bad people.
   
   
2. It is the systems fault if a criminal repeats his behavior.  Under this same reasoning, if a child predator is locked up and released and strikes again, he should not be re-tried, because it is the fact that he was locked up that made him do what he did, not something inside him.  
   

The problem with this is that these people were terrorists FIRST, and captives second.

a couple weeks ago on the Afghanistan incident.  It is based mostly on U.S. government documents and personal interviews.

in another thread(The First Casualty or something similar) and Rotwang ran away from it like he usually does.  There is no need to waste so much time on him.  People like him will adhere to their beliefs despite anything to the contrary.  To them absence of evidence is indisputable proof of a conspiracy.

It's a pretty standard legal definition.  Official Authorization would be there was an official policy to abuse prisoners.  Persons acting in an "official capacity" are abusing the detainees as part of their duties, even if the abuse is not authorized.

Two simple examples:

Official Authorization--Interrogation manual approved by the ultimate legal authority authorizes the use of electric shocks and crushing of testicles with pliers as valid interrogation techniques.  Interrogator uses both methods.  I think we can both agree this is torture.

Official Capacity--Interrogation manual and policy specifically prohibits any physical contact with the suspect.  Interrogator, frustrated with lack of progress, hooks detainee up to car battery and crushes his testicles with a pair of pliers in an attempt to gain information.  Interrogator, although his actions are unauthorized, is operating in his official capacity and is still torturing the suspect.

Pentagon Will Not Try 17 GI's Implicated in Prisoners' Deaths

    By Douglas Jehl

    The New York Times

Saturday 26 March 2005

 

  Re-edited for brevity:

 Commanders have decided not to prosecute 17 American soldiers implicated in the deaths of three prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 and 2004, according to a new accounting released Friday by the Army.  While none of the 17 will face any prosecution, one received a letter of reprimand and another was discharged after the investigations.  To date, the military has taken steps toward prosecuting some three dozen soldiers in connection with a total of 28 confirmed or of detainees. The total number of suspected homicides of detainees is believed to be between 28 and 31 out of 70,000 detainees

In one of the three cases in which no charges are to be filed, the commanders determined the death to be "a result of a series of lawful applications of force." In the second, the commanders decided not to prosecute because of a lack of evidence. In the third, they determined the soldier involved had not been well informed of the rules of engagement.

aggressively.

Of the 28 deaths investigated, 13 occurred in American detention centers in those countries and 15 occurred at the point where prisoners were captured. Only one occurred in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which has been known until now as the site of the most extensive abuses by American military personnel.

    With the disposition of the three cases involving the 17 soldiers not prosecuted, the Army now has 21 soldiers listed as subjects for prosecution on criminal charges including, among others, murder, negligent homicide and assault.

Of those 21 soldiers, at least 3 have been convicted in general courts-martial, and at least 3 others are awaiting trial, the Army accounting showed.

The Army said one of the three deaths for which soldiers would not be prosecuted was that of a former Iraqi lieutenant colonel determined by investigators to have died of "blunt force injuries and asphyxia" at an American Forward Operating Base in Al Asad, Iraq, in January 2004.

    A senior Army legal official acknowledged that the Iraqi colonel had at one point been lifted to his feet by a baton held to his throat, and that that action had caused a throat injury that contributed to his death.

The Army accounting said the Special Forces Command had determined that the use of force had been lawful "in response to repeated aggression and misconduct by the detainee."

 A spokesman for the Army Special Operations Forces Command, Maj. Robert E. Gowan, said a "careful review of the facts" surrounding each of the two incidents involving that command indicated that "no U.S. Army Special Forces Command soldiers were found to have participated in any misconduct or detainee abuse."

So to sum up.

Maybe 30 people died suspiciously.  The Army has investigated.  Mostly they have found that detainees died when coercive force was used to compel obediance.  This is not a crime.

The point is we have held people at Guantanamo for over three years now.  So far we have charged exactly four of the detainees with any crime.  Of those four, the most "dangerous" terrorist we have charged is a man who is accused of attending terrorist planning meetings with OBL.  Not participating, mind you, just being present at the meetings.  Turns out who we have is OBL's driver and gofer.  In other words, of all the bad people at Guantanamo, the first person we have decided to try is Osama Bin Laden's butler!

As to the second point, we have released 240 odd detainees (including old men and children) of which a handful (around 5%) have turned up back on the battlefield.  That level of recidivism would be the envy of any prison.

What also concerns is the automatic assumption is that all the people at Guantanamo must be terrorists or Taliban.  This is simply not true.  First of all they were not all captured by the U.S. on the battlefield.  Many were turned over to the U.S. by the Northern Alliance.  The U.S. was paying the Northern Alliance cash bounties for Taliban and Al Qaeda members so there was a definite incentive for the Northern Alliance to round up anyone they didn't like or looked like a foreigner and turn them into the Americans as an "Al Qaeda" or "Taliban" member.  Apparently some were even kidnapped from Pakistan and dragged back into Afghanistan for the bounty.  

 

The hairs on your head must be fairly substantial since you are so facile at splitting them.

away from these three specific deaths.  Two of which were the subject of a two day series of articles in the New York Times that, using Army documents, recounted the beating deaths of two detainees in less than a week in Afghanistan.

The death at Abu Ghraib coincidentally happened on the one night that those enlisted personnel apparently chose to go wild.  In that case CIA or CIA contractors (it is unclear which) apparently beat a detainee to death while interrogating him in a shower room and attempted to cover up the death.  Several of the Abu Ghraib soldiers posed with the dead detainees.  The CIA personnel responsible have not yet been identified or charged with a crime.

In all three of these cases the detainees were beaten while their hands were chained to the ceiling above their heads.  Now these might be the only three beatings delivered to restrained prisoners by U.S. personnel in the last three years that resulted in severe injury or death.  Or there might be a systemic problem that allows brutality against prisoners to fester unchecked.  Finding out what the situation is would be the goal of a truly independent investigation.

that has led to arrests, or prevented attacks.  This would not be info for the MSM, esp. considering they might go nuts over the details whereby the information was obtained.

Yes, they should be charged, but by whom?  And what prison would they be sentenced to if found guilty? And who would represent them? And by what standard would they be judged?  Isn't it a little ethnocentric to expect a culture that is thousands of years old to be judged by our standards?

Perhaps Afghanistan will need to house those guilty of true crimes?  Surely we wouldn't bring them to America?

Here they would get no Koran upon entrance to prison, no special treatment, I hope.

Like a guy from my neighborhood who did 10 years in the Pinta, they would slug it out on the yard with the other gangs.

In that case, they are better off where they are.  Our military is treating them much better than our street thugs would.

I gave it.

My recollection is that in war any combatant wearing civilian clothes (i.e. no attire clearly identifying him as a member of a particular miltary force) is subject to execution.  They need not be shown guilty of any conduct that would otherwise be a capital offense, only that they were acting as a combatant without clothing identifying them as such.  In World War II we executed without trial some Germans and an American on a sabotage mission, because they were captured in civilian clothes. (If I had a DU mentality, I would say the administration of the other party executed them without trial ;-)

Perhaps someone knows of some treaty we've subsequently signed where we gave up this right in wartime.

We don't have to execute such unlawful combatants.  We may find it in our interest to get information out of them, or let most of them live so future unlawful combatants have an incentive to surrender rather than fight to the death.  But letting them live is purely at our own discretion, based on military utility or whatever other motivation we consider relevant, not something we're legally obligated to do.

The only thing the military tribunal needs to rule on is whether they were acting as a combatant (perhaps a few were just in the wrong place at the wrong time), and whether they were in uniform.

My preference is keeping most of them alive, and releasing them after however many years or decades it takes until they can't find a friendly environment for resuming their war against us.  But if keeping Club Gitmo in service becomes too politically troublesome, then shooting them all is the second best alternative.

is most likely the culprit.  That is the case where the Navy Seals delivered the Iraqi to the center alive, and he died at some point after that.  At least one of the Seals was charged, but was aquitted in his court martial (basically the facts easily led to the implication of the CIA agents the Iraqi was turned over to).  I also think there may have been some CIA agents with them, when he was captured.

To date I don't think any of the CIA agents involved have been charged.  The CIA shouldn't have a blanket immunity to do this kind of stuff, and our soldiers and sailors and marines should not turn into fall guys for the CIA.

the hornet's nest gets stirred again.

"But if keeping Club Gitmo in service becomes too politically troublesome, then shooting them all is the second best alternative."

It would probably be cheaper in the long run.

be held in custody.

If the Geneva Conventions apply, they can be held until hostilities end (hostilities have not ended yet).

If they are illegal comatants, then all the US has to do is prove they are in fact illegal combatants and they can take them out and shoot them-so in this case, holding them until hositilities end is granting them more than they have a right to.

They do not have to be convicted of a crime-they are not in the US court system.

thread I mentioned to count your replies?  IIRC Anderson Democrat stepped in and you were decidedly quiet throughout.  Granted neither of you did much besides an Elmer Fudd impression "Ewww, dose wascally tortowers!" yet it apparently hasn't lessened your zeal.  

I haven't heard anything about the Bush administration asking a 3rd party nuetral source to monitor the goings-on at Gitmo.  I haven't seen anything to indicate that there is a fair, nuetral court for those that we consider criminals.  The system is so closed and non-transparent, that accusations like what we're seeing in the press are guaranteed to happen.

Except in response to negative publicity, I don't see any effort to address the problems of Gitmo.  I especially don't see the present administration becoming more forthright about why we have Gitmo and why it must exist outside of the existing framework for POWs or criminals.  To me, it would make sense to treat the POWs as such and treat the criminals as such.

FWIW, I would be much happier if the Bush administration would be more forthcoming about the who we're holding and why.  The only reason that the prisoners are in Gitmo is that it's the only place to hold prisoners that is beyond the reach of any country's legal system, including our own.

Do you think critically or just channel Dickie Durbin?

"That many of those released are not attacking us says we are for the most part releasing innocent or harmless people."

No, it means those we are releasing, for the most part, haven't engaged in hostile activities since being released. If we took someone who had just fired an RPG at a convoy, had him at Gitmo for a time, convinced him it was in his best interest to not fire an RPG at our boys in the future, and he took the message and didn't fire an RPG at our boys in the future but instead worked for the good of Afghanistan, that doesn't mean we detained someone initially innocent, it means Gitmo worked. Are initially innocent people there?  Possibly.  And if so, they were likely released once that status was ascertained. To the tune of more than 30% of total detainees.

"It does not mean we're releasing all or even most of the innocent or harmless people there."

Another one you can't prove, though the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders here since this is not a court of law with a U.S. citizen accused of an ordinary crime, so we have every reason to assume guilt until innocence is proven.  And we're even helping them prove their innocence, in fact, we're trying to do so for them.  But they don't go to Gitmo for no reason -- of the millions, MILLIONS of people encountered in Afghanistan and Pakistan, fewer than 800 have gone to Gitmo... not exactly capricious and wholesale incarceration of innocent people, that.  

"Nor does it mean that they were not mistreated while they were in Gitmo."

Do you enjoy assuming the worst about Americans?  I don't.  Call it blind nationalism. Call it following protocol. There has yet to be a credible allegation of true torture at Gitmo. Have some prisoners been made uncomfortable? I hope so. All things considered, and taking a glance at the basic things given to them and the menu provided at my expense as a tax payer, those who may well have actionable intelligence had damn well better be uncomfortable once or twice.

"I'm not saying that your A & B are neccesarily wrong,"

Gee, thanks...

but I am saying that the only way we will know for sure is if the process is made more transparent."

Yeah, and I suppose we should get a moment-by-moment account of what our undercover agents do the world over so we can be sure all actions carried out in our names are totally hunky-dory. Do you value covert operations or Operational security of our military at all? Do those terms mean anything to you? Transparency extended WWII in the Pacific after the Chicago Tribune published the fact that our Navy broke Japan's code, enabling us to win the Battle of Midway, the first tide-turning battle in the Pacific in that war. The japanese, learning that our military had broken its code, immediately changed their code. Any idea how much shorter the Pacific theater would have been without that bit of "transparency"? In today's conflict, exposing how things are done at gitmo, as Time has done, will enable the terrorists to train to withstand our incredibly humane torture methods, making it harder to extract info.

It would be foolish to have a complete faith in the federal government here, especially when they are already operating out of the realm of their normal checks and balances, and when there have already been credible allegations of abuse. Hmm...  "operating out of the real of their normal checks and balances"... has Congress passed anything condemning or defunding Gitmo? Has there been a Congressional oversight investigation condemning anything? Have any SCOTUS rulings gone against the Administration that have not been held to? Right. No. Anyhow, moving along...

"Credible allegations of abuse."... I suppose you could point to one or two... and I could point to where the individuals responsible (mind you, this is all sans Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld-led conspiracy) were prosecuted or are awaiting prosecution under appropriate, already-in-place, sections of the UCMJ. In short, where there have been atrocities, they've been dealt with appropriately, within the system, and where there haven't been credible allegations of abuse nothing has been brought. (sorry, a kicked and/or moistened Koran isn't abuse, it's mistreatment or mishandling of a Koran, something only a nation like ours would give a hoot about, but not abuse or torture)

But alleging "of course we dont' know about them all because the executive branch and the military are covering them up! BUT DON'T DOUBT THEY'RE THERE!" is far easier than accepting hte cold, hard realities of the struggle in which we currently find ourselves engaged, as compelled by actions leading up to and including 9/11, perpetrated by our enemies.

I'm going to bed now, g'night.

this wasn't a smack-down of a troll (I don't think, anyhow) but it was the second Redstate post to make me laugh out loud today...

Perhaps the Sangria at dinner made it more funny, but I'm sure I would have laughed anyhow.

I haven't heard anything about the Bush administration asking a 3rd party nuetral source to monitor the goings-on at Gitmo.

Simply not true. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has regular, on demand access to the prison as required. You don't hear about it  because the IRCR policy is to communicate their findings and any complaints to the detaining power. Unlike the Democrats, AI  and the ACLU, the ICRC does not 'try the case in the press.' The ICRC apparently values their credibility more than they hate George Bush.

I haven't seen anything to indicate that there is a fair, nuetral{sp} court for those that we consider criminals

And you probably won't. You've been watching too many episodes of "Law & Order." These are not criminals in the TV show sense of criminals, they are illegal combatants. In fact, their cases are being heard before a military tribunal and clearly this process is working as we have release sonme 240+ of them so far. I suppose you'd appreciate it if Don Rumsfled called you each morning and updated you, but he doesn't have time right now.

The system is so closed and non-transparent, that accusations like what we're seeing in the press are guaranteed to happen.

On what basis do you assume that these things are guaranteed to happen? Because Little Dickie Durbin and the Democratic Party Lunatic Fringe Chowder and Marching Society says so? The people you seem to feel are bound to lose control the minute the New York Times isn't looking are your fellow citizens; someone's husband or wife, son or daughter, mother or father. You might try presuming that they are honorable men and women until proven otherwise. You guys are always yammering about how the detainees are 'innocent until proven guilty'. But for some reason you won't grant the same presumption to the people who risk their lives to protect your sorry a*s every day.

I don't see any effort to address the problems of Gitmo.

Problems of Gitmo? What problems? They live better at Gitmo than they ever lived in their home countries. Problems because some idiot Senator says they are tortured because the A/C was turned off and the temperature was {gasp} 100 degrees; several degrees lower than Phoenix AZ in the summer? Problems because the same idiot says they were subjected to nonstop Christina Agulera "music"; the same sort of cr*p you have to put up with from some bozo with a 'boombox' in any major city in America? Problems because they have to 'endure' lemon chicken and fish almondine once a week; these SOBs eat better than 90% of American college students.

...why we have Gitmo and why it must exist outside of the existing framework for POWs or criminals.

Well, we have to put these b*stards someplace; you volunteering your guest room? It doesn't exist outside any existing framework for POWs because they aren't POWs. They are not a bunch of guys who just knocked off the local Seven-11; the civil justice system does not have laws to deal with what these guys want to do to you and me.

...would be much happier if the Bush administration would be more forthcoming about the who we're holding and why

No, you'd be much happier if the Bush administration was not the administration.

I regret the unwarrented use of tauro-scatological references.

But it is trite stuff and feathers.

The Administration has said that these detainees are not subject to the Geneva Accords at all but we will abide by the spirit of the accords.  This is an exceptional position to take for persons captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan because generally when you are in a war with a country that has signed the Geneva Conventions, anyone captured on the battlefield, or indeed, anyone who is caught up in hostilities at all, is covered by the Geneva Conventions.  The question is what section of the Conventions they are covered by.  In Iraq, the president stated unequivocally that the Geneva Conventions do apply.

The current Conventions were signed in 1949, so the example of World War II is not directly applicable.  Even in your specific example the accused were tried by a military tribunal for espionage and had their case (at least the American citizen did, I'm not sure about the others) appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

As for the designation of legal or illegal combatant, even illegal combatants are still covered by the Geneva Conventions, they just don't have to be treated as POWs.  POW is a very privleged status.  As a POW you have to be treated in a manner equivalent to members of the military of the same rank of your captors.  There are strict limits on what work can be required and interrogation allowed.  Illegal combatants can be treated as common criminals but must still be treated humanely and granted some kind of legal process.  Spies are treated separately by the convention and are very strictly defined.

Aside from the Geneva Conventions, the Supreme Court also ruled last year that all the detainees at Guantanamo are entitled to basic due process rights.  Summalarily shooting them would certainly violate that decision.

So there is absolutely a problem with just taking them all out and shooting them from a legal perspective.  I don't suppose you have even considered the moral implications and political consequences of summalarily executing over 550 people.

... I don't suppose you have even considered the moral implications and political consequences of summalarily[sp] executing over 550 people.

2986

to try to reconcile this howler with the Conventions?

As for the designation of legal or illegal combatant, even illegal combatants are still covered by the Geneva Conventions, they just don't have to be treated as POWs.

This is only correct if by "covered" you mean "mentioned".

For the record:

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The Taliban were not signatories to the HGC. Everyone else we captured falls in the latter category.

It now appears the Senator Durbin didn't really say what everyone thinks he said. At least not according to the offical Congressional Record and it's marvelous Electric Memory Hole facility, the provision to revise one's remarks after one utters them, thus rendering them 'non-history.'

According to this item from FreeRepublic the Senator didn't actually compare the actions of American soliders to Nazis, Soviet gulags or Pol Pot.

George Orwell would be so proud.

but then again so am I.  You are referring to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 which the U.S. has ratified.  I am referring to the Protocols (Protocol I, Article 75) of 1977 which the U.S. has not ratified but does abide by.  The protocols are also where you find the whole discussion of visible markers and the like.

I see a fair amount of passion and typing, but not any legal prohibition against killing all the Gitmo prisoners (aside from any we may find really weren't combatants).

The current Conventions were signed in 1949, so the example of World War II is not directly applicable.

Wrong. It was legal when we executed without trial the WWII saboteurs for nothing more than being combatants not in uniform (even if they hadn't yet done any violence), and nothing in the 1949 revision repeals this long standing right of warring parties to execute enemy combatants who don't wear clearly recognizable uniforms.

The Convention's protection of a POW's right to life are explicitly limited to combatants complying with certain obligations as combatants, including recognizable uniform.  It doesn't place any limitation on our right to choose whether to keep or dispose of the unlawful combatants in our possession.

Even in your specific example the accused were tried by a military tribunal for espionage...

Which is exactly what I said we could do with the Gitmo prisoners, i.e. to legally execute them, "The only thing the military tribunal needs to rule on is whether they were acting as a combatant ... and whether they were in uniform."

...and had their case ... appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

And the Supreme Court refused to do anything beyong ruling that a military tribunal rather than a court was appropriate for handling their case, even for the American apprehended on American soil.

I am referring to the Protocols (Protocol I, Article 75) of 1977 which the U.S. has not ratified but does abide by

If/when we ever act in accordance with the unratified protocols is strictly at our own discretion, not a legal obligation.  Since the United States is not a party to the new protocol, it has no legal standing.  In fact, avoiding such restrictions is one of the reasons President Reagan gave for rejecting the treaty proposal:

It contains provisions that would undermine humanitarian law and endanger civilians in war. ... Another provision would grant combatant status to irregular forces even if they do not satisfy the traditional requirements to distinguish themselves from the civilian population and otherwise comply with the laws of war. This would endanger civilians among whom terrorists and other irregulars attempt to conceal themselves.    - Ronald Reagan

I don't suppose you have even considered the moral implications and political consequences of summalarily executing over 550 people.

It's not summary execution if a military tribunal finds the prisoner was an unlawful combatant. But leaving that aside, the moral obligation to avoid killing without a compelling reason is why I said shooting them all is the perfectly legal second best option.  If we can stop the Gitmo prisoners from resuming their war against us by holding them prisoner for however many years it takes, I find that preferable to killing them.

However, if the existence of Gitmo (or by any other name/location) becomes an ongoing political albatross for years on end, to such a degree that it undermines our war efforts, that could cost American lives (and/or innocents in other countries).  If the alternative is releasing all the unlawful combatants except those we can convict of something in criminal court, protecting American lives is a morally compelling reason to legally shoot all the unlawful combatants.

Sooner or later, we are going to have to quit playing pattycake and fight this war.

And the folks at Gitmo are no more entitled to the entire "due process" of U.S. law than the Nazis at Nurenberg were.

Or those we shot for the same type of thing that the Gitmo detainees are there for during the Second World War.  And we did.

Check back on what we did with the German troops that we captured either in U.S. uniforms or civilian clothing during the Battle of the Bulge.

Bang!

disagrees with you.

It seems to me that there is only one legitimate question re the Gitmo prisoners:  mistaken identity.

If someone is taken into custody in Afghanastan fighting for the Taliban or Al Queda, then they are, by definition, a radical islamist combatant.  So we keep them.  It is possible that someone was taken into custody who was not a radical islamist and fighting for the enemy, and that would be a reason to let them go.  Since only a select no. of those captured on the battlefield were taken to GITMO, I have to believe that they are all radical islamists--that the military ascertained this.

And I am working on the assumption that once a radical islamist, always a radical islamist--so why let them out.  But I suppose it is always possible that an individual so incarcerated may decide they want to give up their murderous, death cult beliefs and convert to Christianity or secular humanism or become a moderate moslem.  Perhaps, in that case, we could send them to GITMO II, and start another procedure.  

I have been away on family business for the past few days, so I haven't had access to the internet.  I just read your reply.  You sure do like to jump to conclusions, don't you?  You don't know a d*mn thing about me, and yet you feel like you can call me a "sorry a*s"?  (Nice use of profanity there, BTW)  Where, in anything I have written, do I assume that the members of our military are guilty of anything?  

I was raised in a military family, so I know the sacrifices that the members of our military have to make, unlike most of the current administration.  Good try, but you miss the mark completely on that one.

I haven't seen anything to indicate that there is a fair, nuetral{sp} court for those that we consider criminals.
And you probably won't. You've been watching too many episodes of "Law & Order." These are not criminals in the TV show sense of criminals, they are illegal combatants. In fact, their cases are being heard before a military tribunal and clearly this process is working as we have release sonme{sp} 240+ of them so far. I suppose you'd appreciate it if Don Rumsfled{sp} called you each morning and updated you, but he doesn't have time right now.

No, he's too busy trying to spin the situation.  Of all the people we've held at Gitmo for the past 3 years, only 4 have had been charged with crimes.  The rest of those who haven't been freed are in legal limbo.  And I don't consider a military tribunal to be a nuetral court, especially when we aren't holding the prisoners as POWs.

The system is so closed and non-transparent, that accusations like what we're seeing in the press are guaranteed to happen.

On what basis do you assume that these things are guaranteed to happen? Because Little Dickie Durbin and the Democratic Party Lunatic Fringe Chowder and Marching Society says so?

No, I assume that they are going to happen because they are happening, regardless of what Durban or anyone else says.  If you bother to take a look at any media other than the Washington Times of Fox News, you could easily see for yourself that we're losing the war of minds throughout the entire world.  It shouldn't be like this.  The United States is starting to look like the bad guy, and that shouldn't be happening.  A more prudent leadership would not have let this happen.

I don't see any effort to address the problems of Gitmo.


Problems of Gitmo? What problems?

Nice.  You're a regular Alfred E. Nueman, aren't you?  The rest of your drivel isn't even worth responding to.  They live better and eat better.  Right.

...why we have Gitmo and why it must exist outside of the existing framework for POWs or criminals.


Well, we have to put these b*stards someplace; you volunteering your guest room? It doesn't exist outside any existing framework for POWs because they aren't POWs. They are not a bunch of guys who just knocked off the local Seven-11; the civil justice system does not have laws to deal with what these guys want to do to you and me.

We don't know who they are.  You are jumping to conclusions that all the prisoners are guilty of something, just because the government told you so.  Are you always so eager to believe the government?  We don't have the laws to deal with these people, so we just let the government make them up as we go along?

...would be much happier if the Bush administration would be more forthcoming about the who we're holding and why


No, you'd be much happier if the Bush administration was not the administration.

Actually, at this point, I'd be happier if both scenarios were true.  I'm part of the 60% (and growing) percentage of the population who has come to realize that Bush has no idea what he is doing.