That’s why this GTMO thing is so hard. No one wants these guys. They’re the worst of the worst. Their own countries will kill them out of hand. A neutral nation which will take them will allow them to leave to return to the battlefield, as so many have already. Other nations don’t want these guys (which is a big damned clue for not allowing them here, either).

The answer is to shoot most of them as spies and saboteurs, as they were captured on the battledield sans any identifiers as combatants, per the Geneva Convention. If they were trained in terrorist camps, then they are terrorists. Shoot them, too. All others are case-by-case political asylum issues.

I don’t think it’s our responsibility about what other government might do.

I’m afraid that’s a rather short-sighted position. It has always been our responsibility, and it always will be. Your opinion has little bearing on the issue.

Peace.

DS

I don’t think it’s our responsibility about what other government might do.

9. Jeff Weimer:
Thanks for your comments. What a mess!

11. MiamaMan:
““Why are people concerned about bringing prisoners from Gitmo to the US? They are going to be jailed and kept inside secured prisons.”

Where they will proselytize and infect the other inmates with the Jihad virus,”

That can happen, but they can still be deported.

17. Delia:

“I hope the detainees are released where vivo and David S. live.”

I don’t care. They are not going to blow up my little shack, they’ll go to Delia’s McMansion . . .

If we captured them during a combat situation then the Geneva Conventions come into play. Sure the other side doesn’t play by those rules. But why if we don’t play fair and demonstrate to the world our high standing ideals we’re no better than the terrorists.

Your thoughts on this seem to assume a few things that are simply not true.

I think you overstate your case.

1) That U.S. constitutional protections apply to foreign combatants, whether or not they fight for a country.

I spoke to the plight of detainees. I am not willing to assume that all detainees are “foreign combatants”. I understand that different standards may apply in different individual cases.

2) That current legal rules of evidence apply to the battlefield. Just how are we going to scrupulously maintain “chain of evidence” in a firefight?

I spoke to the importance of a court of law. Military and civilian courts could both fulfill this function. However, you are assuming that all detainees were foreign combatants detained on the battlefield. What is the basis for your assumption?

3)”Criminal charges” assumes the broke a law. Whose law? Ours? how can you enforce that in a foreign country? They merely shot at us, and we captured them instead of killing them.

The laws of war would be appropriate, if in fact the detainee was captured as part of a war. There are clear standards for determining who is a legal combatant and who is not under the Geneva conventions. You again assume that all detainees shot at us. That’s a big assumption.

4) Granting asylum? They weren’t escaping persecution when they left their countries, but only after becoming terrorists. They have no basis for asylum. Of course, we don’t want to send them to certain death, therefore we keep them in Gitmo.

If we label someone a terrorist, and can’t prove it, we bear responsibility for that prejudicial act. The basis for asylum is the potential for persecution – political asylum has a long tradition, and it doesn’t usually involve imprisoning applicants indefinitely.

5) The only sufficient evidence for the military to detain them is that they engaged in battle with us. Nothing more, nothing less.

Unless this evidence is brought before a proper tribunal, it is nothing more than the say-so of the military. You are assuming again, not I.

6) That this is a law-enforcement problem. Posse Comitatus FORBIDS the military

The formulation of my statement is to identify the law-enforcement problem within the larger military context.

I find it rather disturbing that many (you included) wish for us to bend over backwards in the treatment of our enemies, literally to the point we endanger ourselves unnecessarily. Your type wishes us to be perfect – and perfect is the enemy of good.

We should follow the laws and treaties that we have assented to. This does not mean bending over backwards to be perfect – it means making a concerted effort to do the best that we can. We should not settle for “good enough” – because for someone who spends the rest of their life in secret detention without cause, it’s not.

You have assumed that all detainees are foreign combatants, detained on the battlefield for firing shots at US forces. You have assumed that none could possibly be eligible for asylum, and that there is sufficient evidence of their wrongdoing – despite no independent assessment being made of any such evidence. Furthermore, you assume that the entire process must be conducted outside of judicial oversight, despite the clear role of our courts in providing a check and balance against the executive branch. Yet you accuse me of making unsupported assumptions in support of my position that we should follow the law.

Now, I think that we could have possibly avoided these problems if we would have merely declared we would treat them IAW Geneva. In some ways we treat them better, in others we don’t follow. If we would have done so from the beginning, there would be nothing anyone could really say about how we treat them, as it was in accordance with international treaty.

That was basically what I was arguing. Good to see that we agree on what should have been done in the first place. I’m simply advocating that we should also follow these conventions now.

Of course, THEY don’t care about Geneva – remember Jihadi BEHEADINGS of non-combatants such as Berg? Another assumption you make – that there is a moral equivalence between us and them.

Geneva is a standard that we agreed to on our own. You are correct that terrorist entities don’t adhere to these standards – but the nations of the world agree that Geneva is a binding agreement. We don’t gain license to violate our international obligations by simply going to war with a stateless entity. It’s not about moral equivalence – it’s about our honor. Do we honor our commitments or not?

Peace.

DS

1) Who was “picked up at their homes”, or on “rumors”? Where is your basis for this “fact”?

2) Why does an “enemy combatant” have to be charged with a crime? Are they subject to U.S. law, no matter where they reside?

3) Please cite your reference. We don’t know what you are talking about. Saying “It is a fact” is not really, a fact. Post a reference. Because you believe it doesn’t make it true.

4) A FEW, please. You give them too much benefit of the doubt. You are right, we decide when the war on terror ends, and when they get to leave. Why is that a problem?

No, “domestic terrorists” are treated as per U.S. law – as is accorded U. S, citizens. Those at Gitmo are not U.S. citizens, they do not deserve protection under the law.

However that falls out, some of these remarks, like Spanky’s racism, are just plain offensive or, like Sebastian Shaw’s panicked shriek that these people will simply be set free to commit acts of terrorism, just plain silly. Get a grip.