Snowdon is a dummy

I agree with others here concerning this issue of Guantanamo, we are in the wrong.

Usually prisoners of war are not released until after the war is officially over. As of right now, isn't NATO involved in Afghanistan along with US? Once the war is officially over, NATO and the US pull out, at the point, presumably, the detainees will be released, even the ones deemed dangerous.

Hopefully before Obama leaves office.

In the meantime, congress and the president should put those who can be put on trial, on trial and sentenced or released accordingly.

It all started when the Saxons and Angles (plus the Jutes) invaded England. Or do you want to further back?

But whatever: since Germans did awful things in history, I can't criticise that some other nations do it now.

I understand.

Maybe with any luck at all, this case will cause such shame that finally, congress will vote to close it and the president can sign off on it.

At very least, stop the force feeding and let them die if they want to.

There are two medical issues with the practice as implented in Gitmo. 1) it is inethical to force someone to be treated;

2) the technique used--intubation through the nose--is pretty atrocious compared to the much less painful method of intraveinous injection of glucose.
I had the nose intubation thing done on me once, it was awful.

By domestic and international law, it's illegal to kill any one innocent person. Why should it be legal to kill many innocent people including children by drones?

Not unless we get a guarantee that people won't whine at us when they start starving to death.

Pretty petty attitude.

We have done wrong in Guantanamo,

we tortured prisoners against our own previously held standards and against the Geneva Convention.

We are holding these people for over twelve years without a charge, again against the GC of which we signed.

We are force feeding prisoners against Physicians medical opinions of it being dangerous to their health with life long medical issues afterwards.

I am hoping Obama keeps up this take charge attitude and goes over congress's head on this issue as well.

I am hoping Obama keeps up this take charge attitude and goes over congress's head on this issue as well. At this point, what has he got to loose besides his presidency and it would be better to go out with a bang rather than keep knuckling under to those bullies.

The Geneva Conventions allow POWs to be detained until the end of a war.

Where is the war when the US pulls out of Afghanistan and Iraq?

The Geneva convention specifically talks about armed conflict. When there is no armed conflict and no occupation of a country there is no longer any reason to hold POWs under the Geneva convention.

The war is everywhere. There are no geographic limitations.

Not under the Geneva Convention.

I am hoping Obama keeps up this take charge attitude and goes over congress's head on this issue as well. At this point, what has he got to loose besides his presidency and it would be better to go out with a bang rather than keep knuckling under to those bullies.

It's been a while since I looked at the GC and I have trouble retaining information, but I seem to recall something about prisoners going before a military tribunal to determine their status. I remember something about even if they didn't qualify for POW status there was still standards to be held in their treatment.

I also remember the former administration labelling the GC "quaint" which was their way of getting around all restriction placed on treatment of the detainees.

However, you are right, when the war is over, there will be no reason or excuse to hold them any longer which will be at the end of 2016.