Powell Says Close Gitmo

He's a bit late to the bandwagon, don't you think? I had reservations about this one from the beginning.

So prosecuting people captured on foreign battlefields and places can be successfully done in the criminal courts under American criminal law? That is truly amazing that a man like Powell could actually believe such a totally ridiculous premise. Now, I suppose besides soldiers we will need to either train the soldiers in crime scene investigations and evidence, either that or create a whole new bureaucracy to do it. Imagine the picture of a soldier, before taking the enemy into custody, reading him his rights, allow him to call his lawyer, etc.?

If we thought the O.J. Simpson trial was a total fiasco, prepare for something 100 times worse. I sometimes think the idiots in this country deserve to be defeated, but what about the rest of us sane people? Does anyone care about us?

okie, we don't give a damn about you.

Bi-Polar, I hope you feel good about that. I still care about you. And in the debates, one thought was encouraging, that is no matter how far off the reservation some people have strayed, perhaps we still have a small portion of common ground. I would think you would still choose survival over total destruction by our common enemies?

what has gitmo really given the americans ?
from what i hear many (most ?) of those imprisoned have been released - presumably they either didn't commit a crime or had no useful information .
so it seems to have caused a lot of hard feelings , cost a lot of money , but what positive results have ben achieved ?
even the JAG lawyers have declared that it is all a sham .
perhaps someone will claim that JAG lawyers are all "un-american" ?
waiting to hear !
hbg

We capture people engaged in terrorist operations in countries like Afghanistan. What do we do with them? The only options I see are the following:

A. Kill them on the spot.

B. Turn them loose.

C. Hold them as enemy combatants and try to extract information from them to prevent further harm to ourselves and our military. Holding them prevents them from further actions, and the information gained from them also aids our efforts to protect ourselves from further harm.

D. Try them under the criminal justice system, with full rights as U.S. citizens.

First of all, before choosing A thru D, I would like to point out we did not manufacture this terrorist problem or ask for it. It is not a problem that we deserve to have the perfect solution. The problem is new type of problem, for which we are trying to find a workable solution.

With that said, for now, C is the only logical alternative. It is not a perfect solution and we are still formulating the best course of actions in terms of holding the people and determining which ones are the most dangerous and which ones can be released. A and B are wrong for obvious reasons, and I believe D is just as ridiculous and unworkable for obvious reasons. The obvious reasons are multiple, and I would think that we would not have to debate them all here. I find it preposterous that some people actually think it would be practical.

Does Afghanistan not have prisons? Why ship them to the other side of the world? We seem to be dealing with this in Iraq without the need to send them to No-Mans-Land and a world of legal limbo. Why do we need Gitmo? As hamburger asked, what has it done for us?

Or maybe you got them from bounty hunters who claimed they engaged in terrorist operations. Maybe in some cases, you were in no position to check the veracity of the bounty hunters' claims.


How about the option of holding them as prisoners of war on the American mainland, applying the standard procedures specified in the Geneva conventions? That's what you did with your German prisoners of war in World War II. Why did you not see this option?

Send 'em all to egypt.

Possibly, Thomas, but again, we did not ask for this problem so the terrorists have created a new and unique problem that we have to deal with. It is not our choice. We have to do the best we can. Again, the problem you mention is potentially a thorny one, but simply turning them loose or killing them is not an option. We obviously have people on the ground that can hope to sort out the problem you mention.


World War II was a different kind of war, between countries in a declared war, Thomas. The people typically wore uniforms and swore allegiance to and fought for Germany. All of this comes under the Geneva Conventions. For obvious reasons, the same does not apply to terrorists or enemy combatants, which if place on American soil, may gender more legal questions. Look, I am not saying this is an easy problem, but we have the best legal and military people analyzing the best policy, and to simply eliminate Gitmo and either turn them all loose or turn them over to the criminal court system is obviously not perfect solutions. The solution we have is far from perfect, but for now seems to me to be the best that we have. Again, we did not ask for or create this problem. If anyone should be blamed, blame the terrorist organizations.

These reasons are not, in fact, obvious.

Cycloptichorn

This doesn't change the fact that regular prisoner of war status is an available option -- one which, by your own account, you were not seeing. I just wanted to direct your attention at it.

Like Cycloptichorn, I find it interesting that you often use the words "obvious" and "obviously" when you make an assertion that is by no means obvious. It is not obvious that prisoners of war from Afghanistan cannot be held in mainland USA. It is also not "obvious" that the people you have on the ground can adequately make sure that the people they're sending to Guantanamo Bay are actually terrorists. You have to back up your points with arguments; calling them "obvious" doesn't make them so.

Actual prisoners of war were and are held in POW detention camps in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of the Taliban soldiers were and are being held in such camps. Some were sent to Guantanamo after going before a military tribunal in country where their status is now being determined by a congressionally approved tribunal.

Illegal combatants (i.e. spies) in WW2 were not given the luxury of POW camps.

Yes, I see all of this as so obvious. Perhaps many of you don't. We have the best military and legal people evaluating the problem, not only in light of history, but from every angle, and I believe we are doing the best we can with it. What we are doing is an imperfect mechanism to treat a very imperfect problem. Some of the alternate suggestions, such as trying them under the criminal court system, is extremely impractical in my opinion, Thomas, and yes, I think that should be obvious.

Seemed obvious to me Okie.

Well, let's be honest - little things like the Rule of Law aren't really material to you guys, are they?

Not if they keep you from doing what you want to do.

Cycloptichorn

Think to your heart's content. As it happens you think wrongly, but that's just tough.

It is to the reasonable. Reason only works with the reasonable.

Cyclops, the rule of law does not work in war. This again should be obvious. I suppose you would read a guy his rights to call a lawyer before you shot him? And oh yes, also call the forensics expert or crime scene investigator to collect evidence after the crime. He would probably be collecting it from your body, cyclops.

And by the way, we try to follow the laws of war, but terrorists are inventing new and bizarre ways to wage war, that even breaks those previous laws, if you can call them that.

Rule of law?

Which rule of law has been broken exactly?