I think you're too optimistic. Who cares if Akmed stoned gays or executed unveiled chicks, as long as he's against Chimpbushitler, then he's a beloved part of the multiculteral taleau.

"Jimmy Carter squishes."

I had one of those at Sonic the other night. Sort of frozen and watery and unsatisfying, and I had to wear a sweater afterwards.

Sorry, Will, I'm with Supercat on this one. It doesn't matter what they did. What matters is how this can hurt the admiinistration.

I'm with Will on this. There are a lot of people outside the blogosphere who aren't dead set on one side of the issue or the other, and who can be persuaded by, like, facts and information and stuff.

I agree 100 percent, Will.

As others have pointed out, the Lunatic Left could give a tinker's damn less about these thugs so long as they hate America and can be used to discredit Bush. But for that 80 percent of Americans who aren't extremists (and this includes fewer and fewer elected Democratic officials), it would be an effective to illustrate what they are and who we fight.

Is it possible for someone who endorses the way the Bush Administration is handling things to make their case without name-calling?

Yes there is a "lunatic left" (and God forbid you might be able to explain who/what is a member of this) but the fact is many people aren't buying the way the White House is operating (i.e. opinion polls on Bush performance w/in the past week).

As a result, one can be/should be critical.

I'm tired of the way supporters of the way things are destroy anyone who says it isn't working.

Here's a comparison that's very easy to understand:

Gitmo: Prisoners are terrorists who committed unspeakable acts against innocent civilians, including women and children, and were arrested out of uniform carrying weapons of war. They are systematically fed a special diet, receive medical and dental attention, have Muslim chaplains at their disposal, have access to recreational materials, exercise time, lawyers, reporters, AI and any other anti-American group that wants to grab some headlines. None have been forced to perform labor under sub-human conditions and none died while in prison.

Gulag: Prisoners were innocent civilians, including women and children, who committed no crimes, but were victims of crimes committed against them by the government of the Soviet Union. They were forced into sub-human labor camps and systematically tortured and starved. They had no amenities at all, no medical or dental attention and were kept in isolation with no contact with the outside world for decades on end. Their families didn't know where they were or if they were alive or dead. Many died while in prison.

Other than they both begin with the letter, G, there is no comparison between these two prison systems.

Here's a thought:

Go ahead and turn 'em loose...in Delaware, Georgia and Manhattan.

Prisoners are terrorists who committed unspeakable acts against innocent civilians, including women and children, and were arrested out of uniform carrying weapons of war.

Which, of course, has been proven to an independent judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt, right?

Oh wait, we only have the Pentagon's word, but I guess that's good enough these days.

Theme park.

I'm with Will on this one. We need to show that these guys are murderers. Even better, if we can focus on their "intollerance" and demonstrate that they are "judgemental" all the better.

I'm with Will on this one. We need to show that these guys are murderers.

Then charge them with murder and put them on trial.

Really, this post by Will is the worst thing I've seen on vodkapundit by far.

Try the ones we can try. Declare the rest prisoners of war (with all rights thereunto) and hold them for the duration (at minimum, until the Taliban surrenders and disarms in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, with leadership to stand trial). Alternatively, remit them to the government of Afghanistan, to stand for any crimes committed there. There can't possibly be any more useful information to get out of them, after all this time.

At the beginning, I supported the detentions. Now, I don't see anything to be gained. Like it or not, there is value in us being seen as punctilious in these matters. Not overriding value, but value, and it needs to be weighed against whatever security and information we'll gained by keeping.

That's all just pragmatics. Morally, I've got no problem with the status quo.

I think we bloggers could come up with a lengthy list of Americans to take their places, if the Gitmosquitoes are released.

A. Are you suggesting that we release classified information just so score a political point?

B. Do you really want your government to have the power to incarcerate someone without needing to prove anything to anyone?

C. Why don't we just kill them all?

Just declare them legal combatants and hold them in a standard PoW camp. When the War on Terror is over, repatriate them.

Found this at GOCin Atlanta and I think everyone should read it. It's called "More on the Gulag at Gitmo". I had no idea of the many ways the US is bending over backwards for these vermin. Oh, and Stephen, belated congratulations to you and your lovely bride, (I saw the wedding pictures). Best, Terry

Ugh, I don't think there's a thing anyone in the military or the Bush administration could do to convince you these are really, really bad guys. Rumsfeld didn't grab them out of the coffee houses in Afghanistan and put them in cages to satisfy his blood lust against Moslems and it's already been established they aren't prisoners of war nor are they eligible to be brought into our criminal justice system.

So their options are very limited. I just heard on the news that no country is willing to take them, so we can send them back to Afghanistan where they'll face immediate execution or we can keep them right where they are, but whatever we do, we have to do is stop reacting every time an anti-American group wants to grab some headlines for their fundraising letters.

Judge Brown was finally confirmed this afternoon. All the Republicans and Nelson voted aye. It's really getting very tiresome. It's not only Dean. Liberals have all become unhinged. Personal attacks on a distinguished jurist from the floor of the senate cannot be tolerated. The whole nomination process has been a disgrace and I hope this vote comes back to bite those who voted nay.

Tell you what, Ugh. How about we put some of them up at your place for a few weeks?

I am in favor of releasing the six worst terrorists -- two each to half-way houses next door to Joe Biden, Jimmy Carter, and Thomas Friedman.

Just a thought. Would Jimmie be willing?

How do we determine when the war on terror is over? How long do we hold POWs without charging them?

This is the real sin of Amnesty International: Gitmo and its ilk spawn real questions about how you fight a war with no official declaration, no enemy nation to declare hostilities against, yet the presence of clear enemy combatants? This should be a subject of adult debate; gulag comparisons do not qualify.

Ugh,

Interesting thought. In the middle of a war we should release the other side's prisoners, because we haven't given them due process that, as enemies of our state they not only aren't entitled to, but are actively fighting against.

With all due respect, have you lost your mind? Perhaps, as a gesture of goodwill, we can release these guys for 24 hours and invite them over to your place for a concilatory brunch. Culturally sensitive of course.

I say release all the prisoners in Gitmo. Send 1/4 to plains Ga., and 1/4 to live on Bidens street, Naturally NYC would have to get 1/4 and Hollywood 1/4. Make a deal with the prisoners, you don't leave these area's and we won't come after you for anything you do in these area's. Bomb, Kill, slaughter, anything you want, just make sure it's in your assigned area.

If there are innocent inmates at Gitmo send them home and moniter them. Take the guilty ones outside and shoot them in the head. Allah Akbar.

The Bush Administration should hold hearings with each detainee to determine if there is any validity to the necessity of holding them.
Those who are distant minions should be let go. There remainder should have a fatwa issued against them and they should be beheaded.
I mean if your going to run a "gulag" you got to have standards. Amnesty International has left the Administration a real wide berth to work with by declaring Gitmo a "gulag". In order to show future improvement at "gulag Gitmo, they first must do a few beheadings to set the low water mark.

I'm with Will on this one. We need to show that these guys are murderers.

Why? Being on the other side on a battlefield isn't grounds for detaining someone anymore?

Now we have to hold a trial and convict someone of being an enemy before we can detain them?

When the hell has that ever been a requirement in war?

Oh, right, I forgot... a lot of people don't think this is a war. They think this is some kind of law-enforcement excercise. That's why they think these people deserve trials.

I'm with eddie. Those who do not abide by the Geneva Conventions do not deserve it's protections.

Rosignol,

I find it is always better to actually read what someone says before commenting. Just a thought.

Will's point, with which I agreed, was not to hold a trial or abide by the Geneva conventions. Instead we suggest releasing some information on these guys so the world remembers just how bad these guys are. You and I may have no problem remembering that we're in a war with terrorists, but propagandists such as Carter, and political opportunists such as Biden are currently getting a free media pass with their pleas to shut down Gitmo.

It is critical during a war to not only win on the battlefield, but to also win on the airwaves. Will proposes one method of doing this. Its fine if you don't agree, but then how about suggesting something productive as an alternative?

I'm just so glad George W. Bush is our president. He knows that the best thing he can do about Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden is to let them pound their desks.

I'm sure if he could, he'd hand poor 'ole Jimmy a megaphone.

The American public is watching the Democratic party luminaries call for the release of Al Queda prisoners.

There's no better way to let your enemy shoot himself in the foot than to hand him the gun.

GW isn't stupid. He's gonna let Biden and Carter and any other left luminary make the case, for as long and as loudly as they want, that these terrorits should be let go.

What better way to demonstrate to the American people why no Democrat should ever again cross the threshold at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue; or any other house of real power.

God he's brilliant.

Team America: World Police alert.

Sweet sweet Condi says there is no need for an independent investigation of alleged abuses at the prison camp located at the Naval base at Guantanamo Bay (our beloved Gitmo).

Sweet sweet Islam Karimov says there is no need for an independent investigation of alleged abuses in the city of Andijan.

I guess they're right: nothing propinqs like propinquity.

What could be the difference between these two cases?

Condi explains: "The United States is as open a society as you will find," she said, and the administration is being held accountable "by a free press, by a Congress that is a separate and coequal branch of government, and by its own expectations of what is right."

I guess Eric Blair was right: Some animals really are more equal than others.

Hi ladies and gents,

Seems a lot of discussion abreast on gitmo...so i'll pitch in my 50 cents. First thing to note is that though http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/002084.html (as referenced by earlier posters in this thread) mentions a list of impressive-sounding amenities provided for the detainees, i'm sticking with my grandma's adage to not believe everything I read until someone provides me with a better source. (Whitehouse press release, anyone?)

That said, to me, this issue comes down to some core issues which are more philosophical than most folks here seem to be discussing them as. It is glaringly obvious that Al-Qaeda and the Afghani warlord infantry were anything but in accordance with the Geneva conventions. The real question, to me at least, is in following our (America's) calls for spreading democracy throughout the world, being a beacon of hope for basic rights, etc, whether we see fit to make sure the rule of law applies equally to ALL who come within our "system's" reach, whether or not they themselves hold a double standard. In this sense maybe you could call it a sort of "turn the other cheek" vs "eye for an eye" debate.

The existing military tribunals, while obviously fairer than no trial at all or arbitrary punishments/executions, do not follow established procedures of due process that have shaped the worlds democracy's for the last 2 and some hundred years. They do not allow the accused a proper defense, because the accused cannot confront and cross examine witnesses who testify against them (nor have any lawyer etc do so on their behalf, obviously), they accused cannot examine and interpret evidence presented against them, they cannot present evidence in their defense, etc. In short, the military tribunal system as implemented by the Bush administration to try the prisoners at gitmo strips the trial of any defense presentation -- all that is substatively presented is the prosecution's side of the case and a judgement about whether or not that side of the case is convincing enough.

Regarding being "convinced" that the detainees are "the bad guys," there is little doubt in my mind that most (if not all) of them are severely guilty of numerous heinous crimes against humanity. However, even more so than in peace time, the innocent (or relatively innocent) do get charged incorrectly for all sorts of reasons. The history of "war prisoners" who were basically civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time throughout history demonstrates this. A significant part of the West's triumph after WWII, and the way in which America came to be seen as a freedom fighter and not an imperialist (Larouche/Chomskyists aside), was the steadfast respect shown for the democratic principles of the rule of law at Nuremburg and similar properly executed trials against those accused of war crimes. The general transparency of those trials further increased the legitimacy of the American effort both in the eyes of the American public and the world's onlookers and helped to assure the place in history America currently enjoys as a legacy of that war today. The lack of the transparency surrounding the gitmo operation (in evaluating prison standards, cases against prisoners, case histories, etc) opens the current American government to a plethora of easy attacks from its detractors - both within and outside the country.

I understand and respect the concerns individuals have about making sure confidential information stays that way. American national security often depends upon it. However, the history of the world's liberal democracies - including ours - is replete with examples of public trials (or at least trials open to the military and then inspectable in third hand by the public) with key private information withheld and closed sessions where information too sensitive to be presented publically is analyzed. The actions of the Bush administration thus far have not demonstrated any serious efforts to establish this kind or similar levels of transparency, and it remains vulnerable to criticism until it somehow produces something that the public can tangibly inspect and believe is a fair, general representation.

I hope I've covered the major bases; I would appreciate anyone letting me know if I missed an important point. Responses and rebuttals, of course, are also invited.

OK, everybody needs to stop talking about sending the Gitmosters to NYC.

There's lots of supporters of the GWOT here, we're just kind of quiet about it for personal safety reasons (and we don't want the kid behind the counter at Starbucks to spit in our lattes).

You can send them to specific apartments maybe, but don't just drop them off at Port Authority.

Well said ssg. The only reason you'd release the information is to prove their guilt, correct? Thus why not prove the guilt in the same way we always have: a fair & tranparent trial? And why don't you give us some proof before you call Friedman an appeaser.

To William and all the others calling for trials: We can't put them on trial because they haven't broken any laws. The Geneva Conventions don't apply (neither the Taliban or Al-Queda are signatories, and their treatment of prisoners gives us pretty wide margin even if they were), so they're not POW's. Even if the Conventions applied they'd be illegal combatants and we could try them for that, but even if they were acquitted they'd still be POW's. These are not some punks who held up the corner 7-11, they're enemy soldiers captured in a war. That means we can detain without trial until the end of the war.

ssg - Just a reminder...The Nuremburg trials took place after the war.

If you give them POW status, you effectively create a moral hazard where there is NO incentive to wear uniforms or abide the rules of war.

POW status is granted when you obey the rules, not when Amnesty whines enough.

That said, why are the tribunals SOOOOO SLOOOOOOOW?

Will's point, with which I agreed, was not to hold a trial or abide by the Geneva conventions. Instead we suggest releasing some information on these guys so the world remembers just how bad these guys are.

All that would accomplish is to make them into celebrities that al Qaeda would use to recruit more not-so-smart bombs. No, thanks. If we're not going to shoot them, the next best thing is letting them rot in obscurity until they die of boredom.

You and I may have no problem remembering that we're in a war with terrorists, but propagandists such as Carter, and political opportunists such as Biden are currently getting a free media pass with their pleas to shut down Gitmo.

Most Americans remember enough about the Carter presidency that anything he says will be considered in a fairly specific context. My own memories of his administration predispose me to think that doing the opposite of whatever Carter recommends is likely to be a better plan than following his recommendations.

As far as Biden is concerned, if he wants to advocate setting al Qaeda loose, that's between him and the voters in his district.

...

Aaron, part of the reason is probably that if we held tribunals, determined their status, and started executing those who deserved it, nations that oppose the death penalty (i.e., most European governments) would likely stop sharing intelligence that could be used by a tribunal to determine if someone deserved to be executed.

That intelligence is important to current and future counterterrorism efforts, therefore it is diplomatically more advantageous for us to leave those in Guantanamo in a legally ambiguous condition than to resolve the matter and start shooting the bastards.

If keeping them alive and imprisoned will prevent future attacks, well, I'd rather put up with Biden and Carter making asses of themselves than have Americans die in terrorist attacks.

Sometimes, there is no good choice, and you have to settle for the option that sucks less. I understand this. I don't like it.

the geneva conventions are uselses. no americans have been held according to its provisions during a war since WWII (and even then it was spotty). the USSR and the Chinese have generally dealt with people appropriately during periods of tension, though this was only because they ran the risk of full on war for killing or mistreating captives that everyone knew they had (they did horrible things to people that they captured without global awareness).

So screw the Geneva conventions. They are useless and inoperative, since opponents who do not abide by them are not allowed their provisions (and torturing and beheading captives definitely is not allowed). So hold the people as long as necessary to extract information, then shoot them, as the Geneva convention allows.

Personally, I do not believe that the US should take prisoners. Kidnap information sources, maybe, but no opponents should survive. Remember 9/11! No quarter!

Let's see, my suggestion was to put these people on trial if the government had the evidence to do so. This invited responses along the lines that these people should instead be dropped off at my house.

This implies to me that such commentators think that the evidence upon which the people are held is so flimsy that they all will be let go.

To which I say, why then are you so confident that all these people are terrorists, murderors, etc.?

It's just a simple "The gov't says their bad, they must be bad, so fuck em."

I hope the gov't never says the same thing about you.

We can't put them on trial because they haven't broken any laws.

Damn technicality.

Ugh, have you considered the inconvienent fact that soldiers aren't police detectives? Yes, that's right, despite what you may have seen on the latest episode of CSI, no nation on earth has forensic investigators trailing their troops, snapping photos and taking DNA samples.

That means, among other things, that any formal trials that AREN'T kangaroo courts will let an unacceptably high proportion of guilty go.... both those guily of being part of Al-Queda, and those guilty of crimes against humanity.

The prisoners will be treated precisely in line with the Geneva conventions... AFTER the cessation of hosilities, that is after Al-Queda is destroyed or surrendurs, they will be let go.

How does that grab you, buddy?

How about this. Since they haven't broken our laws, we don't put them up for a typical trial. Since this war really isn't a set and organized "convential" war, that could conceivably go on forever, we go ahead and put them on trial. Since, as Aaron mentioned, they haven't followed the Geneva rules, we make a fair & just trial that tries them according to those rules. Perhaps, if they're ill-suited for anti-terrorism, we go out & draft a new treaty, with Europe's consent, that lays down protocols & punishments for combatants caught in the war on terror.

The important point is that we have a fair & standard system by which to process these guys, as opposed to merely holding them in limbo for all eternity.

Man, now even Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Florida) has joined in the "close-Gitmo" discussion.

http://sptimes.com/2005/06/11/State/Martinez_joins_call_f.shtml

Damn loonie-left, Al-Qaeda-loving, terrorist-appeasing, Bush-hating partisans. Why does Mel Martinez hate America?

'Since this war really isn't a set and organized "convential" war, that could conceivably go on forever, we go ahead and put them on trial.'

What a narrow tightrope you must navigate, to acknowledge on the one hand that this isn't a 'conventional war', while in the same breath demanding conventional remedies like immediate trials, being innocent until being proven guilty, and demands that the military absoluty prove that a person is part of a secret society (I'd like to see you try that, buddy).

I hope you realize you are drawing the justification for your demands on the very fact that they are conventional... that is conventional for legal combatants, conventional for ordinary criminals, or conventional for members of an organization that's NOT currently planning to kill more of our countrymen and would appreciate the manpower very much thank you.

Looks like the implications of nonconventionality are entirely in the eye of the beholder... or the shape you choose to twist it into.

Wake up: there are REASONS that the Geneva conventions are only binding when both parties follow them. One of the major ones is that you cannot... CANNOT seperate combatants from noncombatants when the Geneva conventions are totally ignored by one party. We don't have any kind of sufficently reliable method of determining who is not part of Al-Queda, because there is not any sort of membership list for Al-Queda members... that is, because of Al-Queda's actions, not because Rumsfield got up on the wrong side of bed this morning.

Again, the logical consequence of your impossible-to-meet demands means that too many guilty will be set free. Too bad for you, all congresscritters and presidents take an oath not only to preserve our country's laws, but the lives of its citizens as well. Some of them even obey that oath, as hard as may be for you to comprehend.

Do you get it yet, why prisoners of war are treated different from terrorist cells are treated different from domestic criminals?

I'm with Will. I work with a lot of trusting, good-hearted, people who believe NPR and MSM and are flabergasted when confronted with alternative information.