What To Do With Gitmo?

[WorldWarrior]

From a news analysis articel--

"The (Supreme Court) decision granted detainees the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts, meaning that federal judges will now have the power to check the government’s claims that the 270 men still held there are dangerous terrorists.

That will force officials to answer questions about evidence that they have long deflected despite international criticism and expressions of support, from President Bush on down, for closing the camp.

Some cases, though no one can be sure how many, are likely to result in court orders freeing detainees.

 The government said Thursday that its prosecutions before military commissions at Guantánamo would continue, but habeas corpus suits resulting from the justices’ decision are certain to complicate the 19 war crimes cases under way, giving detainees’ lawyers a vehicle to try to stop those proceedings.


Just as important, some lawyers said, defending scores of cases will be a huge burden for the government, most likely increasing pressure inside the Bush administration to send detainees back to their home countries. "


What should the US do with Gitmo?



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/washington/13gitmo.html

[Thorolf]

The court's ruling does legitimately bring this question to the forefront... but I'm not sure ANYTHING needs to be done with GITMO.

The court essentially ruled that there is not currently, in its estimation, a sufficient substitute for habeas corpus. Basically, the majority indicated that the CSRT is not sufficient.

If the CSRT amends its procedures to be within the realm of "sufficient substitute" for habeas corpus, then nothing more really needs to be done, in my estimation.

The decision outlined what it felt were the weaknesses of the CSRT, so there's an outline right there...

[Faithfulee]

Congress is as accountable as is the President and Congress has the responsiblilty of getting our country out of the mess that the Supremes put us in.

It will be a political issue, but one of little consequence because Obama doesn't want the prisoners released either. 

[WorldWarrior]

"It will be a political issue, but one of little consequence because Obama doesn't want the prisoners released either. "



Sorry but you're way behind the curve on this one. I guess the WSJ hasn't had an editorial about it?

Everyone wants it closed. Even Bob Gates wants Gitmo closed.

[Faithfulee]

"It will be a political issue, but one of little consequence because Obama doesn't want the prisoners released either. "



Sorry but you're way behind the curve on this one. I guess the WSJ hasn't had an editorial about it?

Everyone wants it closed. Even Bob Gates wants Gitmo closed.

The new Democrat platform calls for Gitmo to be Closed . 

I guess we will have the opportunity to continue this discussion during the Presidential Campaign.

Should we invite the prisoners to come enjoy US citizenship??

[SquirleyWurley]

I thought I heard that McCain also wanted to close Gitmo.

[Acumen]

I think so too.

[jacknky]

"I thought I heard that McCain also wanted to close Gitmo."

I think he's against waterboarding too. I guess havcing been a POW himself he's seen it from the other side.

[Acumen]

What McCain saw was an abuse of information gathering.  I have no problems with the American government torturing foreign enemies IF it is reasonable to believe they have information that would directly save American lives.

[SquirleyWurley]

What McCain saw was an abuse of information gathering.  I have no problems with the American government torturing foreign enemies IF it is reasonable to believe they have information that would directly save American lives.

So do you admit that you are a relativist, and that having theistic belief has nothing to do with either being consistent or having a firm external moral standard?  I ask this because there are atheists like myself who are consistently and completely against torture, and who hold that this is evidence of a superior ethics.

[Acumen]

What McCain saw was an abuse of information gathering.  I have no problems with the American government torturing foreign enemies IF it is reasonable to believe they have information that would directly save American lives.

So do you admit that you are a relativist, and that having theistic belief has nothing to do with either being consistent or having a firm external moral standard?  I ask this because there are atheists like myself who are consistently and completely against torture, and who hold that this is evidence of a superior ethics.

No, I'm not a relativist. What government does to fulfill it's own function lies outside the domain of morality and lies within the domain of government ethics.  If torture provides government with the vital information to protect itself and the citizens it is contracted to serve, then it ought to weigh the costs and benefits of such devices.  It's a matter of calculus.

[SquirleyWurley]

No, I'm not a relativist. What government does to fulfill it's own function lies outside the domain of morality and lies within the domain of government ethics.

So you do not claim that ethics is relevant to government, and you cede any judgment about the ethics of any nation?  That's quit odd, I think.  I know for a fact that Iraq was run in an ethically inferior manner compared to how the US operates.  Relativistic calculi are useful in certain areas, but on the most basic human rights and civil rights issues, those countries which are more consistent and serious about such issues actually DO have a moral high ground compared to those which do not.  Saudi Arabia is inferior to any Western country, by those standards.  Without having SOME sort of base line or SOME sort of criteria of an actual ideal rational social way of interacting, how does one dare compare one country to another and say more than "I don't like you so bugger off"

[Faithfulee]

This is financial times article that sums up the issue well in my view.

Every American would like to see Gitmo closed, but in a way that will not endanger national security.  The Dem position is meant to appeal to the former without regard to national secutiry.

    The Republican presidential candidate said he agreed with the four dissenting justices on the nine-member court that foreign fighters held at the detention camp were not entitled to the rights of US citizens.

    He criticised Barack Obama, his Democratic opponent, for supporting the decision and said it highlighted the importance of nominating conservative judges to the Supreme Court. His remarks represented a hardening of his position from his more moderate initial response to the ruling on Thursday, signalling a strategic decision by the McCain campaign to make it an election issue.

    Mr McCain’s stance appeared designed to demonstrate his toughness on national security, while casting Mr Obama as soft on terrorists. It also looked calculated to spark debate on the future of the Supreme Court – one of the most important election issues for many conservative voters.

    But his support for President George W. Bush’s position on Guantánamo risked undermining his appeal among moderates and reinforcing his association with the unpopular president.

    Mr McCain, who spent five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, had previously sought to distance himself from Mr Bush on the treatment of detainees, arguing for Guantánamo to be closed and torture to be banned. He said he stood by those positions on Friday but insisted the Supreme Court ruling would weaken national security. “These are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they are not and never have been given the rights that the citizens of this country have,” he said. “Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation and the men and women who defend it. This decision will harm our ability to do that.”

    The debate surrounding Guantánamo has been a complex issue for Mr McCain, a former navy pilot tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. While Mr McCain has been one of the loudest critics of the Bush administration over interrogation policies, he has supported legislation that stripped prisoners at Guantánamo of habeas corpus, the right to challenge their detention in federal court.

    Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, said the Arizona senator’s willingness to support the legislation contradicts his overall position on Guantánamo.

    “To this day, he strongly believes Guantánamo has hurt the US and should be closed,” said Mr Malinowski. “And yet he has not been able to distance himself from the principle [of] detention without charge.”