White House "legally constrained" from razing GTMO

The White House says that it is "legally constrained" from moving the Guantanamo prisoners to a facility in the continental United States. Why? Because housing the detainees on American soil might increase their constitutional rights.

Comments

[The Phantom]

Good.

There were very few Nazi or Japanese soldiers moved to a facility in the continental United States either. The Bush strategy with respect to Gitmo is completely in accord with what FDR or Truman would have done.

The inmates there are being treated in one respect better than you and I are. We're not allowed to go to Cuba, and this lot not only gets to go there, but they have all expenses paid. This is an infamy and I demand an investigation.

[John Protevi]

Phantom, your comment hits the daily double. Uninformed in the first part, and not funny in the second part.

With regard to the uninformed part, first of all, in June 1945, there were 425,806 total Axis POWs in the USA, of which 371,505 were German, 50,052 were Italian, and 4,249 were Japanese.

Second bit of being uninformed: the analogy of Guatanamo detainees and "Nazi or Japanese soldiers" fails, since while the latter two groups were taken in battle, the majority of the Guatanamo detainees -- according to the DoD's own accounts -- were not engaged in hostile acts against the US. Here are the main points of an analysis of Guantanamo detainees based on DoD documents. You might want to read the whole thing:

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that, in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed "fighters for;" 30% considered "members of;" a large majority - 60% - are detained merely because they are "associated with" a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners, a nexus to any terrorist group is not identified by the Government.

4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.

5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants - mostly Uighers - are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.

I'll leave it to you to figure out why the rest of your remark is unfunny.

[Eric Jaffa]

WWII ended a few years after the US entered it, and then all the POWs were released.

The War on Terror will never end. This makes due process more important.

[Cass]

Our government held members of the Afrika Korps on the shores of White Rock Lake in Dallas... not an unpleasant prospect, and the only place to be in that city come August. Even more appalling, there's very little evidence to be found of any forced masturbation, sticking heads in toilets, or any of those other actvities by which our current government demonstrates its unbreakable resolve. Makes you wonder how those clowns ever managed to win that war.

[cfrost]

The good news I suppose, is that the people in Guantanamo will remain there, alive at least. One can’t help but wonder what happens to prisoners in the secret Gulag facilities. There’s only one way to make sure they never talk to anyone but their interrogators.

Re Phantom’s comment- I lived in Germany for nine years and met men who had been POWs in the soviet and western allied camps. There was a reason Wehrmacht soldiers on the east front generally preferred fighting to surrender, just as the soviet soldiers preferred the same and for the same reason: Geneva conventions did not apply in the East. In the weeks after Berlin fell, soviet soldiers in Germany were free to exact any kind of revenge they felt like, and who could blame them? Guantanamo is not a death camp as the soviet and Nazi POW camps were, but it sticks in the rest of the world’s craw and it will certainly be mentioned in the official statement released by Al Qaida or whomever when they perpetrate the next 9/11. Mocking and abusing prisoners is not only lame, it’s dangerous.

[The Phantom]

John

Point taken. But how many Nazi or Japanese soldiers were held outside the US? Surely the large majority.

I do not think that these 425,806 Nazi or Japanese soldiers were given individual OJ Trials the way that some of y'all would like. Every phony leftist lawyer in America would salivate at the opportunity to prance around giving the equivalent of "If it does not fit, you must acquit" talk.

Sorry. Won't happen. Should not happen.
---
I'll look at the document later. The fact that many of these guys were not caught committing hostile acts itself proves little. If you're a member of a terrorist group, then you get Gitmo, and that's it.

The majority of Huns and Japanese weren't caught in firefights either I am sure, a lot of them were just--caught. As were this lot.

---

--The War on Terror will never end. This makes due process more important.--

No, if anything it emphasizes the importance of a firm hand against these malefactors who chose to cast their lot with terrorist organizations.

You join a terror organization over there, or you dare to raise your hand against the US, and you go to Gitmo.
Period.

Nothing created by man is permanent. You are saying the the Islamic terrorists are incapable of reflection, of change. That is a racist assertion.

Either they can change and should take advantage of this opportunity to do so, or those who have been captured are far too dangerous to be released and should not be freed.

---

---In the weeks after Berlin fell, soviet soldiers in Germany were free to exact any kind of revenge they felt like, and who could blame them?---

You come dangerously close to making a point that even I do not make.

If you wouldn't blame a Red Army soldier from exacting "any kind of revenge" against some hapless German, then you surely would not blame an American GI whose loved ones had been burned alive in the WTC or had family on one of the hijacked planes if that American GI exacted "any kind of revenge" against a captured Al Queda or other terrorist who came under his control.

Be careful

[Aquagirl]

"I do not think that these 425,806 Nazi or Japanese soldiers were given individual OJ [sic] Trials the way that some of y'all would like."

These men were soldiers for nations with which we were at war. The people at Guantanamo aren't. I really don't understand what people like you think we're fighting for. The US is not just a parcel of land, the US is what was created by the Constitution. That Constitution was written specifically to give men, all men, rights and freedoms, as a reaction against the tyranny that the colonists experienced. Criminal procedural rights --speedy trial, the right to face one's accusers, habeas corpus -- are part and parcel of the Constitution because the founding fathers knew that abusing the criminal justice system was tyrannical.

"If you're a member of a terrorist group, then you get Gitmo, and that's it."

That's not true at all. There are lots of people who are members of domestic terrorist groups who haven't been rounded up and sent to Gitmo.

[cfrost]

"You come dangerously close to making a point that even I do not make."

The point is that it goes both ways. American soldiers are already suffering the results of abuses that have occurred at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram Airbase, assorted "extraordinary rendition" destinations, Diego Garcia, and God knows where else. Abuse of prisoners invites revenge. If I had a brother, son or friend in Guantanamo, knowing he’d never be released, I might be giving serious thought to wasting gringos.

Unless we’re prepared to fight the “war on terror” with wholesale counterterror –we could, for instance, wrap the Iraq war up in a matter of weeks using Tamurlane’s methods- we’re going to have to play according to Hoyle.

[Anthony Damiani]

"No, if anything it emphasizes the importance of a firm hand against these malefactors who chose to cast their lot with terrorist organizations.

You join a terror organization over there, or you dare to raise your hand against the US, and you go to Gitmo.
Period."

OK, so what about the other 92%?

"Nothing created by man is permanent. You are saying the the Islamic terrorists are incapable of reflection, of change. That is a racist assertion."

This "war" has little to do with whether the Islamic world can or will change. We're waging a war against a concept; the war on terror is no more a war than the war on poverty, cancer, or drugs. It is a conflict without end not by nature but by intention. It's a construct primarily designed to be wielded as an instrument of control against the American people.

It is important to oppose GTMO because it is a weapon employed against American norms and values. It is also an enormous strategic liability in a soft-power conflict.

[John Protevi]

Phantom, I think this sentence of yours is a little lax. You say: The fact that many of these guys were not caught committing hostile acts itself proves little.

But it's not that they weren't *caught* committing hostile acts, it's that the DoD itself has determined that they *never* committed any hostile acts.

[The Phantom]

--There are lots of people who are members of domestic terrorist groups who haven't been rounded up and sent to Gitmo.--
OK, that's true. Different location, different laws pertain.

----
American soldiers are already suffering the results of abuses that have occurred at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram Airbase--
I don't belive that for a second. The Islamic Manson-types would have committed the same crimes. I had heard well before Abu Ghraib that the Islamics wanted nothing better than "to capture an American GI, but his head off, broadcast it on the Internet". This possibility, this desire, was broadcast on the Drudge radio show and on mentioned in other places, for ages.

---
--the DoD itself has determined that they *never* committed any hostile acts.--

And Japanese soldiers nabbed in the Pacific may never have fired a shot in anger either.

---

I support Gitmo. And, as said before, I'll be happy to let them all go, one the terrorist war against the west ends. Same rules as the Second World War.

We cannot respond to a more dangerous form of warfare by allowing ourselves to be tied down in individual trials, as the leftist trial bar would like, or go the route of clownish Johnnie Cochran like "OJ Trials".

This isn't a game. Bush has made many mistakes, but Gitmo is not one of them. Viva Gitmo!!

[John Protevi]

This isn't a game. Bush has made many mistakes, but Gitmo is not one of them. Viva Gitmo!!

No it's not. That's why thoughtless memes like "leftist trial bar" and childish slogans like "Viva Gitmo!!" have no place in serious discourse.

[The Phantom]

--"leftist trial bar" and childish slogans like "Viva Gitmo!!" have no place in serious discourse.--

If you don't think most self-described "civil rights lawyers" tilt seriously left, you're seriously misinformed.

[John Protevi]

If you don't think most self-described "civil rights lawyers" tilt seriously left, you're seriously misinformed.

You mean like Charles Swift, who successfully argued Hamdan v Rumsfeld before the Supreme Court?

[The Phantom]

No, like the ACLU. And those who are associated with the National Lawyers Guild. But you knew that.

Terrorist symp Lynne Stewart is affiliated with the NLG.

Justice is the last thing that the NLG and its members want. Their strategy will be to get the US Govt entangled in endless legal combat.

Sorry, boys. Ain't falling for it. God Bless Gitmo, a phrase that belongs in any serious discourse. The existence of Guantanemo Bay has kept you safe over the past five years, like it or not.

I'd actually like to visit the place, and may look into doing so.

[John Protevi]

Nice diversion, Phantom. I give a counter-example to your false generalization about it's the "leftist trial bar" that is concerned with the Bush Administration's position on Guatanamo by showing that it was a JAG lawyer that defeated the Bush Admin's position on Guantanamo in Hamdan, and what do you do? You point to a leftist legal group that wasn't involved in Hamdan. What is that supposed to prove? You might not like the fact, but it is a fact that not just "leftists" are concerned with Guantanamo.

[The Phantom]

It is not a diversion. I know about Swift. But if the floodgates are opened, he won't be litigating the many cases that would ensue.

Some of the lawyers will be guys like Swift. A lot will be terror groupies like Lynne Stewart. My point stands.

[John Protevi]

I'd say it teeters and falls, but time will tell. Until next time, JP

[The Phantom]

JP

I expect to be in New Orleans for a conference, and may well try to be in for some of the New Orleans Jazz Festival, probably the first weekend.

Any thoughts/suggestions?

[Anthony Damiani]

"one the terrorist war against the west ends. "

Wonderful.
So we'll only imprison innocents without a trial until the whole world likes us. That sounds like a plan.

"The existence of Guantanemo Bay has kept you safe over the past five years, like it or not."

What do you base this on? One of the stronger reasons to oppose Guantanemo Bay is that it makes us substantially less safe: it is an enormous soft power liability.

[John Protevi]

Phantom, it all depends on what you want / want to spend. Email me (link on my homepage) and I can help that way better.

[The Phantom]

--So we'll only imprison innocents without a trial until the whole world likes us. That sounds like a plan.--

No, only until this war ends. Some of "the world" likes us when we are the victim, bleeding on the streets of downtown NY. You get your "Nous sommes tous americains") which is then retracted the minute we defend ourselves.

On September 10, 2001, Abu Ghraib was under the control of Saddam Hussein, Guantanemo Bay was primarily known as a base used for US Navy/Marine Corps training, and there were no US troops in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Not a one. Yet look at what happened the next day.

So, even if Gitmo was closed, and all the troops were taken out this week, employing all the spare aircraft in the world to ship 'em back--nothing would change. The same people who hated us on September 10, 2001 would continue to hate us.

Barring capitulation and assumption of dhimmitude, nothing will change as respects our Islamofascist friends. There will be no compromising with them--not for long anyway.

I want the US to take a firm hand with Islamic terror. Guantanamo Bay has been very useful as part of a strategy. Much intelligence has been gleaned, and some very bad people have been kept on ice for five years.

And that's good. I'm happy its there. The more you think about Gitmo, the more you'll appreciate its existence.

[DAS]

No, only until this war ends

When will this war end? When Bush shows up, with stuffed codpiece and everything" on a carrier near Afganistan sporting a "Mission Accomplished" banner?

Of course it would be ridiculous to have trials for every single POW. But if the people at Gitmo were POW's they'd be covered under the Geneva conventions ... and the admin's position is that the people at Gitmo are not POWs. OTOH, if they are criminals, they should be tried for such.

And as to your comments about "terrorist organizations" -- please define that term. Didn't St. Ronnie say "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" or something like that? E.g. if you join up with a group being armed by the U.S., are you a terrorist? Remember we armed Mujahedin ...

And just because FDR did it, don't make it right. Do you want to bring back internment camps?

[Anthony Damiani]

"So, even if Gitmo was closed, and all the troops were taken out this week, employing all the spare aircraft in the world to ship 'em back--nothing would change. The same people who hated us on September 10, 2001 would continue to hate us."

This attitude says that nothing we do has bearing on the number of people that hate us and wish us harm. That's silly. You argue that 9/11 happened when we weren't in Iraq, and this is true. Yes, the set of things we are doing now that pisses people off and makes us look bad is larger than it was in 2001; the number of terror attacks worldwide and on western targets in particular has increased correspondingly. That we have thus far avoided another incident of the scale of 9/11 is *despite* the aid and comfort Guantanamo gives to our enemies, not because of the spurious sense of security that it affords.

This is not the sort of war that can be won by bombing people into submission. Like the Cold War, it is primarily a soft power conflict. Our moral position is an enormous military asset. An ideological struggle is a discourse, not a battle-- you win by wearing away at the underpinnings of the opposing ideology. The Soviet Union ultimately collapsed because its people did not believe in it anymore.

Illegal detention facilities like Guantanamo, zones where our principles no longer apply-- these things damage the project of western liberal democracy far more than they undermine radical Islam. They make us look like moral hypocrites and create a false moral equivalence between us and our enemies.

If our objective is to create a world where we are free from Islamic terror, then we need to pursue strategies that make it HARDER for terrorists to recruit, and HARDER for people to believe in violent jihadist strains of Islam. Guantanamo undermines these goals and, in turn, makes it harder for us to spread (and sustain!) liberal democracy.