Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Closing Gitmo quickly the right move

Rocky Mountain News

Published November 16, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

It appears that Barack Obama will make closing the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay an early order of business for his administration. Good. For too long that camp has stood as a symbol of perhaps the single most troubling aspect of the Bush administration's war on terror: a willingness to keep prisoners who haven't been charged with crimes, let alone convicted, in a state of indefinite legal limbo.

It would be one thing if the inmates at Guantanamo were normal prisoners of war who would be released after an armistice, but that's obviously not the case. This is a different type of war, with no foreseeable end.

As Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, who is advising the Obama transition team, has said, "We can't put people in a dungeon forever without processing whether they deserve to be there . . . In reality and symbolically, the idea that we have people in legal black holes is an extremely serious black mark. It has to be dealt with."

What to do? According to The Associated Press, the Obama team is apparently leaning toward prosecuting terrorism suspects in federal courts, but perhaps under legal rules similar to a military court-martial system in order to protect classified information. This may outrage some civil libertarians, but there is legitimate concern about disclosing in open court the identify of CIA operatives, foreign agents working on our behalf, the cooperation of foreign governments and intelligence sources and methods. These will hardly be kangaroo courts, after all, despite the special rules of evidence. Remember, too, that these defendants are not U.S. citizens who must, as a matter of course, be accorded full constitutional rights.

Processing the remaining prisoners also won't be as simple as many of Guantanamo's most vociferous critics have suggested. Administration officials have wanted to repatriate some inmates for a long time, as it happens, only to be rebuffed by their countries of origin. Those nations either don't want the Guantanamo residents back at all or refuse to pledge that they will take steps to ensure that the freed prisoners aren't soon consorting with members of al-Qaida.

The Washington Post reports that Obama advisers are counting on European countries and Persian Gulf nations "that previously resisted accepting Guantanamo Bay prisoners [to become] more open to resettling some who are cleared for release or who cannot be sent home because of the risk of torture." But what if this expected goodwill toward the new president does not materialize? What then?

One of the prisoners who apparently can't be prosecuted, in part because of evidence tainted by coercion, is Mohammed al-Qahtani, believed to be a would-be member of the terrorist group that conducted 9/11. Should he be released in the United States if no one else will take him and he can't be prosecuted?

Whatever the answer to that difficult question, at least a few Guantanamo prisoners will undoubtedly have to be released in this country. That may sound unthinkable, but the alternative is worse: locking them up indefinitely without a conviction.

Americans just don't do that to captives - or at least Americans shouldn't.

Comments

  • November 16, 2008

    6:30 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    gatengreen writes:

    I would rather see the Guantanamo prisoners released without any restrictions than give the legal profession millions of tax payer dollars to "process" them through our courts before releasing them.

  • November 16, 2008

    7:18 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ghoax writes:

    sure, great, since we can't find countries that will take any of the 250 that we would release, how about we relocate them to your neighborhood and the rest you can give room and board to.

    It is nothing but foolishness verging on treason to give these enemies the protections of our system designed to protect OUR citizens.

    If they head anywhere, drop them back off where we found them and when they fire on us again, we take them out or those foreign governments that won't take them back can deal with them. To suggest that our constitutional rights for our citizens apply to armies of un uniformed terrorists is beyond the pale.

    This is yet another example of the lefty thinkers, using "feelings" instead of logic gets people killed. DDT comes to mind.

  • November 16, 2008

    9:44 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    INC writes:

    ghoax,
    restricting DDT, Saved the Bald eagle from extinction...

    the Ideals of our constitution are ours yes. but also the ideal for the rest of the world.
    the golden rule applies here "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." thus applying our processes of justice to "detainees" is in line with 1)the golden rule 2) our constitution 3) the Genivea convention accords and lastly 4) Justice.

    it is indeed better to allow ten guilty persons go free, than convict one innocent.
    all of these "logical" arguments are from straight up hard fact... no Feelings. what the correct thing to do is, show the world we are not the bullying thugs republicans some how believe is a position of power. When in reality is it pure weakness and flawed thought.

  • November 16, 2008

    10:03 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    KelcyCo writes:

    You make the assumption that 250 are guilty of something. The problem is we don`t know. Through illegal activities on our part we will likely never know. However, given our behavior I suspect they weren`t guilty of much or else we would have taken them to court confident in our system and our information. What I suspect now is that we will now have to care for 250 mentally ill individuals who have been permanently damaged by torture.

  • November 16, 2008

    10:22 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    BuffDriver writes:

    Are you nuts, RMN? Bringing terrorists, not prisoners of war under the protection of the Geneva Convention, into the country is crazy. Dozens of GITMO detainees who have already been released returned to the middle east to resume attacking and killing American troops. The Supreme Court gave these terrorists the same rights as American citizens. Perhaps we shoukd send them to Cuba to adjudicate these cases. My alternative is to give them swim trunks and a compass...let them swim home (chum will be provided free of charge).

  • November 16, 2008

    1:53 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    AngelontheSidelines writes:

    The Supreme Court cannot "give" anyone any rights.

    Rights are inalienable, possessed by all. These days Marijuana parolees cannot change their underwear without their parole officer's consent, why can't alleged terrorists be supervised like that?

    Like it or not, these men/boys were imprisoned illegally and deserve a trial, or release, it is their right.

  • November 16, 2008

    10:10 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ILoveChipotle writes:

    Terrorists are not uniformed combantants. They do not fall under the geneva convention!! We are in a war on terror, so why is it so bad that we detain terrorists who are trying to kill us? Have you libs lost your minds?!?

  • November 16, 2008

    10:57 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    John_Galt writes:

    Keep them in Gitmo!

    Releasing them or giving them American civil rights is stupid!

    Having them tried by a military tribunal is perfectly fine.

    Our allies could not care less about these terrorists.

  • November 16, 2008

    10:59 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    MM2 writes:

    @ILoveChipotle:

    If they really are terrorists, then it will be fairly simple for the government to prove it. But otherwise we're taking the word of one random guy from Afghanistan that another random guy from Afghanistan is a terrorist. That's just not good enough.

  • November 17, 2008

    12:14 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    roger44 writes:

    We are one of the few countries that does follow the Geneva convention, or used to anyway. I don't think we were giving the detainees any american civil rights, we were just doing what is right, giving them a chance in a trial like any human should have. We complain about human rights being violated in other countries but we violate the very rules we are preaching. I will be glad when Bush, Cheney and Rice gets of of DC, hopefully Obama will appoint a secretary of state that doesn't go around the world telling others how to conduct their business. maybe Gitmo would be a good place to open a few casinos and have fun in the sun in winter....

  • November 17, 2008

    9:03 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    NostraDamus writes:

    MM2 and KelcyCo: What should be the "level of proof" of conviction for the inmates at Guantanamo in a civilian court of law? Should it be based upon "beyond a reasonable doubt" as in the rules for U.S. citizens? Should the inmates be allowed to confront the witnesses to their "crimes"? And if they can confront the witnesses, should they be allowed to question the entire chain of command in their capture? Where would that questioning take place considering that these witnesses might be on the battlefield and incapable of appearing in court?

    Furthermore, what about evidence at the "trial"? What national security issues that would arise from disclosing means and methods of capture of the inmates would be allowed in open court? If not, could they really get a "fair" trial?

    These and other issues could be handled with military tribunals as we now use. But, any idea that these inmates could or should get a regular trial in U.S. civilian courts is extremely naive and simplistic.

  • November 17, 2008

    2:25 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Zim writes:

    ILoveChipotle,
    All the federal government has to do is declare you an enemy combatant, and you can be locked away for the rest of your life without any due process. Yes... you. No proof, no probable cause, no access to legal counsel.

    I personally feel better when there are no loopholes in our constitutional rights. If you truly are an American, you will agree that the Constitution should not be gutted or altered for ANY reason. And providing Guantanamo detainees due process will not make us one iota less safe.

  • November 17, 2008

    7:46 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    dftoad writes:

    Closing Gitmo will be a cluster. Terrorists in local jails awaiting trials will threaten their relocation communities. Their ACLU lawyers will demand access to the individuals in the CIA and Special Forces that have been protecting us since 9/11. In the end, they will be seeking civil damages. It will never end.
    I have a better idea. This idea will also have a messy ending, but it's one that will teach the U.S. Supreme Court a lesson in what makes an area "sovereign."
    My idea, is the U.S. military should not close Gitmo, they should abandon it. Pull those Marines off the towers, fly everybody but he terrorist back to Florida and have a party.
    I have no idea what the Casto brothers will do with 260+ Islamic terrorists. But I could care less. They won't be among us!

  • November 18, 2008

    5:16 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Shadow writes:

    Fine let us close Gitmo and treat these people as they should be treated under the Geneva convention. That is to say. As a captured combatant on the battlefield not wearing any uniform therefore they should have been shot on site.

    Why waste time and effort on those who will not ever conduct themselves by the Geneva convention. They are not a military orginazation. They are terrorist and criminals. By charter this means no trial, no special military court. It means that they are to be shot.

    Read the Geneva Convention and see exactly how it defines combatents. These camel jockies do not under any stretch of the definition meet the requirments of military standards.

  • November 19, 2008

    10:54 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    sheepherder writes:

    They should have been shot instead of captured in the first place. This a war, not a police action.

  • November 19, 2008

    1:27 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    davis_x_machina writes:

    Wingnuts keep screaming this is war. I have yet to see any declaration of war outside of the unofficial clamoring from the residents of lower wingnutistan.The whole system of American jurisprudence and civil rights is founded on the basis of the concept of human rights. That famous all men are... stuff that the founding fathers believed in and so inconveniently wrote into some of our seminal documents.
    Some of the comments make one wonder where the "sanctity of life" wingnuts constantly prattle about goes when it's inconvenient for them to hold that belief. I guess it's true that it holds only for the blastocyst- Americans and after delivery, or if you inconveniently were born in another country you're on your own.

  • November 19, 2008

    1:56 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    chazz writes:

    Kindness and compassion are admirable traits of most Americans and some of the comments indicate some of you exhibit this. That is a good thing! However, the prisoners at Gitmo were taken on the battlefield in the act of killing Americans. Do some of you not know this? Do you not know that, given the opportunity (i.e. let loose in America) they would glady slit your throat?
    These are cruel and evil people. Justice, executed fairly, is also a good thing. I agree that we should not simply hold them indefinitely at Gitmo. They should have a trial (I don't care what kind) and if found guilty, sentenced to an appropriate punishment. For all of them, this should have happened long ago. Close Gitmo when all the prisoners have been tried, and get this done by year's end.

  • November 19, 2008

    3:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    chaka419 writes:

    There is always target practice!!??

    I do think it's funny that the emotional left wants to baby these cold blooded killers but have no problem wishing the most vile acts on their fellow citzens who happen to be conservative.

  • November 20, 2008

    9:28 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    Zim,

    You are misinformed. The issue is illegal combatants caught on the battlefield, not legal residents involved with law enforcement in this country. Our constitution has strong protections for legal residents.

    Gitmo is an excellent solution to deal with illegal combatants. These terrorists are too dangerous to house here. They are not entitled to the protections of US citizens and legal residents.