So despite the "not in my back yard" attitude which prevails in most states when they envision terrorists as guests in their prisons, there are places which are desperate enough for federal dollars and jobs to take the terrorists, so housing them in the US is certainly feasible. However, aside from the technical difference of being on American soil, a supermax prison devoted solely to GITMO prisoners would not be much different from housing them where they are now. They would still be isolated from other prisoners, likely in a very remote part of the country, and held under uniquely high levels of security. No one has ever escaped from a supermax prison in the US, but keeping the prisoners secure is really the least of the problems.
But even if we put them in prison somewhere else, respect for the rule of law and the Constitution demands that we give them fair trials. Yet there's a reason why the Bush administration was only able to try a handful of them. The evidence against the rest is strong enough to convince most people that they really are dangerous terrorists but it is not sufficient to form an effective case good enough to stand up in US courts which have already rejected the kind of evidence the government is trying to use in many of these cases. There's enough evidence to know they are the "worst of the worst" but it's often not the kind of evidence which is up to the standards of a normal American court. Twenty reliable sources may have told us someone is a terrorist and we may absolutely believe them, but without witnesses to acts of terrorism or physical evidence, a trial may well end in an acquittal which should result in the release of the prisoner. Then what do we do?
We can't keep him in the US because he's not a citizen and he really is a dangerous terrorist even if not convicted, so he's not about to get a visa. We can't send him home or to another country because they know who and what he is and won't take him. We can't just release him in the wilds of Waziristan when no one is looking, because he'll just start killing civilians and US soldiers as a recent Pentagon report demonstrates. What do we do that honors our legal system and our Constitution and also protects our people and the world?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Clavos
Good article, Dave. Obama has a hell of a dilemma on his hands with this issue.
I think that if he decides to house them somewhere in the US, he ought to take either Michigan's or Montana's offer and turn the heat down in either place to minimum setting. Those guys are all from temperate climates, heat deprivation could become the new waterboarding.
2 - roger nowosielski
Dave,
The crux of the matter seems to revolve around the type of conflict America is engaged in. It would be quite acceptable to hold all these detainees indefinitely - as POWs - for the duration of the war. So unless we redefine this conflict, called "War on Terror," there is no solution.
The problem is, the way things are going, "War on Terror" promises to be an indefinite part of the American experience - there being no end in sight - so it looks as though we can't expect any resolution to come from that quarter (and it doesn't matter now whether we define or redefine "War on Terror" to mean anything we want it to mean).
I see only two possible solutions to the problem (following a trial):
1) if they're US subjects and and found acquitted, we have no choice but to release them under the parole system (more foolproof than would obtain in the usual cases)
2) if they're not US subjects, release them to the jurisdiction of their country of origin (for trial and disposition)
Roger
3 - Ma rk
Rog, why parole if acquitted?
4 - roger nowosielski
Well, yea. A problem here. I really don't understand Dave's argument (in the article) to the effect that we don't have sufficient evidence to convict (and therefore have to let them go). Can you help me with that?
5 - Jeannie Danna
Dave, ? (we could take that idea to a higher and even more draconian level that will appeal to fans of the New World Order. Tag them with the dreaded GPS locator chips which are now being put in dogs by the humane society and which some people are suggesting we put in our kids. Then track them until they meet up with some terrorists and call in an airstrike or a drone with a Hellfire Missile and take them and their friends out. Even less nice, but we might have plausible deniability if we claimed we targeted the other terrorists, not the recently released guy with the chip.)
have I missed something in your article? Are you telling us you want to start bombing targets on US soil?
Dave reason with yourself here please!
6 - Jeannie Danna
This is New World Bull!!!
7 - Mar k
I don't see the problem. 'Bad guys' are released all the time under US law due to procedural errors or lack of evidence. Why should this be different? And how does the fact that those convicted and put in prison to serve as recruiters for their cause make this a unique situation?
A nation of law...when convenient
8 - roger nowosielski
"Bombing targets on US soil" is a helluva solution to ending the War on Terror. Then the terrorists would naturally disband since we'll be doing the job they've been groomed to do. I wonder why this hasn't occurred to me before.
But as they say, you can't see what's under your nose.
9 - Jeannie Danna
DAVE, The prisoners from GITMO are not going to be celebrities they are finally going to see some "due process" and when each one is tried separately and found guilty or innocent then they shall be punished accordingly. Sought out and killed with their friends??? Do you remember "The Geneva Convention" Have you forgotten what country this is?
10 - Mar k
Jeannie, Dave fancies himself a 'pragmatist' governed by some higher natural law.
11 - Jeannie Danna
Roger, ("Bombing targets on US soil" is a helluva solution to ending the War on Terror. Then the terrorists would naturally disband since we'll be doing the job they've been groomed to do. I wonder why this hasn't occurred to me before.)
Did you drink Kool-Aid last night? You wrote in a comment to me that we thought similarly.
If you believe what you just wrote then I have no idea how you think! and we can not see eye to eye...
12 - roger nowosielski
I think you're right, Mark. It's been one great hype, which is one reason we're looking for distinctions when perhaps there ought to be none.
The parole idea might be a solution, though. We may decide to just release some of them "on condition . . ."
Do you see a legal problem there?
13 - roger nowosielski
I was being ironic, Jeannie. Take it easy.
14 - Jeannie Danna
Mar k, whewww there is someone with a brain here! What the hell happened after I left last-night?
Are Clavos,Dave,and Roger still here or is this some crazy Sci-fi movie?
15 - roger nowosielski
Mark,
Do you mean "law according to Dave"?
16 - Jeannie Danna
Roger, I am like a raw nerve after reading this crap!!! sorry Dave :( You need help...
17 - M ar k
While Parenthetical Dan will probably disagree, imo the whole thing is so far outside the boundaries of our institutions that whatever mechanism we cook up will make the problem no worse.
18 - roger nowosielski
Jeannie,
Get a sense of humor here. Sometimes it's the best form of debunking crazy ideas.
I see you haven't met Ruvy yet.
19 - M ar k
Rog #15 - something like that.
20 - Jeannie Danna
Clavos, really? (Good article, Dave. Obama has a hell of a dilemma on his hands with this issue.) and then you wrote...I can't even copy,cut,and paste it!
I am going to cry now....sob
21 - roger nowosielski
I'd have no problem with "conditional release," especially in cases where the evidence to convict by standards of "reasonable doubt" aren't there.
I realize it's hedging, but definitely a more palatable solution - i.e., the kind I could live with - then indefinite detention.
And given the situation is unprecedented, as you said, we need to be creative.
I wouldn't worry about parenthetical Dan. Existing laws serve as an obstacle sometimes.
22 - M a r k
Jeannie, be careful when you read Rog's sometimes confusing comments and keep in mind that his heart is in the right place.
23 - Jeannie Danna
roger, I met Ruvy yesterday we set off on the wrong foot,as usual when people meet me, but I really like Ruvy and his wife that I haven't met yet! :)
24 - roger nowosielski
Clavos is also given to irony, Jeannie, in lieu of anything else to say.
You've got to be able to read between the lines.
25 - Cindy
Two paragraphs in and already I am wondering if this entire article is nothing but hyperbole, distortion, and missing information that would provide an honest picture.
They released all the easy prisoners.
Interesting use of words...'the easy prisoners'. What exactly constitutes an 'easy prisoner'? Or how does one actually say they released innocent people and yet still leave an impression they were not innocent? This is language designed to do that.
...they tried the ones where the evidence was easy to argue in court.
I guess this is as opposed to the ones they bought for $5,000.00 bounties and whose cases might not be very 'easy' to argue in 'court' or even in a military tribunal.
...a significant number of those they freed immediately returned to fighting for al Qaeda or the Taliban or resumed engaging in acts of terrorism....
Could we have a reference for this?
What they've left for Obama to deal with are prisoners who are confirmed to be serious terrorist threats...
Does this include the 59 prisoners who have been cleared for release?
Allowing these terrorists from GITMO who really are "the worst of the worst" into the prison system...
A reiteration of Bush's 'worst of the worst' claim. They held and tortured the 'worst of the worst', they they simply released more than 500 of them because they weren't 'easy'.
17 innocent Uighurs still imprisoned
"The Washington Post reported on August 24, 2005 that fifteen Uyghurs had been determined to be 'No longer enemy combatants' (NLEC) after all.[2] The Post reported that detainees who had been classified as NLEC were, not only still being incarcerated, but were still being shackled to the floor. Five of these Uyghurs, who had filed for writs of habeas corpus, were transported to Albania on May 5, 2006 just prior to a scheduled judicial review of their petitions. As of June 22, 2008, seventeen Uyghur men remain incarcerated at Guantanamo. Two years ago, an Administrative Review Board declared all but one to be 'approved for release.' The Pentagon had previously determined, reportedly as early as 2003, that the Uyghurs should be released. They continue to be incarcerated."
At this rate I might get to page two some time tomorrow Dave.