Those who are held for trial ought to be given access to lawyers and translators so that they have the ability to prepare a decent defense for when they go to court. The charges against them and the documentation associated with those charges should be made public. This should be done as a courtesy or an act of compassion without any implication that they have any right to any of these considerations.
Then, as quickly as possible, trials should be arranged before military tribunals with the option of either convicting them based on evidence, holding them for the gathering of additional evidence, or releasing them alltogether. This would satisfy most critics by providing a clearly defined legal process and assigning a meaningful status to each prisoner. Clearly under international law there's no requirement that they be released with any great haste, but they ought to at least know what their status is and what they have to look forward to. In addition, I would start first by reviewing the cases of the youngest detainees. More than a dozen of them are under the age of 16, and they ought to be dealt with first.
Dealing with this situation ought to be a high priority for the administration, not because of the whining of the UN, but because it's such an easy public relations boost for them at a time when they could certainly use one. They would gain a lot of good press at very little real cost and they don't even have to free all that many prisoners - and certainly not any dangerous ones - if they handle it right.
Article comments
1 - zingzing
who wrote this!? dave nalle, someone has seized your name! maybe, dave nalle, if you notice your name in the comments, dave nalle, you will come look at this, dave nalle, and discover, dave nalle, that someone, going by the name dave nalle, dave nalle, has stolen your good name (dave nalle), and written something that is reasonable, fair and humane. jesus, dave nalle, who is this "dave nalle," and what has he done to you?
2 - zingzing
dave nalle!
3 - chancelucky
Strange and frightening, but we agree.
4 - Bliffle
Reluctantly, I say keep the ones locked up who would assuredly return to the battle.
5 - Kathy
what was that you said on my post - less biased reporting?
The UN report is saying the same thing that the US courts have done:
Charge 'Em or Release 'Em
Nothing about "just release them" - your characterization of the report.
Ummm ... no, and not just because we haven't declared war.
they weren't all "taken in war". Many arrived after the US put up bounties for people - snatched from homes and such.
see above
plus, it's an unproven claim
This is yet another assertion that not been proved.
Your rhetoric suggests you believe the administration on faith; I ask that they prove their claims.
This says more about you than it does about the allegedly terrorists.
Recall: the techniques at Abu Ghraib were tested at Gitmo.
To recap, I just decontructed this short phrase that is clearly not "unbiased"
Your piece is a great example of an ad hominem argument, though: if you can't refute the message, just attack the messenger.
Kathy
6 - Dave Nalle
Yes, I did write this. Because I feel that it's inappropriate for the US to set anything but the highest standard for how we handle even the worst dregs of the Muslim world.
Now a few comments for Kathy Gill who seems to want to pick a fight despite our basic agreement that the prisoners ought to be dealt with.
what was that you said on my post - less biased reporting?
I did not say less biased, I said more balanced, because I present both a real, legitimate argument for resolving the Gitmo situation and a rebuttal of the UN position, while your article basically just repeats the UN's line. Which is fine as a news article, but isn't a full or balanced analysis of the situation.
The UN report is saying the same thing that the US courts have done:
Charge 'Em or Release 'Em
Which is exactly what I said in my article.
... taken in war ...
Ummm ... no, and not just because we haven't declared war.
they weren't all "taken in war". Many arrived after the US put up bounties for people - snatched from homes and such.
Untrue. You mentioned courts. Well, the courts have said the AUMF was the equivalent of a declaration of war. Plus the 'many' you refer to are less than a fifth of the total, and many of those taken that way were among the first released.
... fighting as non-uniformed combatants ...
see above
plus, it's an unproven claim
You must be kidding. No one is this willfully ignorant. We've got video and photos of the fighting in Afghanistan. No one, not even the UN disputes the fact that these are not uniformed soldiers.
... connected to ongoing terrorist operations ...
This is yet another assertion that not been proved.
No, it's been proven by the fact that many of those released were subsequently recaptured or are known to have returned to fighting with terrorist groups. This isn't something you can debate, it's a fact.
Your rhetoric suggests you believe the administration on faith; I ask that they prove their claims.
What am I taking on faith? The status of the various prisoners has been reviewed and confirmed by a number of independent human rights groups and conditions have been reviewed by the Red Cross.
... who are even being treated far more humanely than they likely deserve.
This says more about you than it does about the allegedly terrorists.
This is an opinion. This is why the piece is labelled opinion and not news.
Recall: the techniques at Abu Ghraib were tested at Gitmo.
How can I recall something which isn't true? Please, show me a connection between Abu Ghraib and anything that happened at Gitmo. Document one person who worked both places or some standing order for torture that applied in both places. This comment is complete and utter supposition on your part, and totally baseless. The New York Times which originally made the claims for torture at Gitmo has had to retract its claims because they could not be proven.
To recap, I just decontructed this short phrase that is clearly not "unbiased"
I never said my article was unbiased, just that it was balanced, because it presents more than one point of view. And frankly, it's a much more reasonable and sensible perspective which reaches the same conclusion your article does. But it reaches that position from a positive perspective rather than just climbing on board the love boat of anti-Americanism.
Your piece is a great example of an ad hominem argument, though: if you can't refute the message, just attack the messenger.
Did you actually read my article beyond the first couple of paragraphs? You do realize that I ended up agreeing that the prisoners ought to be tried and either released or sentenced, right? Because it sure seems like you gave up after my brief criticism of the UN Human Rights Commission. And BTW, even that's not an ad hominem argument. I'm merely making the point that there are MUCH more serious human rights issues which are routinely ignored, while they concentrate on pursuing an anti-american agenda instead.
Dave
7 - Dave Nalle
Reluctantly, I say keep the ones locked up who would assuredly return to the battle.
That seems only logical, Bliffle. If you read the court rulings which apply it's quite clear that the government has the legal right to keep everyone at Gitmo locked up pretty much indefinitely. There's some pretty interesting case law, including a precedent which says that taking up arms against the US government automatically revokes your US citizenship.
My argument is that although it may be legal to hold all these folks, that's not in our best interests, and we ought to make every effort we can to free or find a final disposition for as many of them as we can as quickly as is reasonably possible.
But I think one of the problems is that it's awfully hard to get definitive evidence beyond substantial suspicion, so a lot of these prisoners may indeed be dangerous as hell, but because of where they were captured and the fact that we still don't even know the real identities of about a third of them, it's very hard to tell who should be released and who shouldn't. Nonetheless I think that more of an effort ought to be made.
Dave
8 - larry
turn them loose. let them climb the wall into cuba. let fidel castro take care of them !
9 - Dave Nalle
That would certainly be a fitting way to deal with them, but Castro would likely arm them and then try to sneak them over the border through Mexico and into the US. But Cuba IS on the UN Human Rights Commission, so maybe they ought to be his responsibility.
Dave