... move them to some other overseas detention center??
Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. (Link.)
So, if they can be transferred to another US detention facility, what prevents it from being in another country? And if that's the case, why close Gitmo's jail in the first place?
In addition, make note of that "transferred to a third country" line. Can you say "rendition"?
45% of Americans want the prison to remain open. 35% want it closed and 20% either don't know or refused to answer. (Link.)
Shirley has further thoughts.
The point against Gitmo, Hube, is not the location per se, it is that detainees there have been held without charge in violation of a basic tenet of our jurisprudence, the Writ of Habeas Corpus requirement. Also in question is whether the military commission approach to adjudication of these cases meets American judicial standards. I don't know the answer, but I do think this Gitmo situation needs a thorough airing. Closing the place down is a useful method to bring clarity to this mess. Gitmo has come to represent a diminution of American values.
Posted by: Perry at January 23, 2009 08:55 AMPerry: At no other time in our history have [illegal] combatants, let alone legitimate POWs, been granted all the amenities of American jurisprudence. Should captured Nazis and Japanese been granted a right to a lawyer after their capture in WW II? After all, what was the "charge" their capture was based on? Military commissions have worked perfectly well for these situations in the past.
Gitmo itself represents nothing of the sort of which you say. Torture (or coerced interrogation tactics) perhaps yes, but not the Gitmo prison.
Posted by: Hube at January 23, 2009 10:25 AMIt's simple, Hube: We just cannot sweep up people and detain them for years without charges in an endless undeclared war. That's exactly what we have done. Closing Gitmo forces the issue of jurisprudence to be addressed. I favor it!
Posted by: Perry at January 24, 2009 10:21 AMI repeat my above. Your technicality of "undeclared war" I actually happen to agree with -- I think Bush could have avoided a lot of legal hassles if he required Congress to so declare it instead of just "authorizing military force" -- but once again, illegal combatants are not entitled to jurisprudence nor the amenities of the Geneva Convention.
Posted by: Hube at January 24, 2009 10:27 AMAnd don't forget, Obama's closing Guantanamo with an eye towards moving the prisoner, or even giving them over to other countries, i.e. "rendition". To borrow a phrase from the past campaign, liberals cheering this are getting fooled by lipstick on a pig.
Posted by: Paul Smith at January 24, 2009 12:22 PMMy opinion:
http://inlieuofpencils.blogspot.com/2009/01/messianic-mistake.html
I don't think the military will ever put themselves in this kind of situation again. They won't take prisoners. Leave them on the battlefield.
Posted by: h. at January 26, 2009 12:21 PM