What do we do with Gitmo detainees?

[Unsane]

Try them in U.S. District Courts as regular defendants with full due process? Try them by court-martial? Send them back to their home countries? Continue to jail them indefinitely as prisoners of war? I'm looking for valid suggestions. I feel like if military prosecutors don't think they can successfully convict in a valid federal court, i.e. without tortured confessions etc., then the detainee should be released and sent to their home country (or a host country).

[snowbear]

1. Wow... 64 views and -0- comments so far...

.
.

No wonder this will be a tough decision for President Obama!

[ColbertWatcher]

2. Send them to Dumbya's Dallas residence.

He made his bed. let him lie in it.

[Two Americas]

3. try them or release them

There is absolutely no alternative that is morally or legally sound.

We all seemed pretty clear on this when it was the Bush administration trying to get around the law. Why the confusion now?

[rpannier]

8. Release them where?

That question is significant

And what services should they be provided for this release?

[Two Americas]

9. wherever they want

If they are innocent, give them whatever they want. If there is a case against some, make the case and go to trial.

There is no room for ambiguity here.

[Unsane]

10. Yeah, release suspected terrorists onto US streets!

That'll win Obama a bunch of new voters!

[AlCzervik]

11. many of them haven't even been charged. And if the above scenario happened

and the "suspected terrorists" were found not guilty where would you have them go?

[Unsane]

13. They wouldn't be "found not guilty"

Prosecutors just wouldn't have enough straight evidence to prosecute them. That doesn't mean they're all outstanding people. In no way would I want them released into the US. That is ridiculous.

[AlCzervik]

16. you know about as much as i do about what they may or may not have done

they need to be charged and then tried.

Do you believe in the Constitution or not?

[Unsane]

17. bye

where did I say I wanted to hold them indefinitely? bye bye

[Two Americas]

21. holding them at all is the problem

Holding people for any length of time extra-legally is the problem. That is, again by definition, "indefinitely." It doesn't matter of you choose to hold them or an hour or ten years - you are choosing, and presenting that in lieu of due process and Constitutionally mandated protections. The detainee does not know when or how they can be released, so that is then "indefinite."

[Two Americas]

18. that is despicable

If the government does not have enough evidence to prosecute, then suspects are by definition innocent. You cannot with any moral integrity or intellectual consistency say that "they are guilty, we just can't prove it."

You are defending detaining and mistreating people, and throwing away the Constitution, because the victims are not "outstanding people."

In my view, those who would so willingly shred the Constitution are the ones who are not "outstanding people."

Why not advocate just executing them all? That would "solve" your problem, and would be more humane and less hypocritical.

I see a far greater danger to us from those among us who would so cavalierly toss away the law and the Constitution then I do from poor detainees rounded up with a corrupt and extra-legal bounty system and held in violation of all standards of civilized conduct and centuries of legal precedent and hard won principles of liberty and rights.

Yet I would not advocate that those who are defending this abomination should not be free to walk the streets of the United States.

[AlCzervik]

20. yup, it doesn't seem to matter to him if they're tried and acquitted, they're still

"suspected terrorists" and good luck to them if they're sent back to their home countries, they'll most likely end up dead.

[Two Americas]

12. if they are suspects, try them

If they are not suspects, release them.

Are you saying that the rule of law and the Constitution are secondary concerns, and that winning new votes for Obama supersedes that?

[Unsane]

15. I'm saying don't realease them in the US

You're saying release them onto US streets; I'm saying release them in the country in which they were found.

[Two Americas]

19. no I am not

What a red herring.

We have existing procedures to handle any and all concerns you could raise. If a person is innocent (which they are by definition until and unless they are properly found guilty of a crime) and if a person chooses to immigrate to the US, and if they are eligible for that, and after having gone through the procedure, then, yes, of course a person has every right to immigrate to the US. Just like anyone else.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. The problem is that the US kidnapped them

and, as has been pointed out, in some cases they may not be safe in their home countries now, having been marked as 'bad people' by Dubya's actions (and, in the case of Iraq or Afghanistan, he also installed governments who might persecute them). So they may have a case for asylum in the USA. Against that, they probably realise they will always be suspected by the US authorities, and may have almost no chance of making a normal, unpersecuted, life in the USA either.

[WinkyDink]

24. I'd take Bushco's term "suspected terrorists" with a saline solution.

More like: "Unfortunate bas****s we swept off the streets."

[Every Man A King]

34. Does the word innocent mean anything to you?

wow

[dcindian]

4. Put them on trial

Then put those who illegally jailed them on trial.

[Peace Patriot]

5. We are talking about prisoners on whom great harm has been inflicted.

Detention without trial, for years and years. Torture. Isolation. Probably most of them are innocent of any crime. Evidence that some were bought from warlords in Afghanistan. Evidence that some were merely soldiers defending their country. (Is shooting back at an invading force a crime?) Evidence that some were doing nothing at all. Evidence that juveniles were imprisoned and tortured as well. Initially hooded, shackled and terrorized on black flights half way round the world. No contact with family, friends, communities or their native countries. Many of these prisoners are probably close to insanity, with serious health problems.

Try them in civilian courts? That is absurd. We owe them reparations!

So here's my suggestion. We vacate Guantanamo Bay, and turn it over to the Cuban medical system, to be transformed into a convalescent facility. Cuba has one of the best medical care systems in Latin America--and, indeed, in the world. They have a surplus of well-trained doctors and health professionals. Let them design and implement a healing program for these prisoners (who would not likely trust U.S. doctors). Let Cuban architects, artists and gardeners re-design the facility--make it beautiful and wholesome, a monument to the healing arts. Fund it. And also set up a pension fund for the prisoners--a life pension sufficient to maintain them and any family dependent on them. They can remain at the Guantanamo Bay convalescent facility for as along as they want, or re-locate to a chosen country that will have them.

This could also be a means of healing relations between Cuba and the U.S. Acknowledge our responsibility for these prisoners; let Cuba solve the problem, with one of their highest achievements--their medical system.

It would go a long way to repairing our foreign relations, everywhere, to admit, for once, that we were wrong. And we couldn't have been any more wrong than we have been at Guantanamo Bay. We have also been wrong about Cuba (as everybody else in the world knows). So, combine all these things in a healing policy, that reaches out to Cuba and acknowledges their medical brilliance (not to mention their presence on the island), that reaches out to the prisoners and acknowledges the wrong done to them, and the need to make amends, and that demonstrates to the world that we can do something very positive for a change.

We have other such prisons--known and secret prisons and torture dungeons around the world. Close them all. Also give those prisoners the option of residence at Guantanamo Bay, under the care of Cuban physicians, for physical and mental healing, and pensions, and freedom to relocate.

The Bushwhacks have been trying to shop these prisoners around. I find this baffling. Why don't we give them the option of U.S. citizenship? We owe it to them. As for the few who might be actual terrorists, I think we have only one option: amnesty. We can't hold them. We can't try them. We have abused and harmed them. Have we not gotten enough revenge, as yet? Give up revenge. Offer them healing by a neutral party (Cuban physicians) and lifelong assistance. Make peace. We have become hated by making war. Let us seek respect--if not love--by making peace. Sign a peace treaty with these prisoners. Put pen to paper.

[ellacott]

14. Wow, fascinating

I really like your suggestion. That's something I would have never thought about.

Would you trust Castro that much? You don't think he would try to indoctrinate these released prisoners? My fear would be that they would be training future revolutionaries against the U.S.

[WinkyDink]

26. Unwarranted fear. Like we've had Cuban "revolutionaries" land here since 1961??

[Peace Patriot]

27. I'm afraid you have been the victim of propaganda about Castro.

I think he would jump at the chance to improve relations with the U.S. and to demonstrate a positive aspect of the Cuban revolution, its medical system. Every Cuban involved would want it to succeed. And how could Guantanamo Bay prisoners be any MORE propagandized against the U.S. than by our own actions?

Cuba long ago gave up any aspirations as to the use of violence against the U.S. and its many CIA plots to destroy leftist movements around the world and install U.S.-corporate friendly fascist dictators. And, if the truth were known, they have all along desired one thing--to be left alone. Their early actions (1960s) of alliance with the Soviet Union and support for armed leftist revolutions in other countrys was, in both cases, more defensive than offensive. It was in their interest to see brutal, exploitative, fascist regimes in Latin America defeated, and to see leftist-sympathetic governments win the day--to help STOP the determination of the U.S. to invade Cuba and re-install the horrible Batista regime.

Further, the terrorism, plots and aggression of more recent decades have all been on OUR side--CIA operatives blowing up a Cubana commercial airliner, for instance. Cuba has become a peaceful government over the last thirty years or so, and is recognized worldwide for its accomplishments, such as their medical care system, universal education, and environmental policy. Their once-pugnacious stance against the U.S. is all water under the bridge. It was long ago. Castro himself is near death from stomach cancer. He's very old. His brother has become president and the new concept of opening a dialogue with the U.S. has been broached, by our own President Obama. It is the U.S. that restricts travel to Cuba, not Cuba. It is the U.S. that has an embargo against Cuba. Cuba would trade with us, if we would let them.

THINK of the dreadful regimes we are fully supporting--Colombia (run by fascist narco-thugs, where thousands of union leaders have been murdered); Saudi Arabia, where women have no rights. Cuba is a model state, compared to these rightwing dinosaurs. There is much to praise in Cuba, and they would have no reason whatever to ally themselves with Arab terrorists or to give the U.S. any reason to target them.

Turning Guantanamo Bay prison over to them, with funding for conversion to a convalescent facililty and help for the prisoners, could be step one of a long-needed change for the better in U.S./Cuba relations. Did you know that numerous Latin American leaders--people like Lula da Silva of Brazil--included in their letters of congratulations to Obama, when he won the election, one request: "Lift the embargo on Cuba!" If Lula da Silva sees no threat of "terrorism" there, then it doesn't exist. And if leaders like da Silva find that issue so important--to single it out to the new president-elect--then it is something we should be doing, to improve relations with Latin America overall.

[ellacott]

32. Thank you so much

I've learned a lot just from this post. I do admit that I have been a victim of propaganda about Cuba. I don't know a lot about the politics of Cuba and am uninformed regarding the issues surrounding the anti-Cuban groups in Florida.

I watched a program on Sundance channel this month regarding Cuba's relationship with Africa. The program talked about Che Guevara and I learned a lot that I didn't know. I began looking at Cuba differently and have been trying to get more information on the history of Cuba.

Your post was definately right on time for me.

Thank you :)

[Peace Patriot]

33. I've just finished reading James Douglass' amazing book, "JFK and the Unspeakable."

Talk about timely. Douglass fully--with exhaustive, compelling documentation--explores not just who killed JFK but WHY. It was (no doubt about this any more at all) the CIA coordinating an octopus-like plot with operatives in the Secret Service, the FBI, the Dallas police, the U.S. military, the Mafia and the Miami anti-Castro Batista exiles. And one of the reasons was that JFK had opened a backchannel to Fidel Castro, told Castro he was sympathetic with the reason for the Cuban revolution (the horrible, brutal Batista regime), and was intent on making peace with Cuba's revolutionary government. His Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to NUKE Cuba AND Soviet Russia, in a pre-emptive strike. They thought they could 'win' the Cold War with a nuclear holocaust--that enough Americans would survive to make it worth it (their estimate of 'acceptable' casualties was 30 million dead). JFK thought they were insane, and opened backchannels to both Castro and Krushchev, to prevent it. He was succeeding. Castro wanted peace. Krushchev did, also, and signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that JFK had initiated against the vociferous opposition of the Joints Chiefs and others in the government. JFK was intent on ENDING the Cold War. And although the American PEOPLE were with him on this, and would have reelected him, the 'military-industrial complex' (that Ike had warned about) adamantly opposed peace, up through and including JFK's entire government, except for his brother Robert (who was A.G.). Many of them were not just disloyal, they were disobedient (didn't follow his orders). JFK was very isolated in the government in his desire for peace, and all alone (except for Bobby) in trying to initiate it. And the outright traitors at the CIA arranged his murder because of this. Peace vs. war. That was the reason.

With JFK's murder, all of JFK's initiatives for peace were dead (in Vietnam, in Indonesia, in Africa, as well as Cuba and Russia). LBJ reversed Kennedy's peace directives re Vietnam TWO DAYS after the assassination. And although LBJ didn't agree with a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Russia/Cuba, he was tight with the war profiteers and said, "Now they can have their war" (in Vietnam). According to Douglass, LBJ went along with the coverup, a) to prevent the country from demanding vengeance on Russia/Cuba (the CIA had laid a false trail via Oswald to Russia/Cuba, which LBJ found out about right after the assassination), and b) to prevent the country from finding out the whole truth, and demanding that the CIA (and maybe the "military-industrial complex" as well) be dismantled.

Understanding Cuba's pivotal role in JFK's turn toward peace (and ending the Cold War--not just detente or "mutually assured destruction"--but ENDING it, disarming, stopping all these CIA-instigated proxy wars, and opening trade and social relations) helps us to comprehend what has happened since then, re U.S./Cuba policy, which has remained stuck in 1962 anti-Soviet mode two decades after the end of the Soviet Union. We have long since made peace with Vietnam, for instance. Why not Cuba? The reason is the ascendancy of the Miami anti-Castro mafia view, within our own political establishment, after the 'triumph' of JFK's assassination. (JFK had taken many actions to open peace talks with Cuba, including stopping the illegal, CIA-organized gunboat raids on Cuba out of Miami, in addition to having stopped the CIA invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. He was hated by anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Miami, as well as being hated by our own "military-industrial complex" for not nuking Cuba and Russia during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when he had the chance, and when we had superiority in the nuclear arms race). This extremely rightwing Miami view gained a grip on Washington DC that prevails today. Our tax dollars have all this time been supporting these rightwing groups in Florida. No U.S. politician can oppose them.

You will recall that Barack Obama was criticized during the campaign for suggesting merely that we TALK to Castro and other "enemies." That's what JFK wanted to do. That's what the Miami mafia and their Republican/Bushite allies and the CIA have been trying to prevent all these years. Because if you "talk to Castro" (open relations with Cuba), the American people will quickly find out that Cuba ain't so bad. Its people want what we all want--fairness, a decent living, health care, a future for their children, safety from exploitation and oppression. Our corpo/fascist rulers don't want us to know that there are some good things about the communist system in Cuba. And the Miami mafia still harbors dreams of re-conquering Cuba and re-installing their criminal enterprises there (although this is changing--the younger generation of Cuban exiles in Florida is not so keen on this goal any more, and it is absolutely crazy--and not Cuba's fault--that they can't even visit their relatives; everybody else on earth is free to fly into Cuba--not us, by action of our own government).

It's a new day. A peaceful, democratic, leftist revolution has swept South America--with leftist governments elected in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay (recently--of all places), Brazil and Chile (center-left), and edging up into Central America, Nicaragua and Guatemala (and very soon, El Salvador). Leftist policies--universal health care, universal education, use of resources (such as oil) to bootstrap the poor, and the sovereignty and independence of Latin American countries (from U.S. bullying and interference) have won the day--democratically. It's long past time to implement a policy of cooperation with the left (the majority) in Latin America--as both JFK and RFK tried to do so many decades ago. The obstacle: the Miami anti-Castro mafia and its grip on U.S. politicians, and on our corporate 'news' monopolies.

We are stuck in the past, and the world is quickly passing us by. As South America forms its own 'common market'--UNASUR*--formalized this year, sans the U.S.--it is time for us to WAKE UP. The U.S. arrogating to itself the 'right' to interfere in Cuba (with constant threats, spying, plotting aggression, bad-mouthing and an embargo), and any other Latin American country (for instance, Venezuela), IS the issue. The southern hemisphere is uniting against this interference--against Cuba or any other Latin country. THEY are acting, while WE are still agonizing over whether we should "talk to Cuba." It is ridiculous. But that is the situation.

------------

*(UNASUR's very first action, this September, was to stop the U.S./Bushite-instigated fascist coup in Bolivia!)

[ellacott]

36. I will look for that book

I have vacation next week and was going to do some reading. :) I already plan on reading, Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara.

There were people saying that JFK was killed because he wanted to withdraw from Vietnam.

It's fortunate that Obama got more support from some of the anti-Castro exiles. Maybe he chose to have Panetta as CIA head so he could have an inside presence in this organization. I imagine if they wanted to do something it might be easier to keep Panetta out of the loop.

Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte positively about Cuba and have travelled over there. They are also helping to deprogram me regarding my opinion on Hugo Chavez.

[sohndrsmith]

6. We trust Obama because no one is better equipped to deal with this monumental ef-up than he is. n/t

[rpannier]

7. The problem prisoners are the ones that cannot return home

because their safety cannot be assured -- they could be wanted over there and subjected to more abuse

they have no host country

I don't think releasing them into US society is a great idea unless they are provided with both job skills and a job and a lot of support to adjusting to living in this society.
Even ones that can be returned home. There needs to be some sort of programs in place to aid in their return.
The world changes a lot in 5-7 years and unlike civilian prisoners, these people have been totally isolated.
They would need help in adjusting.

[jberryhill]

22. Psychotherapy / Witness Protection Program / Settlement /nt

[Every Man A King]

35. Dump them back in Afghanistan

where we found them.

[mb7588a]

23. Emancipate those who are not guilty of anything? nt.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. Try them if you have evidence

Otherwise, release them.

The mafia was a danger to communities and people, but we didn't hold them indefinitely without charges. Terrorism is a crime, not a war.

[Born_A_Truman]

28. What amazes me is that * had 7 years to have a game plan...

Now it will be up to Obama to solve this issue. Buchanan is spouting off about it right now on Harball but he doesn't have an answer either.

[whistler162]

29. There is a ranch in Texas!!!

of course they may not like the current owner!

[bottomtheweaver]

30. The reality is we owe them reparations.

And if there was any justice in the world, we'd pay them richly, or their families. But of course that's not the repuke way.

[Peace Patriot]

37. I think my solution--Guantanamo convalescent facility, run by the Cuban medical system--

funded by us, with pensions to the prisoners--turns a bad, awful, embarrassing, no-win situation into a positive good. There they are, on the other end of the island, with the best medical care system in Latin America--and one of the best in the world--a surplus of doctors and health care professionals (due to their superior medical education program), and a desire to improve Cuba's reputation in the U.S. and get the embargo against them lifted. And here we are--with the excruciating problem of prisoners whom we have grievously harmed, who likely have acute mental/physical problems, who in many cases have no country, and whom we cannot prosecute and imprison further--even if some might be guilty of something (who knows what?).

Let Cuba solve this problem, to our mutual benefit. Cuba is already exporting doctors and other medical people to help establish local medical centers for the poor in countries like Bolivia and Venezuela. They are doing it for free, to foster good will, as a foreign policy, and in some cases for barter (oil from Venezuela). They have a whole program to correct blindness among the poor, by flying poor people (or anyone) to their specialized eye clinics for operations. Air fare, and family accommodations for any length of convalescence included. So they have this existing policy of helping others with their much-praised medical system. It seems like very, VERY much a "mutual benefit" situation, whereby we could acknowledge their medical achievements, their legitimacy as a government on the island and enlist their help in solving this apparently unsolvable problem.

Maybe we first need to declare peace with the few prisoners in these gulags (there are more than one--Guantanamo just the most famous) who may have plotted or acted against us. A great gesture of amnesty, generosity and maybe some individual peace treaties would benefit us as well. I don't know about this--because we simply cannot trust the word of the Bushwhacks or anyone involved in this horror as to the guilt of any prisoner. They have fucked this up so badly that we do not have the option of protecting ourselves from (further incarcerating) the few who may actually be "terrorists," by legal means. We have only illegal means as an option. And, frankly, I suspect something far worse than this--that torture and indefinite detention were used to cover up trails to our own government on 9/11 and other terrorist acts. (Read James Douglass' book, "JFK and the Unspeakable," published by the Maryknoll fathers, and learn what our own secret government is capable of doing, to boost war profits.) I suspect that these imprisonments were deliberately fucked up, to prevent the possibility of real trials. In any case, we are in an excruciating dilemma, with regard to the few who might have committed "terrorist" acts (something we may never be able to know for sure). (Can we even trust seemingly truthful confessions in these circumstances? No, we can't.) When you are in an excruciating dilemma, with much at stake--as, say, JFK was during the Cuban Missile Crisis--you must 'think outside of the box.' That's what I'm doing, thinking of individual peace treaties--amnesty for any suspected of "terrorist" acts, and generous help to them, to restore their health, and to take a new path.

That's what JFK and RFK would do--whose efforts to create a peaceful world were truncated by assassination, so long ago. Find the way out of the box.