Overplaying Its Hand

NEWSWEEK

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

In the wake of the court's decision, pressure will grow on the Bush administration to close down Guantánamo, which has been a public-relations disaster. The military has already released more than 500 detainees for a variety of reasons; most have gone back to their native countries, though there is some evidence that more than 30 have shown up as combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan and some have killed innocent people. If Guantánamo closes down, it's unclear what will happen to its 270 detainees.

Whoever wins the presidency in November will be under pressure to make sure that those detainees considered most dangerous (whoever they may be) stay locked up, and it's not at all clear any U.S. state will want to accept them as inmates. Rather than allow future captives legal rights, the military may choose to detain them on bases far from the United States. The Supreme Court was silent on whether its writ runs to these foreign bases.

Indeed, a host of questions remain to be resolved. What kind of rights should detainees have? Will they have access to secret evidence to be used against them? Should they be able to compel American soldiers or foreign nationals to leave the battlefield to testify against them in person? Can they summon friends and neighbors from foreign lands to testify to their innocence? The only clear outcome is the certainty of enduring confusion: by trying to sidestep the most basic legal protections for detainees at the outset, the Bush administration guaranteed years of legal wrangling.

« Prev Page

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: NavyDave @ 11/14/2008 10:38:40 AM

Everytime I read articles about GITMO or "illegal combatant" status I can't help but think of two of our close allies, United Kingdom and Spain, that have had attacks on their homeland. Somehow they've been able to haul the perps in front of a regular court, try them and imprison them when found guilty. All without a special status or prison in another country. Why is it that we couldn't have done this in the same way?
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Want A Change @ 11/12/2008 3:25:03 PM

Due Process, Due Process, Due Process: That's the mantra that needs to stand the test of Conservatives, Neo-Cons, idiots and anyone else that thinks we have the right to hold someone indefinitely. The notion is ridiculous. If these guys are so horrible and have done horrible things then the government should have the goods on them to send them to prison: Period. Of course at this point the Bush hard-liners (read: idiots) have just created 270 very, very upset pseudo-terrorists that will go home and become the terrorists they always wished for. So, why don't we just do the Cheney thing and put a bullet thru their heads and call it a day. The GOP has created a self-fulfilling prophecy with their irresponsible actions and now Obama has to clean it up along with all the other crap they created.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: sprues2 @ 09/03/2008 6:15:50 PM

Reading this, I find myself, a little puzzled. We live in a country, that allows the law to force us to wear seat belts.
We live in a country where police forces can come to your home, on the basis of an anonymous phone call and examine your children.
We live in a country that allows the law, to force us to move from our homes, if deemed necessary.
We live in a country, where police forces are allowed to set up roadblocks and examine our documentation, where no probable cause exists.
The reasoning is the same, the state has an overiding interest.
The state, has an overriding interest? I'm so silly, that, I thought the state, existed, for my benefit.
I'm, also,so silly, that, I think, the state, has an overriding interest, in holding these people as long as is necessary, in their judgement