Getting Off the Island

Inside the long struggle to send Gitmo's detainees home.

Newsweek Web Exclusive
May 29, 2009 | Updated: 3:54  p.m. ET May 29, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: funkdome @ 06/01/2009 3:02:13 PM

    So what was the alternative to Gitmo that Bush should have pursued?

    • Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/01/2009 5:43:19 PM

      Tribunals/trials, followed by sentencing. Illegal combatants to be shot, the innocent to be released.

      You know, following the laws of war and all that?

      • Posted By: MrIndia @ 06/01/2009 6:24:58 PM

        The alternative could be what i just read in the TIME magazine today. A combination of military tribunals and civil justice. These cases cannot be tried in the civil courts for two reasons -

        1. Much of the evidence will not stand the rigours of the evidence law.
        2. The evidence may jeopardize ongoing investigations and intelligence assets.

        Therefore, the trials must be held by a military tribunal, where a civilian judge has complete authority to examine the evidence. Obviously the civilian judge wold have to understand that the evidence isnot going to be as cut and dried as he isused to seeing in a normal court.

        • Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/01/2009 6:44:40 PM

          "1. Much of the evidence will not stand the rigours of the evidence law. "

          Then it isn't evidence at all.

          • Posted By: MrIndia @ 06/02/2009 10:00:10 AM

            See that is the problem George Dorn. This is not a police investigation. There is no crime scene. There are no surveillence videos. In most cases you will not find hard evidence against terrorists. But then these are not regular criminals. The left and right will have to reach a compromise in this matter. Under the circumstances i think military tribunals with civilian oversight - all conducted in closed courts - is the best compromise.

            • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/02/2009 12:21:54 PM

              "Regular Criminals?" Let's see now, I got the wrong law book. Get me the book for the "Irregular Criminals".

              • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/02/2009 12:25:41 PM

                I simply point out, Mrindia, that you go to war with the laws that you have, not the laws that you wished you had. If you make them up after the fact, they are called in our constitution, "Ex Post Facto", and are prohibited. That's the law we went to war with. Make sure that you never live in a country that makes them up after the fact. You might be next if somebody in office doesn't like what you just did that was not prohibited by law.

                • Posted By: Bryan078 @ 06/02/2009 1:04:48 PM

                  It's easy to look back and scrutinize every decision made and talk about what should have been done, however it's not easy to make tough decisions when faced with the threat of attacks similar to 9/11 when the responsibility of keeping the country safe falls on your shoulders, as it did for Bush. It seems everyone forgets how the nation was behind Bush and his strong response on how America would react after thousands and thousands of innocent people died. Bush did what needed to be done to stop further attacks, and he succeeded. You can argue about whether or not the terrorists detained at Gitmo were mistreated or whether or not the interrogation techniques worked, the only thing that mattered to Bush, the only thing that mattered to me, was that we were kept safe in our country. Now some of the very people Bush kept safe by making the tough decisions, decisions that worked, want his head on a stake because they feel the people who wanted them dead were mistreated and rules were broken. That's up for debate, however the result of the debate does not change the fact that terrorist attacks were stopped for his remaining 7 years. The reality is that our world is extremely complex and dynamic, and a set of rules laid out in the past won't always be relevant as everything changes.

                  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/02/2009 3:08:39 PM

                    He made bad decisions. Many in a row. He saw how bad that they were and called them "tough". The "tough" decisions that are legitimate are those that follow our laws. He trampled all over our laws and put our troops in a very precarious position for generations into the future. All of our future enemies are now free to violate all of the laws of war.

                    • Posted By: Bryan078 @ 06/02/2009 3:26:32 PM

                      Bad decisions have bad results. The result he was looking for was safe Americans in America. The result was good. The exaggeration and over dramatization of "trampling" on our laws is absurd. In tough times, tough decisions are made. Presidents throughout our history have "trampled' on one law or another to do what they thought was best for the country. Are we going to investigate every one of those decisions the way we are with this one? Of course not. Would you consider Bush a better president if he had not opened Gitmo, had not allowed harsh interrogation techinques, and another attack had occurred? No, you would be saying something like, "why didn't he do anything possible to stop another attack?"

                      "All of our future enemies are now free to violate all of the laws of war." - The enemy connected with this never followed any laws of war. They behead their captives on camera so everyone can see.

                      • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/02/2009 8:31:18 PM

                        No one can prove that we either were or were not going to be attacked again. The best way to gloss over gross mistakes is to say that they were pure genius and that they saved us from something. The reason that the mistakes were made is that the president was never qualified for the job in the beginning and he delegated authority to others who misused it. This president had an immature view of war and of the adversity that we faced and overreacted to it, violating international law and our own criminal statutes concerning torture. He had no knowledge of the law and even solicited legal opinions that would fit his mistakes after they were made. The word "tough" and presidential acts do not mix. When the president repeated often that he had to make tough decisions, he clearly indicated that the office was above his capabilities. "Tough" means "I made a decision but don't fully understand what I am doing". Hence, the highly touted "tough" decisions. As far as attacks go, we were attacked under that same president. if "no attacks" is a good record, then what are we to make of him being the president in office when our nation was attacked? Why didn't he protect us then?

                        • Posted By: Bryan078 @ 06/03/2009 9:48:23 AM

                          No one can prove that any attacks were stopped, but they can prove that no more occurred. Which is more important to you? The first attack should never have happened, and there are few people who know whether or not it was actually preventable. But the only thing worse than screwing something up once, is not learning from your mistakes and screwing the same thing up again.

                          The word "tough" and presidential acts do not mix? Every president uses the word tough. The one in office, who has been there for a very short time, said ???What I???ve said here in Washington is that we???ve got to make some tough choices.??? I guess Obama doesn't fully understand the choices he's making either, by your logic.

                  • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/02/2009 2:08:48 PM

                    "Bush did what needed to be done to stop further attacks, and he succeeded. "

                    In the short term, his policies may have prevented actual terror attacks. In the long term, his policies and the brutality permitted on his watch have served as living recruitment beacons for Islamic hardliners everywhere. And terror attacks can happen anytime.

                    I feel no safer for the policies of Bush and Cheney knowing that a tremendous number of men and women my age the Middle East over have learned to see Americans as brutal, cruel enemies.

                    • Posted By: Bryan078 @ 06/02/2009 2:44:57 PM

                      Newsflash to Vigilance: They hated us already. They do not hate us more now than they did before they crashed planes into the twin towers. They will continue to hate us as long as they exist, because they believe that is the purpose of their existance. Do you think Bush caused them to wish us more dead than they already did? Do you feel safer now that Obama has reduced our national security spending? Would you rather the money be spent by investing into failing companies?

                      • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/02/2009 8:40:58 PM

                        Hey, what a cool mix, skillfully blending religious extremism with failing companies. No telling where we will wind up at the end of this road. Wonder if we could work gay marriage and abortion into the recipe. If you do, warn me in advance so that I can run from my computer before it blows up with such a volatile mixture in its innards. Keep trying. You'll make it at this rate.

                        • Posted By: Bryan078 @ 06/03/2009 9:29:15 AM

                          There was no blending intended. The intent was to show Bush's priorities and Obama's priorities. At any rate, I still hope your computer blows up.

    • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/02/2009 8:33:43 PM

      Follow the law. Simple as that.

    • Posted By: soggy @ 06/01/2009 7:35:18 PM

      The military should have shot them all where they found them....taking prisoners is futile because the citizens of this country no longer have the will to defend the nation. The military must now protect a nation that lacks the guts to do what is necessary to ensure its own survival. I am confident that the military is up to the challenge...we will not need GB for any new prisoners...the high value targets will be shot during the capture....the good news is they wont have to endure harsh interrogations...a victory for the left for sure....but I wonder which the terrorists would think worse...oh well not my problem.

      • Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/02/2009 2:13:46 PM

        The only gutless ones are those who would abandon their principles out of fear. Coward.

  • Posted By: airborne33 @ 06/03/2009 9:38:52 AM

    Bush's priorities and Obama's priorities?........what exactaly is that?

  • Posted By: airborne33 @ 06/03/2009 9:28:28 AM

    funkdome @ 06/01/2009 3:02:13 PM
    So what was the alternative to Gitmo that Bush should have pursued?

    I agree!.......Maybe we should have raped them constantly, or cut there necks. Or maybe line them all up and exacute them. Sound familier?......As far as im concered we babied them, compared to what they done to our soldiers!

  • Posted By: airborne33 @ 06/03/2009 9:22:31 AM

    When are people going to realise we are the ones being treated as the terrorist, Our borders and our trade is still unsafe. And americans are loosing there constitutional rights. Including our right to have weapons and our freedom. We are not the terrorist!.....Or are we?

  • Posted By: airborne33 @ 06/03/2009 9:15:56 AM

    Reading some of these over- dramatised articles, Now thats torture!

  • Posted By: powakai @ 06/01/2009 7:51:24 PM

    Funkd: What ever information they had: Give it up or die. That appears to be how Islam Ext works. They bomb innocents we shoot whoever we want. They made the rules. Let's follow them for awhile. If they get a nuke or what not; well what's a few less ignoids. OK here is the plan. People will die. Who chooses? WTF who cares: man does nothing but FTU. I can't wait to get out of here. The world as we know it is non-productive. End of Story.

    • Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/02/2009 2:15:57 PM

      "They made the rules. Let's follow them for awhile. "

      So you believe that America should follow the example of barbarians. Interesting.

  • Posted By: kbchick @ 06/01/2009 7:47:00 PM

    I think torture is 100% acceptable if it will possibly save hundreds of thousands of lives. We have to remain strong and we have to remain realistic. I don't care about these prisoners rights as human beings. I care about protecting our country and defending freedom and democracy all over the world.

    P.S. Obama sucks. He is a socialist and is destroying our freedoms and democracies.

    • Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/02/2009 2:15:13 PM

      "I think torture is 100% acceptable if it will possibly save hundreds of thousands of lives. We have to remain strong and we have to remain realistic. I don't care about these prisoners rights as human beings. I care about protecting our country and defending freedom and democracy all over the world.

      P.S. Obama sucks. He is a socialist and is destroying our freedoms and democracies."

      Does anyone else see the irony in that post?

    • Posted By: RandyNason @ 06/01/2009 10:34:37 PM

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/02/2009 11:51:28 AM

    Our problem is that we have not followed our own laws, both civil and military. Now, as a result of this, all of the prisoners need to be released immediately. Period. The evidence for either military or civilian trials under our law is fatally contaminated by the torturous methods to obtain it. The administration with the necessary biological plumbing to do this has not yet come into office by all appearances. The current leader of our country is a constitutional lawyer and he knows this legality to be true; that they are all being wrongfully held under all of our laws. The question is, what type of biological plumbing does he have when it comes time to follow our own laws? History deals harshly with such as this. Especially American History.

  • Posted By: getsum @ 06/02/2009 10:55:02 AM

    Three points of interest with this piece:

    1) Since 2002, Gitmo has been a problem particularly for the Bush-43 administration and yet it's the current Obama administration that's taking all the flake over this controversial issue.

    2) No one said a thing when Bush-43 quietly attempted to close Gitmo or even when he quitely released some of the terrorist, yet the very mention of releasing more of the detainees by the current administration comes under harsh criticism. Of course, if the public isn't aware of it, I guess no one can complain about it now, can they...keep it "hush, hush".

    3) Until there's a "legal" way to bring these detainees to trail, what exactly are we to do with them? You can't hold them indefinitely. You can't send them back without worrying about whether or not their nation's governments will keep an eye on them, and by law (per this article), we can't send them back if we have reason to believe their government will torture them - the very thing we're trying not to do.

    It's a crazy cycle that the previous administration handed over to the next administration where neither side has a clear cut solution to the problem.

  • Posted By: fumingw @ 06/02/2009 4:37:48 AM

    This is beyound hypocricy, The horific absusers at Gitmo are afraid that their prisoners will be abused by other countries like China.

  • Posted By: fumingw @ 06/02/2009 4:36:40 AM

    This is beyound hypocricy, The horific absusers at Gitmo are afraid that their prisoners will be abused by other countries like China.

  • Posted By: phall @ 06/02/2009 2:02:04 AM

    It's invigorating everytime I read an article about the display intelligent discourse from the Obama administration regarding the myriad of disasters that GW is responsible. I LOVE IT. Its definately not an easy cluster %^&$ to get out of, but at LEAST there's an intelligent methodology. That's all I ask. NO MORE DUNBASS COUNTRY BUMPKINS IN THE WHITE HOUSE EVER!!!

  • Posted By: JoanR @ 06/01/2009 3:45:27 PM

    The liberals and their European role models have been bleating for five years that all of those fine and innocent detainees at Guantanamo were being incarcerated without cause by the Evil Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld hydra.If this was so, one would think that their governments would have been happy to repatriate them without formality.Instead it now appears that a diplomatic song and dance has been underway while all of the bleating was in progress largely because their titular countries don't want them there either. More liberal imbecility.It never ends

    • Posted By: Justan American @ 06/02/2009 1:21:04 AM

      Believing either party is less apart from guilt in allowing the USA to have fallen to current status is akin to belief that one of the 'insurgents' at GB had anything to do with 9/11 planning. Never should underestimate warmongerers, though.
      Keep on bleating your nonsense instead of presenting solutions. You must be a hit a parties and work.
      And keep enjoying the "Donkey and Elephant Show." It's the only one running things.

    • Posted By: Dave in NM @ 06/01/2009 4:09:29 PM

      By "bleating," I suppose you're referring to that most un-American of principles, "Innocent until proven guilty?" Feh - "fairness" - bunch of limp-wristed commies - fairness ain't American.

      It's not any more, I guess. Just ask people like you.

  • Posted By: CouldCareLessAnymore @ 06/01/2009 10:27:00 PM

    What does this have to do with Paris Hilton?

  • Posted By: powakai @ 06/01/2009 7:34:22 PM

    Politics as usual. At least we always have something looking out for us/them... one way or another.

  • Posted By: Foyelady @ 06/01/2009 3:08:04 PM

    To all of the " 9/11 was Bill Clinton's fault" people. Remeber this....."bin Laden determined to strike within the U.S."" from August 2001. Forget Bill Clinton, that daily briefing should have set off alarms to everyone inside the Bush Administration. 9/11 happened on THEIR insufficient WATCH.

    • Posted By: soggy @ 06/01/2009 7:23:00 PM

      to all the people who blame Clinton or Bush....get a life. Yes it is obvious now what Osama Bin Laden was planning. But only a retarded political hack would think that Clinton or Bush could have taken that snippet of info and figure out what the plan was...even then what flights...what targets...what day, month or year...preventing 9/11 with the info that was available would have been like finding a needle in a thousand hay stack...and then with only 30 days to do it...like I said its the stuff for retarded hacks.

  • Posted By: GaLiberal @ 06/01/2009 3:06:42 PM

    This whole Gitmo mess can be laid at the feet of thoes that voted for Bush and Cheney. Each one of these people should be required to have a suspected "terrorist" live with them for a couple of months. Instead, we get stupid remarks from the likes of paulejb and Truth & Honesty. Our treatment of these people has been both illegal and immoral. It has lead to even more young people welcoming fundamentalists ideas. When will we lear that just because we have the strongest army and economy does not make us rulers of the world. Nations that forget that simple idea have collapsed. No more Gitmo, no more Bush, and no more Republicans.

    • Posted By: youhavegottobekidding @ 06/01/2009 3:27:39 PM

      You have no idea of what you are speaking about....all you did is open you mouth and yell hey I am stupid, but I have to flap my trap....These people at Gitmo are terrorist...did you miss the part of the article that stated their governments did not want them back either...they were happy to have them in US custody.....
      Oh forgive me, I forgot you cannot comprehend they helped bomb the twin towers,pentagon and the field in Penn. But they would not do that they are poor helpless...crazy lunitics. and they would do it again given the chance.

      • Posted By: Dave in NM @ 06/01/2009 4:13:00 PM

        Um ... the foreign governments didn't want 'em back because of unsubstantiated charges. Apparently that's good enough for you to brand people as guilty. How I would laugh if you were detained indefinitely on unsubstantiated charges without the need for proof.

        • Posted By: soggy @ 06/01/2009 7:16:26 PM

          I hope that our military has learned its lesson. Taking people prisoners is very bad. If these men had been shot on the battlefield as they should have been then we would not be having this discussion. I am very confident that our military has learned their lesson and I bet we will not have this problem in the future.

      • Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/01/2009 5:40:01 PM

        "I forgot you cannot comprehend they helped bomb the twin towers,pentagon and the field in Penn."

        You have evidence that the people in Gitmo helped plan or execute 911? Interesting. Please post it.

  • Posted By: powakai @ 06/01/2009 7:06:54 PM

    Hey Rick we are in utopia/ you just make your dream otherwise. Golly darn I am hungry today. Oh well, better get to work.

  • Posted By: powakai @ 06/01/2009 6:53:22 PM

    One must see humanity rather than try to manipulate humanity. All countries are futile. How many of you know when we first needed passports to travel?

  • Posted By: Ric86 @ 06/01/2009 6:09:21 PM

    the left cries for murderers, like the man who plotted 9/11. we dunk him to save lives but that deserves jail time.

    the left sympathize with the devil. liberalism is a mental disorder.

    Obama wants to "disarm the world" of nukes. they dream of a utopia that will never exist.

    placate evil and it will destroy you. but the left rolls the red carpet, while "Bush" is their devil.

    it is a disgrace. they never grew up. too much weed, to much environment-crapola in their "schools".

    neo-marxists. liberalism is a mental disorder. they invite mushroom clouds by their naive foolish stupidity.

    • Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/01/2009 6:48:09 PM

      Could you restate that, this time in something resembling coherent English?

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse