Mr.Secretary, save Gitmo
Why Robert Gates needs to defend, not close, Guantanamo Bay
By AcademicElephant Posted in War — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
According to the New York Times, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has been lobbying unsuccessfully for the last three months to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Citing diplomatic friction with allies who are uncomfortable with Gitmo, Dr. Gates has allied with Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice. The duo have asked the president to shut it down and bring the detainees to American soil where, Dr. Gates maintains, they will remain under military jurisdiction if they are held on military bases, and so will not be able to claim legal rights under the US constitution. This dubious plan was apparently derailed by the strident joint opposition of Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who believe that America’s shores are not the best place for these individuals, and that it is not worth risking the potential legal nightmare they represent to placate our squeamish allies.
Read on...
The Times is, not surprisingly, appalled by the President’s refusal to follow the advice of his Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State. The paper calls the callous refusal of the administration to allow the terrorists at Guantanamo the sort of trial that would be enjoyed by an American citizen “a clear case of justice denied.” The sympathies of the paper are clearly with the detainees, not with their actual or intended victims. But I see things a little differently. For all I know, there are detainees at Gitmo who are misunderstood. There might be some who have personal issues to which I am not sensitive. And those who are products of a different culture. But be that as it may, these are not the reasons they find themselves at Gitmo. They are there because they are the worst of the worst. This was rather graphically demonstrated last week, when the transcripts for two of the military tribunals were released by the Pentagon. By any rational standard, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed revealed himself as a psychopathic monster, who should not under any circumstances be allowed to exploit the US legal system. This is the sort that is being held at our detention center, and it is all of our best interests that they remain there and are tried under the military tribunals the Times dismisses as “kangaroo courts.”
No, the detention center Guantanamo Bay is not perfect. Perhaps I am simple, but as I understand them, such facilities rarely are. It would be nice to shut it down. I would even go further and say that I, and the President and yes, even the Vice President, would like to shut it down. Or perhaps it might be more precise to say that we would like nothing more than to live in a world where Guantanamo is unnecessary. Unfortunately, wishing will not make that world a reality. Aggressively pursuing malfeasants of the sort held at the detention center and has a much better chance of success, even if it deprives the New York Times of the spectacle of them wending their way through our courts and potentially evading justice through some loophole. I am sorry if Secretary Gates encounters some discomfort when meeting with his anti-Gitmo counterparts at international conferences, and it is unfortunate if the existence of the facility forces Secretary Rice to do her job and actually work at the diplomacy that is the provenance of the State Department. But into each life some rain must fall. In the end, the Secretary of Defense should not make diplomacy his priority. Guantanamo Bay serves a vital, if unpopular function in the War on Terror. The likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should not come to the United States. He and his fellow detainees need to be, for want of a better word, detained until they can be judged by the military tribunals that are their appropriate legal process.
Understanding why this should be so means understanding that the parameters of this war are different from any we have fought before. Allowing ourselves to be bound by the rules and protocols that governed previous conflicts might well spell our defeat because our enemy is fully aware of those rules and protocols, and is exploiting them as a weakness. In order to thwart them, we cannot let them get away with it—and the very effectiveness of Guantanamo may well be indicated by the relentless PR campaign against it. The campaign is working; as the Times pointed out, when the KSM transcript was released last week, “many Americans reacted with skepticism and even derision." I suspect that the editorial board of the Times took the pulse of the American people by watching the opening segment of "The View," but the fact remains that the editorial board and Rosie O'Donnell are more than one, although I wouldn't exactly call them representative of "many Americans." But still, we might want to consider why this PR why campaign is being waged against Guantanamo? Has it occurred to anyone that the very ambiguity of the status of these detainees is a deliberate strategy devised by our enemy? Gitmo is indeed a symbol, but it might not represent the same thing to all people. The New York Times, not to mention the Secretary of Defense, might consider the notion that there may well be those in this world for whom Guantanamo Bay is a reminder of the strength and resolve of the United States, and the obstacle we present to their jihad. Wouldn’t closing it constitute a victory for them—a non-conventional victory, yes, in this non-conventional war, but an important one nonetheless?
It also occurs to be that Gitmo suffers because it’s hard to put a disaster that didn’t happen into clear perspective. What might have happened had the detention center not existed and we had not been able to hold these individuals? If just two or three had been left at large because we couldn’t detain them on foreign soil and we didn’t want to bring them to the US? We may owe a debt of gratitude about which we will never know to those who have held firm and not bowed to popular opinion on Guantanamo. I can only hope that Dr. Gates reconsiders his position and recognizes that regardless of its popularity, this unique military detention center close to but not on American soil is a necessity in the day and age in which we find ourselves. This isn’t a popularity contest.
Some people want to save Venice. Others want to save the whales. I know it's not as fashionable as either of those efforts, but we might want to consider spending some time and energy on saving Gitmo.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | The Power Of One — Comments (2) »
Mr.Secretary, save Gitmo 10 Comments (0 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
What rights, constitutional? International? There are no special rights established for this type of combatant, can you claim so form of religious right as that is their only common denominator? If so then what?
The only rights that seemingly come into play is the human rights that these people scorn and fight against.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Do you think that it is ok to hold someone indefinitely without charge? I'm talking about people who have been held for years without charge. You think that is ok?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
They get released when Congress declares the GWOT over.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
The folks at Gitmo are illegal combatants who have been captured while they were fighting in violation of the Geneva Conventions. We do, in fact, have the right to execute them for that on the spot; mostly because the creators of the Geneva Convention universally loathed guerrilla armies, but they remain not protected.
If you want to argue that this should be changed, then please, by all means: let's see the relevant statutes. You're the one arguing for a variant interpetation of international law, so you get to be the one who has to prove your case. We're not under any obligation to do your work for you.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Since even the mighty UN is unable to take a stand they can stick with concerning persons such as these except to say that if the US is doing it it's bad, odd though that human rights are not important in countries such as Africa where so many die each day while the UN does nothing and the worst abusers of human rights sit on councils at the UN and denounce the United States.
There is no international law you can cite, only the outrage you feel in your heart. Are you not a believer in the courts? The courts that gave us abortion "rights" have found nothing to advance your cause in Gitmo or must we shop it more to find an opening, or for someone to invent some rights?
While perfection is demanded of the United States in all it's actions, perfection is elusive concerning these people who are aligned by professed religious beliefs that call upon them to kill everyone else who is not so aligned, including you. Are those the rights you so strongly support? Religious rights? The right to kill, maim, rape and force others into slavery?
Are these the rights you claim they are denied?
I am for the denial of THOSE rights indeed.
And you?
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
are more evidence that we should NOT be taking prisoners in the GWOT. Rather than taking prisoners, who then are the subject of argument over the "rights" they should have, we should simply shoot any potential detainee on the spot.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
to death before you question them. Says so in the Bauer Book of Detainee Etiquette.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Two options... Pull all the US troops out of GITMO, leave the terrorists locked up. When the gravy train that brings their UN approved meals and heath care around stops, let 'em break out.
Option two. Shoot all of them in a massive escape attempt.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
I guess that doesn't come as a shock but I have felt that Gitmo, since Day 1, was nothing more than an attempt to create mechanism that stripped the detainees of whatever rights we felt they shouldn't have. Not POWs, not criminals. Some special group that has never been completely defined. I believe that sends exactly the WRONG message to the entire world. It tells them that we are a nation of laws except when we decide we don't want to be.
The New York Times, not to mention the Secretary of Defense, might consider the notion that there may well be those in this world for whom Guantanamo Bay is a reminder of the strength and resolve of the United States, and the obstacle we present to their jihad. Wouldn’t closing it constitute a victory for them—a non-conventional victory, yes, in this non-conventional war, but an important one nonetheless?
Gitmo is a reminder of our strength? In what way? And how in the world would this be a victory for them? I hardly think that they would consider having the prisoners moved to a different location a victory. They're still in jail.
What might have happened had the detention center not existed and we had not been able to hold these individuals? If just two or three had been left at large because we couldn’t detain them on foreign soil and we didn’t want to bring them to the US?
Extremely flawed reasoning. Wouldas and couldas are utterly meaningless and can be used to justify all sorts of very bad acts. Let's not go down that path.
You seem to dismiss the criticisms of Gitmo out of hand as if the only reason that people oppose it is because of their opposition to the Administration. That is simply not the case.
There was a reason why Gitmo was selected in the first place. We knew that the host country's objections could be ignored whereas in virtually every other foreign base we would need to accede to the local government to some degree and it was highly likely that our actions would upset the host country.
What is wrong with actually setting up a legal construct for these detainees?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy