I don't know what the solution is. Despite my military service, and knowing what some of these folks have done, including what some of them have done after being released, I'm inclined to try them in a war crimes tribunal, not through normal civil or criminal proceedings.
The thing of it is, waging war is not against international law, and without having actually comitted crimes against the laws of war, such as "deliberate instigation of aggressive wars, extermination of racial and religious groups, murder and mistreatment of prisoners of war, and the muder, mistreatment, and deportation of hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of countries occupied by..."
Oh, wait - that was World War II, and the accusations levies by the prosecutors on October 18, 1945, at the Nuremberg Trials.
Reading the above, however, it's clear that much of the acitivities which landed these "detainees" in Gitmo is most certainly along the lines of the prosecution during the Nuremburg Trials.
Try 'em as war criminals. You can't just hold them indefinately, but whatever we do, folks, do NOT just let the heinous people go!
Ok, fine - let's let 'em go. While we're at it, let's empty the nearest max security prisons in and around your hometowns.
Seriously, and please - I ask you to reconsider. These are not "nice but unfortunate people" as some folks in the media would have you believe. Few of them acted in ways better than anyone on trial following WWII, and many have committed atrocities which have been far worse (the ordering of beheadings and suicide bombings of civilians come to mind).
"Civilization" has been around for several thousand years. If we're going to continue to have a civilized society, we must, absolutely, hold everyone accountable to certain broadly-acceptable standards of behavior. Nearly all people would agree the deliberate killing of innocent civilians is an atrocity which should never go unpunished (it's called murder, in case you're not familier with the term), yet the quagmire is that we targeted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki" as a way of ending the war in the Pacific with the least loss of life on both sides. Most people forget the psychological importance of the targets, as well as the herculenean task of invading the Japanese homeland. It was either use the bombs or suffer further losses of millions on each side before the Japanese would surrender. It was a choice of the lesser of two evils.
Terrorists don't choose between a lesser of evils, nor do they bother with more traditional means of electing and/or participating in governments or free speech as a way of improving their society. Instead, they resort to murder, mayhem, sensationalism, all means of violently forced coersian, and often on non-combatants at that, in order to achieve their largely religious or ideological goals.
How would you view a local military with oversight of a small colony who gathers about a hundred members of that colony in the church, then chains the doors and orders it burned?
How would you view some guy who decides to, plans, and succeeds in blowing up a major Oklahoma office building, killing 168 innocent men, women, and children, and injuring 450 others?
I'm sorry for this face of terrorism, which those of us here in America know quite well. The first is from a scene in the movie, The Patriot. The second is not a scene many of us would like to remember. I need not mention the twin towers except as in passing.
Make no mistake. This is the face of terrorism. Their goal is to accomplish this mayhem in order to draw attention to their cause while manipulating you to "feel their plight."
Don't. Please, do not believe in their ploy.
They are there in Gitmo for a reason, and that reason is that they have violated the laws of war, some barely, some massively.
I was never privvy to any details on any of the inmates at Gitmo. I do suspect, however, that some were detained and sent there not because they had either committed or ordered any atrocities themselves, but because they were knowledgeable of those who had. You may feel a serious empathy for those folks. In a way, I do too, except for one thing: Accessory after the fact. Here in the U.S., as well as in nearly all of the leading 100 countries in our world, it's a crime, as it helps enable the criminals to continue to get away with criminal activity.
In the case of those at Gitmo, if those who are knowledgeable of those who had committed atrocities are choosing to remain silent, then they are accessories after the fact to terrorism. They are choosing to support terrorism, rather than choosing to support the rule of law in our world.
I don't know what happens to those whom were caught up in the events but who readily cooperated with international authorities after they were caught. But I do think this is really where the focus needs to be. No, we don't need the particulars! But we do need to know that such folks, if in fact they did not willingly participate in terrorism, that they did in fact willingly participate in helping our civilized society to rid ourselves of terrorism.
If I'm not mistaken, of the two of the individuals associated with turning evidence against McVeigh, one was given immunity for their cooperation and the other was released into the witness protection program.
Good for them!
So why am I focusing on the Murrah bombing? Simple. My Mom was from Oklahoma. Fortunately, she lived. Unfortunately, a couple of her friends did not. I myself lost two friends in the 911 attacks, and have one more in its aftermath.
I absolutely cannot begin to fathom the utter loss of life during WWII, Kmer Rouge, Ghana, Rwuanda, Yugoslavia, or Darfu.
I do ask you, however, to never forget that it has several names, depending on both the reason as to why its done, as well as its intended outcome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism" is another.
So, back to the Iraq/Afghan wars and their "detainees"? Still think they should be released?
