[NYT] WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is expected to announce on Tuesday that it has selected a prison in northwestern Illinois to house terrorism suspects now being held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in a major step toward shutting down that military detention facility.Strategically, the only prison better situated than Alcatraz is Gitmo, unless it was the Chateau D'If.
Now, they want to hold them indefinitely near our civilian populations. If I wasn't a Christian, I'd say just off 'em and be done with it. But since that's not an option, prosecute them or let them go; rule of law and all that.
3 comments:
...prosecute them or let them go..
I think that's the driving force behind this move. Guantanamo is technically outside the US, so the constitution doesn't apply (or they're getting away with saying that); thus, suspects can be held there indefinitely. By moving the suspects to Illinois, there must be "rule of law," as you say.
--Shoe
Constitution applies to anyone in US custody. Putting them in Gitmo doesn't get them around that.
For the record, I am not, and never was in favor of holding them indefinitely at Gitmo or anywhere else without trial.
I know there are real dangers to defense and intelligence gathering methods if particular individuals were brought to trial, but that's the breaks when you live by the rule of law.
So again I say, "charge 'em or let 'em go". But you don't have to bring them mainland to do it. Closing Gitmo is more a political stunt for the bleeding hearts than a real strategy.
Post a Comment