dagblog - Comments for "Memo to the president: here's how you shut Gitmo"

Just to be clear: I like the

Nebton — Tue, 26 May 2009 12:44:31 +0000

In reply to I'm not so naive that I think

Just to be clear: I like the creativity behind your idea. I do think that it's a non-start politically, however. If even one of them kills even one American after getting out, Republicans could very well get re-elected in 2012, even if it ended up saving tens of thousands of lives. (The life being lost always gets more attention than the life that wasn't lost, of course.)

But, as far as such brainstorming ideas go, it's great. I think someone can probably do better, but I don't think I can, so good for putting it out there.

I'm not so naive that I think

acanuck — Mon, 25 May 2009 20:49:03 +0000

In reply to As for the political fallout,

I'm not so naive that I think Fox and friends wouldn't be all over such a move. But since the right has scared most congresscritters into a not-in-my-backyard stance, Obama can cite that as justification for reducing the number of detainees you've got to keep and somehow dispose of. He can be pretty persuasive.

And when you do put the last holdouts on trial, their refusal to renounce jihad in exchange for freedom looks to me like prima facie evidence that they pose a serious danger and should stay locked up. In my ideal world, every case gets disposed of: you either walk free on parole, or you get your day in court; nobody gets held indefinitely without trial.

As for the political fallout,

Nebton — Mon, 25 May 2009 20:01:49 +0000

In reply to That's just it. We actually

As for the political fallout, nobody is going to get much mileage out of denouncing something that works

It's like we've witnessed two entirely different histories…

Maybe it's just that your history has been experienced from Canada?

Seconded. What are the rules

Nebton — Mon, 25 May 2009 19:56:49 +0000

In reply to I move that henceforth we

Seconded. What are the rules for carrying a motion at dagblog?

That's just it. We actually

acanuck — Sun, 24 May 2009 03:51:00 +0000

In reply to First, let me clarify that my

That's just it. We actually can release them, once there's an ironclad guarantee they won't create mischief. I suspect the vast majority would leap at this chance. Some are actually innocents against whom our suspicions are unfounded, others are jihadis who will figure they've done enough for the cause and are owed a peaceful retirement. Some will refuse parole out of principle, being unwilling to either break their word or give up the fight. Those we get to keep locked up -- it's not like they weren't given a choice.

As for the political fallout, nobody is going to get much mileage out of denouncing something that works. If Obama can end the embarrassment of Gitmo while separating out the handful of diehards who can't be freed, where's the Republican point of attack? But you prepare the ground carefully, sounding out the Islamic scholars on the QT ("Hypothetically, what if we ...?") before finalizing the proposition to be put to the inmates. Ideally, you'd need more than one authoritative source concurring that there's nothing wrong with accepting and abiding by parole -- and willing to go on the record. That last bit might be the trickiest aspect.

As for Schrodinger's Detainees, I'm trying to puzzle that one out: So they're in a closed box, and each of them is both half-dead and half-alive -- and remains that way until we open the box. OK, I guess the metaphor works.

Oh, by the way, there is one fly in the ointment. The plan does carry a faint whiff of hypocrisy, since the U.S. military bars its own members from accepting parole. I suppose that could be quietly changed before the get-out-of-Gitmo-free deal is put on the table.

I move that henceforth we

DF — Sun, 24 May 2009 00:38:41 +0000

In reply to First, let me clarify that my

I move that henceforth we refer to Category 5 as "Schrödinger's Detainees".

A novel idea. It might

DF — Sat, 23 May 2009 22:14:28 +0000

In reply to Memo to the president: here's how you shut Gitmo

A novel idea. It might actually have some efficacy, but I wouldn't count on it being implemented as it is fatally flawed in that it imbues the actors in question with human qualities like integrity.

First, let me clarify that my

Orlando — Sat, 23 May 2009 21:33:52 +0000

In reply to Memo to the president: here's how you shut Gitmo

First, let me clarify that my questions yesterday weren't posed as a "what do we do with them if we can't keep them in Gitmo?" scenario. Regardless of where we keep them, we have to decide what to do with these category 5 guys, who can't be tried, can't be released, and can't be held indefinitely.

I think your idea is intriguing and has the potential to win the United States points in the Muslim world. Points that are, unfortunately, sure to be erased when President Obama loses his re-election campaign after the Right goes absolutely crazy with the "Obama consults Muslim clerics so he must really be a secret Muslim campaign ads."