UK calls for Guantanamo closure

[Filuwaúrdjan]

UK calls for Guantanamo closure

[KEmperor]

Haven't they been doing this for a while?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Haven't they been doing this for a while?

Via hints yes. This is a very public/official statement by the Attorney General.

[MasterJedi]

I really don't care what the UK thinks about Guantanamo. It's not theirs, they have no say if we should get rid of it or not.

[MODU]

Heck, even Bush said it should be closed last week.  However, that would be a dumb move, since Gitmo provides us presence in Cuba.  It's not often we have a base in our "enemy's" territory.

[??????????]

I really don't care what the UK thinks about Guantanamo. It's not theirs, they have no say if we should get rid of it or not.

^^^^^^^^^

[Alcon]

I really don't care what the UK thinks about Guantanamo. It's not theirs, they have no say if we should get rid of it or not.

^^^^^^^^^

As an ally, they do not have the right to suggest what we might do?  Do you think that we do not have the right to suggest what they do, or is this more of a case of "we're bigger, so shut up"?

[??????????]

"we're bigger, so shut up"

Exactly.

[Alcon]

"we're bigger, so shut up"

Exactly.

Planning on learning Chinese any time soon?

[KEmperor]

"we're bigger, so shut up"

Exactly.

Planning on learning Chinese any time soon?

Chinese people are traditionally shorter than Americans.

[MODU]

"we're bigger, so shut up"

Exactly.

Planning on learning Chinese any time soon?

Chinese people are traditionally shorter than Americans.

To quote Monty Python:

I like Chinese
I like Chinese
They only come up to your knees
But they are wise and whitty and are willing to please.

[ag]

Heck, even Bush said it should be closed last week.  However, that would be a dumb move, since Gitmo provides us presence in Cuba.  It's not often we have a base in our "enemy's" territory.

There is a difference between the base and the prison. The base has existed for a long time, and nobody (other than Castro, of course) has been talking about closing it: not Bush, not the Brits, not any of the allies. This is strictly between the US and Cuba, and nobody is going to seriously interfere or even offer unsolicited opinions.

What is being discussed is the prison - closing the prison would have exactly no effect on the US presence in Cuba.

[Mr. Morden]

Here's what I don't get.  Many critics have complained that the evidence against many/most of the prisoners at Guantanamo is thin--that many of them have never been members of al Qaeda or the Taliban.  If that's true, then it is of course deplorable.  Those people are entitled to a fair hearing in some sort of venue to establish whether they belong to al Qaeda.

But this criticism seems to always get conflated with a charge along the lines of "they shouldn't be held unless they can be charged with a crime".  But hasn't it been widely accepted throughout history that it's OK to hold enemy combatants prisoner, even if they're not guilty of any sort of "crime" beyond fighting for the enemy?  So as long as we're fighting al Qaeda, don't we have to put such prisoners *somewhere*, whether it be Guantanamo or somewhere else?

[Gabu]

But this criticism seems to always get conflated with a charge along the lines of "they shouldn't be held unless they can be charged with a crime".  But hasn't it been widely accepted throughout history that it's OK to hold enemy combatants prisoner, even if they're not guilty of any sort of "crime" beyond fighting for the enemy?  So as long as we're fighting al Qaeda, don't we have to put such prisoners *somewhere*, whether it be Guantanamo or somewhere else?

The problem is that in the "war on terror", a lot of enemy combatants are not exactly easily identifiable.  Not all are guys wearing enemy uniforms holding guns attempting to kill your men.  A lot (some who are even American citizens) were simply arrested without charge on the grounds of being suspected terrorists.  In 2003, if I recall correctly, there were some 680 people held at Camp Delta, none of whom had ever been allowed to speak with an attorney or anyone from the outside world whatsoever.  The problem with allowing indefinite detainment without charge in this case is that it would then be perfectly permissable for the government to just yank anyone off the street who they wanted, ship them to Guantanamo Bay, and forget about them, because quite frankly, anyone could be a potential enemy combatant in the war on terror.

[Democratic Hawk]

I really don't care what the UK thinks about Guantanamo. It's not theirs, they have no say if we should get rid of it or not.

[ag]

But this criticism seems to always get conflated with a charge along the lines of "they shouldn't be held unless they can be charged with a crime".  But hasn't it been widely accepted throughout history that it's OK to hold enemy combatants prisoner, even if they're not guilty of any sort of "crime" beyond fighting for the enemy?  So as long as we're fighting al Qaeda, don't we have to put such prisoners *somewhere*, whether it be Guantanamo or somewhere else?

In a conventional warfare the US would, of course, be entitled to keep these people in some sort of a POW camp for the duration of the hostilities.
But from this standpoint the Guantamo prison presents huge problems on, at least, 2 grounds.

1. There was some reason why the Geneva conventions on the treatment of the POWs were signed. The US has argued that these are unapplicable here, but that also implies that the grounds on which US detains these guys is unclear as far as the known law is concerned.

2. A conventional warfare the POW, unless they are charged with a crime, would be released at the end of the war. Since nobody has even proposed what would count as the end of the "War on Terror" (in fact, given the definition of the War on Terror there are no grounds to believe that it will ever be over), there is no clear event that would imply the release of the prisoners.

To sum up, the problem is not that the US detains people. The problem is that the US executive has claimed the right to detain people for an indefinite period of time (possibly, lifetime) without accusing them of any crime and without any recourse to any law, be that US domestic law, the international law of war, or anything else whatsoever. 

Of course, this is not uprecedented even among major powers or US allies.  In WWII the USSR has done this on a major scale, detaining German, Japanese and other POW without any legal protections for decades after the end of the War. Still, this is hardly a sort of an example that one would care to follow (for that matter, the Soviets also imprisoned and executed their own POWs upon their return).

[Mr. Morden]

2. A conventional warfare the POW, unless they are charged with a crime, would be released at the end of the war. Since nobody has even proposed what would count as the end of the "War on Terror" (in fact, given the definition of the War on Terror there are no grounds to believe that it will ever be over), there is no clear event that would imply the release of the prisoners.

I agree, that is a huge problem, and detaining these people for the rest of their lives doesn't seem to make much sense.  But I would like to see more time spent debating what the alternative policy should be.  If US soldiers get in a firefight with al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan, and said al Qaeda forces surrender, what should be done with them?  Should they just be set free?  Should they be tried in an Afghan criminal court?  Is that really practical?  This is a messy situation with no good answers, but very few people seem willing to acknowledge that.