Guantanamo Bay

[dagaz]

You raise some good points, this definitely isn't a clear cut issue, and I am merely speaking my opinions.

 

Some of them are not being held as terrorists though but as POWs in a war against terror. They have not committed acts of terror but have engaged in war against us, a war which we are still fighting.

 

Well, actually I see it the other way around. WE (as in the 'coalition of the willing') were the ones that invaded Afghanistan and removed the ruling party from power, even though the links between the Taliban and AQ were pretty tenuous (not handing them over does not mean that they were part of any of the AQ plots). Admittedly the Taliban have a long history of human rights abuses themselves, but these weren't the reasons we went to war with them.

 

 

 

This situation has given rise to the concept of military tribunals to sort them out but that has been challenged in U.S. court so that has effectively stalled the process. Fortunately it is a case where a ruling is expected from the Supreme Court before their summer break this year so maybe we will know something soon.

 

As I understand it the reason that the military tribunal has been challenged in the US Supreme Court was that many (including several military appointed prosecutores, see here) were concerned that the tribunals were inherently unfair and heavily favoured towards a guilty verdict:

 

It’s beyond argument that the rules the tribunals at GTMO use are weak and that, as an epistemological matter, we can’t trust their determinations. The “Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT),” which decide whether a prisoner is an “enemy combatant,” use a low standard of proof -- a preponderance of the evidence, with a “rebuttable presumption” in favor of the government’s evidence. The government can use notoriously unreliable evidence: hearsay, evidence coerced out of prisoners, and “classified” evidence kept secret from the prisoner. Access to lawyers is forbidden, and only one of the military “judges” is required to have a law degree.

 

Full article here

[C1ay]

This clouds the issue further, especially for those that shouldn't be at Guantanamo.

 

Released Detainees Rejoining The Fight

 

At least 10 detainees released from the Guantanamo Bay prison after U.S. officials concluded they posed little threat have been recaptured or killed fighting U.S. or coalition forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan, according to Pentagon officials.

 

One of the repatriated prisoners is still at large after taking leadership of a militant faction in Pakistan and aligning himself with al Qaeda, Pakistani officials said. In telephone calls to Pakistani reporters, he has bragged that he tricked his U.S. interrogators into believing he was someone else.

 

More....

[TheBigDog]

Yes. Concentration camps are stunningly wonderful things. It's a great way to meet new people, get lots of air, and you won't get unemployed. You even get people to look after you and make sure you don't lose focus. It is also an easy way to lose weight and change your lifestyle.

 

It worked great under Hitler, Stalin, Mao and most other dictators. It worked in the US for giving Japanese a holiday during WWII. It worked great in modern times too, like the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. It apparently works great in the modern USA today.

 

Three cheers for humanity and intelligence, hooray for life. Hooray for Guanatanamo Bay Holiday Center and the way it shows our deep respect for the rights of human beings.

I would like to note some distincions between what is happening at Guantanamo the other things listed here.

 

Hitler engaged in genocide. He used concentration camps for slave labor, medical experimentation, and a cheap way of slaughtering people he did not want. Millions were killed. None were released until Hitler was crushed by the allies.

 

Stalin used camps to house political opponents and friends alike. He used them to invoke terror on his own people. Some were released after years of internment. Millions were killed.

 

Mao eliminated resistance by eliminating intellectuals. An entire generation of the thinkers were humiliated, interned and killed so the word of Mao would not be questioned by logic. He used terror against his own people and the typical lies of communist revolution. Millions were killed.

 

In Guantanamo Bay we have some 500 men who were captured on battle fields. Aside from 3 suisides they are all still alive. They are fed well, receive medical care and are permitted to worship as they choose. There is absolute certainty that if all of these men were not kept detained then many more people would have been killed on and off of battlefields. In the less than four years that it has existed one third of those detained have been released or turned over to their own government.

 

We should not compare Guantanamo to those attrocities. Aside from armed guards and fences they have nothing in common.

 

As for the internment of Japanese during WWII; this again is a horse of a different color than Guantanamo Bay and on a whole different spectrum of inhumane compared to the mass butchery of the other sighted examples. On February 19th 1942, President Roosevelt signed an executive order authorizing the internment of 120,000 Japanese in the United States. About 2/3 of those detained were Citizens of the US. There were two cases brought before the supreme court during the internments that both ruled in favor of the executive order. 1200 of those interned were let out to join the war effort. The rest remained in the camps. In 1944, two and a half years after he started it, President Roosevelt ended the executive order. It took until the end of 1945 to empty all of the camps.

 

I hope this brings into focus the vast difference between Guantanamo and the historic events of the past. 50,000,000 (mainly civilians) dead with millions more imprisoned (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) compared to 500 (armed combatants) interned with 3 suicides.

 

There are questions about the legality of the policy, and those will be answered. But the facts simply do not permit the comparisons. They are not in the same league. They are not even the same game.

 

Bill

[dagaz]

From today's Sydney Morning Herald website:

 

Military tribunal for Hicks illegal

 

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the military commissions set up by the Bush Administration to try prisoners, including David Hicks, at Guantanamo Bay are illegal and must be abandoned.

 

In a major blow to the Administration the five-to-three decision of the court said the Geneva Conventions covering prisoners of war had to be applied to proceedings against all prisoners at Guantanamo.

 

Full aricle here.

 

Also:

 

Ruling no surpri to Hicks's lawyer

 

Marine Major Michael Mori, the US military lawyer appointed to defend Hicks, said the ruling did not surprise him.

 

"The military lawyers who have been defending the defendants at Guantanamo have been saying this all along," Major Mori said.

 

"Any real lawyer who isn't part of the administration knows this violates the Geneva Conventions."

 

Full article here.

[Tormod]

People captured on the battle field who have been fighting against you in armed combat do not need to be convicted. I hope that point does not get lost.

 

Of course they do. The can be *detained* but not held captive without hope for release. That is why there are international laws in this area.

 

Also, there are *many* camp prisoners at Guantanamo Bay that were *not* caught on the battle field but kidnapped in non-fighting situations.

 

Don't forget that the DoD's justification for holding people at Guantanamo Bay is the *extraordinary* claim that they are "illegal combatants" and as such the DoD do not deem themselves required to follow international law.

 

It is arrogance to an extreme level, and only helps to alienate the US from others. I hope THAT point does not get lost, Bill.

[Tormod]

We should not compare Guantanamo to those attrocities. Aside from armed guards and fences they have nothing in common.

 

Not so. The inmates are not treated well. They are in complete isolation, forced to wear blackened goggles, tied up most of the day, and forced to sit in an awkward position. This is torture, plain and simple.

 

If you don't like my comparison of Guantanamo Bay to a concentration camp, then we will have to disagree on that. But don't attempt to sugarcoat it - it's not a Cuban holiday.

 

As for the internment of Japanese during WWII; this again is a horse of a different color than Guantanamo Bay and on a whole different spectrum of inhumane compared to the mass butchery of the other sighted examples. On February 19th 1942, President Roosevelt signed an executive order authorizing the internment of 120,000 Japanese in the United States. About 2/3 of those detained were Citizens of the US. There were two cases brought before the supreme court during the internments that both ruled in favor of the executive order. 1200 of those interned were let out to join the war effort. The rest remained in the camps. In 1944, two and a half years after he started it, President Roosevelt ended the executive order. It took until the end of 1945 to empty all of the camps.

 

And how does this differ from a concentration camp? Internment of 120,000 people without any question as to the lawfulness of this (including women and children)? And 1% was let out to HELP the people who interned them. Help me see the logic in this, and particularly the humane aspects.

 

I hope this brings into focus the vast difference between Guantanamo and the historic events of the past. 50,000,000 (mainly civilians) dead with millions more imprisoned (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) compared to 500 (armed combatants) interned with 3 suicides.

 

Well, as you mentioned above, the number is 750 (or higher), not 500. But I fail to see why the amount of people should matter. Stalin spent a few decades killing his 50 million victims.

 

Not all of Stalin's victims, nor Hitler's victims, died in camps. I don't think it's fair to use a numbers game here. George Bush doesn't have to kill in Guantanamo Bay to reach a high number. His dad organized the first gulf war, in which 70,000 *children* were killed - imagine a football stadium filled with children. The first war claimed more than 100,000 military casualties.

 

From CNN:

 

In June 1991, the U.S. estimated that more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted and 60,000 were taken prisoner.

 

In fact, during the first Gulf War it is estimated that *at least* 110,000 civilians died, 3/4 of which where children.

 

During the second Gulf War the number of civilian casualties are still being revised but it is estimated at 100,000.

 

So in very brief periods the US and allies managed to kill almost half a million people, counting both civilians and combatants in two wars.

 

All the casualties noted are on the enemy side. The casualties on the US/Allied side are mostly from friendly fire and number in a few thousand. there are very few civilian deaths on the allied side.

 

http://www.ippnw.org/gulfwarfacts.pdf (note: PDF file)

 

Say again, how many people died from terrorism against the US?

[TheFaithfulStone]

But I sense that it is somehow accepted that the human beings we call terrorists are simply going to behave the way that they and it is considered normal, and every isolated incident in the US military is portrayed as the end of humanity as we know it. That is the imbalance in the outrage!!

 

The worst I've advocated for US incidents is that Don Rumsfield should lose his job, while I certainly believe that Osama bin Laden should be executed, along with any of his little terrorist cronies that we happen to capture.

 

That's a pretty big "imbalance of outrage". I'd say I'm much more outraged at Osama than Donny.

 

Furthermore, I don't think that there are that many "innocent" people at Guantanamo. I don't think the number is zero, but I suspect most of those people are in fact terrorists.

 

And I have no problem, holding them, under the Geneva convention until the end of the conflict - which let's face it, is a loooong way in the future.

 

But - there needs to be a way to let the innocent out, and keep the guilty in, while at the same time conforming to the principles that make us the "good ol' US of A" and them a bunch of murdering bastards.

 

TFS

[TheFaithfulStone]

So in very brief periods the US and allies managed to kill almost half a million people, counting both civilians and combatants in two wars.

 

Okay, that's regrettable, but it's not "terrorism." The difference between our dead half-million and the dead 4,000 is a matter of intent and efficiency.

 

We did not target civilians intentionally because they were civilians we just bombed where they happened to be for other reasons. It's regrettable, and I do think the US works to fix it. Probably not hard enough. Perhaps a few in this administration do not regret it as deeply as they should, but I hate to ascribe that level of malevolence to our countries leaders.

 

On the other hand, I think that if Al Qaeda was capable of killing half a million US civilians they would leap at the chance.

 

And as for the civilian casualties in Iraq, I don't think it's fair to blame them all on the United States, since a good portion of them were in fact caused by other Iraqis.

 

TFS

[Tormod]

Okay, that's regrettable, but it's not "terrorism." The difference between our dead half-million and the dead 4,000 is a matter of intent and efficiency.

 

I did not say it is terrorism, TFS. I meant to compare the numbers between the millions killes by the infamous dictators with the deaths of the Gulf Wars, because I think that is a more apt comparison than the one suggested by BigDog.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I think both comparisons are a bit flawed.

 

I guess, in the war scenarios, the issue has been that a lot of people must (regrettably) die so a principle can live. In the Gitmo scenario, the issue has been that a principle must die so a few people can live.

 

I think the only way to judge this is on the worth of the principles.

 

Are the principles of justice, truth and freedom worth lives - I think they are. Are the lives of people worth the sacrifice of those principles? I think they're not.

 

A life so jealously guarded that nothing is worth sacrificing it for is ultimately worth nothing.

 

TFS

[Kayra]

OK, I have read.. and pondered, and read some more.

As I read, my blood starts to boil.

 

I usually try to remain neutral in such things, but no longer. Here is one Canadians perspective on this entire issue. Much is likely my skewed point of view, but there you are.

 

/Rant on

The United States of America.

This is a country that was birthed, and found it's greatness in war.

(A country, in my opinion, that has the basis for being one of the greatest countries in the world.)

 

In seeing the unfairness of the ruling governments, the founding fathers decided that enough was enough.

 

They set about defining basic principles designed to limit what they felt a government could do, in order to ensure certain freedoms.

 

All laws must be measured against the spirit of these principles, and those found wanting disallowed. If an amendment of the founding principles is required, it must follow due process and public discussion.

 

The First amendment defined 5 freedoms. (25% of Americans today can not name 2). Freedom of the press, religion, speech and assembly, as well as the right to petition government for redress of grievances.

 

Others followed, and each appropriately reflected the general opinion of the majority of citizens at that time. It did this through the same due process and public discussion.

 

That my friends is the foundation of greatness. Any law found in violation of these principles must not be allowed, and is generally struck down. These principles were enacted to ensure that the government always acted in the best interests ALL of it's citizens, and not any select group or individual. (which, by the way, makes Social Insurance illegal)

 

Now on to the current situation.

 

Not only must all laws be held to the standard of the spirit of the principles that define who and what the United States is, but also all actions taken by your government on your behalf. To allow your government to do any less is to spit in the face of every person that fought for the very existence of your country.

 

The current government, fettered by it's own pesky laws, has seen fit to violate or circumvent repeatedly the spirit of the very principles it was founded on. This is being done in order to have an expedient solution to a rather retractable problem.

 

Because the circumvention was so easy for the government to accomplish, no true effort has been made to find alternatives that might work within the founding principles. Because the attack on American soil was so devastating, many find the violations of the founding principles perpetrated by the government to be acceptable actions.

 

And that angers me. It sickens my heart to see something with such potential for greatness die such an ignoble death.

 

The United States is losing the very thing that made it great, not because of it's government or it's leaders, but because of what it's people are allowing it's leaders to do in their name.

 

Consider the current situation as a crucible to test the people of the United States of America's resolve to uphold the spirit of the founding principles. Great cracks are beginning to show in the very foundation of your country, but I do not believe it is to late to repair the damage.

[nkt]

TFS,

that is a beautifully put idea, and one I have been trying to get across to people for a long time. Certainly since just after GW started GW2.

 

If we must break all our laws and throw all our objections to terroristic behaviour by our own troops and leaders, then what are we fighting for? Because we want to be seen as better terrorists than them? Because, if we ignore the good part, the bit that we hope sets us aside and lets us sleep well at night, in order to beat the monster, are we not become the monster ourself?

[Kayra]

/Rant still on

 

Guantanamo Bay represents a situation whereby the American government feels it can justify it's right to take anyone outside of the United States, declare them an "illegal combatant", and hold them indefinitely.

 

No due process occurs.

No justification required.

No proof is needed.

No recourse is available.

No public scrutiny is allowed.

 

If the people of the United States can not see the absolute insanity of allowing a government this kind of power, then it is only the people that are to blame for the consequences.

[TheBigDog]

Tormod, I really like you to much to want to dwell on a topic where we are obviously in such distant disagreement. I concede that the facts we are discussing can be seen in different lights depending upon your perspective on the events.

 

I do want to comment on a couple of point you have made because I think it is important to have both views of the events voiced in the discussion.

 

The can be *detained* but not held captive without hope for release. That is why there are international laws in this area.

The fact is that 1/3 of those detained have already been released. How is that beging held without hope for release?

Not so. The inmates are not treated well. They are in complete isolation, forced to wear blackened goggles, tied up most of the day, and forced to sit in an awkward position. This is torture, plain and simple.

This is a popular rumor, but is simply not true. Have things like this been done there? Absolutely. Do they happen to every prisoner every day? Absolutely not. That they did happen is a point of contraversy. But overstating the facts to say that this is the constant existance of the detainees is simply wrong.

And how does this differ from a concentration camp? Internment of 120,000 people without any question as to the lawfulness of this (including women and children)? And 1% was let out to HELP the people who interned them. Help me see the logic in this, and particularly the humane aspects.

My point is not in how it started, but in how it ended. The camps ended before the war. The government realized that they were not necessary and ended them, even when the Supreme Court had ruled that it was legal to have the camps. Those in the camps retained their right to fight the internment in court, which they lost, that those in other concentration camps are not given. Families were not split apart, in fact over 5000 children were born in the camps. This is not the high point of American history, and if you want to call it a concentration camp that is fine. We can disagree on that point.

Not all of Stalin's victims, nor Hitler's victims, died in camps. I don't think it's fair to use a numbers game here. George Bush doesn't have to kill in Guantanamo Bay to reach a high number. His dad organized the first gulf war, in which 70,000 *children* were killed - imagine a football stadium filled with children. The first war claimed more than 100,000 military casualties.

 

From CNN:

In June 1991, the U.S. estimated that more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted and 60,000 were taken prisoner.

 

In fact, during the first Gulf War it is estimated that *at least* 110,000 civilians died, 3/4 of which where children.

 

During the second Gulf War the number of civilian casualties are still being revised but it is estimated at 100,000.

 

So in very brief periods the US and allies managed to kill almost half a million people, counting both civilians and combatants in two wars.

 

All the casualties noted are on the enemy side. The casualties on the US/Allied side are mostly from friendly fire and number in a few thousand. there are very few civilian deaths on the allied side.

 

http://www.ippnw.org/gulfwarfacts.pdf (note: PDF file)

Here is where I am posting gingerly...

 

George Bush organized the war? There seems to be no mention of the Kuwait invasion. Or the murder, rape and mutilation of the Kuwaiti citizens at the hands of the Iraqi forces. It is as though out of thin air the US decided to wage war against the poor unfortunate Iraqis and kill them in droves. That is patently not the case. And while there were civilian deaths in Iraq as a result of the war the coalition forces did everything in their power to execute their warplan without hurting civilians. While there were some mistakes made there was an emphasis on not waging war against the civilians. Let us not forget either that after the coalition attack began the main thing that Iraqis did was shoot rockets at Israel's civilian population - a nation that was not part of the coalition.

 

The paper goes on to talk about how after the attacks by the coalition stopped the death count continued to climb because of the destruction of medical facilities, lack of medicine and sanctions against Iraq. This of course had nothing to do with the leader of Iraq invading a neighboring country and bringing the wrath of the rest of the world down on his own people, or his greedy channeling of funds to his own purposes at the expense of his people, or his profiteering and running his own black market to turn health and food supplies sent to his country into his own wealth. All blame for the gulf war rests with Saddam. George Bush (41) lead the world reaction to Saddam's aggressive acts. And the people of Iraq and the whole world continue to pay for Saddam's insanity.

 

The 110,000 number claimed above as being during the war is actually the number sighted in the paper as happening *after* the war as a result of mainly famine and disease. Did the embezzlment of "Oil for food" funds which included not just food but medical aid as well have anything to do with this? The civilian casualties sighted in the paper for during the war are 2500 to 3500. That is not the 110,000 and 70,000 children implied.

 

And for those who are saying to themselves that the US built up Saddam, so the US is somehow responsible for that monster; how does that explain the Russian tanks, French and Russian jets, French and Russian helicopters, French and Russian missles and rockets, Russian small arms, French and Russian landmines, Russian anti-aircraft systems, Russian radar systems... all of the weapons systems employed by the Iraqi armed forces.

 

But all of this takes us far from Guantanamo Bay and the topic of this thread. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next months as a result of the Supreme Court ruling. My guess is that they will probably stay at Guantanamo, and that some minor changes will be made to comply with the Geneva Convention. But time will tell.

 

The whole United States is a process at work. There are a collection of political forces created by the Constitution that when weighed against one another provide an end balance. Checks and balances does not have anything to do with parties, it has to do with the branches of the Government. And these events go to show exactly how the US is so different from many other countries, and how the checks and balances of the system work in practice. Many have suggested that this is the darkest moment in American history. I would argue the Japanese internment was a darker moment as it was done purely on the basis of race. Justice for those interned at Guantanamo will come with time and be plain to those who look. There will be some mistakes, as there are always some mistakes in human endevours. We will all find out together as it happens.

 

Bill

[Michaelangelica]

/Rant still on

 

No due process occurs.

No justification required.

No proof is needed.

No recourse is available.

No public scrutiny is allowed.

 

No human rights

 

Now today I hear the US Supreme Court has declared Military tribunals illegal.

So the very reason people are there for is illegal.

 

I think the terrorists have won. They have show that "Truth, Justice and the American way" (to quote a famous comic) is a sham.

 

The United States is a country of laws with an open system of constitutional

government by checks and balances, and an independent judiciary and press.

Kevin Edward Moley

Ambassador

Permanent Representative

of the United States of America

Ho Ho Ho

 

 

Same report http://www.fairgofordavid.org/pubdocs/UN_16_02_06_un_guantanamo.pdf

The UN Commission on human rights re Guantanimo

International human rights law is applicable to the analysis of the situation of

detainees in Guantánamo Bay. Indeed, human rights law applies at all times, even

during situations of emergency and armed conflicts.

 

Release David Hicks. He is an Australian who has been held for five years without trial. Much of that in solitary (but that's not torture?)

He is an idiot; but he is not a criminal. He has committed no crime.

There is nothing he could be charged under Australian Law if he returned to Australia. SEE:

http://www.fairgofordavid.org/htmlfiles/main.htm

[Tormod]

Tormod, I really like you to much to want to dwell on a topic where we are obviously in such distant disagreement. I concede that the facts we are discussing can be seen in different lights depending upon your perspective on the events.

 

This is important to agree upon and since we are both attacking the ball, not the player, I think it's a good discussion.

 

The fact is that 1/3 of those detained have already been released. How is that beging held without hope for release?

 

I think this needs some nuances. When they were captured, they were given no indication of how long this would be going on. There was *not* a war going on, except the allies' War on Terror, which had no clear target. My point is that the captives held at Guantanamo Bay has (or let's say had) not been offered any legal help, nor had they been given the status of POW's which would have required a different treatment. So they had no idea how long they would have to stay there.

 

I'd also like to point out that for a long time we had no clue here in Europe who were actually held there. There were rumours about Swedes and Brits etc, and while their respective governments tried to find out, it took ages before this was revealed. So not only was the US extremely unwilling to cooperate about the status of these prisoners - they were even unwilling to inform the world about who they were.

 

My point is not in how it started, but in how it ended. The camps ended before the war. The government realized that they were not necessary and ended them, even when the Supreme Court had ruled that it was legal to have the camps. Those in the camps retained their right to fight the internment in court, which they lost, that those in other concentration camps are not given. Families were not split apart, in fact over 5000 children were born in the camps. This is not the high point of American history, and if you want to call it a concentration camp that is fine. We can disagree on that point.

 

I'll let this rest with two sentences: What you are describing above is by all interpretations I can find, concentration camps which detains people against their right, even children and women, for an indefinite time. How it ends does not change the way it begins.

 

But I'll agree to disagree. (We do that quite well, don't we). :D

 

As for the numbers of civilian deaths in the Gulf Wars, my numbers are indeed from various sources. Just search Google for "civilian casualties in the gulf wars". When I lived in Illinois during Operation Desert Storm, there was a great commentary in a US newspaper which reported on the current death toll of 50,000 children. It's where I got the football stadium analogy from. The number of deaths is sickening.

 

I agree we cannot blame it all on George Bush (either of them), but I think it's easy to see that Guantanami Bay ties into the two Gulf Wars.

 

I'll stop there as I am running out of time but I find this topic very interesting.

[Kayra]

The fact is that 1/3 of those detained have already been released. How is that beging held without hope for release?

 

Bill

 

Since there is no civilian oversight at this facility, we know practically nothing about how many detainees have been released. We have no official means of determining the veracity of any of these statements. Not insignificant discrepancies have already been discovered in statements released by the government.

 

We do not know:

Who decides who is released

What process determines this.

Is the process fair (assuming there is a process)

How well they are treated on a daily basis.

Etc.

 

I truly hope that nobody is mistaking me for a bleeding heart on this. I fully understand the need for organizations like the CIA, and understand what they need to do, and the requirement for a "means justify the ends" attitude. Such dark things are paramount to protect oneself.

 

But understand that such means do come at a cost. If a spy is captured, the country will disavow them.. They are on their own and the country that captured them can do as they please with him/her. If that person can be tied back to the country of origin, international consequences often occur. This is the game they play. With stakes that high, scale is minimal and precautions are many. Care is taken at every step.

 

Not so at Guantanamo Bay. While not open to the public, it is publicly known. Publicly admitted to by the US government. Responsibility for it has been accepted by the US. They now seek to convince the world that they have the right to violate their own principles in order to protect....something that a lot of good people have died for over the last couple hundred years.

 

 

 

The United States, and many other countries, are under attack by an organization that does not fit any previous pigeon holes, and as such does not properly allow many laws to attach to it.

 

It is not a sovereign state, has no borders, and no official government. No economy that can be disrupted, no borders to blockade, and no infrastructure that can be easily identified. It's people are bound not by geography, but ideology. It is no wonder the world governments are so concerned.

 

 

Something has to be done. Is Guantanamo Bay it?

 

If it truly is, then move it onto US soil. Change or amend the principles your law is based on to reflect this new need, and get on with it. It is the only way.

 

If not, stop circumventing your own laws, and shut that place down. Find another way.