tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8241445666161004335.post6945156890827866502..comments2024-01-20T15:51:35.268-06:00Comments on And So it Goes in Shreveport: The Guantanamo ConundrumPat Austin Beckerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767059128758168960noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8241445666161004335.post-79605675633598737592008-11-24T19:32:00.000-06:002008-11-24T19:32:00.000-06:00Well-written article. I think the writer does a g...Well-written article. I think the writer does a good job of summarizing in the end: <BR/><BR/><B>"The faults of the Bush administration go beyond its strange failure to make its case to the public. Its refusal to release a complete list of the remaining detainees is an example of secrecy taken too far. Its use of techniques of dubious legality and morality to extract information is rightly questioned. And the military commissions approved by President Bush have proceeded at a snail's pace-only two detainees have been tried. <BR/><BR/>It is possible that the Obama administration will create a special national security court to handle some of the cases. This is not a bad idea. <BR/><BR/>When the Bush administration sent the first detainees to the U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay in 2002, it was improvising-understandable in a situation without precedent. The captured jihadists and terrorist agents were not conventional prisoners of war, and they were not ordinary criminals. In the ensuing seven years, the administration failed to replace its stopgap measure with an institutional response seen as legitimate. Bush's successors should remember, however, that he took the steps he did in the context of a war against enemies who are still seeking to attack our homeland. President Bush, whatever his faults, protected America after September 11, 2001. Shortly, it will fall to President Obama to do the same."</B><BR/><BR/>The administration's creation of Gitmo was completely justified, considering the circumstances under which it was created. Dangerous people were placed there in a time of "war", but at some point, you've got to establish some kind of system for dealing with them. It was the administration's responsibility to figure out a way to handle these people in a manner which establishes a precedent for how our country deals with this in the future AND upholds our constitutional and morals as a society. Its 7 years after 9/11 and we still haven't gotten beyond our first idea. So, we're left with the Guantanamo Conundrum. <BR/><BR/>The administration simply never felt obliged to figure out how to apply our constitutional values to this new issue of terrorism and terrorist detainees. That doesn't mean that the detainees are given OUR rights as citizens. It means, the way we deal with others reflects upon us as a society. That's why we do participate in the Geneva Convention, that's why we don't carpet bomb villages with civillians even if we know there are combatants in that village, that's why we ally ourselves with countries we feel to be good and righteous. I think when Obama talks about regaining our moral stature, it refers to just that. We can hardly proclaim goodness and righteousness, and serves as a moral compass for the world, until we find suitable ways for dealing with our enemies while at the same time protecting our people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8241445666161004335.post-76919937397166684542008-11-24T17:19:00.000-06:002008-11-24T17:19:00.000-06:00"Club Gitmo, the tropical retreat from the stresse..."Club Gitmo, the tropical retreat from the stresses of Jihad!" Rush Limbaugh. <BR/><BR/>So, America's "Cowboy" policy on handling enemy combatants is detaining them on American property in a foreign country. HORRORS!<BR/><BR/>What could possilby the the chief complaint from an American or Allied soldier about the Jihadists' policy on handling them when they were captured. If there ever had been one who lived, I imagine they would have told you they would rather have been detained.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com