The New York Times has an article today discussing the possibility that Michigan could become the adoptive home of some of the Guantanamo detainees when that facility closes. Members of the administration are still trying to figure out what to do with Gitmo detainees once the President makes good on his promise to close the facility. Cash-strapped Michigan could be a suitable destination because the state's max-security facility at Standish is set to be closed, just another victim of the state's budget disaster.
Now, the article in the Times focuses on the novel idea of incorporating detention and court services all in one convenient location. Think of it as a Wal-Mart for terror suspects. Although this is an intriguing idea that deserves attention unto itself (starting with questions about jurisdiction), I was more interested in a couple other quotes from the article.
Without the slightest hint of irony, or any recognition of the incongruity of the two statements, the author of the article writes:
"As many as an estimated 170 of the detainees now at Guantanamo are unlikely to be prosecuted. Some are being held indefinitely because government officials do not want to take the chance of seeing them acquitted in a trial." (emphasis added)
Later in the article comes this nugget:
"Administration officials say they are determined to keep to [President Obama's] promise of closing Guantanamo in January as a worldwide example of America's commitment to humane and just treatment of the detainees."
Just for a moment, put to the side all of the information that has been made public about detainee abuse and 'harsh interrogation techniques' (aka, torture). Even without all of that bad behavior, isn't the above quoted language enough to make patriotic Americans stand up and say, "Now, wait just a minute! We're going restore America's reputation as a humane and just nation by incarcerating people without charges and without the opportunity to confront the accuser in a court of law?"
Can anyone make sense of that reasoning? For years, the government has been beating the "these guys are the worst of the worst" drum. Now, despite the continued insistence that these are the devil's own, the government is having second thoughts about the certainty of convictions? (read here about the remarkable efficacy of federal courts handling terror cases) After a decade of lies from our government ('Saddam is in cahoots with Qaeda,' 'Saddam has WMD,' 'This administration is committed to transparency') we're just supposed to take them at their word and turn a blind eye as they defile the Constitution?
No comments:
Post a Comment