Why is the focus on Guantanamo?

[Jack Rabbit]

There's been a lot of sentiment to close down the neocon gulag at Guantanamo. Doing so will barely put a dent in the problem. This isn't the right question to ask.

Guantanamo and the other detentions facilities in Bush's network can stay open as far as I am concerned as long as they cease to be gulags and the regime (or the administration that replaces it after it is removed from power) begins to respect the rights of those held as prisoners of war or as other criminal suspects under the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions.

That means that torture and humiliating treatment stop, not just at Guantanamo, but all of these prisons.

That means that, in accordance with the Third Geneva Convention, those detained in combat are recognized as prisoners of war until a court of law (not G. W. Bush) rules otherwise.

That means that any prisoner of war or other detainee charged with any crime will not have his legal rights abridged.

That means that prisoners of war or other combat detainees are not held indefinitely but are repatriated once hostilities cease.

There are about forty facilities in Bush's offshore network of gulags. Guantanamo is only one of them; there have been over a hundred deaths reported of those in US custodies at these facilities, but none of them at Guantanamo.

We don't need to shut down Guantanamo. We need to open Guantanamo and Bush's other gulags to international inspection to assure that those detained are being treated according the Geneva Conventions.

That is what we should be asking.

[politicaholic]

1. I hate you libruls with yer "rational thought"...

an' yer "intellectual compromise".

The Bush administration's complete distain for the opinions of anything not purely American, and above that, right wing American, would not allow any kind of international investigation. The administration's rejection of the world court and absolute verbal dismantling of the UN since 2002 should have shown you that.

Even when a democrat is elected in 2008 there will be a half assed investigation that will conclude very little because when it comes down to it, the last thing the US needs is more of a blemish than it already has.

No matter how big or how many sticks you brandish, that dead horse will not rise.

[damntexdem]

2. Nope, close Gitmo ...

and give the land back to Cuba.

Then close Abu Ghraib, and give the COUNTRY back to the Iraqis.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. How about Bagram?

Again, there are about forty gulags in Bush's network. Do we close them all? If so, what do we do with those legitimately detained in the WoT? If not, do we continue to give the regime carte blanche to commit crimes against humanity in the name of fighting terror or do we insist that he follow the rules?

The point that I am trying to make is the closing Guantanamo would be treating a symptom, not the disease.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Maybe they're planning on shutting Gitmo down and then saying

"problem solved".

Most people, particularly those who only follow the corporate media, are aware of only two prisons - Gitmo and Abu Graihb.

I remember a single mention of Diego Garcia, way back in '01 or '02 as having holding facilities for the Afghan war. Last I heard about it.

Still there? Maybe that's were our 'disappeared' go? Who's to say?

[Jack Rabbit]

5. That is what I am afraid of

Maybe they're planning on shutting Gitmo down and then saying, "problem solved".

[SmokingJacket]

6. My suspicion is that if they close Gitmo, they'll open other, secret

facilities.

If there's a way ALL prisoners can be released or given legal rights, I'm for it. Simply shutting the prison doesn't change the way we do things (though ideally, we'd do both).