To that end, since all of this is a Dem initiative, I think it only logical that the detainees be allocated out to the Blue States (where they will be accorded more welcome and respect as merely products of disadvantaged homes) and be enrolled in work release programs with ACORN since their CV's generally meet the employment requirements.

They can then spend the rest of their days working to pay back Republicans by enrolling more Dem voters, both real and imaginary. The Dems can be satisfied by their good deeds and be rewarded by cementing the likelihood of reelecting Dem candidates. Further, they will not have to suffer more annoying videos from Republicans and can turn their attention to more earth-changing issues like what Hannity might have said last night or parse every last word uttered by some 19 year old Miss America contestant.

Makes inordinate sense and everybody goes home happy, no?

Word.

There's a couple things you keep missing jwest. One, our prisons are perfectly capable of detaining convicted terrorists. They already are. Two, not everyone at Gitmo is guilty or was doing anything remotely dangerous when they were captured.

Yes, it’s exactly like the Germans and the French Resistance. When someone in the French Resistance was captured while trying to sabotage a rail line or other military target, they were subject to summary execution.

This is the same treatment we gave German saboteurs who were caught in the U.S.

Spies and terrorists may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope. However, nations that have signed the UN Convention Against Torture have committed themselves not to use torture on anyone for any reason. Citizens and soldiers of nations which have not signed the Fourth Geneva Convention are also not protected by it (Article 4: “Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it”.), whether they are spies or terrorists. Also, citizens and soldiers of nations which have not signed and do not abide by the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions are not protected by them. (Common Article 2: “[The High Contracting Parties] shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to [a Power which is not a contracting party], if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof” (emphasis added).)

Yes, let’s figure out what the law is.

You mean like the French resistance in WW2. Perfect, you're making the Nazi argument.

You know how well that worked out for them, don't you?

“Unlawful combatant: An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.”

The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more states. Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a “competent tribunal.” Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war.[2] After a “competent tribunal” has determined his status, the “Detaining Power” may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be “treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial.”

That, Mr. Torture Proponent, is the law.

Because civilians are the ones harboring the puppies we long to torture.

Silly Liberal. Don’t you know anything about Evil?

I'm sure Nancy Pelosi is all for that and will settle this matter once and for all. The problem is that as much as everyone (at least on the Dem side) wants the place closed, no one has put forth a viable alternative place to put them. Here in South Carolina, the state folks are crafting legislation and what not that forbids the Feds from even thinking of bringing them here to Charleston or elsewhere in the state. I believe this talk has been going on elsewhere; isn't Brownback talking with folks in Missouri about crafting something similar to keep Ft. Leonard Wood off limits?

There is no such thing and of course, all people that are detained for any reason in a war zone – soldier, saboteur or civilian – are to be read their rights, given a lawyer and tried in the U.S. courts.

Soldiers and saboteurs should be treated like POWs… and why are we detaining civilians?

You’re right. I guess you’re both just too smart to fool.

I was making all that silly “enemy combatant” stuff up. There is no such thing and of course, all people that are detained for any reason in a war zone – soldier, saboteur or civilian – are to be read their rights, given a lawyer and tried in the U.S. courts.

Sometimes, we neo-Nazi conservatives just need to see what we can get away with. If it wasn’t for liberals like you two who know big words and other smart things, we would be able to torture young children and puppies.

Drat! Foiled again.

But don't let silly liberal concepts like “law” and “morality” get in the way of your desire to torture and murder suspected enemies.

I think Switzerland has agreed to take a bunch of the Gitmo folks as well, in return for leaving their banking system alone.

Manson and the Unabomber are U.S. citizens who committed crimes. We have laws, courts, prisons and decades of experience dealing with criminals of this type.

Gtmo detainees are enemy combatants. These are foreign citizens who engaged in hostile acts against the U.S. in time of war without identifying themselves by wearing a uniform or by acting under the orders of a legitimate government. We have decades of military experience dealing with people in this category, however, under the benevolent guidance of Bush and Cheney, these people were not summarily executed as was the common practice.

John Cole isn’t bright enough to see the difference, but I’m sure you are.

On the one hand, guerilla fighters seemingly want to be able to engage in warfare which makes it impossible for the other side to protect against civilian casualty at all, but also get the protections of POW status afforded to them if they're captured (despite not following war protocol themselves.)

On the other hand, you're right that one could go to the extreme of rounding up innocent civilians.

I'm not advocating either one of those things. I'm saying that since we now face enemies who aren't state sponsored and use the tactic of blending in with the population, we need to find a middle of the road approach which doesn't ensare the innocent civilians with the guerilla fighters, but also shouldn't give them full POW status because they themselves broke important standards of war (which were put in place in order to protect civilians as much as possible.)

I'm not even saying that that middle of the road approach should be much different than POW treatment, but I think we need to consider how to get back that original intent of the Geneva Conventions to afford certain rights to those who themselves agreed to fight according to certain terms.

But this is about Gitmo. The GOP claims that jail isn't a safe place for criminals is extremely odd.