Why do we need Gitmo?
In short, it is because of Democrat judicial ignorance.
Democrats do not understand (or refuse to recognize - the result is the same) the difference between a criminal incarceration and the detention of a POW. Criminals are incarcerated because WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. Their continued detention is contingent on a criminal conviction, with all that implies. The "defendants" have the full panoply of Constitutional rights and protections, even if they are not U.S. citizens.
Detainees at GITMO, on the other hand, are not "criminals"; they are detained because of WHAT THEY ARE - that is, enemy combatants. They can only be released when hostilities with that particular enemy cease. They have committed no crime. The evidence against them is nothing more than a reasonable belief by military and/or intelligence resources that they are engaged in some way in fighting the U.S. militarily. In almost all cases, the evidence would never stand up to the same level of scrutiny that would be necessary for a Constitutional U.S. criminal conviction.
And the reason why we need Gitmo is that we know that as soon as these detainees are brought to U.S. soil, their cases will magically be converted to "criminal" cases, where the lack of criminal formalities will quickly result in their release.
And all of the dancing around about the President saying, "I'm closing Gitmo," and the Republicans saying, "The Hell you will!" is because of this fundamental disagreement about whether the detainees are detained because they ARE enemy combatants or because they HAVE COMMITTED crimes against the U.S., which is not necessarily the case.
Even the use of the word, "recidivism" is bizarre in context. Clearly, some of the people who have been released from Gitmo in the past have gone back with their comrades and continued fighting against the U.S. and its interests. But this is not any more surprising than if we had released a German POW in 1944 and found that he went back with the German army and fought against us until the end of the war. You would expect nothing else.
Whether the existence of Gitmo is "recruitment fodder" for our enemies is rather irrelevant, and it is yet another example of Our Beloved President's naivete. If foreigners resent our nuclear stockpile, should we destroy it? Truly, WGAF what foreigners think, in matters of our own national interests?
If Democrats weren't so cluelessly anti-American, we could close Gitmo and use it as a vacation resort.
In short, it is because of Democrat judicial ignorance.
Democrats do not understand (or refuse to recognize - the result is the same) the difference between a criminal incarceration and the detention of a POW. Criminals are incarcerated because WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. Their continued detention is contingent on a criminal conviction, with all that implies. The "defendants" have the full panoply of Constitutional rights and protections, even if they are not U.S. citizens.
Detainees at GITMO, on the other hand, are not "criminals"; they are detained because of WHAT THEY ARE - that is, enemy combatants. They can only be released when hostilities with that particular enemy cease. They have committed no crime. The evidence against them is nothing more than a reasonable belief by military and/or intelligence resources that they are engaged in some way in fighting the U.S. militarily. In almost all cases, the evidence would never stand up to the same level of scrutiny that would be necessary for a Constitutional U.S. criminal conviction.
And the reason why we need Gitmo is that we know that as soon as these detainees are brought to U.S. soil, their cases will magically be converted to "criminal" cases, where the lack of criminal formalities will quickly result in their release.
And all of the dancing around about the President saying, "I'm closing Gitmo," and the Republicans saying, "The Hell you will!" is because of this fundamental disagreement about whether the detainees are detained because they ARE enemy combatants or because they HAVE COMMITTED crimes against the U.S., which is not necessarily the case.
Even the use of the word, "recidivism" is bizarre in context. Clearly, some of the people who have been released from Gitmo in the past have gone back with their comrades and continued fighting against the U.S. and its interests. But this is not any more surprising than if we had released a German POW in 1944 and found that he went back with the German army and fought against us until the end of the war. You would expect nothing else.
Whether the existence of Gitmo is "recruitment fodder" for our enemies is rather irrelevant, and it is yet another example of Our Beloved President's naivete. If foreigners resent our nuclear stockpile, should we destroy it? Truly, WGAF what foreigners think, in matters of our own national interests?
If Democrats weren't so cluelessly anti-American, we could close Gitmo and use it as a vacation resort.
