[Nuclear1]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7092435.ece

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld covered up that hundreds of innocent men were sent to the Guantánamo Bay prison camp because they feared that releasing them would harm the push for war in Iraq and the broader War on Terror, according to a new document obtained by The Times.

The accusations were made by Lawrence Wilkerson, a top aide to Colin Powell, the former Republican Secretary of State, in a signed declaration to support a lawsuit filed by a Guantánamo detainee. It is the first time that such allegations have been made by a senior member of the Bush Administration.

Colonel Wilkerson, who was General Powell’s chief of staff when he ran the State Department, was most critical of Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld. He claimed that the former Vice-President and Defence Secretary knew that the majority of the initial 742 detainees sent to Guantánamo in 2002 were innocent but believed that it was “politically impossible to release them”.

So...why exactly is Gitmo still open?  And better yet, why haven't Bush and friends been arrested?

[Wolfy]

We knew this anyway.

I'm prettys ure theplace is being closed and the prisoners being located elsewhere.

as for why they havent been arrested: Because the world is a sad and stupid place

[headdie]

because they are either part of powerful political families or part of political circles with said clout

[Nuclear1]

I'm prettys ure theplace is being closed and the prisoners being located elsewhere.

It was ordered to be closed by the end of last year, and the prisoners either released or relocated to a supermax in Illinois, but somebody's been taking their sweet time. 

**** it, it's about time we had another Nuremberg...

[Wolfy]

I assume they would find some way of getting out of it, especially if it was the US. a UN court might be able to charge them, if the UN wanted, however the speed they deal with other war criminals... might take a couple of hunndred years to acturally get around to sentanceing them

[NGTM-1R]

I have a more pertinent question: why did they get shipped to Gitmo in the first place if they were known to be innocent?

[Snail]

I have a more pertinent question: why did they get shipped to Gitmo in the first place if they were known to be innocent?

They were probably suspected of being terrorists, but once found to be innocent could not be released. Essentially they became political prisoners.

[Wolfy]

Which probably defeats the whole objective of arresting them.

Arrest someone for suspected terrorism -> find they're innocent -> don't release them -> They could possibly become either a terrorist or VERY anti this government.

I wish governments and their leaders would actually sometimes admit "Oh, sorry, we where wrong about <Insert whatever here>". It would make them seem far more normal, and I'd dislike them a lot less.

[Klaustrophobia]

 

[NGTM-1R]

Arrest someone for suspected terrorism -> find they're innocent -> don't release them -> They could possibly become either a terrorist or VERY anti this government.

And if you do release them, they could still become a terrorist. If you don't release them, they could harbor terroristic leanings, but it's hard to suicide bomb your cell. In a lot of ways, setting up a place like Gitmo becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

They were probably suspected of being terrorists, but once found to be innocent could not be released. Essentially they became political prisoners.

This speaks to poor evaluation by or poor intelligence being available to, the people on the ground, which is a problem an order of magnitude more dangerous than sending innocents to Gitmo. That's why I want to know the answer.

[Galemp]

So...why exactly is Gitmo still open?  And better yet, why haven't Bush and friends been arrested?

Definitely the biggest problem I have with the Obama administration. If Guantanamo did not exist, President Bush could have signed an order to have it opened by the end of the year and by God it would have been done.

As far as I know there's been a lot of red tape regarding where the prisoners are going to go, especially where the innocent ones are going to be freed. But some things are more important than politics; this is one of them.

[Bobboau]

I see "according to a new document obtained by The Times" and i got excited for a moment, but then I see the document is just a written accusation from an aid to a cabinet member.

[S-99]

Bush is a ****up. But the politically impossible to release also makes sense. 9/11 and the crack down on terrorism would mean releasing innocents from gitmo to be heavily misunderstood. People just would not believe that gitmo was releasing innocents, they'd prefer to believe america was releasing full blown terrorists to shove them back in the conflict. Conspiracy theorists would go up the wall.

But, then one thing i like to understand about gitmo. JUST BECAUSE IT'S UNPOPULAR, DOESN'T MEAN IT NEEDS TO GET SHUT DOWN. The next thing comes to mind is where will they put all of the terrorists? I do know where. If gitmo gets shutdown, terrorists get new bunk mates in prisons on actual american soil If no one here gets that, that's the terrorists get shipped onto american soil and go to our prisons.

The american sheeple are idiots! The sheeple get sold on everything they like to hear. When they find something they don't like to hear...they shut it down without any thought process. Simply this will not do. Gitmo must stay open.

[Turambar]

It's not that it's unpopular, it's that they were using its position outside of the US to deny detainees their basic human rights.  That's a bad move, eroding our own moral high ground.

[Galemp]

But, then one thing i like to understand about gitmo. JUST BECAUSE IT'S UNPOPULAR, DOESN'T MEAN IT NEEDS TO GET SHUT DOWN. The next thing comes to mind is where will they put all of the terrorists? I do know where. If gitmo gets shutdown, terrorists get new bunk mates in prisons on actual american soil If no one here gets that, that's the terrorists get shipped onto american soil and go to our prisons.

And what's wrong with that? The key to defeating terrorism is to treat it as a criminal act, not as an act of war. The British learned this during the Troubles with the IRA in the 80s and 90s, and through old fashioned police work and downplaying hysteria, they succeeded. Treating terrorists as members of a hostile military makes no sense because they're not acting on behalf of a sovereign power.

The american sheeple are idiots! The sheeple get sold on everything they like to hear. When they find something they don't like to hear...they shut it down without any thought process. Simply this will not do. Gitmo must stay open.

Oh, wait, you're an idiot. Sorry to have wasted your time articulating an answer.

[General Battuta]

And what's wrong with that? The key to defeating terrorism is to treat it as a criminal act, not as an act of war. The British learned this during the Troubles with the IRA in the 80s and 90s, and through old fashioned police work and downplaying hysteria, they succeeded. Treating terrorists as members of a hostile military makes no sense because they're not acting on behalf of a sovereign power.

This, a thousand times this.

Every time someone calls them 'soldiers' or 'warriors' or part of an 'army' in a 'clash of civilizations' it gives them the publicity and respect they need. Filthy criminals living in caves would be a more appropriate picture to paint.

[NGTM-1R]

Galemp's analysis is correct. It should also be noted the Brits learned that the hard way, because their inability to decide whether it should be handled via the SAS or the police actively lengthed the Troubles.

It's a weird and not entirely comfortable reversal, since it was long dogma in the US that terrorism is crime before 9/11 turned that on its head. Admittedly it is not entirely practical to fight them in their home turf with legal means in a world with groups like the Taliban, but a much clearer seperation of the campaign against those who support terrorism and the terrorists themselves is/was necessary.

[S-99]

I am the american shepherd though.

On the other hand i can bet you that the american populace isn't going to like the alternative for where the gitmo detainees go. Treating the issue as one of criminality sounds like something here, but sounds like yet again, something the american populace would vote down because they wouldn't be ready for terrorists being devalued to the level of normal criminal. It would make people think lazy, we don't want to put as much effort into it anymore. I see risk of moving gitmo terrorists to american prisons for more home grown terrorists (honestly i think ahmed not getting right the not dropping of the soap a little more likely).

Eroding our own moral high ground? Suuure There really hasn't been anything or much moral with what america's been up to for the past decade, especially with bush in office. It's been more of moral reasons used as excuses for doing stuff. We're gonna get them wmd's/we just want more oil. We're gonna get them terrorists/expand empire/we just want more oil.

[NGTM-1R]

I am the american shepherd though.

If you keep talking like you're Glenn Beck or something I'm just going to move we ban you. It's a useless blanket statement that "I AM SO-AND-SO". Oh yeah? We Are The World! See, I can do them too, and even make them silly puns on '80s song titles.

On the other hand i can bet you that the american populace isn't going to like the alternative for where the gitmo detainees go.

True. But that's NIMBY. Maybe you do have a coherent point here...

Treating the issue as one of criminality sounds like something here, but sounds like yet again, something the american populace would vote down because they wouldn't be ready for terrorists being devalued to the level of normal criminal.

...false alarm!

First: it doesn't matter what it sounds like. We've presented evidence that it works. If you win, you win, and nothing the public can think or say or do can erase that.

Second: As I already pointed out and you apparently didn't read, the American populace has long experience with terrorists being devalued to criminals. That's why people want Gitmo closed in the first place and have since it opened.

It would make people think lazy, we don't want to put as much effort into it anymore.

Because we put so little effort into tracking down McVeigh, I'm sure. You know, those months of investigative work and showcasing pretty much everything about the FBI that is good didn't happen.

I see risk of moving gitmo terrorists to american prisons for more home grown terrorists (honestly i think ahmed not getting right the not dropping of the soap a little more likely).

Yes, because regular American Ordinary Decent Criminals are going to react so well to the terrorists and not shank the everloving hell out of them at the first available opportunity.

[Nuclear1]

But, then one thing i like to understand about gitmo. JUST BECAUSE IT'S UNPOPULAR, DOESN'T MEAN IT NEEDS TO GET SHUT DOWN.

No, it needs to be shut down because it's a gross violation of human dignity.  Not to mention it's a slap in the face to every American that's suffered or died (on our soil or others') for human rights and freedoms.