Originally posted by plawrence:
There's a lot of truth in what you say
I think that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me, Plaw. I might need to get that framed.
Originally posted by plawrence:
While obviously "we" can never be absolutely certain about the guilt or innocence of an individual even after holding a trial, I would certainly say that it's better to have a trial rather than not.
I suppose, if for nothing else than PR and to establish some sort of "superior" mindset that we are better than
them. But, in the end, if they are terrorists, and they didn't receive a trial, it won't make me cry. If they are wrongly accused, I happen to have a bit of faith (largely because of those already released from Guantanamo) that they will not be held indefinitely. I do think thought that all the hubbub that has been brewing over Guantanamo is misdirected, since it costs far too much to house and guard these guys if they aren't feeding us information.
Originally posted by plawrence:
Someone has to take the responsibility for determining guilt or innocence, and I'm a lot more comfortable with the idea of a group of 12 unacquainted individuals making that determination than I am with doing it any other way.
And apparently there are plenty (not a majority, but many) of Americans who feel the same way you do, going so far as to spend millions and sending some our best attorneys to try and free these people.
But unless they are American citizens, they are not granted a trial under the Constitution
or the Geneva Convention.
Originally posted by plawrence:
As far as the government goes, while I would agree that some things should be kept from the general public in the interests of national security, there should always be at least ample and non-partisan Congressional oversight over this kind of thing.
But what would the oversight do? Determine whether these people are potential threats, and are justified as detainees? Their mere presence in Guantanamo (as opposed to some other detention facility) already means they are of the utmost importance to the anti-terror efforts. If anything, a congressional committee would serve to do little more than show disunion to our enemies.
As I've said before, if I were Al Qaeda, I'd be laughing my ass off watching American citizens sending money and lawyers down to Guantanamo to try and free these people. It's like watching a country rot from the inside out, as far as I'm concerned.
Originally posted by plawrence:
I don't think it would be unfair to say that our government's intelligence arm has made enough mistakes in the past to indicate that making these determinations should not be left solely up to them.
While that may be true, it should also be noted that many of the successes are never aired, only the dirty laundry of our intelligence and counter-intelligence agencies. When operations go off without a hitch, little is ever known about it. Only the mistakes end up being big news.
With that said, as I've discussed with some of my University colleagues as well as members of the BB (Mikey Sullivan most notably), I do think that our intelligence services are in bad need of an overhaul, but also need to be reaffirmed and allowed to do their job, in the wake of the human intelligence cuts of the Clinton years. Am I blaming Clinton for the mistakes? No, not entirely, the intelligence problems likely can be traced back to earlier times, possibly Reagan, certainly Carter. But there is no doubt that the agencies are now too corrupt, or, possibly, too outstretched and galvanized to be able to properly function. Communication between agencies must be restored and fruitful.
