Grand and sweeping visions are all well and good, but occasionally it is a good idea to determine what can actually be done before committing to do it. Case it point: GITMO. The commitment is made: we will close GITMO by next January. At this point, though, the only way to do it would involve shooting everyone inside and tossing them into the Caribbean. Not very nice, even relatively speaking. The cold, implacable facts are that these detainees need to be tried in some court, they need to be housed somewhere until said trial, and nobody wants to house them. Familiar with the nuclear waste problem? Everyone wants to dispose of it, no one wants to bury it in their state. Something similar applies here. Let's break down the real problems.
First off, we have the question of where and how to try these people. As unaligned military combatants, the detainees in Guantanamo Bay have no real rights whatsoever. But who determined their status? The military? A coin toss? Obviously, some sort of trial, in civilian or military court, is necessary here. And trials take time and money. So far, I sure haven't heard of any successful funding bills. I haven't even heard about charges being filed against most of the detainees. Until these steps are taken, moving these people is just changing the location of their incarceration without moving toward resolution.
Secondly, we face the issue of temporary incarceration. No one wants these guys in their state's prisons. I am not convinced they would last all that long in that environment anyway; nobody likes a terrorist. Federal prisons are already packed and the "not my state" issue still attaches. Committing to moving everyone out of GITMO reminds me of an incident that occurred when I was seven. I took a recklessly large bite of steaming pizza. By my estimation, that pizza was hotter than the surface of the sun. But what was I going to do? I had no place to put it. I couldn't swallow it. So I just sat there and suffered. Eventually, the pizza cooled, I swallowed it, and my sense of taste returned in a few weeks.
The third issue is that of long-term housing. What happens when we convict many or all of these detainees? Shoot'em? Let them leave? I doubt either one will happen in most cases. We will have to incarcerate them permanently someplace. See previous paragraph.
Finally, what do with do with new detainees? If our troops continue to work in Afghanistan or Iraq, we will (hopefully) keep catching people. I doubt we will find a single facility in the U.S. system that can serve even as a temporary nexus for new arrivals.
The moral of the story? GITMO needs to be cleaned up, but just closing it is downright sloppy. The prison might need new management, but it need be no different than any other military jail. Shutting down GITMO as a symbol is like forbidding the Army from using M4s because of a friendly-fire incident. There is nothing unique or evil about the site. Improvement is possible. Grandiose statements about ideology are best reserved for speeches. Policy is policy. No more, no less.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment