Why not try the Gitmoes in some sort of international court? Shipping them here = bad for O

[Unsane]

I can't imagine the political ramifications for O if he is literally stupid enough to transport POWs onto US soil for trial (and possibly release them because the evidence is botched). The GOP would instantly blame this move for any subsequent domestic terrorist attack.

Gitmo needs to be shut down, and the prisoners shipped to another international location that has some sort of war tribunal. They can't be shipped to the US. That is just politically moronic.

[sandnsea]

1. We have terrorists in prison here right now

Of course we can keep them in prison here. I'd much rather have that then sending them off to some other country where who knows what would happen to them.

As far as him letting any of the dangerous ones just go free, well Republicans just pulled that straight out of their ass.

[Unsane]

4. They weren't removed from a battlefield 7,000 miles away and brought here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. The only one I can think of is the International Criminal Court

and getting Congress to sign up to that will be a tough task, I bet, even if there is a Democratic majority. And I think the ICC only takes cases that it decides itself are crimes. It's not there for a "we want to wash our hands of these people, after 7 years of holding them" approach.

[dipsydoodle]

5. Might be a slight logistical problem there

The USA doesn't recognise the ICC because they don't accept its jurisdiction to try their own citizens for war crimes. As such it would be somewhat cynical to expect the ICC to try others on their behalf.

There is also the torture aspect........

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. I was presuming 'cynical' didn't worry the thread starter

the whole idea of behaving like Pontius Pilate struck me as cynical. Obama has actually said he'd feel more inclined to work with the ICC:

Obama’s general view of the ICC suggests that he would work closely with the Court. He has stated , “Now that it’s operational, we are learning more and more about how the ICC functions. The court has pursued charges only in cases of the most serious and systematic crimes and it is in America’s interests that these most heinous of criminals, like the perpetrators of the genocide in Darfur, are held accountable. These actions are a credit to the cause of justice and deserve full American support and cooperation.” This has led to his commitment that “the United States should cooperate with the ICC investigation in a way that reflects American sovereignty and promotes our national security interests.”

Although Obama holds this outlook on the ICC, and would have a better relationship with the Court than the current president, the probability that the U.S. would sign the Rome Treaty shortly after he takes office is slim. As his former advisor, Samantha Power remarked, “Until we’ve closed Guantanamo, gotten out of Iraq, renounced torture and rendition, and shown a different face for America, American membership in the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony.” She concludes, “If Barack Obama ratified the ICC or announced support for it on day one, two things would happen. One, it would have the chance of discrediting the ICC in the short term, and two, he would so strain his relations with the U.S. military that it would actually be really hard to recover.” However, Obama does promise to “consult thoroughly with our military commanders and also examine the track record of the court before reaching a decision on whether the U.S. should become a party to the ICC.”

http://www.globalsolutions.org/in_the_news/analysis_obama_vs_mccain_icc

[Chulanowa]

3. We should set policy by what the GOP thinks?

Didn't they lose?

[dbmk]

6. Are you saying that if released, it would be to the streets of the US?

If not, I don't see how the logic applies. (of course that would not stop FOX)

I fail to see the difference between being released from Gitmo or from a US prison and shipped back to their place of capture.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

7. Who has the chill out photo?

I'm pretty sure Obama's gonna take care of it just fine. I'd prefer that he handle the detainees in a constitutionally appropriate way, and by all the evidence we've gotten so far, that's exactly what he'll do.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but he seems to be making his decisions based upon constitutional principles. Regardless of GOP talking points, and regardless of the opinion history will have of Mr. Bush, don't you think making constitutionally sound decisions will reward Obama with a positive legacy?

Bringing the detainees here for trial doesn't mean releasing them onto our streets if they walk, it means sending them home. If a court finds them innocent, why would you have a problem with that? I saw that in his executive order yesterday, he noted that a large number of detainees at Gitmo have already been released due to a lack of evidence against them. I'm pretty sure they haven't shown up on our streets and attacked us yet, and I don't remember George Bush sweating their release, although I'm pretty confident he would have preferred to hold them indefinitely, and without charge. And probably also torture them.

[NutmegYankee]

8. Because there is plenty of room in Utah for them.

:evilgrin:

[HeeBGBz]

9. How about Alcatraz?

They would have to swim out.