Obama and Guantanamo Bay

[Hovik]

To clarify, you don't disagree with what, exactly?

This question presupposes that we disagree. I am not sure whether or not we do. I just asked to elicit information and use it to explore an idea. I will explain where I was going with this.

Shell B's initial post stated she cares about Guantanamo Bay being run according to humane standards rather than whether or not it exists. People were talking about where the prisoners would be moved to if Gitmo was shut down. It led to a dispute about freeing the untried detainees vs imprisoning them in America or keeping them at Gitmo.

With all of that in mind, I began to brainstorm along these lines: Do we really want to move suspected terrorists, many of which are probably highly dangerous and willing to die for a cause, to America around innocent citizens? Might it be better to have fair trials and better human rights, unlike the present Gitmo, but use a humane version to separate them from mainstream America?

The train of thought I just described corresponds well with Shell B's first sentence.

Polaris, if Obama moved prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to the continental United States, he's essentially bringing terrorists into U.S. prisons.

That seems like a reasonable concern to me, especially considering her explicit assertion that "they need to be tried." Somehow, it seems that the thread evolved into jumping on her position, as if she thinks people should be indefinitely detained at Gitmo before being found guilty. Am I wrong? I could be confused here. Did she actually mean we should water-board suspects or convict them for life before finding them guilty by trial? If so, then I disagree with her. I am honestly not sure if I am the one confused of those responding to her.

I think the critical issue is the assertion that we would be moving "terrorists" into the United States, as though that valuation has already been determined. Without due process, that cannot be determined, and Shell's original statements are very clear with regard to her opinion about their presumed innocence. The fact may very well be that they are all guilty, but we cannot just assume that's the case without evidence and a proper trial for each individual thereby detained.