You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Shut down Guantanamo, says US senator
2007-08-01
A leading US senator has described the administrationÂ’s attempts to hold and process detainees at Guantanamo as another example of its efforts to expand presidential authority.
Yup, that's what happens in a war. You see, in a 'war' we take 'prisoners'. If we fight an honorable opponent (hah, find me one of those today), we put the prisoners in a POW camp and notify the Red Thingy. If we fight a dishonorable opponent (aka al-Qaeda) we need to house them in a suitable location. Gitmo wins unless you prefer San Quentin.

And since we've noticed the inability of youse guys and gals in the Senate to make decisions, let alone good ones, we'll let the executive make this work. You know, in a 'war'.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, writes in the San Francisco Chronical that a system that sets a double standard for detainees, holding them indefinitely on flimsy or nonexistent evidence, is inherently unfair and highly suspect. This is damaging, because it goes against AmericaÂ’s legal traditions and values, which are a model for the rest of the world. Such a system does nothing to make America safer. In fact, it makes the world a more dangerous place for Americans, increasing the odds our troops will be denied their rights when captured on foreign battlefields.
Name a single opponent we've fought since May, 1945 who has honored the rights of American prisoners of war. Name a single one.
Posted by:Fred

#16  Fill Guantanamo with Senators says pissed off Citizen.
Posted by: jds   2007-08-01 16:40  

#15  the San Francisco Chronical

That's the wrong spelling, Khalid, but it is an accurate summation...
Posted by: tu3031   2007-08-01 14:59  

#14  Name a single opponent we've fought since May, 1945 who has honored the rights of American prisoners of war. Name a single one.

Hell, even our WWII foes didn't treat American POWs properly. The dramatic decline since then is adequate reason to hold all hostiles in any damned way we please. While we may be using military force to fight terrorism, that does not confer any military status upon the terrorists. This one simple fact seems to elude nearly everyone. It also poses a more important question.

Isn't it time we change our prosecutorial doctrine with respect to fighting terrorism? There should be a shift away from strictly overt military action over to covert targeted assassinations of Islam's clerical aristocracy and the major players in global terror. No extra prisoners to pose any added legal difficulties and far more bang for the buck, so to speak.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-08-01 14:57  

#13  Gitmo policy arose after the issue of the status of foreign enemy combatants who were captured in the "failed state of Aghanistan" was put before the DOJ. It was felt proper to hold them under military law, and under secure conditions. There is no legal obligation to put them in US federal penitentiaries because they didn't violate US laws on US soil.
Posted by: McZoid   2007-08-01 13:57  

#12  "I remember years ago when Dianne was a prostitute at an Arabian market, she was good for it then and she's good for it now", said Ibrahim Hooper

Ha!
Posted by: Icerigger   2007-08-01 13:17  

#11   When Hillary is Potus, with expanded powers and her own sense of righteousness and dominance, how accepting will everyone be then ?

...The difference is that THEN it will be for our own good. (Sarcasm off)

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2007-08-01 12:23  

#10  Cheney has been preoccupied with EXPANDING executive branch power for years, since he regarded Pres. Ford as a wimp in this arena. Ford had many years in Congress and surely understood this balancing act better than Cheney ever will. And, know that the worm turns. When Hillary is Potus, with expanded powers and her own sense of righteousness and dominance, how accepting will everyone be then ?
Posted by: Woozle Elmeter2970   2007-08-01 10:58  

#9  What strikes me the most about this speech, is not the closing of Gitmo, but Di's "administrationÂ’s attempts to hold and process detainees at Guantanamo as another example of its efforts to expand presidential authority."

Congress has fought with Bush from day one about this. I've attempted to mention these thoughts before.

Bush, since the beginning, has been in a battle with Congress over the real separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch. Cheney had watched this happening, and if I remember correctly, he would even mention it. So, when a commenter at Bill Riggio wrote this, I kept it, and so sorry I didn't also copy the name and date. If the author reads it, email me!


From day one, the Bush administration's political strategy (authored, I believe, by VP Cheney)has been to re-establish executive parity with Congress that was lost during Nixon, Ford and Carter Administrations.

By aggressively asserting executive privilege, reclaiming the constitutionally exclusive role of the POTUS as CINC, etc., Bush has flexed executive powers like few before him, bringing congress to heel.

In the case of Gonzales, he has defied enormous pressure to jettison his AG- at great political cost- thus rolling back the perceived powers of Congress to influence the executive cabinet.

Brilliant strategy, stubbornly executed, with far-reaching results. The next POTUS will owe this administration a huge debt.

Posted by: Sherry   2007-08-01 10:38  

#8  Works for me. We'll just eject the remaining detainees over the Atlantic from the back of a C-130 at 30,000ft. Then we will shut down the senate and do the same to the traitors there.
Posted by: DarthVader   2007-08-01 10:02  

#7  Wait a minute. Let's give credit where credit's due. At least she recognizes we're in a war, whereas others say that's just a bumper sticker (/sarcasm).
Posted by: BA   2007-08-01 09:11  

#6  House them in the Hart Senate Building. (Hint: that's where Dianne's office is.) Leftovers can go to SF City Hall.
Posted by: sofia   2007-08-01 09:02  

#5  The solution to this ongoing problem is to take no prisoners. Except a few mortally-wounded ones for interrogation.
Posted by: Glenmore   2007-08-01 07:34  

#4  Send ALL detainees to Washington DC and San Francisco Immediately.

This woman is a crack baby. No respect intended.
Posted by: newc   2007-08-01 06:08  

#3  Yet another senatorial oxygen thief and a corpse like thinker who talks of war but has never marched.
Posted by: Besoeker   2007-08-01 04:17  

#2  Let me guess... you want them moved to a facility which your husband will build (for a fee of course)....
Posted by: CrazyFool   2007-08-01 01:09  

#1  Dianne, if we use the inmates as bait on senatorial shark hunts.... I have no trouble seen it shut down after all the bait variants have been sampled by the sharks....

Keelhauling in 5 4 3 2 1....

Posted by: 3dc   2007-08-01 00:12  

00:00