Well, the left may finally get their wish:
President Bush will soon decide whether to close Guantanamo Bay as a prison for al-Qaeda suspects, sources tell ABC News. High-level discussions among top advisers have escalated in the past week, with the most senior administration officials in continuous talks about the future of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay–and how it will be dramatically changed and/or closed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling that gave detainees there access to federal courts.
Sources have confirmed that President Bush is expected to be briefed on these pressing GTMO issues–and may reach a decision on the future of the naval base as a prison for al Qaeda suspects–before he leaves for the G8 on Saturday. An announcement, however, is not expected before he leaves the country.
High-level administration officials say the Court’s decision dramatically changes the legal landscape–and raises questions about whether the government has solid evidence to present to federal judges to justify ongoing detentions.
Just a few minutes ago Bush said a decision is not imminent, but nonetheless it now forces the United States to either put them into our court system where foreign terrorists caught on foreign soil will get the same rights as those native to this land, release them, or turn them back over to their home countries.
Rendition seems to be the easiest way to solve this problem. Putting these terrorists on trial in civilian courts will make a mockery of our War on Terror, the left knows it and rejoices in it. They could access sensitive confidential intelligence and they could use the trial as propaganda to further their war. This should not be allowed to happen. Bypass it and let their home countries deal with them.
Some countries would release them, some would not. Either way the Supreme Court has forced our hand and while some may be released I have no doubt they will return to the battlefield where our forces can then do what should of been done in the first place. Execute them on the battlefield as illegal combatants.
UPDATE
Jihad Watch posted a timely link to an article by Barry Rubin about the fact that Hitler, prior to WWII was believed to have changed because of prison. How wrong we were:
Each day we’re told that radical Islamists, terrorists, and assorted extremists are going to moderate, so why not negotiate with them, appease them, defuse their grievances, have dialogue, and then everything will be okay.
But, those who are doubtful, argue, shouldn’t we have learned from history that militant ideologies are not prone to compromise and ruthless dictators don’t change their stripes. You cannot appease them, they don’t go away; displays of weakness make them more aggressive.
Oh, no! Not the Nazi analogy again!
And yet what can you say when confronted with this New York Times headline of December 21, 1924:
“Hitler Tamed By Prison; Released on Parole, He Is Expected to Return to Austria.”
[This is not a satire. See for yourself]
The correspondent explains that Hitler, once a demigod for the extreme right, was released on parole from the Landsberg fortress where he had been sent for trying to overthrow the democratic German government in what has come to be known as the Beerhouse Putsch.
Prison, the article continues, seems to have moderated him. The authorities were convinced that he presented no further danger to the existing society. In fact, it was expected that he would abandon public life and return to his native land, Austria.
Well, that problem was certainly solved easily.
And also the Times learned its lesson, hasn’t it?
As the newspaper explained in a June 30 editorial:
“Few countries can afford the luxury of limiting their diplomacy to friendly countries and peace-loving parties. National security often requires negotiating with dangerous enemies.”
Right. And believing their protestations of moderation, making concessions to them, ending sanctions, blaming ourselves for problems, and never using force is the actual content of such negotiations.
Then the leaders of Hamas, Hizballah, Syria, Iran, the Muslim Brotherhoods, al-Qaida, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc., will no doubt be tamed, abandon public life, and go back to their homes.
Henry Kissinger once told the joke–or at least is credited for doing so–that it is very easy to have the lion lay down with the lamb, as long as you put in a new lamb every day. Kissinger no doubt little expected at the time that this would become the democratic world’s favored strategy. No surprise that the main villain for the politically correct West is Israel, the lamb that refuses the honor.
See author page
Return them all back to al-Qaeda and be sure to publicly thank them for all the fine information they gave up. Heads are sure to roll – literally.
I think rendiyion is the only choice. As Curtsaid, some will go back and be released and join up withAl Queda again, and I say if caught, they should be execued on spot without trial as we did with spies and illegal combantants in WWII.
Send them back to see what real torture is like — they tried to paint the US military as monsters, now they’re going to see who the real monsters are.
You stupid dumb pathetic left wing peacenik organizations — you create more murder and mayhem, and less and less peace.
Send them to live with liberals in this country who demanded they have more rights than our soldiers on the field have when captured.
Let’s see how “peace, love and harmony” holds up when homocidal Mohammed is bedding down in the room next to their teenage daughters.
One problem with rendition is that their home countries usually don’t want them, and regularly refuse to accept them, on grounds they are too dangerous, and yet a trial would exacerbate internal political problems.
The other problem is the massive whining from Leftists when a criminal “might be tortured” in a country like Syria [which has recently been on the UN Human Rights Commission].
The UK is currently stuck with one of these characters, who’s wanted, but can’t be returned, because they passed a ridiculous law preventing it.