I think two things seriously weaken Lithwick's article, turning it into a set piece of Liberal righteousness rather than solid commentary on a sad situation.

1) The vast majority of these people, if not all of them, are not welcome back home. Whenever the plight of the detainees is mentioned I always wonder why more noise from their home country is not voiced. To me that definitely indicates that there's more to the story than the Liberal media is reporting - perhaps something which corroborates Bush's position on their detention.

2) George W did NOT establish this detention camp. That fact is constantly left out of any discussion. Now I grant that Lithwick actually wrote a piece discussing this, but I wonder why she never mentions it in her follow-up articles. It is pertinent to the discussion as it establishes that this is NOT an administrative problem - but an inherent flaw in how the federal government works. It also only serves to give George W a black eye, while keeping Clinton's legacy polished - a Liberal bait and switch tactic that degrades her point even more.

A follow up with my personal opinions.

1) This camp and any camps like it should never be established and the current one needs to be closed down immediately. The concepts it operates under are inherently anti-American and discredit us worldwide.

2) US troops should not take prisoners of combatants not in uniform. Kill them, and be done with it. Geneva Conventions govern soldiers, not partisans or common criminals.

3) The CIA needs to get the hell away from the military. Their bumbling and noxious presence only drags down the fine soldiers that are only following orders and doing their jobs. They cloud the clear chain of command that exists with their juvenile scheming further disrupting the effectiveness of the military.

4) The US military should never outsource or hire mercenaries. If politicians need guarding while in a combat zone then that's what the MP's and base troops are for. The last thing we need is to have a bunch of cowboys taking direction from someone other than the proper chain of command. A police action is not the proper place to hold a political discussion.

Interesting and well-argued post, Eigenvector, but your logic doesn't add up in a couple of places.

1) Wherever you obtained the information that "the vast majority of these people, if not all of them, are not welcome back home," this would be no corroboration for the Bush administration's story. Dahlia's case in point, the Uighurs, pretty much sums up this argument: the Uighurs fled persecution in their home country, and were turned in to the Americans by another country, therefore it says nothing about their guilt. From "This American Life," I know that there are a couple of humorists from Pakistan who were turned in for writing an unflattering joke about an official. They were obviously not wanted either, hence their being sold to the Americans as "enemy combatants." That more cases match these seems more logical than your supposition.

2) You're right, Bush did not open the prison camp at Guantanamo. Neither did Clinton, as your post sneeringly implies. It was a refugee camp from the 1970's until 1993, when a judge had it shut down. Then it was repurposed after 9/11, and rebuilt by Halliburton in 2005. So, effectively, your point is meaningless.

Most of the rest of your post seems reasonable enough, except for your charge that the US should kill suspected combatants on the spot. That's absolutely not the issue. Sure, if you're crossing fire in Iraq or Afghanistan with Al Qaeda operatives, you don't take prisoners. However, lest you forget, the big lie from the Bush administration was that these detainees were "swept up off the battlefield." In fact, the great majority of them are like the Uighurs, turned in for a ransom by a third party.

All available evidence leads to the conclusion that the detainees are still being held not because they're dangerous or valuable, but to bury mistakes.

I didn't rebuild Gitmo!

I want to discuss point two:

<link>

Clinton wasn't using Guantanamo as a "refugee camp".

A bit off topic, I'm not sure why I recieved a checkmark for this one. There are much better posts here already.

Point one, their history is enlightening I'm sure, but doesn't change the fact that nobody really wants them back. That speaks volumes for how they are perceived back "home". As to why they are there in the first place, while I don't defend W, I firmly believe he isn't holding innocent people. There IS a backstory to this and a backstory that NEITHER one of us knows.

"All available evidence leads to the conclusion that the detainees are still being held not because they're dangerous or valuable, but to bury mistakes."

All available evidence that you have seen, please try to keep that in mind.

Dear Eigenvector

I agree some of what you said but you need to look at the Geneva Conventiion a little closer.

It does allow people in Miltia certain rights, but they have to meet the requirements and these people did not meet them.

So they become unlaw combatments, and as such only have the rights the country that caught them wants to give them.

We could have given them back to the Afganistain people that caught them, but most likely they would have just killed them.

We could have sent them to China but most likely they would have killed them.

We could have sent them to Pakistan, but one of two things would have happened, they would have deported them to China, or they would have joined with the extremist in the northeast part of the country.

So we got stuck with them, we had others like them and we sent them to Albania, but nobody wants these people,like no country in the world wants them.

So we should send them home, get an assureance from China that they will not kill them and just send them back.

Dear Junggai,

They are being held because no country in the world beside China is willing to take them.

We are afraid what China may do to them, but I say give them back to China.

They want to come to the United States, and we do not need them or want them.

So send them home, it is simple really, they are from China and they get sent back.

God Bless You

Their countries don't want them back because the administration has tarred them with the label of terrorist even though the administration apparently has no evidence of the truth of the charge. It's called "catch 22." It stinks to high heaven and I can't imagine why you would assume that the administration has some good reason to hold and taint them.

I think we need to send Mark_RSM to China. They have methods of dealing with Bible thumpers. Perhaps a few dozen years in a Chinese re-education camp will convince Mark to have a bit more compassion for his fellow man. He obviously has none at this time.

Dear Bsharporlat,

Yes, I have compassion for my fellow man, just not the ones trying to us, and if they are from China why not send them back.

China is where Mr Obama had two fund raisers, they must be good people yes, otherwise why would he want to have some of their money?

It is funny how people treat a Christian, place me in a concentration camp because I want to be a Christian, hmm, but you are not a fascist, yes, you are civil minded person that wants what is best for America.

God Bless You

Mark, I am sure that your Bible has words about compassion and charity, even if you didn't read them. Like not helping tyrants torturing innocents or that kind of things. These Uighur people are clearly not fighters, they are people fleeing repression in China, a country known for its brutality. It has been established by a US court of justice, remember? Not a liberal journal, not Lithwick: an American judge. Why would you want to send them to prison or death? Because you don't like Uighurs? After all, it is their only crime: being Uighur and refusing to live under the Chinese boot. If it is just your racism, I can understand: why would you care for people that you don't consider as really humans? But if you are not a racist, what do you have against these guys?

Dear Alphast,

Should we let them all in then, let in everybody that lives in a country they do not like?

They are from China, if they do not want China as a government have a revolution, we did, and lots died.

Guess what freedom is not free, you want to be free being willing to die for it, the founding of this country did.

I have nothing against them, I just want to not open up our country to more people that do not share our vision of a nation.

We should let people in that are going to make this country stronger, and we should let in people that are killed due to issues like freedom of religion, China allows freedom of religion.

What China does not allow is people attack the government, if they are innocent, they will be fine, if they are not, then they will go to a work camp.

We should have sent them back from the beginning, first day, we should have driven them to the border of China and sent them on their way.

If no muslim country wants them, why do we get stuck with them?

God Bless You

Mark is a Troll

Facts and logic don't influence trolls. Don't feed the Troll

Shoo! Troll!

Shoo! . Troll!.

Eigenvector - I know its your opinion on what the US should do with "combatants not in uniform" but your conclusions about Geneva are not subject to opinion.

2) US troops should not take prisoners of combatants not in uniform. Kill them, and be done with it. Geneva Conventions govern soldiers, not partisans or common criminals.

WRT Geneva Convention, you are wrong. It explicitly extends protections to both Partisans (Article 4 Section 6) and criminals (who are civillians Article 3 Section 1).

Furthermore you make the mistake of assuming that these individuals were "taken on the battlefield". According to the Seton Hall School of Law Study confirmed by a West Point USMA study, Some were. but only about 5% of them were captured by US Forces and a fraction of that were captued "on the battlefield", which are the conditions under which the US troops could possible kill them outright.

So that solves 3% of your Gitmo problem.