I once read something that said, and I can't remember the quote or exact figures, but the gist of it was that many of the guys that have been incarcerated and released from Gitmo have invariably gone back to their old hangouts, associated with known terrorists or terrorist supporters, and often end up being seen on the "terrorist scene" again in some capacity.

"Oh, wait", I'm sure Lithwic would say, "that's because NOW they're really pissed at America". Not that they were bad guys before that, but we pushed them to it, huh? I'm sure. Riiiight.

Let's just go ahead and close Gitmo and release all those guys in there, since this is just a big misunderstanding and no one in there really deserves to be. After all, better to release criminal masterminds and look good to the international community (and I'm sure the Arabs will instantly forgive us, too) than to hold these guys until we're SURE they aren't a threat. You don't end up on being Osama bin Laden's chauffer because of your stellar driving skills. You probably get there because you've done enough nasty stuff to be proven a "loyal follower". And Canadians don't "accidentally" find themselves in war-torn countries that millions are fleeing from. There's a good case in there somewhere, but our legal system is complicated and long.

Better than summary judgement on the battlefield by a bullet to the head, though...I'll take military tribunal any day of the week over the justice being meted out by our enemies.

While they may not be white as snow, the Democratic crowd raises a valid point: the damage that these individuals are doing while incarcerated is far worse than the damage they may do even if they are set free.  

As individuals thier damage has been seriously limited by one simple fact: we know who they are.  Perhaps they will return to their old haunts and continue their old activities. However, as said, we know who they are.  We can watch them and see where they go.  They might disappear, but when they surface again they become valuable intelligence assets because, again, their identity is known.  To use a medical analogy, they are like labeled antibodies.  Wherever they show up is likely a site of disease.  They label the entire organization.  In this way, their individual destructiveness is rather tempered as they will never get anywhere near a power center for fear of disclosing all of it to the world.

As a moral cause, however, their destructive potential is almost limitless.  I am not even talking about their potential for recruiting other terrorists either.  In case you haven't been paying attention, the world doesn't feel very fuzzy about us at the current moment.  In fact, they currently view us as a real incarnation of the "Great Satan" (which BTW, is the classification by our allies, not our enemies).  As a result, there is zero cooperation on many very important initiatives. Think Iran and real WMDs, possibly, or a real initiative on global warming.  Bush in particular is no mistrusted that it is unlikely that any action on major problems will happen until the next president (or maybe even beyond).  

Further, to some extent the rest of the world is aligning against us.  In case you didn't notice, Russia took advantage of the "Great Satan" status to effectively re-open the Cold War over the weekend.  What is more disconcerting, however, is that much of the world appears to agree that Russia is in the right.  When did targeting European cities with nuclear weapons become an appropriate response to a minor provocation?  If the world weren't so bitterly anti-American at the moment, it would be possible to meet the situation with resolve.  As is, the only appropriate action is likely to give Russia what it wants.

Lastly, and most concerning, GITMO itself has resulted in our complete loss of moral authority.  Since when has the US been a violator of human rights?  Never mind that most accusations are seriously over the top.  I have reviewed every shred of evidence I can find on GITMO, Abu Ghraib, etc. and many of the accusations are more than slightly absurd.  That is not absurd, again, that is not the point. The point is that our moral authority has been stripped.  
We are no longer the "Knight" of moral authority and as a 
result we have lost all effectiveness in fighting a War on Terror where moral standing is imperative. In short, Gitmo has become so much of an albatross that it 
is serious undermining our real security.  That is the reason it
should be closed.

The point I and others take is that we should keep to the higher moral ground and not lower our selfs to theor level.

I'm sure the judges in these cases didn't think the two defendents were "pure as the driven snow". There's no doubt that they were aligned with the forces of Al Qaeda. The real problem is that Bush's attitude of just making up the rules as he went along rather than treating them as either POWs or trying them as criminals, just doesn't work. He was obviously betting that military tribunals would give him quick and tough convictions that he could parade around as victory in the war on terra. Too bad for him that career military lawyers have more respect for the law than he and Cheney do.

The irony of it all is, if he had declared them POWs, he'd be entitled to hold them indefinitely. If he had tried them in civillian courts, the chances of getting a conviction would have been much higher. Both our legal system and the Geneva Conventions were drafted by people far wiser than the fools occupying the White House today.

They may be guilty, they may be innocent, but how will we ever know unless they can be tried?

Can't take their word for it... they may lie.

Can't take Bush's word for it... he has lied over and over again.

So how do we sort the sheep from goats?

Well, if you "read it somewhere" I guess it must be true.

I once "read somewhere" that Republicans are traitors. I guess on the basis of that alone, we should execute them all.

The point is, in our society, at least until recently, people were presumed innocent until proved guilty. As your comment amply demonstrates, the Bush administration has succeded to a remarkable degree in reversing that presumption. Gitmo detainees are now presumed guilty until proven otherwise. This is the logic that justifies the review boards and the kangaroo military "tribunals".

It is also the logic behind the administration's repeated statements that it will not necessarily release detainees even if they are found not guilty. And behind its claim of the right to designate anyone, even an American citizen, a terrorist and effectively lock him up indefinitely. The legal status of this claim is still in doubt, but our fine courts--that great bulwark of our rights--has not yet seen fit to rule decisively against.

Republicans are traitors? Yeah, I guess that's why we're always

losing the "national defense" and "war on terror" voters...OH WAIT

That's not us, it's the Democrats that can't convince people that

they have America's best interests in mind.

Oh, and I'm sure that never in your life did you, when presented

with a newspaper report of someone being charged with a

crime, you jumped to that guilty conclusion. And by your

logic, OJ is obviously innocent too.

Look, I live in a pluralistic, multicultural society that is being

threatened by a homogenous group whose aim is to destroy my

way of life and force me either into their level of poverty or to

MAKE me live by their religion. I'm not for that. Think that Bush

is bad? Look around. The world is a dangerous place. Our

enemies in Iraq (who may or may not be Iraqis) routinely KILL

anyone they are able to capture if they cannot be ransomed for

prisoners or money. We have kept these guys in Gitmo for years,

at our expense, where they get fatter. Are we REALLY so bad?

I think not.

I sure am glad we didn't have as many people with issues like you back when we fought WWII. Those news reports back then were pretty unbelievable back then, but people had more faith in their government and weren't so paranoid. Thankfully we went to war and the enemy was too busy actually fighting us instead of conspiring to hide the evidence, o.

Many are "pure as the driven snow". As we have seen with the Uighurs and more than a handful of others, many were "turned in" for the reward or for political payback reasons. You might consider reading the Seton Hall Law investigation of this before you assume that by being on Gitmo they are the "worst of the worst".

Put it another way. If these two are part of the "worst of the worst" then Afghanistan should currently be a cakewalk.

You might try some facts. Torture is often worse than death.

And its easy to scare people into voting for you about the "war on terror" - assuming you are willing to lie about the facts and the relative risks - as the GOP clearly is (speeding drivers in the USA cause a NEW 9/11 EVERY MONTH).

But as that GOP Paragon Ronald Reagan once said

Facts are Stupid Things

You really don't know your history do you? Read up on America Firsters, on Islationism, on the Firebombing of civillians by Americans etc.

Yes Nazi Germany was a real threat to the world. And that made it a more justifiable war. But that doesn't mean the USA and allies didn't commit atrocities.

Nor does it mean that Hussein was any meaningful threat to the USA or anything close to Hitler in any way.

Bonus question - in the time Hussein attacked two neighboring countries, one with a clear Causus Belli and the other with a reasonable one, How many countries has the US attacked or committed Acts Of War against?

I know about the major elements of history, not the fringe wackos that don't mean anything. These days you have mainstream media and an entire party committed to sabotaging the war and emboldening our enemies with rhetoric purely designed to win them votes in the next election, damn the consequences to national security.

Besides, Is-O-lationists didn't want us to get involved in Europe because they remembered how well the "War to End All Wars" did its job. They were concerned that America was once again wasting its time settling European problems with American lives. Fortunately for Posterity, they were not heeded, exactly the same outcome I hope occurs someday here, when we realize that playing Neville will not help us with people who are not only fighting for the fatherland but for their (supposed) eternal salvation, a much more convincing reason to fight to the death. Hmmm, guess I DO know my history., huh?

Isolated incidents of innocence are not grounds for dismissal of the entirety of the effort. By that rationale, we should empty the prisons as well, since there are people there that have been proven innocent via DNA evidence. This is not an absurdum arguement, I assure you, because "closing Gitmo" would do just that. If you release these men on the grounds that they were unjustly imprisoned in an illegal war, then you must release ALL of the ones under such grounds, you can't be selective about it. If the War on Terror is unjustified, then they must all be set free and returned to the place they were taken from.

That's what I don't like about Dems. In order to keep your moral high ground and your "pie in the sky, everyone gets along" rose glasses frimly in place, you willfully ignore the reality of the situation. THINK about what the consequences will be before you decide that releasing hundreds of the world's terrorists, now even MORE hate filled about America.

While I agree with your overall sentiment, I am not so sure about the statement, "Torture is worse than death."  While torture is truly terrible, it is not nearly so permanent as death happens to be.  While many state at the time, "I wish I was dead," I know none who state "I wish now that I had died then."  This is important as it shows that victims of torture are capable of overcoming and managing the trauma of their experience.  There is an interesting work on the subject (studying the largest group of clearly documented torture with a very long period of follow-up data [holocaust survivors]) , see the following link.

As to your primary reply, your bottom line in large part pragmatic argument is a good one. The assumption of some that we have to take an all or nothing approach, such as either Gitmo is filled with innocents etc., and ignore all sides of the question (moral, pragmatic, etc.) is wrong-minded.

I'm not sure if you read all the evidence on Gitmo and other detention facilities ... simply put, there is a heckuva lot out there by now. Good research job if you did. Simply put, there are enough examples of quite credible (and the charm of this sort of thing is deniability) abuse that we should be ashamed. Official reports in effect say as much, including those sponsored by U.S. authorities. But, in the spirit of your post, this is somewhat besides the point, and I just suggest it as a comment on my part.

But, as to torture, he said "often" is worse than death. The number of survivors out there underline that many rather survive than die, so I don't know if even that word fits, but it's useful to recognize the use of qualifiers.

-j