Guantanamo and Torture by Gråulf

I never thought I would live in a country where habeas corpus didn’t apply. The bush administration got around that by holding prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, and they claimed that the US constitution only applies within the United States’ borders, and to US citizens. Holding prisoners indefinitely without charging them, or bringing them to trial, is morally reprehensible, and has no place in civilized society. Now the Obama administration is closing Guantanamo, but Obama intend to hold some prisoners (those who cannot be convicted in an American Court because the evidence against them was supplied by informants), in indefinite administrative detention in US jails. That is just moving Guantanamo somewhere else, and his solution does not even pretend to respect the intent of the Constitution. If terrorists are brought to the US they come under the halo of the Constitution, and should have access to our judicial system.

In my opinion Guantanamy should be kept open, but prisoners should be charged, and brought in front of a Military Court within a reasonable time. That is provided for in the Constitution. Even terrorists merit justice, and we owe them a quick trial, and a speedy execution.

There is endless debate about torture, and what it is. It is nonsense to assert that water boarding is not torture, just as it is nonsense to say that harsh treatment is. Once someone has been convicted of terrorism we should be able to torture them to get information about the organizations they belong to, and about their intentions, but only if we have indisputable reason to believe they have information that will save lives, or prevent a terrorist attack. Even then, torture should only be allowed after a court has sanctioned it. I can think of numerous possible scenarios where torture might not only be reasonable, but the only rational choice, and it is mad to make torture illegal under all circumstances.

Gråulf.