Terror detainees must wait: Rumsfeld

[peterh]

<http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1274&storyid=174134>

MOST suspected terrorists at a US prison camp in Cuba could expect to be held for the duration of the war on terrorism rather than face trial, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today.

Asked about the matter in a question-and-answer session at the National Press Club in Washington, Rumsfeld said he expects some trials but prefers that most continue to be held at the Guantanamo Bay facility.
"Our interest is in not trying them and letting them out," he said. "Our interest is in - during this global war on terror - keeping them off the streets, and so that's what's taking place."



I’m sure the cabal would just love to expand on that concept…

[BiggJawn]

1. And Bush says it's too hard for Calico Johnny...

...to lock 'em up as fast as he wants, so he needs new "tools" to work with. Like PA Part Deux...

After Bush and Cheney are kicked out, would it be possible to give Rumsferatu a "Never-Ending Adventure" in Gitmo-land?

[indepat]

2. Rummy knows the war on terrorism will never

end.

[Emboldened Chimp]

3. Wait a minute

What the hell is he doing commenting on legal matters in regards to war? Isn't this the purview of State, not DOD?

[Rose Siding]

4. How positively midieval

Lock 'em up and toss 'em in the dungeon. Forget all about them.

Saddam did that, right?

[gratuitous]

5. I'm so old, I can remember a time

I remember when the U.S. was the bastion of freedom, fighting against tyrannical regimes that locked people up indefinitely without charge or evidence.

Is this really what the majority of Americans believe in?

[ScrewyRabbit]

6. Call me old fashioned

...but these used to be called concentration camps.

[happyslug]

10. Americans were interned in 1865 and 1942 both lead to long term hatred.

Harry S Truman told the story of the time he enlisted in the Missouri National Guard. He came home in his nice new blue uniform and his mother promptly kicked him out of the house. She had been one of the numerous persons locked up in a Concentration Camp during the Civil war while we tried to put down the Missouri Guerillas. In the camps she learn to hate union blue.

Truman died in 1972 (his mother died while he was President in the late 1940s), it is said people can not remember bad things more than 2-3 generations, it has been 30 years since his death have we forgotten how BAD concentration camps can be?

When the Japanese were placed in Concentration Camps during WWII people complained. The Supreme Court even heard the arguments against the camps (the Supreme Court upheld the Camps but remember we were at war with a REAL enemy). While the Court deferred to the elected Government, that old enemy of Civil Liberty, J Edgar Hoover, refused to have the FBI involved in the internment (the US Army did the dirty deed NOT the FBI and this was at the insistence of the GOP Governor of California). Hoover’s action was not out of love for minorities, but because Hoover felt it would hurt the FBI in the Future (He had participated in the Palmer raids of 1919 and show how those raids tended to HURT people’s view of the Federal Government more than it stopped enemies of the US).. Hoover thought nothing of bugging people, harassing people etc, but only after people he thought they were enemies of the US. Hoover disliked going after people just because they were not his social group, through he thought nothing of going after individual people in the Civil Rights movement (Hoover also had a big fear of Communism which in his mind included anything that upset the GOP leadership. To Hoover’s benefit he wanted to enhance the power of the FBI more than he wanted to enhance the GOP, so when GOP actions might hurt the FBI he backed the FBI over the GOP).

While the Internment of the Japanese was wrong, lets look at those camps. Families were kept together and members could work outside the camps (if work was available and they returned to the camp every night). If you look from a point of "Security" the WWII camps only restricted the internees enough to preserve Security (I know the Japanese-Americans were NOT security risks and were only intern to satisfy political pressure from California, but is that not the same with Gitmo?).

Before I get flamed, I like to point out two facts of the WWII internment, the Japanese in Hawaii were NOT interned (except for those who the Government had evidence to support were supportive of the Japanese Government). This shows how much the internment of the Japanese in California was political NOT security driven.

The other fact is there were Japanese groups in America devoted to the Emperor and Japan, but these groups had almost NO power prior to the internment. The Japanese community was just to spread out for these groups to have much effect. When the Japanese were interned you concentrated the Japanese population and strengthen these small pro-Japan groups. In effect internment HURT security by strengthen these pro-Japan groups (who would have been interned for valid secuirty reasons anyway AND such internment would have sperated them from the majority of Japanese-Americans thus lessening any security risk much more than interning ALL the Japanese- Americans.

My point here is Gitmo is doing more harm to the US than it is helping the US. We are concentrating terrorists AND given them more reasons to fight the US. We are giving their families and friends more reason to hate the US. The Missouri Camps at least did some good (it destroyed the food supply to the Missouri Guerilla and force them to leave Missouri) but people where still hating the Federal Government for it 80 years later.

The Japanese camps were better but did more harm from a security point of view than they helped security (and this was know even at the time the camps were in operations). We did intern enemy aliens during WWII including Germans and Italians but like the Japanese in Hawaii only after we had some evidence of their support for Germany or Italy (Through some restrictions were imposed on foreign born citizens who were NOT security risks, for example Joe DeMargio's father was denied the right to fish, he was a commercial fishermen. He was denied the right to fish for fear his boat may be used to sneak in enemy agents. But other than clearly risky activities such as operating a boat on the high seas we imposed very little restrictions on enemy aliens who posed no threat to America).

We had no need to impose anything like the Patriot Act during WWII or even during the Cold War. Now that we are fighting a small band of terrorist we need to restrict domestic liberties? After 911 will any passenger permit a hijacker to live let alone use another plane as a bomb? We do NOT need to restrict our liberties to defeat Al Queda. They have no support in the US. Any support Al Queda does have in the US would be better shown than hidden for fear of the Patriot Act.

[wroberts189]

7. What a sick nazi bastard this Rumsfeld is

Reminds me of Tyrell in the movie Blade Runner.

[dArKeR]

8. 'trying them and letting them out' means he knows they're NOT guilty.

Did any Whore Reporter question him on this?

[latebloomer]

9. absolutely sickening

that these statements could be made by such a powerful person in our government.

Telling, and chilling.

[The Sushi Bandit]

11. Rummy is F**kin Mid-evil

After the election can we BANISH him to the Congo???