2- do you think it's a good idea for the U.S. gov't (in theory a
proponent of "freedom") to simply grab anybody they don't like, and lock
them up forever, with no accountability?


Vito wrote:
Absolutely not.

Good, we're agreed.

Oddly enough, Dave has avoided answering this question.

... But it is my understanding that those imprisoned at Gitmo
were tried in the country where they were captured

That's contrary to what I have heard.

The Gitmo prisoners are from a number of sources. Some (perhaps most)
are battlefield captives, others were grabbed in counter terrorist
sweeps. At least a few were turned over to the U.S. military by other
"gov't agencies."



... not necessarily IAW US
law but at least by military tribunal, and were found guilty. Then rather
than being killed or imprisoned there, they were turned over to us on the
promise that we would not let them return because we believed they had info
we needed. Thus expecting them to be given additional trials at Gitmo is
equivalent to having courtrooms in a stateside max security prison - it just
don't happen.


If that were the case, I'd agree. But I don't think it is, at least not
for the majority.

Consider this, why would we keep prisoners ourselves, if the military
suspects they have info on terrorist operations and/or organization,
when we can hand them over to one of our 3rd world "allies" secret
police who will simply torture it out of them pronto? OTOH since the
Bush Administration endorses the U.S. military torturing prisoners, why
do we need to keep them at all?

I suspect a lot of these guys are being held because somebody, somewhere
deep in the belly of some spook ops dept, thinks they will be able to be
'turned' and used as a U.S. counter agent in the future.

DSK