Whilst the internees are not being processed into courts, then it is nothing more than a remando. If it's purpose is to swiftly interrogate then process or release prisoners then it has a purpose.
How many people , of those remanded at Gitmo have actually been processed?
More importantly , how many have been released due to pressure from unsavoury but 'allied' Governments? Surely if the person you are holding is "Bang to rights and no mistake" you should be able to deny repatriation and process to court/tribunal?
If Guantanamo is not fulfilling it's 'advertised' function, then it needs closing.
Perhaps the UN should also concern themselves with 'alleged' satellite sites?
Your Question as posed begs for a POLL - which you could have put at the top and can still, using the Edit button.
yes, Guantanamo should be gracefully closed - foolish, panicky Own Goal by the Administration - W-a-a-a-a-y past time they corrected the problem.
PR OPPORTUNITY - " US President takes on board personal advice from UN Sec Gen....statesmanlike response......we, the people are big enough to Admit When We Are Wrong....My Fellow Americans, there is no "Western Hypocrisy" at the White House."...yah-di-yah-di-yah.
( Hmmm....maybe I should apply for that internship?.....NAH, I look crap in a skirt and my coffee's sh1te....Ho hum.... ...)
Also T6 - Why has it taken the US government so long to come up with a lasting solution? I could understand if in the immediate aftermath of Afghanistan they were stuck with lots of prisoners which they are reluctant to release but who also don't fully fall under the Geneva Convention. But years later and they still haven't sorted it out and are using trickery (not keeping prisoners on US soil) to hold the prisoners. Sounds like a very unAmerican thing for the American government to do....
Edited to add: Scoy - I'm not sure what the correct term is, whether it is US soil or not, but Guantanamo does not fall under the jurisdiciton of the US supreme court...
I can absolutely go along with that, the wider world's discomfort with Gitmo is nothing to do with the welfare of the prisoners - they're my enemy and I don't lose sleep over them - but as we keep learning again and again, you can't hold yourself up as the arbiter of rightousness and freedom whilst operating shady establishments that are open to condemnation. Damn right give em to the afghanis, that'll learn em. Then, if and when that useless bunch let them go, a very firm "you're not helping the solution so you're part of the problem" will bring them in line or earn a political kicking. I'm tired of sullying ourselves for others who can't be arrsed to solve their own problems.
We may be able to defeat terrorists by compromising our principles, but we'll never defeat terrorism that way.
Ah mate....you will be blissfully unaware of something called the Spanish-American War of 1898 then......a bunch of Teddy Roosevelt's war-canoes pitched up off Havana (which was then a colony of Spain) and sank anything they fancied....Uncle Sam's Misguided Children stormed ashore in the approved manner and wrought the traditional havoc upon any who sought to oppose them....in the peace treaty which followed, Guantanamo Bay was leased to US Govt for ....er...a jolly long time.....for use as a Naval base.
It is de facto US property perched on the end of Fidel's home turf and unless Fidel wishes to go to war with the world's only superpower,likely to remain so.....
A treaty reaffirmed the lease in 1934 granting Cuba and her trading partners free access through the bay, payment of $2,000 in gold per year, equating to $4,085 today, and a requirement that both the U.S. and Cuba must mutually consent to terminate the lease.