Your problem is you think this is a justice problem, as if the solution was a trial instead of a court martial and execution like Nuremberg. We didn’t send Nazis to US District Court and we shouldn’t even think of doing so for these jihadis.

The Nazis had their day in court with Nuremberg Trials overseen by the Allies under international and wartime law. The trials were held in public view. Those in Gitmo were convicted in secret tribunals without the kind of legal due process we should expect of America and without any transparency.

Swing and a miss.

In any case, we locked up an innocent 19 year old kid there for 5 years. This solution obviously hasn't worked

I think 100 is a bit much. But where do you draw the line? 10,000? At some point you have no justice system and no rule of law. The good news is that modern technology makes it increasingly more difficult to convict the wrong person. All the DNA, cell phone, etc, etc that they use to find and convict criminals also provides alibis for the innocent. In the old days juries often had to make emotionally-biased gut calls based on circumstantial evidence, with predictably flawed results... that probably almost never happens today.

We'll have to disagree that prison is barbaric. I think it's usually too comfortable, should involve hard labor at the least.

That's the problem... when "principled" politicians start thinking about making political hay by closing GITMO, their advisors inform them that they will not be re-elected if just one of the proven terrorists they release happens to take another US life on their watch. Or maybe even blows up a train in Europe. If you turned out everybody at GITMO, that would be inevitable.

So, one miscarriage of justice among how many discredits the system?

To blandly say that the Gitmo were tried in secret tribunals without legal due process is borderline absurd. All were afforded the same due process as the Nuremburg trial, probably more.

The fact a bunch of people on the Left hated George Bush to try to gum up the works, and then did NOTHING meaningful to fix it is a salient fact.

Of course it is, but what do you expect from a mental titan that believes the US Constitution applies to these prisoners?

Confidently incorrect as usual, but the ignorant don't usually recognize their own ignorance. Let me help you out there bud.

The Supreme Court case of Boumediene v. Bush dealt with this.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...s13-story.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...h=7cfe996c4f1d

"The justices said the Constitution from the beginning enshrined the “privilege of habeas corpus” -- or the right to go before a judge -- as one of the safeguards of liberty. And that right extends even to foreigners captured in the war on terrorism, the high court said, particularly when they have been held for as long as six years without charges."


Google is really pretty easy to use. You should try it sometime bud, maybe you wouldn't be wrong all the time "smart guy" 🤣

Still being held, too. So, would you or the SCOTUS argue that German or Japanese POWs be tried? The al Queda are POWs, when they stop making war, we’ll release them. See Geneva Conventions.

see also: https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...heir-detention

Very narrow and specific interpretation, does not grant constitutional rights to GITMO detainees... they're still there, right?