Lets's start out by accepting a few givens. First, there is an unknown number of so-called "illegal combattants" we have imprisoned in Guantánamo and elsewhere around the world. Second, simply letting them go just ain't gonna happen. Third, as long as a case can be made that we are at war, the Supreme Court will go along with their retention. Fourth, it's also a given that once cooler minds are in charge, we shouldn't imprison any more of them, at least not under the same circumstances.
We've been getting our jollies mocking Bushco for imprisoning them in the first place, and for handling them so maladroitly ever since, but it would be more effective if we had something specific in mind as an alternative.
So the question is, what do you think is an acceptable solution to the problem of what to do with them?
The stumbling block, obviously, is that there is evidence against the prisoners (so the government claims) that is so sensitive that not even the prisoner himself can hear it, much less the public. However, based on what has been released publically about this evidence, it seems to me that in many cases, the government is greatly exaggerating the risk to security. Furthermore, I believe that the danger to us from the release of an actual terrorist is much less than the harm to our image and to our principles from holding them indefinitely or trying them irregularly.
Therefore, my solution is to use ordinary cours martiales or civilian courts, I don't see much of a difference, and the government should make the best case it can on evidence that can be heard normally. This should be done promptly and with all due process.
This is how we'eve always done it, and I don't understand why it wasn't done in this case.
But, I may be missing something, which is the purpose of me writing the diary. What's your idea?