It didn’t take long for the inevitable and erroneous pushback against closing Gitmo, complete with tried and true falsehoods and made up numbers relating to the so-called 61 former detainees who have "returned to the battlefield" after being released from their indefinite detention without being charged with a crime.
And as we are on the lookout for this nonsensical number to be repeated over and over and over as the "debate" rages as to what should be done with these detainees, how to try them, how to close Gitmo and (hopefully) what really happened to those who were released (even though other criminals and murderers are released or escape from prisons every day here), there is one major hole in the argument against closing Gitmo:
What is the proposal of those who are in favor of keeping this symbol and example of Bush administration torture, abuse and ignoring the rule of law as to what should be done with the detainees?
It is the same false argument presented when discussing when, if (thankfully that is in the past) and how to leave Iraq. The argument for staying there forever is that there will be enormous bloodshed if we leave (as if there isn’t already) or that there will be a power vacuum (as if there isn’t already) or that the "terrorists" (who we have funded both directly and indirectly) will follow us home or that we have to stay there until "the job is done", whatever that "job" is – or some other nonsense that is long on fear and short on logic or planning.
Will some of the detainees be pissed off after being released with no charges brought? Most likely, but doesn’t that happen now in prisons all across America? What about those who were convicted of murder or attempted murder or some other heinous crime but their sentence is complete? What about those who break out of prison or those who are out on parole or those who have been exonerated after being wrongfully imprisoned for years? Can we be sure that they too won’t be repeat offenders or won’t take revenge against those who put them in prison?
Keeping someone detained indefinitely with no charges goes against the very fabric of this country’s ideals. And keeping in mind that this "61" number will be trotted out time and time again – all without challenge, even though it has already been debunked a number of times. But even if it wasn’t debunked, what is the alternative? Should they be held forever without being charged with any crime? Should they be tried before a kangaroo court with secret manufactured evidence to hold them forever?
There is always a risk that someone who has been wrongfully imprisoned will want to take revenge against those who wrongfully imprisoned them. Even more so when they were tortured. But that is what us DFH’s warned when the Bush administration was doing just that – and all too many Americans were swept up in the lies and thought it was well worth torturing the detainees. Fact is, we will never really know where those "61" detainees went or what they did – even if we could track them (which, based on what the NSA whistleblower is saying, we better be able to track them), the argument against Gitmo in the first place is that it is a recruiting poster for al Qaeda and terrorism.
The only way to ensure that these people will never "return to the battlefield" is to do something completely extreme and just kill them all. And while this is an even dumber idea than the idea to indefinitely detain and torture them in the first place, it may be a way to show just how ridiculously hollow the argument against closing Gitmo is. There has been no other argument that I have heard – no other reason given for indefinitely holding people without charges.
And if the reason is that they "may return to the battlefield", then the answer should be two points:
- Since the Bush administration needed to illegally wiretap American citizens who have nothing to do with any criminal acts, can’t these same detainees be monitored after release – if they aren’t tried and convicted of a crime anyway"; and
- Are you suggesting that the only alternatives are holding them forever and letting potentially innocent people (who have never been charged with a crime) waste away and die at US taxpayer expense or outright murdering them?
As we saw over the past 8 years, fear creates desperation, which creates lies. We need to shoot down the lie about "61 detainees returning to the battlefield". And we need to paint the proponents of indefinite detention without charges as the mindless, thoughtless fools that they are. False choices should be called out for the ridiculousness that they are. There is no choice of only "let them rot away or they will kill us". But forcing these brainless parrots to defend the indefensible will bring the truth to light – and hopefully elevate the discussion above fear and lies.
After all, aren’t we all about getting past that?