Trials at Gitmo

Michelle Malkin reported this week that all detainees at Guantanamo Bay have received a tribunal, and further detainees should receive the same.

The process (Adobe Reader Required) seems to be dated Jan. 31 of this year, but that may only be the date of publication, as the Administrative Review Procedures Notification, which is used to notify detainees of the trial verdict, seems to be dated earler.

The ARP Notification seems to clearly indicate further steps a detainee can take in order to, in effect, "appeal" the decision to continue his detention. It also clearly states that if an Administrative Review Board determines that the detainee no longer poses a threat, that he may be released from detention.

Perhaps we jumped the gun back in April when we called for trials for these guys. But why don't we get this information for at least five to six months after it is publicly documented that these trials have taken place?

Part of the blame has to lie with the Bush Administration. I fail to see the logic in keeping this information quiet. If the MSM has downplayed it, do as Reagan did and go directly to the American people. Would making this information public bring about some military disadvantage that I don't know about? That would be one explanation, and a very good one, too, but as a non-military individual, I have my doubts.

However, politicians like John NcCain and the Donks can't seem to shut up about it. The Left is falling all over themselves trying to make a point that these terrorists haven't had a fair trial.

They do not have the right to a traditional civilian-type trial - a military tribunal (which is what they have already received) is appropriate in this situation. Should the President allow his foes to continue to make political hay of this situation? Wouldn't it make sense to at least put enough information out there to defend himself? Again, I'm just not sure. The few liberals who acknowledge that these trials took place pass them off as "not good enough". Should we treat terrorists the same as we do American shoplifters (Malkin used this analogy)? I have no doubts whatsoever as to my answer to that: NO.

It does make me curious, though, as to why a pursuasive man like President Bush wouldn't at least try to pursuade as to why information like this is so limited and/or so underreported. If the media doesn't want to report it, why not go directly to the American people like Reagan would have? Why not at least explain to us why the information is so scant? I don't want to second-guess him on a war issue, but I am confused on this one. These trials were perfectly within the bounds of the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties. Why not have us know about it? Would that pose a danger? I'm just not sure.

RWR