Harman: Gitmo Must Go

I've traditionally been a Jane Harman skeptic, but she's sure right about this.

Comments

When John Edwards leads and says:

when I'm the president, one of the first things I'll do is to close Guantanamo.

how can more conventional Dems like Harman fail to follow?

Posted by Petey | May 10, 2007 9:14 AM

Huh? When John Edwards takes a liberal position in the primary campaign, how can moderate Dems not follow his lead? You're in such a hurry to pimp Edwards in every single thread, Petey, that your arguments have ceased to make sense.

Posted by Steve | May 10, 2007 9:24 AM

she's sure right about this

Except that closing Guantanamo has no more than symbolic value in terms of making sure that detainees are treated justly, and may be positively harmful to that cause.

Posted by washerdreyer | May 10, 2007 1:41 PM

Closing Guantanamo would be a good thing, but as WD indicates, the fine print matters a whole lot more than high flown House floor rhetoric.

DOD and DOS haven't particularly distinguished themselves in resolving matters for the dozens of prisoners who've been 'cleared' but are nonetheless still locked up. Including some in the highest security facility at the base.

HR2212 is better than nothing, but because it includes indefinite detention without trial -- but just within the US -- it's really not good enough. It should also really specify who can be detained: is a cook an 'enemy combatant'? An aide worker? A little old lady in Switzerland who sends checks to an orphanage?

Still, it's better than nothing.

Posted by CharleyCarp | May 11, 2007 12:05 AM