Commander Lippold,

I would not limit the scope of updating military detention procedures to the detainees at Gitmo. What we need are well founded military detention policies and procedures applicable where ever our military operates, be it Gitmo, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. In any case, the need for it is quite independent of the schedule for closing Gitmo.

You cannot specify the proper forum for the prosecution of a military detainee until he or she has been properly classified. Certainly any detainee who is indictable for a crime of terrorism within the jurisdiction of the United States for such crimes might well be prosecuted within the Federal Court system.

Your single minded and unseemly focus on depriving “enemy combatants” of the rights afforded U.S. citizens violates the fundamental American values enshrined in our Constitution. The rights we have under that document reflect the human values we hold dear. These values are not limited to ourselves. As our Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these to be self-evident…”. The more important question at hand, which you and so many others will not properly address is, what rights should these people we have detained have?

Surely you would not disagree that the innocent among them should be released? That is, of course, any who are not combatants (either lawful or unlawful) and for which there is no evidentiary basis to sustain terrorism charges. Frankly, if you and others in the government showed as much zeal in purging the Gitmo population of these poor souls as you do in imprisoning the rest, you might have more credibility. The unfortunate situation we find ourselves is that until we have a “detainee review process” in place that has adequate balance and integrity to it we cannot trust any Administration’s determination that the remaining detainees are in fact enemy combatants, if that is the phrase you choose.

I can agree with you about detention under the laws of war. In fact, I think we would have been best served had Congress declared war against Al Qaeda itself immediately following 9/11, if not earlier in response to its declaration of war against us. That would have at least brought some clarity and focus to the identity of our real enemy and our engagement with him. Instead we are now at war with a tactic, called terrorism, or an ideology called “radical extremist Islam”, depending on who you talk to. In doing so we have managed to create far more enemies for no good reason throughout the Islamic world.

Finally, Commander, would it not be simpler if those detainees who conducted armed operations against our military forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, or against the USS Cole, were held as Prisoners of War? Are these not the folk we are at war with? If we could hold Geronimo and the remnants of his band as Prisoners at War, why not these particular combatants? Did the Indians wear uniforms and maintain command structures? Of course not.

I was the first to post comments on all articles on here. They got posted and I also posted a small comment yesterday,stating that I do understand now. All of my post have been deleted because I do not carry the same views of this paper. I defended the Commander!!

Guantanamo seems to give terrorist attacks on US some kind of moral justification, that is, there is a fight going on beteewn one lawless mob (Al Qaeda)
against another lawless mob (USA).

I respect everyone's opinion in this forum. However the most disturbing fact is that without any evidence or charges we assume those incarcerated at Gitmo are terrorists. What happened to our VALUE that everyone is innocent until proven guilty?

Obviously, two thirds of them were released because we did not have any evidence against them. Even many in the current Gitmo population of 240 plus, is already cleared of charges.

Remember many of these street people were sold to us for rewards and we decided to torture them to extract information which did not exist. Gitmo has dragged the good name of our value system in the dirt. It has strengthened the dictators of the world who now think when going gets tough its ok even for for democracies to torture the innocents. What are we telling the world about the strength of our system of checks and balances.

The war against terrorists is completely different from the wars which took place in the past.
In the past, wars were between countries and their regular armies. Today, the wars are between countries' regular armies and terrorists who have no regular armies and who do not respect any of the laws of war, but request the opponents to give them the benefits which normal democracies offer.
The terrorists are represented by fighters who are of a number of different countries but who all adhere to the Moslem religion. They are ready to die in suicide attacks to kill civilians and create terror in the name of God. They have no uniform and mix with the civilian populations and may often use them as shield in their attacks and when civilians are killed they accuse the regular armies of committing war crimes.
A guerilla war, particularly with armies composed of Americans and Europeans, can never be won. The regular armies are usually ignorant of the local languages and mentalities, and can never know who they can really trust. In Afghanistan and Irak, the soldiers of the regular armies who have been killed were mostly the victims of suicide attacks, side bombs on the road or by snipers.
To allow the terrorists to receive the protection of the rule of law of democratic countries, when they have no respect for it, may be very dangerous.
It is indeed a very touchy situation for people used to have the laws respected, but in this kind of war, it may be very dangerous.
In conclusion, in spite of the above statements, democratic countries should respect the rules of law.

Why not allow Gitmo detainees, to work in the White House, Why not allow the ACLU to adopt them. After all, they are just good ole boys, attempting to kill us.

It is disturbing to see a marine officer who went to the army to defend his country now wants to destroy the constitution of his country. The rule of law is for every one and any injustice is counterproductive.

It is disturbing to see a marine officer who went to the army to defend his country now wants to destroy the constitution of his country. The rule of law is for every one and any injustice is counterproductive.

I wouldn't call a truck bomb a minor crime, Gitmo prisoners have it pretty good, special food, prayer time with special prayer mats to pray on. they should not have the same rights as US citizens because they are not US citizens, the only right they should have is to keep their heads on their body unlike our people when captured by them. Do you have any doubts that they might torture us if given the chance. I can't believe how ignorant these bleeding hearts can be..

If Commander Lippold were to reflect for a moment, he would realize just how appalling are his remarks that the Guantanamo detainees must not have "...access to civilian courts and the same rights afforded to American citizens..."
In that sweeping statement, Lippold tells us he does not believe that our democratically designed, constitutional system of justice can be trusted and that the rule of law, upon which our country was founded, should be junked.
The good Commander should be reminded that it was for this system of justice and for the rule of law that his crewmen on the Cole gave their lives. He dishonors their memory by his timid fears that cause him to reject those very constitutional protections that both define us as a free people, and which are the essential qualities that make our society superior to those who want to destroy us.

I grieve for the sailors lost because of your mistakes, Commander. Yes, your own failures as their Captain, when you ignored or failed to take seriously the intelligence warnings you know you received. Your deficiencies hardly qualify you to comment on detention policy; in fact, your sense of permanent victimhood sickens me. Harsh? Tell it to the dead.

It is telling that the article's author makes no comment on the lack of impartiality of the methods used to determine if a detainee is a risk to the US or not.

He simply takes the current vetting system "detainee review process" as fair despite all the evidence against this, both from within the military and outside.

Thus anything he has written must be seen in this light, that he does not have any real intention of being fair and not ruled by his fears.

Let's all recall the loud announcements by the US that each and every one of those in Guantanamo is the "worst of the worst" and how blatantly that was a lie given all those it has released and the vast exaggeration of the mostly minor 'crimes' they have been accused of.

It is simple prudence to expect government officials to continue to lie and exaggerate and do what they did in the past.