you would have to send the bush cabinet to the icc before anyone will take americans seriously.

i'm still waiting for someone to be hung for what went on in vietnam, where simple genocide was u. s. policy.

DON'T close Guantanamo right away. First, 'render' GW Bush and his Gang of War Criminals to Guantanamo for at least one year, under the most severe conditions that any of the prisoners there have suffered.

THEN close it down...

That might start the long and slow process of restoring the USA's lost credibility as a democratic nation.

--- GSC

maybe it should be disclosed (in the byline, or the article itself) that this piece was written by the executive director of the ACLU.

there it is, right at the very end

Does the fact that it is written by someone affiliated with the ACLU render the article any less credible? I simply don't get it when so many of my fellow citizens speak of the ACLU with so much disdain and horror. Just goes to show that most citizens don't understand how necessary the ACLU is: an organization willing to go bat for individuals and issues no matter how unpopular they may be. The ACLU protects your civil liberties, and after the last 7 plus years those who have been paying attention could not doubt the efficacy of its very existence.

Guantanamo is not a prison, it's a concentration camp. Prisons are subject to the rule of law, Guantanamo and the secret "prisons" in eastern Europe and elsewhere are not: they are concentration camps.

"If we are ever to regain our standing as a nation committed to the rule of law and fundamental human rights, we must close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay now..."

Too late.

If you close Guantanamo now and left Iraq tomorrow do you really think people round the world will just suddenly forget the torture, the illegal renditions and the hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq? You don't just forget things like that.

It's a long road back from here. It will need recognition from the US that what has happened is wrong and is not what America stands for. And that will take prosecutions of the guilty and a reassessment of America's role in the world.

Someday, hopefully in the not too distant future, students will be baffled and slightly ashamed to study the whole Guantanamo episode...

I suspect that, like McCarthyism, most Americans will quickly forget about the whole thing. For others, there will be a process of consciously forgetting.

What is certain is that neither President Bush, or any of his advisers will serve so much as a minute in jail for their crimes against humanity.

As progressive Liberals, it'll be up to us to keep the memory of Guantanamo alive in the hope that similar mistakes can be avoided in the rest of the 21st century. Is that asking too much?

Guantanamo Prison would be an excellent site for the George Bush Junior Presidential Library. Just convert some of the big new buildings. The cell blocks should be preserved as well, as part of the full experience. Trot out the interrogation videos (with the CIA and contractor faces tastefully pixillated) as part of the tour.

The highlight, of course, would be Mr. Bush himself and much of his inner circle, in their cells. Be sure to drop by during "enhanced interrogation"!

Am I the only reader astonished that Romero made no mention of the more fundamental Guantanamo issue? Viz, that the US has no right to the ignominious Guantanamo "lease" in the first place. It is one of the more unambiguous advertisements of the history and nature of American imperialism, yet the question of "should we be there" lies un-needling and lost in the hay shed of US journalism. As, again, here.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias!

Which is why it's important to discredit the messenger

Signed,

A Card-Carrying Member of the ACLU

Whether or not the director of the ACLU is the author of this article is irrelevant. The fact remains that, under the so-called "leadership" of the feckless and corrupt George Bush, the U.S. finds itself mired in a very dark time. Along with slavery, the extermination of the native American tribes, McCarthyism and other shameful periods, the concentration camps established by Bush, Cheney etal leave an indelible mark upon the pages of our history. One can only hope that one day soon, we will be rid of this immoral, inhumane and unenlightened gang who have inhabited the White House and the halls of Congress for the last 8 years.

But I have a language quibble for next time:

"There is no reason why the prison at Guantánamo Bay should remain open even one day longer."

"Open" is an unfortunate choice in this context with its associations of "freedom" and "visibility"; for example, if I wrote, "We opened the jail," you'd probably assume that we allowed the prisoners to leave.

Perhaps better is "...remain in operation even one day longer." ("Operation" has a slightly mechanical or procedural feeling that serves you well here.)

This is actually bigger than a quibble. You want to get the best possible emotional reaction from your readership; you need to keep it as clear as possible; you want to make sure therefore to use words like "open" only in a positive context.

I apologize in advance for injecting presidental politics into yet another Salon discussion. However, it should be noted that there is no evidence that the Bush administration will do anything about this travesty before the year is out. So what of the candidates?

Here's how I understand it.

Clinton, Edwards, and Obama all have argued that Guantanamo should be closed and the individuals still held there transferred to the US courts or released.

Ron Paul thinks it should be closed.

McCain, from what I can tell, wants it closed or at least wants the men there tried in a fair manner before deciding what to do with them.

Guiliani supports the current situation.

Huckabee apparently thinks that Guantanamo is "too cushy" and that the inmates there have a nice life.

Romney thinks Guantanamo should be doubled in size.