Well said. I had a lovely party yesterday evening. What was planned to be a nice small talk about Merkel´s visit in the US and the expectations on her, came out as a discussion about Gitmo. I know that you think Gitmo is ok - and you´re one of the few Germans believing that.
I differ, although I agree that the collection of informations through interrogations of Gitmo-inmates have contributed to our security here, too. I also do not question the treatment of the prisoners, incl. water boarding. Not long ago, I was opposed to these forms of treatment, but I learned how the water boarding works. It´s ok considering the importance of the informations these people may have.
But I do criticize that people are held in prison camps without a trial. If they´re POW (and there are several from Iraq and Afghanistan who have this status according to US sources), they shall be released as soon as the armed conflict in their homeland is over (e.g. Iraq is stable and the Taliban in Afghanistan are defeated). That may take some time but is in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
If they´re not POW, they´re "civilians" (= criminals, terrorists, whatever you may call them). They shall be entitled to the rights of the Fourth Geneva Convention and be treated according to the laws. Therefore, those people should face a trial. If the reason, why you refuse to try them, is a lack of trust in your judges - you should fix this problem.
We here have difficulties with our judges, too. Remember the trial, conviction, appeal, acquittal, re-trial of Motassadeq? Or the case Mzoudi? Ashaming for Germany. This wouldn´t happen if we had Gitmo. But do we really want to give up "innocent until guilt is proven" and "no imprisonment without conviction or soon process"?
From my view, there is no just way practised right now. In Guantanamo, innocents were imprisoned. In Germany (for instance) guilty people were set free (although extradition to Marocco is likely). It must be possible to find a way in the middle.
I think I have elaborated my views again, and now for all. One last note, I think some haven´t shown fair and unbiased behaviour. They saw "German" "against Gitmo" and started punching no matter what. I had nothing to offer but my smile on that. Learn to differentiate. There isn´t black and white only.
Thank you for attention. Have a good weekend y´all!
Let's say I understand the necessity. America has to deal with 3000 killed compatriots. It is quite logical to me that they are and will stay in anger about OBL and his scum. There was no other opportunity than to react hard. Nevertheless I believe that the US have to change the status of Gitmo into a international accepted prison. Therefore Merkel is absolutely right, that it has to be transformed into something better or must be closed after a transit time. America needs something with a flawless legal foundation. The inmates need trials and their human rights have to be respected even if the punishment is hard. Innocent people have to go free. Period. Therefore I do not think that our positions are that far away in this case. Furthermore I am convinced that the administration of Pres. Bush will also move into this direction since this step is just in the well understood self interest of the US.
The west (not only the US) needs something like a "Sicherheitsverwahrung" (security imprisonment) that can be imposed by our judges if one of the prisoners is obviously a public danger. Such a law must be temporarly controlled. The prisoner must have the chance of revision in short intervals. Just as you said it - a way in the middle.