What's In the New Draft National Defense Authorization Act

I am. I read the article and understand the process. This is how things start. This is how the process begins. Ignore it now at my own peril. There are other things boiling in this thing that could also compromise our safety and security. It needs to get out there and then stay out there. I believe, and I know that there are others out there who don not believe, that Gitmo is a good thing. I like Rumsfeld's "Least worst place" label a LOT. But probably not for the reasons you would think. I like "Least worst place" because it still implies necessity. In the end, the place is immaterial to how we operate it. This place could be in fly-over country, it could be in New York City, it could be on a floating jail at an undisclosed location, or Guam (which was probably the back-up plan, though we all voted for Hawaii). The fact remains that at the time, keeping unlawful combatant detainees in-country was untenable. It was dangerous for the detainees and for us. And remember, in the beginning, nearly every detainee was potential valuable information that could save many lives. We needed a safe, secure place, outside the US (at least initially) so that we could house, care for and vet each of these potential information gold mines. Most other countries would never even consider doing what we did, nor caring for them as we have and do. We go to extraordinary lengths to follow Geneva and Law of War, and when I say "we" I mean DoD, NOT Secret Squirrels. I know nothing about alphabet soup OPS. I am strictly military in my experience and knowledge. I know very little about military special operators, other than the fact that they are some of the finest, most loyal human beings on planet earth. I KNOW Gitmo is necessary. I KNOW that the left, Islamists and liberal globalists everywhere will never even try to understand or appreciate the value of such a place. As I wrote in my book, as the ranking US Medical Department officer with the Joint Detainee Operations group, I was very unhappy with the treatment of US personnel vis-a-vis the detainees, whom I perceived as having exemplary medical care, whereas the troops were afterthoughts, and basically had to fend for themselves or seek only their organic medical assets, some of which were left behind because they were considered non-essential to the mission. I was and am upset about how we bow to every "religious" request of these radical Islamists, who laugh at our weakness of giving them things they never had or wanted before they got to Club Gitmo. I would run the place very differently, but I would run the place. I would NOT have let 731 detainees go. I would have stuck to the very basic rules of military detention and prosecution of war criminals and unlawful combatants. These proposed changes, together, represent the unwinding of anything resembling justice or wartime incarceration, and they are not in our country's best interest, of course in my opinion.

MAJ Montgomery Granger - the problem in the way that you would run it is that you would trash the Constitution to do so.

The Constitution has little or nothing to do with wartime incarceration of foreign nationals, especially if they are being held on foreign soil. In my 22 years of military service, nor in my final 9 years serving in Enemy Prisoner of War Military Police units, nor in my service at Gitmo, nor in my service in Iraq, did anyone every say, "Oh, by the way, that's unconstitutional." We follow SOP, rules, Regulations, FM's, DA-PAM's, Law of War, even ICRC pamphlets that pull out all the relevant Geneva Convention guidance, but we never opened up the US Constitution. Why? Because the assumption was that all the other stuff did not contradict it. I would run Gitmo "Old School," but that doesn't mean what you probably think it means. It means fair treatment IAW all those books and manuals and laws. It means treating every detainee with dignity and respect. For those accused of war crimes it means the UCMJ, no more and no fewer legal privileges than US military personnel receive. Done. How would you run it, Sir?

MAJ Montgomery Granger - in the first place, in accordance with my oath to the Constitution. Second, I would comply with the Law of Land Warfare, and in accordance with the various conventions that the United States is a signatory to, and by which it is bound. That includes the requirement to respect their religious beliefs and to allow "complete latitude in the exercise of their religious duties, including attendance at the service of their faith" (Geneva Convention of 1949, art. 34), which you seem to have an objection to following. I would also follow AFI 31-105. That includes separating the detainees into two groups, pre- and post-trial, because the Supreme Court has ruled that the detainees have a right to a hearing before a neutral decision maker.