Well, that certainly didn't take very long at all - revisited

By Ken Lynn

Retiring after nearly 26 years in the U.S. Air Force, my wife and I relocated to Ashe County in September of 2007. Shortly thereafter, I read my first edition of the Ashe Mountain Times. Among the articles was Mr. Ron Fitzwater's opinion piece railing against bicyclist riding on the Blue Ridge Parkway. Since bicycle riding was one of the main attractions in our decision to settle in the county, I made a mental note to keep up with his future views.

Although there've been scant few of his OP-EDs that I've agreed with, I've nevertheless gained respect for his writing over the ensuing months as he's very good at expressing his opinion. After being named editor, I met Mr. Fitzwater very briefly, finding him to be an extremely affable fellow and I congratulated him on his promotion which he absolutely deserved.

However, conveying the sentiments of Mr. Fitzwater, the Times' OP-ED page typically conveys a one-sided conservative bent which leads to the reason I'm writing. I was wondering how long it would take before Mr. Fitzwater railed against President Obama and the new administration, and just like the headline of his January 29th editorial: "well, that certainly didn't take very long at all."

In his editorial, Fitzwater disagrees with the president's decision to close down the Guantánamo Bay detainee prison. In doing so, he makes a few points that I'd like to address, and to point out why I think the president made the right decision.

First, Fitzwater refers to the detainees as prisoners of war. Lawful enemy combatants, or prisoners of war, are uniformed soldiers of their respective nation that are captured on the battlefield. A lawful enemy combatant is eligible for all the benefits of a prisoner of war as defined by the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful enemy combatants, as the Bush administration initially classified the detainees, are not entitled to the same benefits as a prisoner of war. It wasn't until the Supreme Court ruled much later that captured Al Qaeda members should have been given prisoner of war protection that this benefit was extended.

Fitzwater says they're prisoners because they "took up arms against America." If that's the case, why have more than half of the approximately 750 detainees been released over the years without facing a tribunal or having any terrorist or criminal charges levied against them? Why have at least five uniformed military prosecutors resigned under protest once they've seen the lack of evidence against many of the remaining 270 individuals?

According to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "Gitmo" was supposed to hold the "worst of the worst." If so, how is it that a 13 year old detainee ended up in the facility? In fact, three detainees ranged in age from 13 - 15 and there've been at least 20 juvenile detainees under the age of 18.

It's my belief that editor Fitzwater, along with others who don't support closing the facility, is primarily looking at the situation through the lens of the physical harm a detainee might potentially cause if set free or if put in a federal prison. I counter that the real harm caused by the current detainee prison is to the broader American interest. Gitmo has become a symbol around the world of an arrogant America that disregards human rights and the rule of law; two ideals we've long championed. Additionally, Gitmo has been a huge rallying symbol which the terrorists have used as a recruiting tool.

As a military retiree, I also worry about my fellow warriors in arms, including Mr. Fitzwater's son who serves this great nation in uniform. Our example at Gitmo, and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where we've abused detainees doesn't bode well for America's fighting men and women. At some point in the future, Americans in uniform will be captured and face abuses, torture and indefinite detention. Because of our past actions, their captors can say they're only doing to our troops what we ourselves have done to others.

Our greater national interest demands the closing of Gitmo and by setting a deadline, President Obama has provided incentive for tough decisions to finally be made on what to do with the prisoners. The Senate Intelligence Committee has proposed a bill for closing Guantánamo that provides due process by requiring every detainee to either be charged and tried in a U.S. Federal Court; transferred to the United Nations for trial by an international tribunal; returned to the government of their country of origin; or released if the lack of evidence so warrants. Our maximum security prisons can handle those convicted in our courts and overall this seems to be a well reasoned approach.

In closing I'd like to comment on Mr. Fitzwater's objection to the new president giving his first interview to Al-Arabia, an Arabic TV station rather than to an American network. Although the peace process suffered greatly under eight years of the Bush administration, bringing an end to the Palestinian - Israeli conflict would have such far-reaching positive impacts on our own self interest that I saw the president's interview as a brilliant act of statecraft, carried out on behalf of all Americans, and not a snub as Mr. Fitzwater saw it.