Is Bob Franken affiliated with any news outlet, or is he a free-lancer now that he no longer works for CNN? Reading his news commentary at The Hill -- particularly this piece about the debate over closing Guantanamo -- leaves you wondering how he was able to report the news in an impartial fashion:
No detainee has escaped, of course, but inevitably, teeny morsels of the truth did. In the name of fighting the War on Terror, U.S. interrogators were oftentimes engaging in treatment that could hardly be described as “humane.”
Guantanamo has been an international embarrassment. So much so that there is a debate within the administration over whether it should be shut down.
But that’s really complex. If these detainees are brought to the United States they would have habeas corpus rights.
For a government that refused to even extend them Geneva Convention protections, this would be like poison.
The administration argues that such niceties are distractions in the fight against global terrorism.
But even with all that the word of mistreatment oozed out and Guantanamo is an embarrassment. So too is the effort to conceal what was going on all this time.
So our national security leaders have painted themselves, and us, into a corner. Democracy can sure be inconvenient.
Speaking of their disdain for the public’s right to know what goes on in this fight to protect our way of life, a friend once remarked, “Never have so many fought so hard for freedoms they despise.”
It is a virtual certainty of course, that if Guantanamo closes, some prisoners that would have gone there will instead remain in prisons in their home countries - or in any 'secret prisons' that may remain in third countries. Do advocates really expect that the closure of Gitmo will improve the treatment received by terror suspects?
Check out more thoughts on Gitmo here.