Interesting

There are more, but this one intrigued me so much that I had to post it.

Editors, you must be given credit for this seminal editorial, in which you tackle a set of daunting conundrums. But you include a few weasel words, and take only a checked swing at the toughest issue: "preventive detention."

Why are we all so perplexed? You mention "the crime of terrorism," which you say the judicial system can normally handle. But we're not in normal times, and have a judiciary now loaded with judges like Roberts and Bybee whom we have no reason to trust. Another example is Abu Zubaydah, "an alleged top member of Al Qaeda" -- 'who seems to be a highly dangerous terrorist but was tortured.' It's not just because in America a person is innocent until proven guilty that you must say "alleged," but also because we all know that torture means that anything he said could be true or false but cannot be used against him. He's now a free man under our system of justice, but we don't dare let him go. This applies to Ahmed Ghailani also, for any confession he made is suspect, and any witnesses stemming from his, or any other, tortured confession quickly fails "due process" -- protection against self-incrimination and Miranda, to mention only two issues.

There is also the problem of using military law, for there was no formal declaration of war by Congress. Imagine if the British had used military tribunals to deal with Irish terrorists -- calling their decades-long struggle a "war." Rule-of-law nations would have condemned them outright. You say the course Mr. Obama "outlined was generally based on due process and democratic governance." Unfortunately "generally based" is a weak phrase and "democratic governance" is not a requirement for "due process."

No, face it Editors: Mr. Bush turned the rule of law upside down, twisted it around, and kicked it to the ground for good measure. We can revitalize and empower the rule of law and due process going forward, and I'm confident Mr. Obama will in general terms, but we can't put humpty-dumpty back together again as far as current detainees are concerned. And, by the way, not just in Guantanamo, but at Bagram in Afghanistan and I fear other sites we don't know about yet.

So, what could we do about "preventive detention," which you "are not convinced is needed"? Somewhat akin to the Hippocratic Oath -- first do no harm -- I suggest we discuss a "velvet prison" option. The decision to reside in such a facility would be the detainee's, with considerable effort made to assure that it's a freely and consciously made decision. We could acquire or build a modest resort-like facility in the U.S. or on an island somewhere. The U.S. would be cheaper, and probably preferable. How about a simple golf club in a temperate year-round clime, with surrounding homes and perhaps some barracks? Isolated and securely fenced, but not a punishment facility. I'm throwing out a concept, not a blueprint.

Of course there could be no free exchange of phone calls with "loved ones," but perhaps family members could move there if they choose, knowing that they cannot leave until the detainee is allowed to leave -- which may be never. It would be necessary to handle the "highly dangerous terrorists" more securely and separate them from the other few hundred. But since we've ruined any chance of a fair trial, we must try something else.

There would have to be multiple exit strategies for some or all of them. I have many other provisos, but the concept is all that counts. The idea is to let detainees see a dimension of America that they can't even imagine. We think, correctly, that America has a lot to offer, which would trump the propaganda and hatred that many detainees have learned -- either before or while detained at Gitmo or elsewhere. Perhaps time and education will make them more reasonable, accepting, and forgiving. If not, at least they'd have a measure of fair treatment after the torture they've experienced and our American conscience could be relieved of the extreme mistreatment of these presumed truly bad guys.

But if this is wrong, if these men are too hardened in their hatred to come around after prolonged exposure to the best we have to offer -- golf, education, fair treatment, and kindness -- then they'd have to stay in their green velvet prison. Mr. Obama said: "In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man." But it's too late for that: they've already been long-detained by one man, Mr. Bush. Let's not force Mr. Obama to go it alone in dealing with this conundrum. Let's take the least-worst course of action, which also is humane. And please, don't liken this suggestion to how we mistreated Japanese-Americans during World War II. They had done nothing and were not suspected of doing anything. Our paranoid and old racist habits got the best of us. Today we're talking about a relative handful of mistreated people already in our custody, and many would opt for a velvet prison given the choice.