We do have organized crime in the US, civilian crime that caters to the dark tastes of people, or seeks to make financial profit by conducting illegal actions. Collectively, organized crime doesn't seek to destabilize the political structure (although it may subvert individuals), doesn't declare war on an particular portion of government like police or military, doesn't inflict a generalized terror for those who don't support them by detonating bombs at Wal-Mart or the mall, and doesn't plant roadside bombs, sniper attacks, and wholesale revenge attacks.
Sure, you can say fear is a governments greatest tool, and political parties that 'fight for the people' tend to stay in power by creating an artificial enemy. However, at present, there isn't an artificial enemy - he's real, he has media releases, he conducts attacks. So not every bit of fear originates from those in power.
I do think the whole fear thing has been overdone - the patriot act, the creation of Department of Homeland security, the outrageously stupid standards of equality for aircraft passenger searches, the changes in access to personal financial records - all of which are created as a general law or guideline, should be specific so as not to allow for abuse but isn't because of 'political correctness' . Thank both the dems and the repugs, as well as GWB - there is more damage done to US culture in response to 9/11 than 9/11 itself. Gitmo is a necessary sideshow.
Weaver, those are good points. It is hypothesis and supposition at this point to create a concern of gulags, concentration, reeducation camps a la the game Half-Life or Soviet Union. And they are terrorists - individuals practicing attacks against mostly a civilians and civilian infrastructure to force political change, as opposed to an enemy of the state who could be anyone with any type of written or spoken criticism against a government policy. The US perspective is pretty much say all the **** you want, but your actions will be what convicts you.
I don't think every american lies awake at night or has to take medication for nerves because of the omnipresent threat of global terrorism. I have to say, most people I come in contact with don't even think about it - it's too far away, in Afghanistan, or Israel, or at best New York City. If it was an absorbing fear, I'd see it non-stop on TV, it'd be dominating discussions at work, college, or the local coffee shop. It's not happening. I'd say most people forget 99% of the day the US is involved in a shoot-em-up in Afghanistan. Heck - I bet most couldn't even explain what the Taliban believe, or what Al Queada's stated goals are.They're more disturbed when the cable goes out so they can't watch 24.
Back to Gitmo, though -its not perfect, and K. asks if its the least harmful/restrictive. I'd say it depends are how you look at the United States - if you view the US as an oppressive beast, insidiously wanting to dominate the world through violence and waterboarding, stripping rights from people at whim - well, I can't change that, any more than I can change a biased position of the US can do no wrong, the terrorists are scum with no rights, and the only problem we have is keeping them alive long enough to get some pleasure outta their daily torture and abuse.
It is demonstrably in the middle - selected individuals who have conducted some kind of jihadist act with some knowledge that would reduce further jihadist actions are held in mediocre detention and subjected to psychological pressures and deprogramming. And if the jihadists decide to change, we got a carrot for them, not some shallow soviet-style grave.
I just see a difference here when it is viewed as being 'wrong' to have an open-ended incarceration. Nothing in their acts or status require the US to charge them, sentence them, or punish them. It really is how the US authorities feel about each case. It isn't a violation of civil or humanitarian rights to keep them detained. If it was a war, as many of them claim, then they'll be repatriated when the hostilities are over - ok, that's how POW's are released. Lets do it that way - but wait - who is going to negotiate a peace? Who is going to hold them accountable? No one as it stands.
That's why they are unlawful combatants, and are treated the way they are treated, and why most won't be seeing any sentencing soon. maw