Moreover, I'm not asking anyone to lie. I'm not asking anyone to shut up about what happened there. In fact the article you link to should be spread far and wide. But government officials are not writers, nor artists of any kind. They are asked to work in a world that sometimes makes do things, like delay the release of information, that they would not do if they weren't in the governance position. That is why Vaclav Havel resisted becoming president. He still acted with a moral compass to be sure, but what he said and did as a head of state was far different than as dissident playwright.

What I was referring to was the detention of the individual not being torture. An injutice, yes. Something that must come to end, yes. To call everything torture, cheapens the word.

If there abuse of prisoners, then that must be dealt with. If the abuse rises to the level of torture, that needs to be dealt with accordingly. That the Obama administration isn't putting more pressure on the military to control the situation, then that is mark against them. As the article points out, this behavior is not coming from directives above but rather an issue of the mentality of the gaurds. It should be dealt with.

Take a deep breath. What support system would you have for those released? Interpreters, social services etc.

Suppose you had a person who had been accused and jailed for suspicion in the rape murder of a child. The person is innocent, but the local community is incensed and wants a pound of flesh. Do you release the person to go back to his home, despite the real possibility of a physical threat? What protection do you provide?

Similarly in the case of the Uyghurs, you need a location that is threat free for them. Since these men have been imprisoned for 7 years, aren't you also obligated to re-educate them for their new location?

There is also an international problem here. China wants these men back on their soil. You obviously can't send them back to China.

Catch and release in this case could have dire consequences.

Note, Mike Huckabee let out a murderer just to make the Clintons look bad, and the guy went out and raped and killed people. Didn't seem to ruin Huckabee's presidential chances. These hypocrites blasted Clinton for midnight basketball, and then go out and fund "golf for minorities" to the tune of $3 million. Just shout them down, stop running scared. Sure, be a bit coherent. But don't make the mistake of thinking you're arguing with sanity. They will try to win at any cost. Which makes life easy - just go back to moral principles and common sense, and all these complicated questions go away. What to do with an innocent prisoner locked up 7 years? Let him go. Wow, that's tough. I still contend Paris Hilton would have been our best, most decisive presidential choice. And boy would the economic stimulus have been effective in her hands - 1 weekend of binge shopping vs. slow trickle out over a year. "Money for Wall Street? Or Saks Fifth Avenue? Waddaya say, bitchez? Head for the threadz." Oh well, stop me before I cry.

Ah yes, "it's all good fun until someone puts an eye out". "If you fall off that wall and break your legs, don't come running to me!" Or simply, "No innocents", as one young punk had carved around her pubic hair.

I wonder what The Painted Bird would have come out like if it had been set in America.

strawman argument. I think China is playing a large role in what is going on. GW had 17 Uyghurs in Gitmo. They were held there by the Bush DOJ. 4 Uyghurs have been released to Bermuda upsetting the British and Chinese.

Uyghurs are getting slaughtered in western China. A US Uyghur exile "inciting riots" is already being used as an excuse for the slaughter. 13 Uyghurs in the US won't help the situation. Canada backed out of accepting the prisoners because of China. Germany backed out.

Apparently Palau requires that the Uyghur exiles never leave Palau.

A Florida option was mentioned, but then we're back to worsening the situation in western China.
But hey who cares if China reacts by going after Chinese Uyghurs harder? It's not our problem. Right?

What course of action would be in the spirit of Camus, what exactly is the rock that one has to push up the hill. Life is filled with moral ambiguity, for yes the universe is silent when we seek clarity, no answers to our questions. In war, one must take human life, and there are times, like WWII, when the choice to kill for the betterment of all is taken by some as the right thing to do. Others would say there is never a justification, and would rather be jailed or killed themselves rather than take another's life. Who are we to judge each individual's moral decision. Although judge is what we usually do. Especially on posting sites such as this. A man, caught in the glare of the sun, shots another man on the beach. Apparently for no reason. How do we judge him?

So we are faced with a dilemma. Your original post isn't about the ultimate rightness or wrongness of the detention. To this I say it should end immediately, it is unjust.

Your post is about judging Obama's decision as to how to approach the current situation, judging him as he pushing his particular rock up the hill.

I judge him, too. I see the decision in a different light, one that I believe is in the very short term brings a greater good, without ignoring the harsh reality of the consequences of that act. It is not turning a blind eye, but looking at it as straight on as possible.

Down the road, I might change my view of his decision, might change my judgment of him, my beliefs about his motivations and goals. For the time being, I believe he working towards a solution and resolution in way that allows for a greater good to occur that would otherwise be achievable if he went down another path.

We need to keep up the pressure to deal with detainees. We need to get more people chanting for the end to this particular madness. But, again, this is not what your post seeks to push. It seeks to judge Obama for not immediately heeding those calls. And you do not need me to tell you that you have every right to be critical of that decision.

I can understand, given the principles and constitutional precedents at stake, why someone may put this at the top of the agenda. Yet there are some, such as myself, looking at all the agenda items, all the changes and work that needs to be done, place in not quite there at the top.

And as the post below states, it for political expediency. The question is: for what and for whom is this expendiency driven by. Is purely selfish motives, some quest for more power, or money, or revenge, etc. Or is the motive something on a higher order, for a greater good.

And could I be wrong? Yes. Could I look back not to far down the road, and wonder how could I been blinded? Yes, definitely. But my decision is based on the idea that suffering and oppression is happening in too many places, to too many people. Suffering and oppression that the closing of Gitmo will address not in the least, and make least likely to be resolved, lessen, or done away with.

This doesn't mean I anyway approve of or condone the harsh treatment of the detainees that was described above. I believe their conditions at Gitmo should be vastly improved, where do not have any fear of harsh treatment, let alone abuse that crosses the line into torture.

In the end, your question is based on what you believe Camus would do if he was President of the United States? Not what kind of essay he would right about, how would articulate his opposition to Gitmo in a speech, but what he would do, sitting in the Oval Office, with three and a half years at the very least ahead as leader of one of the most power countries in the world. And with all the resources and influence at his disposal, capable of impacting so many lives at home and abroad. And given that, and given the political and media environment, given what is gained and what is lost, what one can live with, and what one cannot, what would he do? You believe you know the answer.

And you may be right. Or you may be wrong. We will never know. Because the one thing we do know, that in this world, we never have the clarity we think we do. We must just try to act in way that is most honest and humane, knowing, too, that even when we do, others may not see it that way.