"Nobody ever actually liked Guantánamo," said Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal. But the "recent career" of Said Ali al-Shahiri—who was released from the detention center only to become al Qaida's deputy chief in Yemen—proves how important it is to keep terrorists away from their would-be victims. So, if the holding pen won't be at Guantánamo, where will it be?
"The short answer to what to do with the Gitmo detainees," said Susan Estrich in the Los Angeles Times, "is simply this: Charge them. Try them. Publicly and fairly. If proved guilty, punish them."
That would be fine if the terrorists were merely criminals, said Eric Fehrnstrom in The Boston Globe. But they're not—they're enemy combatants in a very real war. The new military strategies George W. Bush implemented to confront radical jihad kept us safe, and rolling them back only risks emboldening the enemy.
The U.S. can treat jihadists like wartime enemies and still respect the rule of law, said Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune. "This war is different, but it's still a war, and the rules of war allow the confinement of enemy soldiers in this country for the duration of hostilities." But we should treat them like the POWs they are.
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- Why all drugs should be legal. (Yes, even heroin.)
- How to trim $500 from your monthly spending
- Comic-Con 2014: Everything we learned about Avengers 2, Batman v. Superman, and more
- Here's the schedule very successful people follow every day
- Are there too many good shows on television?
- What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?
- 7 ideas from ancient thinkers that will improve your modern life
- The big, gaping hole in the liberal policy arsenal
- Blame Obama and U.S. evangelicals for the persecution of Iraqi Christians
- The weird obsession that's ruining the GOP
Subscribe to the Week