Getting Gitmo...or...not

Did you see Special Report w/Brit Hume tonight? If not, I encourage you to watch the last half hour when it repeats at 12:00am eastern time.

First, you'll be assured that Brian Wilson has denied allegations that he is a "big moose".

Then you'll see the Fox All-stars discuss Gitmo and the possibility of shutting it down. As this discussion progressed I started working on this very blog post because...really...here's what I don't understand about Gitmo: What is achieved by shutting it down? If there are delays in trying criminals, are they inherent to the location of the prison or the people running it? And what happens to the prisoners?

Then I heard some background question from Brit Hume. It went something like this:
"Are there criminals who've been arrested or POWs who've been rounded up on the battlefield in which case they get released when the war's over...if then."

To which Jeff Birnbaum replied,
"But it doesn't look like there is an end in sight for this war."

I don't know how much was settled in that response, because really, how often during a war do we see an end in sight? For those that didn't know the Atomic Bomb was going to land on Japan, do you think it seemed that the Japanese would surrender? They had no idea how long they would be fighting.

But then Brit asked the very question that was on my mind (that's cause he's Brit and he's the Super Anchor)
"Wouldn't all these same problems arise, wherever these prisoners are kept?"

The panel was split on this a bit, which I don't understand because how could they give a definitive "no" on this? Shutting down Gitmo because it is a symbol of some alleged mistakes is not reason enough to jump through all the necessary logistical hoops involved in moving the prisoners, the staff, etc.

Moreover, releasing prisoners simply because it's convenient to do so or because we can't try them all speedily enough doesn't seem like the safest plan around. What's Jimmy Carter thinking?